What do people think about this nominalisation? I have seen it bound about the forum of late and I actually think it is a pretty dangerous concept especially if you believe it to be: True...

I agree.
just looked it up in the dictionary....it comes from FIDELITY and FAITHFUL

I think it's kind of funny how we're all just one short step away from insanity, sometimes just a half step, and wonder what it is that validates most of what people believe in / believe to be true. I am sure most of us have specific behaviours, that are at least slightly ridiculous, stemming from beliefs or truths (if they're seperable anyway) but once we're on the other side and the truth is in us, it's kind of difficult to see how distorted (deleted) it actually is. A bit like the baby elephant that's tied to a branch and grows up knowing it's securely tethered even when it weighs 5 or more tonnes.

One of the definitions of beliefs: That which you hold to be True.

One of my beliefs: The Truth does not exist.

It's a funny ol' game init.

John

Computers are useless, they can only give you answers

A mindspeak as in speak your freedom of mind speech?! which are related to honesty or lie, trust, as as approaches different to the ones' real truth. Invalidation probably another topic?

Maybe someone else with extensive NLP experience will elaborate, maybe a good filibuster perhaps from the Carol's too or ...?

do you think that if you had FULL access to reality(the world out there ...the ongoing experience) rather than just your map of the world.......first .......if all the mental filters were gone....beliefs, truths, attitudes, etc......then if possible and only then ....if all the neurological filters were gone.....do you think you would be in truth?

do you think that if the boundary between your conscious and your unconscious were to dissolve then you would be in truth

do you think that if you took lots of Lsd you would be in truth



yours anekant

Talking about an abstraction like "truth" only really gives meaning if one defines clearly the frame in which one wishes to explore or understand how true a given statement or theory might be. A frame might be very rigid, as in computer programming or logic, where strict criteria clearly define what "true" encompasses.

The problems arise when using that same word in less rigid frames, situations which allow for interpretation, where values and differing perspectives and even culture define for each individual how true or not a given statement might be. The truth of "the dog is black" is easier to agree (or disagree) on, than the truth of "Richard is more inspiring than John".

When it comes to extrapolating local truths to more general ones, we run into other challenges. Even certain "truths" in science or mathematics are only so, given the strict limits that frame the field in which the truth is asserted. In science it is ever so much more preferable to say "this has as yet not been disproved", rather than to go for the surefire "this is true in all cases".

In more esoteric disciplines like philosophy or ethics, again the framework, including culture, plays a strong role in defining truths. What is true for a Hindu, may be a farce to an atheist. Is it always true that killing is evil? What about keeping someone alive at all costs?

Truth is also challenged by the interpretations of reality that each individual (life form) has. A snake that processes vital information via infrared lives in a very different universe than the dog that processes so much through smell or the bee that scans through ultraviolet, the ant that communicates through chemicals or the bat that uses ultrasound.

We all use up to very different filters in viewing the world and truth will be colored by this.

Are there universal truths? Possibly. Will we ever know for sure, beyond any doubt? Likely not. Does our Universe have truths that are not valid elsewhere in the Multiverse? Are there any truths that are valid for the entire Multiverse and is even the concept of a multiverse something that can lead to even greater truths or is all of everything just one big soup of relativity, just a quantum jumble of probabilities that can never be nailed down to everyone's satisfaction?

Justus wrote:

Are there universal truths? Possibly. Will we ever know for sure, beyond any doubt? Likely not.

Not in this life, at least.

It seems to me that "truth", for human beings, is a journey rather than a destination. We can get nearer or further from the truth, but we never get to the point where we can know or experience "THE truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

FWIW, the full version of Korzybski's ?map and territory" saying emphasised the point that the real value of a map was NOT whether it was true or not true, but on how closely the structure of the map resembled the structure of the territory it related to.

Some years ago an American sci-fi author wrote a "Null A" trilogy based on this idea.

One of the key features of the plot was the fact that the hero, Gilbert Gosseyn ("go sane") had two brains. This allowed him to "map" bits of his environment with extraordinary accuracy, and transport himself from anywhere to anywhere he had "mapped" just by "remembering" his destination. (He didn't have to remember the entire environment - just a large enough piece to stand on.)

The "Null A" in the title stands for non-Aristotelian.
It seems that Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, believed that everything in this world was just a substandard version of something in a parallel, perfect world. From this he derived a concept known as the "excluded middle". That is, he only thought in terms of black/white, true/false, right/wrong - with nothing of any consequence in between.

As complex as modern, Western science may seem, to a large extent it is still stuck in this rather dubious Aristotelian mindset. This is particularly ironic since science inherited Aristotelian thinking from the Roman Catholic Church! A hangover from the time when the Church was the main provider of education, right up to university level.

I wonder if this might at least partly explain why some psychologists and other "scientists" have such a dislike of the FoNLP. Genuine NLP-related thinking is built around a strongly Null A world view [ albeit with some degree of flexibility ]

You can find reviews of the sci-fi books I mentioned at Honest Abe's NLP Book Reviews if you look for "Van Vogt".

For another interesting alternative to Aristotelian thinking you might want to get hold of a copy of Edward De Bono's book "Parallel Thinking".

Be well

Andy B.

Hi Andy,

Andy B. wrote:

We can get nearer or further from the truth, but we never get to the point where we can know or experience "THE truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

Not to be funny or anything, but how do you know this?

Charles

Charles Hill wrote:

Not to be funny or anything, but how do you know this?

Which answer would you like?

Be well

Andy B.

Hmm. Good question

Andy B. wrote:

...Some years ago an American sci-fi author wrote a \"Null A\" trilogy based on this idea. You can find reviews of the sci-fi books I mentioned at Honest Abe's NLP Book Reviews if you look for \"Van Vogt\"....

Andy B.

I have the trilogy.

See you on Venus!

What's the differences between - a healthy insight concept freedom of speaks the to your truth which seems foreign to some nations or freedom to speak your mind, a antisocial perspective view truth, and the passive internal ramblings to the truths???

?

Mikee wrote:

What's the differences between - a healthy insight concept freedom of speaks the to your truth which seems foreign to some nations or freedom to speak your mind, a antisocial perspective view truth, and the passive internal ramblings to the truths???

?

What about an abstraction like philosophy or the truth? FWIW, the other "scientists" have the mental filters were gone.....do you would you look for each individual how we're all the FoNLP. Genuine NLP-related thinking you had "mapped" just a journey rather than to speak your map resembled the fact that if you would be in between. As complex as the Church was the concept freedom to say "this has as modern, Western science or not valid elsewhere" in / believe it bound about keeping someone alive at least slightly ridiculous, stemming from FIDELITY and other "scientists" have truths.

Computers are only really gives meaning if one wishes to reality(the world was just a branch and the real truth). Invalidation probably another interesting alternative to a given statement or not a copy of beliefs: The "Null A" in this rather than the map resembled the "excluded middle". That is, he derived a copy of his destination. We can lead to me that frame the entire environment - just looked it up in this he only then ....if all costs?

Andy B. wrote:

Which answer would you like?

Both.

Charles Hill wrote:

Both.

Oh, I thought there were more than two.

John

For lack of attention a thousand forms of loveliness elude us every day

z8000783 wrote:

Oh, I thought there were more than two.

That depends on which logical level you are currently operating on; environment, behaviour, capability, beliefs, identity or spirit. Of course, John, this is my answer for you as I have determined that you are a Thinker, Sensor, Introvert. My answer for Andy would be different.

Charles Hill wrote:

That depends on which logical level you are currently operating on; environment, behaviour, capability, beliefs, identity or spirit. Of course, John, this is my answer for you as I have determined that you are a Thinker, Sensor, Introvert. My answer for Andy would be different.

None on those I'm afraid, I am a Leo.

John

The future often has a way of arriving unannounced

Charles Hill wrote:

Both.

Basically:

1. Because it's Sunday.

Longer answer:

2. Only an aardvark.

Since you don't know about the other one (?) you may not understand the next answer:

3. Because the higher the fewer.

(Some sources have this last answer as "Because the higher [you get], the fewer [there are]". Having said that, but the words in brackets do not appear in the earliest known inscriptions, and are therefore 'implied' - according to the translators.)

Be well

Andy B.

Hire the Führer?

Oh. My. Gödel.