View source for NegativeTruth

Truth introduced into a system that is hurtfull or destructive.

----
How can Truth be hurtful or destructive? Truth is merely how things are. Data. Data is neither benelovent or destructive. It is people that are hurtful or helpful. A knife is neither hurtful or helpful. It is what you do with the knife that determines if it is a useful tool for constructing a shelter, starting a fire, or cutting food to a sizable (edible) mouthful (All helpful activities). Or if you use it to cut away a purse strap (helpful to you, harmful to other). Or if you use it to slice and stab someone that refuses to give you their possesions (destructive). ---[[StarPilot]]

----
There is this other [[StarPilot]] I like much better than you.

That is not true, but if it were true it would be a negative truth in the system that includes you and I.  The [[PositiveTruth]] sustains and grows the system, the negative truth destroys the system.  Only in [[RealScience]] are positive truths and negative truths equally valuable.  --[[JimScarver]]

----
I don't [[GetIt]]. Truth is data. It is neither good nor bad. I may not like a particular fact, because I'd prefer things a different way, but that doesn't make that fact a bad fact.

Fire is hot. This is a Truth. It's a bad truth if you wake up in the middle of the night, and you are surrounded by fire. It is a good if you are cooking a meal. The truth is neither good nor bad, merely your personal context to that truth as it applies to your situation.

That's the Truth of the issue (as I see it). All else is melodramatic posing and semantics.
---
Absolute truth is not truth that is different for everybody.  Personal truths are subjective truth, not objective Truth.  Absolute truth includes the constuctability of a1l theorums of the predicate calculus, from which all of mathimatics follows.  The theorums themselves, have no definate truth value as the axioms are arbitrary theorums. None contribute to the null body of absolute Truths.

I suspect that there are several [[StarPilot]]s you prefer over this one. :-) ---[[StarPilot]]
----
I am a social ignoramous. I can't play politics.  I wish you were right and truth was beinign. I do information technology.  I would prefer to impliment what the customer needs.  But selling what the customer needs, rather than what the customer wants, generally means losing the customer.  Presenting the positive truth about a wrong solution is a rare talent.

People are idiots ([[DumbAnimals]], but telling them so loses the audience.

Practicing Tao, in meditation, I discovered that lieing is inpossible without fooling myself.  I became obsessive about always telling the truth.  I have hurt myself and many of those dearest to me in that practice.  It cost me my first marriage.

You are correct star breath.  Truth is never negative in principle.  Truth is the highest that we might attain no matter how we like it.  But it can be personally and socially harmful.

Truth only has moral value only when we express it.  To be creative we must choose to recognize and share only positive truth, or truth that results in a positive outcome.

[[TheUglyTruth]] and [[TheHorribleTruth]] are not destructive truth by nature.  Truth is not bad because we don't like it.  It is the effect result of sharing a truth that makes it positive or negative. Tough love is sometimes necessary, being real is good, putting the facts on the table is valuable to everyone.

Sharing destructive truth is taboo, and should be avoided.

-- JimScarver

<tasks>
[2] fix links to other negative truth related pages
</tasks>
----
You're making a rather general statement here. The truth should be absolute, an independent record of events untarnished by human embellishment. Who determines whether the truth is ugly or horrible, right or wrong? Who is the final judge of whether your truth is my lie? The truth about truth is that we cannot determine what is fact and what is opinion. 

We each observe a different truth ([[TheCaseOfTheElectronCollision]]). <br><div align=right>--[[User:KenSchry|KenSchry]] 08:58, 25 August 2006 (EDT)</div>
----
Who says the truth should be absolute? It is absolute in our fantasies. Absolute truth is imaginary.

However, we can make incomplete objective statements that become more completely objective as we consider the truth domain of the thesis and antithesis in a larger set of logical contexts. The resulting synthesis become a new thesis and absolute truth is never attained.

Adding contexts or perspectives in [[TheCaseOfTheElectronCollision]] amounts to adding impartial observers who agree we are both wrong, and provide a more object interpretation by including more contexts. This does not change the truth of what we each observered, but reveals a greater truth.

We can in essence measure objectivity formally, and determine the relative objectivity of conflicting truths. I have pieces of this formal framework scattered around. I should collect them in NeoObjectivism.

The Ugly and Horrible are subjective except in the rare case when everyone agrees. It is a sort of democracy as to what is considered taboo. OUR survival, and success depend on facing truths that may seem ugly, but it is our nature to bury our head in the sand when the truth is too ugly to look at.

Destructive truth, that hurts you, or hurts everyone, is the only truth taboo in my book.

I suppose the page title is bad, logic that loses information is lost in the information universe, thus it may be considered negative by its consumption of order, it it still positive information while it exists, just as energy represents positive existence in the physical universe and entropy there too is negative, loss of existence of physical order. It is the dynamical nature of information that determines whether the system it exists in gains or loses information (order). Information consists of bits, bits represents truths. What I term negative truth is truth that participates in information loss, such that it may result in the ultimate annihilation of the system. Much of the discussion here has been with reference to our socio-political-economic-ecological systems, yet the same [[ObjectiveInformationPhysics]] principles apply.

All that exists, so far as we can determine, exists because it was constructible within its environment in finite time. It has been constructed from the available substrate. Nothing magically comes into being. We speculate that the infinite exists, yet it is not constructible or knowable. Synthesis of knowledge, or truth, is an infinite process. Absolute truth exists in principle only at the end of time. Objective truth includes only that which is demonstratively true today from all perspectives. It does not include the infinite and thus cannot include absolute truth.

There is a fine line. Pessimism and optimism tend to employ truths that prove destructive while realism is constructive. The realist can only be identified after the fact but objectivity promotes realism. Any statement out of context is both true and false and it is in all of our interested that we choose the positive truth objectively when we can.

At this point in time Humanity generally lacks the will or desire to be objective. It is not thought to be possible since the fantasy of absolute truth is believed to exist. Only by abandoning the notion of absolute truth in favor of the constructionist view can objectivity have meaning.

WE thrive to the extent we promote positive truth. At the same time pruning promotes blooming. While my purpose may be to defeat entropy, I accept that little truly great has been accomplished by humanity without losing something, and employing some dirty tricks. I must acknowledge that the ends have justified the means historically in all that has proven to be worthwhile. We can't know when a truth is going to be negative or positive. The best we can do is to be as objective as we can.

--JimScarver
----
You claim that there is no absolute truth, but follow that with "This does not change the truth of what we each observered, but reveals a greater truth"? You can't have it both ways. =p

<b><i>Truth is</i></b>. There is no simpler way of stating it. How we observe truth and the number of people who corroborate our story does not iimpact the fact that truth exists outside of our environment. The old adage applies here; if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to see it, did it actually fall? Well, the truth: the fact that a tree has fallen, exists without regard to human viewing. The tree falls no matter what, it doesn't care whether we are there to see it. The truth of events behaves in the same manner.

Life happens, Jim. There is a Truth to everything, how we interpret it as "our truth" is not fact, but rather opinion.<br><div align=right>[[User:KenSchry|KenSchry]] 20:36, 30 August 2006 (EDT)</div>
----
Good point.  But the platonic idea that the tree fell can get lost in the information univese.  It reality, it may be impossible to determin that the tree had fallen a billion years from now.  The abstract idea of the absolute truth exists, but it is not manifest.

Scientific, or empirical truth ought be to a quantified precision.  There is a finite probability that when you drop a rock, it will fall up, quantum mechanically, or, that when you put a pot of water on a hot stove it will freeze.  We only know that the universe obeys quantum mechanical transformation possibilities to 24 decimal places.  In my view that is all that we know most certainly.  Similarly, all empirical knowlege is probablistic, including whether the tree fell.  Quantum histories are inescapably ambiguous do to fundimentally missing information.

Quantum mechanics exhibits universal logic.  The theorums of the predicate calculus, from which all mathimatics may be derived, are countable, and exists up to some complexity, independent of human thought.  But the truth value of the theorums is arbitray, depending on the axioms, which themselves are mearly theorums chosen to be true, or appearing to be true from the human perspective and supported, most likely, by false postulates.

For example, on my trek last week, [[GoTakeAhike06]], I wrote:

http://www.whitescarver.com/albums/GoTakeaHike06/S5003197a.jpg

the positive truth, "No law should be for my own good.", and the negative truth, as bro Bob pointed out, "I do not wish to live your notion of [[TheGoodLife]].  It is incomplete, misleading and threatening.  It does not serve anyone interest and may be damaging.

A stronger, more complete statement of truth, "I will not be subject to the [[TyrannyOfTheMajority]]" would have been better, if I had been smarter at the time, but, like Mohammid Alli's statement, "I will die before serving in Vietnam", still sounds threatining.  While that was not my choice, I still consider these a good truths, and therefore positive as each will bear good fruit so far as I can tell as is yet to be determined.

http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/3773605535/fetch/779677/

http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/3773605535/fetch/779409/

[[User:JimScarver|JimScarver]] 11:28, 9 September 2006 (EDT)