jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (101 posts)

Is There a Term?

  1. emrldphx profile image59
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    I am wondering if there is a term for this type of thinking:

    That there is a duality in each of us, personal truth, and external truth. The physical world and science apply to external truth, things that can be shown directly to others, and are independent of self. Personal truth applies to belief in God, spirit, powers, or the lack of them.

    I consider my external portion to be agnostic. I don't consider that it is possible to prove or disprove, or even prove or disprove the likelihood of God, spirit, or powers. On a scale from -100(doesn't exist) to 100(does exist), everything sits at 0 until evidence is gathered.

    However, I don't consider the internal portion any less real. I say 'I believe' because it is convenient, but I consider my internal truths as real as any of my external truths.

    Anyway, I'm struggling with terminology here... it seems a kind of agnostic-dualism, but unfortunately there are certain areas where my knowledge of terminology isn't what it once was. Religious-Agnostic dualism?

    I appreciate any help.

    1. kess profile image60
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      there is duality in everyone but not as you described..

      The two are polar opposites except that is not readily realized in the way life goes about in separating to clarify each...

      One acts as to deceive because it appears as the other while at the same time making the other look as themselves...

      but when they are clearly seen you will understand that both works to the same end...even though both retails their original attributes.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is wishful thinking.

      It is also a series of logical fallacies, particularly an appeal to emotion and a red herring.

      Do I need to hold your hand and produce all of those definitions and explanations or can you handle that? smile

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you want to claim something is a fallacy, you know very well you need to show why.

        Fallacies only apply to logical arguments. I'm not arguing the veracity of anything. I'm presenting a system of thinking and asking if there is an established term.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And, I answered it based on the criteria of your posts.

          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, you critiqued the concept, you didn't answer the question.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ii answered this question:



              The term is "wishful" smile

              1. emrldphx profile image59
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Troubled, 'wishful' has nothing to do with it. You would be closer to say agnostic.

                Wishful: having or showing a wish; desirous; longing.

                Can you show how that applies to the original question?

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "I consider my internal truths as real as any of my external truths."

                  1. emrldphx profile image59
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What does that have to do with wishing? I didn't say 'I wish my internal truths were as real as external truths'.

                  2. couturepopcafe profile image60
                    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Taoism holds that virtue can be found by experiencing the oneness of all things - fulfilling life as one with nature (external truths) and the inner self (internal truths).  The Way describes a reality that naturally exists prior to and gives rise to all other things.

    3. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. In reformed epistemology your personal truths would be considered properly basic beliefs. These are beliefs which are not formed on evidence but grounded in experience. According to this school of though, other examples of properly basic beliefs include belief in the past, and belief in other minds.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So according to that school of thought, there is a difference between evidence and experience?  If I burn my finger in fire it is both my experience and evidence that fire will burn my finger.  Please elaborate.

  2. Ms Dee profile image86
    Ms Deeposted 5 years ago

    Is it a help to consider the dichotomy of the seen and unseen? hmm

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    There are a great many terms for it.  this is one of them: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      don't have time to read that right now, but thanks and I will look at it more in-depth later.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you want to familiarize yourself with thought in this area 'non-overlapping magesteria' is pretty much the shortest, simplest and most recent substantive model that exists.

        It is a subject that would demand a lot of time to even begin to realize what is already known, let alone add to it.

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I really appreciate it, bookmarked smile

  4. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    Maybe I'm nitpicking about semantic here, but I find "internal truth" to mean less than nothing.  Rather the term should be your personal perception of truth.

    That perception may or may not have any connection to what you are calling external truth; if may be nothing but imagination.  It is necessary to always remember that your perceptions of truth (beliefs, if you will) are not necessarily truth at all, but only what you have decided you want to call truth without need for evidence.  They are there only to please you and make you feel better, but do not necessarily correlate with what is actually true.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's exactly why it's personal. One person can decide it is truth as valid as external, and another person can decide it isn't. They are both right, because internal truth can't be used to prove someone else's internal truth.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My point is that "internal truth" can be, and often is, contradictory.  Truth is truth, and is not defined by personal perception.

        One may believe (ie a personal truth) that man has not visited the moon (and I've actually met some) but it is not truth at all.  It is a belief contrary to fact and thus false instead of true.  It may be and is a belief but it has nothing to do with truth.

        By using the term "internal truth" you demean and change the entire meaning of the word "truth".  That modifier changes the entire meaning of the word and gives it a false authority that it no longer has. 

        Better that a more descriptive word (one more closely related to "truth" smile ) be used.  "Perception" for instance.  "Personal perception" has no connotation that the perception is also "truth" and in fact carries the assumption that it may not be.

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I can understand your point of view, although it is different for me. In areas where the two can overlap, I think it best to try and rectify the two as best as possible. I don't encourage living with opposing beliefs.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            roll If so, then you don't have truth and don't know any better. What a shame.

            1. emrldphx profile image59
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for contributing Cagsil

  5. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Is There a Term?" Excellent point. Think generally thought of as Objective/Subjective
    whatever. There is a train of thought that believes that everything is subjective. I personally have never subscribed to it.

  6. profile image0
    Wilfionposted 5 years ago

    I think the term you are looking for is confusion.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not really, but thanks for your input anyway.

  7. couturepopcafe profile image60
    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago

    There are thought streams natural to the mind - right knowledge, wrong knowledge, fancy, sleep and memory.  Right knowledge is inference, tradition and genuine cognition.  Wrong knowledge is false, illusory, erroneous. Fancy is empty of substance.  Sleep is the modification of the mind which has for its substratum nothingness.  Memory is not allowing mental impressions to escape.  These thought streams are controlled by practice and non-attachment.

    Personal or introspective thought/spirit - knowledge of the indweller -  is desireless towards the seen.

    Clarity is preceded by faith, energy, memory and equalminded contemplation and is nearest to those whose desire is most ardent.  What we call God is a universal indweller, untouched by afflictions, actions, impressions and their results.

    Shall I go on?

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What I'm asking is, if there is a term to define the kind of thinking I described.

      Agnosticism is the idea that the validity of God can't be established one way or another, but that's not the same as what I'm wondering.

      Instead, that the validity of God can't be established objectively, but rather subjectively. Also, that the difference between the subjective and objective truth is nonexistent, they are both valid forms.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I see.  I'll give it some thought.  However considering this nonexistent difference, there cannot be two forms.  Which leads me to the Mystic Union, where the objective form may be removed and one becomes confirmed in non-possessiveness.  The knowledge of the why and how of existence is attained.  As a result of contentment there is purity of mind, a sort of fitness for the vision of the self.  That which covers the light is destroyed, awareness is maintained but does not mingle with the senses or their impressions.  By mastery of the senses comes wisdom.  This is deep into the comtemplative/meditative field and I cannot speak from experience but you may consider reading The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.

        Still no term though.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wishful?

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again troubled, thank you for participating. I see how you are faithfully combating hate speech, in the form of a linguistic/philosophical question.

  8. emrldphx profile image59
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Maybe... spiritual-agnostic-duality?

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why duality?  You are not dual minded or indecisive.

      1. emrldphx profile image59
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        duality because of the importance of keeping subjective and objective separate when there is no need for them to be joined.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But you stated that the difference between the subjective and objective truths is non-existent, meaning the difference doesn't exist.  A mispeak? 

          IMO they can never be separated completely.  Our objectivity will always be informed by our subjectivity.  The converse may not necessarily be true at the higher levels of awareness.

          1. emrldphx profile image59
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I might have misspoken. I meant the difference in importance... neither kind of truth is greater than the other.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not quite.  You may be subjectively certain that your tires have enough air in them, mostly because its cold and rainy outside and you want to keep your nice hairdo but also because the baby is crying and you want to get her home, feed her and put her to bed.

              The object truth is that one tire is very low and it overheats, shreds itself and causes a 3 car pileup.  However much you believed your subjective truth, it won't mean much and won't be very important as the coroner attaches the toe tag to your daughter.

              Believing in a subjective truth can keep you fat, happy and dumb until the objective truth intrudes, ruining everything.  It is the way of life; beliefs don't mean much when reality raises its ugly head and speaks.

              1. emrldphx profile image59
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Right, but the air in the tires isn't part of the subjective realm.. it can be easily measured objectively. That's the whole point of separating the two, to keep you from subjectively believing in what can be measured, and vice versa.

                The whole point isn't whether or not this mode of thinking is right, just if there's a specific term for it.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I see.  I took it as subject because, although you could have measured the pressure, you didn't and therefore the belief was subjective.  My mistake.

                  That seems to leave the subject truth to be a belief in anything that we can't detect.  We can't see it, hear it, smell it, etc.  We can't even detect any results or causal activity from it.  To me, that means imagination, nothing else. 

                  Even insubstantial concepts like love we can detect the results of, and even measure those effects with a large enough population sample.  We cannot, however detect God or anything He does which would make that concept one of subjective truth.  We can't find a ghost or any action or thing one might have caused to happen or exist.  We have never found Bigfoot or anything a Bigfoot might have caused to happen or might have created.  Belief in these things, then, is subjective. 

                  Am I getting there?  If so, it's still just imagination to me.

                  1. emrldphx profile image59
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You're correct about the definition of subjective truth. If we can't detect it, then that's what it is. Whether or not that is only imagination or can be truth, is in and of itself a subjective idea. That means it's personal, otherwise we could measure it smile

                    There are energy forces and matter that we can detect the effect of on gravity, but can't actually see or detect or explain them directly. Being able to explain things just relies on technology, not truth. It wasn't too long ago that we couldn't explain the chemical process related to emotions, but that didn't make them any less real.

                    The point is, truth can be found subjectively... not all subjective ideas are false. Most of our scientific facts started out as subjective ideas.

                    I think we're on the same page, with just some slight difference in terminology. smile

  9. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "By mastery of the senses comes wisdom." Would not that be subjective?

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It gets difficult to discuss subjectivity with others, sometimes... if you are philosophical enough everything is subjective, but the view of being that philosophical is also a subjective subject... tongue

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      knoly - if you're referring to wisdom, then absolutely, at least up to the point where we reach the legendary Nirvana.  This is the much talked about heaven.  The indweller in pure consciousness only, which, though pure, sees through the mind.  It is identified by ego as being only the mind.  The very existence of the seen is for the sake of the seer (us).  You're personal wisdom will come when you no longer associate with ignorance and affliction.  The continuous practice of this discrimination is the means of attaining liberation.

      According to Patanjali, we must practice discrimination to attain this  including self-restraint in actions, fixed observance, posture, regulation of energy, mind control in sensory engagements, concentration, meditation, and realization.

  10. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    US troops in Afghanistan - subjective or objective? Shared subjectivity?
    The 'Objective/Subjective Dichotomy', as someone may have already suggested.

  11. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "self-restraint in actions, fixed observance, posture, regulation of energy, mind control in sensory engagements, concentration, meditation, and realization" When is recess?

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No really.  You have to be a monk, no kidding.  This stuff is not for the weekend warrior.

  12. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "You have to be a monk". I am a monk, but of such informality, that no one would recognize it. Formality is acting as opposed to being.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No kidding?  Then perhaps you would be willing to share some of your observations.  Really.

  13. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Our objectivity will always be informed by our subjectivity." The so-called enlightenment transcends subjectivity as the absence of association.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is how I understand it.  Also agree with the pretense of formality to some degree, though could get into semantics.

  14. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "perhaps you would be willing to share"
    I have 3,348 posts.

  15. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Semantics is where all the fun is.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ok.  So if we are urban monks, living on the low down, going about our business, we have our rituals, our formalities.  For me, it might be spending several hours on Sunday with my aging mother.  It's also the way I make up my bed.  Each corner needs to be the same.  It's sort of a ritual that sets the tone for the rest of the day.  A fastidiousness that reminds me of my rules.

      I am not acting, I am living this. Using monks as the example, I do get your POV about formalities, however, that they may be someone just going through the motions of looking like or behaving like a monk in public and not in private.

  16. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    I call it the duality of God. The Yin and Yang, the God Particle-Wave.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I like this.  It probably comes closest to the core of this forum.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, If you're interested I have a hub about it somewhere... smile

        (and I believe you're correct ("core of this Forum"), I mentioned I didn't have a term for this concept in another thread and then magically this thread appeared... smile)

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I appreciate the suggestion that I copied you Mikel, but I didn't. I would be interested in seeing your post though smile

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Your jump to the conclusion that I am somehow accusing you of copying me must be the result of a guilty conscious. I merely stated my post was possibly part of the inspiration that lead to the creation of this forum topic.

            As requested: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/86049#post1845291


            Mikel


            ***I will say this You will arrive at a point where God won't be something you can wrap your head around. At some point God becomes something you can only experience emotionally. The best analogy I can come up with is the physics theories having to do with Particle-Wave duality (as I know you're familiar with that). God is kinda like that too, when God has mass you can wrap your brain around it. When God goes to light speed, and loses the mass, only emotionally can we understand it (or feel or through intuition...). For me it is almost like God becomes emotions... I don't know how else to explain it. (and this isn't a very good explanation sorry). I hope that helps.

            1. emrldphx profile image59
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Considering the sarcastic tone I read into your post, I assumed that was what you were saying. If I was wrong, I apologize. It just seemed what you were saying when you said ' I mentioned I didn't have a term for this concept in another thread and then magically this thread appeared... '.

              Either way, no, I didn't get the inspiration from your post. Especially since it came 8 hours after I created the thread, nor is it describing the same thing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Your assumption of it being sarcastic and your jumping to conclusions based on the assumed sarcastic nature of it has nothing to do with what I actually posted, as I stated.

                My response would have been, "No, I actually posted this thread 8 hours before your post."

                1. emrldphx profile image59
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I said 'I read it in your post', not that it was there, and I apologized Mikel.

    2. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's interesting to call it the duality of God... even though half of it has nothing to do with God.

      Thanks for your input Mikel.

  17. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    Then I could have replied, "Dang it! I'm trying so hard to be an inspiration...."

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I wonder why anyone could think you are being sarcastic.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I have no idea. You would have to ask them. Evidently that is what you believe... So why would you think I am being sarcastic?

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I admit I have a bias towards you thinking you are more likely to be sarcastic with me, due to what happened between us. You used sarcasm when you pointed out something you thought I had done which was wrong, and never responded to my reply, so that left my image of you as more likely to do so.

          Again, I apologize for assuming such of you.

        2. john-doe7 profile image60
          john-doe7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for playing? wink

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Thank You for participating, Thank You for being a part of the conversation. Thank You for making a contribution. Thanks for sharing.

            I do tend to use it dismissively when someone is being extremely repetitive, (I know you are but what am I) without providing data to reinforce thier position.

            An attempt at a polite exit from an interaction that is un-productive.

            Thank You for asking. smile

            1. john-doe7 profile image60
              john-doe7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ummmm - sarcasm? K then

              Thought you aksed a kwe4stion - parrantly not - u were just being sarcastic.

              Thanks for playing.

              Facts? lol lol lol

  18. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    For the record, 99% of the time I respond to what is being written, not who is doing the writing. In fact I rarely look at who is saying it, just what they are saying. I just look at the data, not the supplier of the data.

    1. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I hope we can move forward and have good discussion from here on out.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image86
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        For me (on here) it is all about the data.

        Just the facts please, just the facts.

  19. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    Duality: The knowledge of left/right, good/not good.

    The internal/external is the same, save one thing: manifestation or illumination.
    Darkness is simply a thing lacking luster or illumination, therefore it produces or shimmers -lures us. It is our thoughts. The are intrinsically light elements, glistening i the scope called mind. Sparkling with each synapse.

    There is no personal truth v external truth. that would create a paradox which would destroy the spirit/body simultaneously.

    The 'physic' world IS everything (and it is sentient).

    Science is an action of applying a mechanism or mechanic --even a theory or what-have-you, without observing the universe from the universes perspective of itself. Science is not independent of the self -it is dependent on the self, same as sensation. Personal 'beliefs' are simply sensationalist lusts, indulgences and also lack the fullness of truth.

    Hence, the duality.

    James

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nice interpretation, jac.  The sentient world is there for the sake of the seer.  It is the nature of cognition and is for the purpose of experience.  I agree there is no differentiation between internal and external knowledge or truth.  Creation may be discerned as not real for the one who has achieved the goal, as that one becomes one with the Creator.  But this association with Creation has been said to be for the distinct recognition of the objective world as well as for the recognition of the distinct nature of the seer, hence the Creation.  But in disassociating from the seen, the ignorance disappears and the veil is lifted.

    2. emrldphx profile image59
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you james. Again, I'm not trying to debate the validity of the mode of thinking, just if there is a term for it.

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ah,
        You should read the Critique of Pure Reason -unabridged version, Immanual Kant, as well as his Critique of Understanding. { link }

        &

        A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume (Part III, Section VII -of Knowledge and Probability -the Nature of Idea or Belief). In fact, here is the Gutenberg Website to either download the ePub/Kindle or HTML version at no charge. { link }

        After both, you get a clearer view of the Platonic Problem/Socratic Picture -an issue still unresolved today - the issue of justification via knowledge.

        James.

        1. emrldphx profile image59
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, I'll give it a look.

        2. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Kant's assertions were based on the assumption that humans can be rational beings. His theory of 'duty vs inclination' smacks of subjective thinking.  Ironically, Kant found himself so radically bound by his 'duty', he is said to have had no time for any subjective 'pleasures' in life.  He was so hung up on duty and the motives people have for doing what they do that he never gave in to what came naturally.  He believed we should resist what comes naturally.

          In a way, he is right.  In a civilized society, we must 'always imagine ourselves on the receiving end of other people's decisions'.  Once again, though, this assumes rationality in humans.

        3. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hume believed we can't use logic or reason to prove the truth of moral beliefs.  Using morality as the comparison, these two were at opposite ends.  Hume believed that morality was completely subjective.

        4. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps existentialism is the term which might fit.  It implies that we are what we are or believe what we believe because we have chosen to be that, not because god of nature made us that way.  We can choose to be or not be a certain way.  Existentialism allows us to be wholly and intuitively responsible for making our own fundamental choices.

          Socrates may have been the original existentialist (at least that history has recorded) for he is credited with the saying 'know thyself'.

  20. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Philosophically it is reinventing the wheel as an oval.  There is a lot of well-developed thinking on this subject dating back many centuries.

 
working