The tag-line of this blog is surprisingly deeper than I thought. It was not meant to be ‘thought provoking’ as such. Sometimes, it so happens that the creation of a creator will be more striking than the creator can understand. Nonetheless, in this post I will delve deeper into my understanding of that statement and let you know how I perceived it.
‘Destined to be true, not necessarily’. My intention at first was to give a catchy phrase which would make my blog ‘sound’ good along with the ‘looks’. Later, when I started reading a book which comprised of conversations between J.Krishnamurthi( An Indian Philosopher) and Max Born( Physicist), the topic they were discussing sounded fascinating to me. They were talking about ‘Truth and Reality’. They were trying to answer questions like ‘What is truth?’ ,’How far is it from reality?’ ,’Is truth an action?’ & ‘How do you define intelligence in this context?’. I stopped reading it after finishing six pages. It was not because of the book’s lameness but because I had read far more than I could digest. I started thinking about ‘truth’.
The first question I had was ‘Is truth absolute?’. On a superficial note, it is very common to think the other way round. Since we perceive things differently it is always possible that the same established fact manifests itself in a different form to each individual. So, that established fact shows all of its facets to different individuals. If this is true, then how do we differentiate truth from any ordinary fact? This line of argument clearly ends up here saying that truth must be absolute and all individuals must perceive the same ‘truth’. Now, let us try to find out a loophole in this argument if there is any! Why do people perceive different things if truth is absolute? Is it because they don’t know how to come to a conclusion that this is the truth? Maybe! A much better way to put it would be to say that knowledge in different people is not the same. Each person has a set of experiences and ‘known’ facts which influence him to perceive things in one single way. So, given that many people possess varying information, their perception must change according to that! Then, what about ‘truth’? How come it never gets into this perception loop and looks the same to all people?
‘Truth’ actually can be something which needs no/less prior knowledge and can stand on it’s own. If this is true, it fits our theory that truth is absolute. If it needs no prior knowledge, all people are meant to perceive it the same way. But, people cannot easily see the ‘truth’ in action. Isn’t it contradictory?-truth needs no prior knowledge but still all people cannot perceive it. What is wrong in our approach? I don’t sense what is wrong, yet I am stuck in this approach. (Anyone who has an answer, comment below!)
Coming back to the tag-line, the ‘not necessarily’ part is actually saying that you may not perceive my reality as your truth. And indirectly saying that my reality might not actually be truth itself. An artist does a piece of art keeping his perspective in mind, but the observer sees it differently and sometimes better! I made up that sentence long time ago, so I am a creator and I saw it to be different recently, so I am the observer too!