The Orbital Discussion of Truth

The Orbital Discussion of Truth

 First let me say that by “Orbital” I don’t mean “lofty”, but I think things will become clearer somewhere further down on this page.

It happens from time to time, after writing a piece, as a contribution to a debate group to which I belong, that I will pause, and try to remember everything that I have ever read, from every famous author, from every age in in written history, and then attempt to articulate some semblance of a cohesive argument that seeks to make a point, defend a thesis, address another member's comment, etc.  And then, during moments like this one, i take a moment to consider the following:

1.       What is the nature of the question being asked?

2.       What sort of answer would be considered "valid" within the group?

3.       What sort of Formal citation can I make to support my own thoughts( since I am nobody, and thus am burdened with dredging up some arcane citation which may at least tangentially support "my" thought"

4.       What is the objective of circling and circling around the same Word, Question, or Concept?  Is it simply to see how cleverly we can compose something that sounds academic enough or perhaps profound enough, that someone stops to consider what was just typed-up and submitted?

I am not in any way being critical.  I am simply sharing my thought process. I think my thought process is exemplified in my postings, and I am obviously guilty of succumbing to my numbered points listed here.  There are a few things that I always find troubling:

1.       Reliance on a citation to an author as a crutch to support an ill formed argument, as if to say:  "here is what I am saying, but [he] said it better, and first, so here is the quote. And [he] is famous, so therefore my citation to his quote must therefore validate mine"

2.       It has been my own experience in many different empirical examples, that thought innovation, comes from an infusion of "thought" from a seemingly unrelated subject.  And I say seemingly because the "art" of writing in this case is in "connecting the dots" between one or more things that at first do not seem to be related, but after a thoughtful articulation to the group, the relevance becomes readily apparent.  This is something that I simply refer to as Pattern Recognition, which is the next step after Signal Detection, and part of the fundamentals we find in sciences like Text Analytics and Data Mining.

3.       Certain questions can be answered today.  But not definitively to the members of this group, or a greater population. Truth?  Faith? Right? Wrong?  If the question was irrefutably and logically answerable, I believe that it would have been already.  It's not like these questions have never been asked.  But, i am NOT saying that we can't make an interesting debate, and possibly come across a new perspective, or a new way of writing up an older expression of an idea.  What I am saying is that time is a unit of measurement.  Time Units get consumed in the discussions of things that quite possibly transcend time, and while we may "progress in iterative" or sometimes what I refer to as "inbred" circles and spirals, this should not always be associated with progress.

 

4.       I would say that a circular or mildly iterative spirally constructed debate does not move forward (as evaluated by the passage of time), under its own methods of advancement.  Rather it is time that moves forward and us with it, and while we may maintaining continuity within our debate, we must recognize that that we, and our debate are but passengers moving across time, carrying the baggage of our debates.  And this is a very different thing than it being from our debates that we propel ourselves forward.

I have my own thoughts on what can be done about this, and some of you may recognize my attempts, but who am I?  And I certainly don't have knowledge of any citations that could academically validate my methods.  I am wondering if anyone else has considered what I am saying here, and feels the same way, or as the case may be, completely disagree?  Either is fine, and I’d like to hear either view [and if it is considered that I have completely “lost the plot of this thread”, then just let me know, and I will misbehave somewhere else....at least just on this specific line of reasoning].

I am wholeheartedly interested in understanding the Essence of Truth, not because I think that I will necessarily ever find it, but I would like to be as prepared as possible should I happen to inadvertently bump into it somewhere.