|View single post by Jee-Host[gm]|
|Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 06:37 am||
Yes, I can see what you mean about perception. Even in day-to-day events, people perceive the happenings differently. My husband and I see things thru 2 different sets of eyes; even though we are witnessing the same thing we, may not see the same thing.
I find that most important thing about that notion is the concept of truth. Truth is what's actually happening. Things are as they are. Whatever opinion anyone has about them is irrelevant in relation to truth because it doesn't change the truth. So in any given comparison of opinions there is no such thing as equality of said opinions, because one that is closer to the truth is obviously better. Now the question is - how to figure out which is closer without knowing the truth (which would require absolute knowledge)? Now that is where logic comes into play. An example: person wants to explain something he doesn't comprehend, so person creates a postulate that explains the phenomenon in terms person does comprehend. After further researching the phenomenon person comes across newer and newer facts which don't really fit his initial postulate. Yet person creates sub-postulate to accomodate for those facts. Eventually contradictions pile up so high that person writes a book filled with postulates to accomodate them. How do you think - logical judgment of this person was correct? I think not. Because logically If your assumption with shot in the dark is correct (truthful) - then you won't need to create such a pile of postulates since initial ones will be further solidified by new facts and developments. There will be no contradictions. And that is logical.
So, I can see how history can be perceived differently. And then you have to take into account that you are reading, compiling, and translating from someone else's perception of history and then write the words down thru your perception.
Obviously I do take that into account. But then again - logic applies. An example - many medieval-ancient Russian written books were written using font called "Ustav". However, careful analysis of said font in comparison to 19 other fonts of the periods revealed something. this one particular font is unique in a way that it is completely unusable to write a book. Instead writing - you're essentially drawing, which takes extreme amounts of time and is entirely inefficient. And there are techniques about said medieval font that are explained in attached research. Yet author of said analysis doesn't draw any conclusion from that fact. While there is quite an obvious conclusion - all books 'written' with "Ustav" are forgeries. Which means the actual written sources of the period have been destroyed. Or there wasn't any of such sources (though this is highly unlikely according to my research).
So there are ways to discern lies, regardless of perception.
From my perception, it seems to me, that the Russian people have been thru hell. But that is my perception and I don't know if it is true or not. And it is only in the last year that I have come to understand that there was probably western funding that created alot of that hell. I still don't understand it all and alot of the stuff about western funding is hard for me to accept because it is new information to me and was far outside of my perception. Perception does change with new information though? So perhaps a certain person's perception is valid to add to information so that other people can clarify their perception?
That is one perception-heavy paragraph. I wish to again stress out that I think it is very important to choose the right goal from the get-go. And that would be self-development and search for truth. So any information received is viewed in the context of 'how to transform this information into actual knowledge, to understand' rather than to just asses and ponder.
I'd love to introduce you to some compelling concepts (which are just like right postulates - do not create contradictions when further research and logic are being applied), but it seems we've gone very far off topic here already, so we should probaly move our discussion into more appropriate thread.
I perceive that you have a very good command of the English language!
LOL EX DI! If that was the case - no bloke would argue with my factual position on homosexualism being a medical issue no less than psychological. And yes - I vehemently oppose gay couples children adoptions.
This I believe, Jee-Host[gm], is what Joe intends when he talks of a Russian history book idea.
That is what I thought my response to him indicated. Because discussion or not, there has to be an audience willing to learn.
And anyway - isn't discussion is what we're constantly having? I totally expect this to turn in to a variety of threads where we share facts and forge certain consensus, which brings us closer to the truth, even if only by a little bit. Slow and steady wins the race, right? Just have to move in the right direction.
Last edited on Wed Apr 10th, 2013 06:48 am by