I’m going to point to two facets of truth, and am not saying there aren’t more. Becoming’s truth is a full throated intent, created by pure Will, which imagines what might exist next and that truth comes into being upon the manifestation of that intent.
The second is related to the first in that it is a discovery of an existing (could be described as earlier) intent of Becoming from a downstream perspective looking back upstream to its source. As I’ve stated before, the shorter wavelengths exist within, or are riders on, longer wavelengths. The longer wavelengths are reflective of broader collective intent (the Earth’s orbit around the Sun rides along inside of the rotation of our galaxy). Thus the long wavelengths appear downstream as more stable – reside in relative stillness – so the articulations of the experience of those wavelengths feel more true.
What I’m suggesting is that what we experience as true is based on the relative wavelengths we are opened into by someone’s expression or what wavelength we tap into that speaks its expression to us.
Truth is truth, but always momentary. However, truths at the longest wavelengths are seen downstream as really true because they are true for a longer period of relative time. They will appear stable due to their depth but will be discarded as one, hopefully, transits on to the next ranges of relatively longer wavelengths. In this model the longest wavelength might be the motion of the expanding universe, whose expression would be most true.
Justin, can you relate this to the Integral definition of truth? And an example would be helpful as well.
Wilber talks about truth being determined by a body of recognized experts — never by an individual. My friends who are biblical literalists have a body of facts that support their position. My friends who take the Bible metaphorically see the same body of facts from a different perspective. How might your insights apply?
I don’t think that they apply, exactly.
My comments are about how one experiences truth, rather than the particular belief or any structure from which it arose.
I’ve said that words can, and always do, evoke experience and that experience can, though typically doesn’t, evoke insights, which come in verbal form. The traffic is bi-directional.
The logic of a particular argument may sound true and that “sounds true” is a gateway to a very familiar energetic neighborhood where what we “feel” as true is matched against what we are presented with. If it matches, it’s true and if it doesn’t, it’s not.
I haven’t thought about it before so this is just what I’m seeing in the moment.