This page is dedicated to the pursuit of truth[tm].

     I believe that truth is derived in direct relation to both the goals and experiences of the individual, but also in relation to how we perceive the presence of value in the universe (inherent and/or intrinsic). There is a sense in which truth is purely reflective of logical processes[1], but it is my opinion that generally humans do not make appeals to truth merely to vindicate logic: humans use what we perceive as truth to vindicate our righteousness, and to maintain control of our surroundings[2]. Therefore, I see two definitions of truth emerging: the first is the literal truth, which is both unknowable (due to our limitations of perception) and ideal, and the second, which is an appeal to the idealism of truth, through the biased and subjective medium of our humanity. This raises several questions into the natures of the ideal: 1) how it is seen and understood pragmatically, 2) how it is believed to exist in essense or principle, and 3) how the pursuit of truth is justified.
     I believe that the process we call logic must be the means by which truth is most accurately perceived (whether or not this logic is conscious). I also believe that logical processes must first be filtered through our personal experience (which includes all instinctual values/goals/motivations/biases). In this sense, true objectivity is seen as an unattainable ideal.
     If truth is to represent a system of value which we use to conduct and control interaction, barring fundamental differences in the perception of value, truth must appeal to an consistent standard universal to all being. Otherwise, the negotiation of that interaction cannot occur except arbitrarily. If there is no 'common ground' between beings, communication does not occur. With humans, communication deals much with semantics. Semantics has much to do with the formulation of meaning-- this meaning must be articulatable and somewhat static if it is to be non-arbitrarily determined. I believe it is when the presuppositions behind our desire to communicate are articulated that meaning can be expressed (and understood) externally. These presuppositions are a sort of universal 'bedrock' from which all communication springs-- the external world.
     In essense then, I see communication as being both a means of exchanging goals and ideas, but also a fundamentally-based process centering around the formation of truth. The basis for determining the validity and justification of that meaning and truth is a process of logic in combination with subjective value judgements and cognition (perception). Fundamentally however, I hold that as communication necessarily requires a common ground or consistency through which interaction may take place, that common ground necessarily supports a notion of a consistency of truth across all rational cognitive mediums. I hold that this consistency of truth comes from 1) the stability and self-consistency of reality, and 2) the inherent validity of logical/rational principles as a universal medium of communication and understanding. After granting a consistent standard (the external world) as a source of static understanding and truth, the only variable is the validity of the subjective actualization of that understanding.
     The control which an accurate perception of truth grants us is both useful, and very important to us. This awareness does have an effect on our health, safety, and the the longevity of our lives. This is true regardless of how little control we in fact have over the external world. Because of our subjective need to understand and to perceive truth (to protect ourselves), our perception of truth is inherently biased.[3]

     There are many circumstances which demonstrate the limitations of our subjectivity. The popular moral example of this limitation is the axe-murderer argument: a friend goes screaming through your house one day, and an axe-murderer comes to your door asking where your friend went. You lie or intentionally confuse the truth to protect your friend, which is a moral decision. However, if you place a higher semantic value on truth than morality, your position changes. In either case, the ultimate perception of truth is subjective, and is subject to variability. However, this does not negate the reality of consistent and universal standards-- it is our ignorance which makes our standards inconsistent or arbitrary.

     Truth exists in many forms, but is fundamentally ordered around any process which demonstrates an accurate representation (pragmatic, in many cases) of things, ideas, and processes. I hold that appeals to truth are intrinsically given some credibility by the existence of processes of logic and rationality which maintain and qualify itself-- this is no reflection of the subjective medium which interprets it [4].

     I believe that logic is established as the fundamental system of ordering by which we validate causality. I further believe that "rationality" is the process by which logic is applied to the human experience through "truth." In this case, truth is an abstracted sense of awareness derived from the application of logic onto the human experience. Truth then, could be considered "applied bits of logic regarding the specific nature of an experience." In this sense, I do not focus on the definitional "truth" which is centered around notions of correctness, idealism, or usefullness for a purpose. I see truth as an attempt to apply logic to our perception of reality through our subjective medium. I see the truth as being mediated by rationality (subjective logic) and logic itself (and externally consistent system of justification and causality).

   &nbps; Truth is often perceived to be correct, though this does not indicate it actually is. There is a real sense in which "truth" as applied to something, is used to influence a goal. This does not mean that this "truth" is perfect, ideal, or useful for a purpose. Applications of "truth" typically have a goal in mind, which brings personal-motivation and subjectivity into play. People use truth to justify themselves or their actions. This truth claims to represent an absolute standard of justification, and thus should be undefeatable by logic, but logic is without motivation-- I hold that it is an objective process. To me, the biggest difference between truth and logic is that humans wield truth (through biased logic and motivation) to certain ends. It is these ends which foul up the perception of truth because it implies subjectivity. Therefore, I do not believe that truth represents correctness, in the sense that truth is _used_ to an end. I believe in that case, truth is an appeal to logic made to achieve a result and is therefore hoped to achieve the result, and not to achieve "correctness" in the moral or logical sense. Logic is amoral. Therefore, truth cannot be ideal or absolute until all motivations of the perciever are removed except for the desire to represent logic correctly: this is true objectivity. Truth must come into existence for its own sake. For example, that a person is overweight may be an objective fact, but calling this truth into existence would probably require a social context-- an insult, a helpful remark, etc. The objective fact is quite different than the social context which conjures it up, and this is the only distinction I wish to make here.
     Belief is not truth, as belief is exclusively subjective-- truth requires an externally-justifiable component. The argument that belief is a sort of truth could be argued by suggesting that our intuitive drive to assume and form casual relationships gives us an intuitive six-sense about such issues are spirituality (where belief and faith come much into play). However, without direct reference to the external world, such statements are impossible to prove, and thus deny the function of logic, which I believe is a very important piece of truth. The common definition of.

[1] I believe that truth and logic are equivocol, in the sense that logic represents the casually-established systems by which we determine truth. I hold that "if a=b and b=c then a=c" provides some of the most basic framework with which we rationalize. Such "logic" could be considered "absolute truth."

[2] For example: understanding the truth about nature can give a person significant leverage if they are ever stuck in the middle of a forest without food or shelter. "The truth about nature" would consistute such knoweldge as, determining the toxicity of plants, or the relative danger of certain types of animal/insect/environment. This does not necessarily consistute literal "truth" as our truth in this case is perceived through our self-defensive instincts (and is therefore biased by our goals which filter the range of our perception, appreciation, and understanding).

[3] Desire biases our perception of truth because we _want_ to see certain outcomes. As perception in general is multi-faceted and often blurred (especially when we generalize), it becomes likely that our desires can manipulate our perception of an event to make us feel more comfortable. This process of denial (see: "The Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker, for a fundamental biological example) often works to our disadvantage, because it affects our ability to accurately perceive information.

[4] The way I have framed truth, it exists to us as being a tool with which to gain control of our environment-- when you weild truth accurately, you are easily defended against others who value truth. More simply, truth gives us leverage against things we do not understand, aiding in our ability to 'trouble-shoot' new situations which may otherwise be a risk to our health or goals. As a result of this ability to control our environment through appeals to truth, the existence of truth and its pursuit is justified.