the "all truth is relative" fallacy as premise for dismissing
metaphysical truths/absolutes by the unintelligent
Copyright 12/2007 S.A.
metaphysician, author, and webmaster www.attan.com
As is commonly encountered by those forwarding metaphysical
principles either as pertaining to the model of the Absolute or the
methodology for ascent from embodiment to noetic assimilation, the
profane counter to any logical claim thereof or otherwise, is that
"truth is subjective (empirically so)", or that "that's your version
of the truth, which is relative". The superimposition and implication,
as
countered by the unintelligent who knows only of existential being
and life, is that since all spacio-tem****al references and
perspectives are indeed relative and therefore empirically subjective
(personalized),
therefore too is any model of totality, of metaphysical principles as
pertaining to noetic uncompounded Subjectivity (Soul, nous, the
Absolute, citta etc.) as forwarded by any and all branches of
metaphysics,
i.e. Platonism, any form of Monism, Advaita, proto-Buddhism, Vedanta
in general.
In the analogy of a large east-facing building at daybreak, one
observer taking perspective truth-sampling of and about the building
from the eastern side, and yet another similar observer from the
western unlit side, there will be diametrically opposed empirical
truths about the attributes of the building. For instance the eastern
facing observer taking note of the orange hues of the morning sun
sparkling
across the windows and stone frame would relate and provide the truth
to the subjective personal beauty he finds of said building, whereas
the western observer would have an entirely different subjective
perspective and equally valid truth as to the aesthetic beauty of
said building, or lack thereof in his situation/space, being that it
is unlit, it is therefore dark, dismal, depressing in appearance, etc.
The fallacy of
the unintelligent manyfolk, the profane and myopic materialist who
has neither idea nor acknowledgement of the noetic (pali: puthujjana)
is association of the absolute truth that all empirical and
spacio-tem****al sensory-datums, perspectives, experiences, feelings,
and even existential consciousnesses which are relative, which are
personal, therefore equally so apply to metaphysics by his reckoning
and faulty deduction; nothing is further from the truth in regards to
same. No branch of metaphysics uses employs, or trusts any aspect of
personal consubstantial sensory data as the grounds, basis, or axis
mundi for its expression of the truth, and rightly so. Some peoples
stricken with sensory maladies or tem****ary sicknesses may, for
example, experience sweet things as sour, or as has been recorded,
some
brains misswired from birth are capable of smelling colors, or seeing
sounds etc. There is utterly no escaping the unreckonable variety of
experiences of any one thing, much less many phenomenal things by
and large. This is the realm of unlimit and antinomy; however
Metaphysics deals with the study of limit (the One) and ontological
Subjectivity which is substrate and posterior to any and all
antinomies.
The unintelligent and profane common-man in the myopic logic
which extends no further than his faulty senses is correct, from his
perspective (rather lack thereof), to wit that metaphysics would not
be
outside of the scope of any other phenomenal and subjective truth, as
in the case of the two observers; however he would be utterly wrong.
This fallacious presumption is the very core reason why a genuine
metaphysical/philosophical truth seeker is one of the most rare and
endangered breeds of human-beings which exists. From the fallacious
conjecture of the materialist, the only criterion there can be are
the
meager (and profane) senses, and since, from common knowledge, this
is subjective and utterly relative, therefore the quest for unwavering
Absolutes, of simplex ontological principles is a hopeless
endeavor at best, even if said profane person where to admit to the
possibility of sames existence, to wit acknowledging as is commonly
found the man who believes in the "higher, the spiritual", but
utterly
denies the truth of same could be unraveled or exposed since it would
not be a universal truth in discovery, but a small and relative one of
personal subjectivity. That "nothing is known except thru the
modality (language, communication, expressions etc.) of the Knower"
is indeed true, as such metaphysical expositions in 100% agreement
with each other (such as Platonism and Advaita and
proto-Buddhism being in full agreement with each other on the
Absolute and ascent to same) use different terminology, and nuances
specific to both place and time (greek and Europe vs. Sanskrit and
India,
for example) to empirically illuminate, express, and relate the
nature of metaphysics, of ascension, of the Absolute in the lexicon of
both the place, and the time of said metaphysician. This,
unfortunately, adds
an additional false-confirmation to the myopic materialist who
wrongly demonstrates that three identical systems of metaphysics
appear (superficially so) radically different in both description and
teaching in
relation to the instructed, the disciple of said system. Or worse
still additionally that that nuance is magnified as it p***** from an
alien and ancient dead language into modern translation of a
commoners
tongue which may and often does lack to a great degree the nuance and
lexicon needed to relate subtle principles to the mind of the reader.
Returning to the analogy of the building and the two observers
attempting to subjectively relate the aesthetics etc. truth of the
building from their spacio and sensory perspectives (both of which,
in
conjunction, reinforce the incorrect notion that truth is
unquestionably relative); we then take both men from their relative
outside positions, to then inside the building, and eliminate the
existential senses of
both, since metaphysics takes no stock or basis in same concerning
the logic, and noetic Truth-gnosis of metaphysical Subjects and
uncompounded Being (Atman, spiritus sanctum, etc.). From said
position
both men, by means of the noetic mind (nous, citta, spirit) will have
identical agreement as to the nature of the 'building', as the
building is in this case analogous representation of some Subjective
aspect of
metaphysical investigation, be it the Soul, the Absolute, the nature
of totality, etc. This is the grounds, the basis of metaphysics, of
the Truth in absolute, dejecting and not withstanding feelings,
perspectives,
or even the consubstantial consciousness of any tem****al man. Here,
where space and time have no existence, such that existence in mere
empirical selfhood is itself exio-stance (to be outside of ones-Self)
where the tem****al senses cannot pass to be witness, rather the
Witness only; for space and time are merely the coeternal measures of
magnitude, of mass (Plotinus, Plato), of being, wherein "all
antinomies
are manifest and truth is unquestionably relative and personal
(person embodied, mere being as is meant by the 'small self')".
That, in further analogy, these men, so enlightened as to the
substrate of mere being, would exit the inside, or metaphysical nexus,
of this 'building' and attempt to verbally and perspectively relate
the
nature of what both were in full agreement with in Witnessing to
others who would wish forthwith to know, there would be unquestionably
nuance, and a differential in lexicon between the two, again
"nothing is known except thru the modality (language, communication,
expressions etc.) of the Knower"; however the Truth, in metaphysics is
not, has never been, nor ever will be relative, empirically
subjective. That the communication as dictated by language, time, and
place by the Expositor of metaphysics (if he be wise in so relating
it, and not a false-knower; as is commonly the case of those who
flaunt themselves as wise and knowing of some aspect of metaphysics
but in true are not but a fool who desires undeserved acknowledgements
and praise from those all the more-so foolish than himself)
differs between person to person is, on the contrary to view of the
myopic many, not an affirmation of (as they've convinced themselves)
the relativistic nature of the Truth in the subject-matter of
Metaphysics, which regardless of source of same (Greek, Indian, etc.)
takes no stock in empirical experiences, perspectives, the senses, in
whole or in part. Metaphysics deals only with the realm posterior
to antinomies, and relativistic tem****al nuances wherein there can be
no doubt, that when known with gnosis (Noetic Knowledge, not meant
empirical and relative mere knowledge) that the Truth in and of
Metaphysics is devoid of deviation inherent to faulty senses of
empirical man where truth is indeed relative. The impassibility of
nuance in illuminating metaphysics to others as is necessitated by
language,
voice, and text has utterly no bearing on the fact that, regarding
metaphysics, relativity, perspective, etc. have been superceded and
the Truth, be it as pertains the soul or the Absolute, in and of
itself has
neither perspective nor nuance as attributes of itself.
|
