Honesty! «First note» (Soliloquies)

Honesty is one of the triad also composed by Truth and Love.

Rivers of ink, and now electronic beams, if I can use use this over trod sentence followed by a new concept, have flowed in the intent to explain this trinity.

In the basic principle of Life it is impossible for humankind to learn the meaning of any of those three words. Weird enough is that we know the words, they belong in a different realm, we are too self centered a species as to have a remote conception of their significance. We can experience the outcome of their existence but, as elusive deities, we never can "see" their faces.

The first fallacy rest in the belief that honesty is simple. The second is our recognition of facts, sayings, and acts as we believe them to be. On this ground there exist as many Honesty as human beings on Earth. The same is true, no pun intended, with Truth and Love.

The simple fact that we MUST use our own faculties to "interpret" the meaning and span of our thoughts and acts, puts us in the handicap of a very much known experiment in Physics: It is not possible to change or interact with any part of a system from inside the same system. Otherwise said: You cannot raise your body holding yourself from your ankles.

Other way to represent this situation is to consider Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: If you try to measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time you will find that uncertainties, or imprecisions, always turn up.

This Physics' law reinserts itself into Philosophy and when you try to use the minimum knowledge humans have acquired through time, despite the huge dimension of that acquired knowledge and despite the reluctance to accept it as it is, just a small atom in a minuscule drop of the ocean of awareness and learning, when you try to interpret or, worse yet, to understand the implied forces in abstract concepts like that of Honesty (this is the same with Truth, Love, and many others), imprecisions arise, and those imprecisions are managed by the subjective elegance of personal knowledge, cultural background, and inner taste, determined by the facility we find in our "own personality" to elucidate and accept the "facts" found in, again, our observations.

Here again, we are trying to understand the same system that contains us and the "facts" contained in the system. Facts; as "certain" as the definition of a colour, where we have concordance about what thing is red, but we cannot understand what red, as an abstraction, is in our own perception and much less to compare it with some other person's perception; facts, I try to define, are as certain as thoughts but difficult to understand in its ontological reality .

These conditions determine the impossibility of a true understanding, no matter how much we learn in time. This growing knowledge will only be part of the same whole system that contains us and as I wrote above, the "facts" found in our observations; there is a small hope in the belief that sentience is something outside from the "real" world but this, up to this moment, pertains to the realm of mystical spiritualism and is out of the reach of science.

(to be continued)


© 2007 Soother.