This post is made of lies

[kigs]

You are looking at black marks on an electronic screen. Some people call these words.

Are there levels of truth? If something is slightly false, is it impossible for it to also be true?

You are looking at black marks on an electronic screen. Then, you are telling yourself that they form words. Then, you extract meaning from the organization of these words.

Since words are not symonomous with their meanings in the same way that a picture of an apple is not an apple then, in presenting you with words, I am presenting you with an image which you draw meaning from. As the meaning is not the same as the word, and two seperate messages cannot be the same truth, then I am telling you lies. Further more, you are willingly believing my lies.

All words are made of a little bit of lies, since they are not equal to the truth.

This represents a viewpoint that I have heard.
I think this is a bad viewpoint, but I want more opinions.
What do you think?

Truely,
~Kigs

Comments

[borderpilot.livejournal.com]

Your theory is broken by the fact that upon my black screen there are white words.

IT'S TIME TO FORM AN ADDENDUM. HAH CHA CHA CHA

[majic13.livejournal.com]

Uh.

Words are tools used to convey information, whether spoken or written. They are not "true" or "false" in and of themselves. They are merely ways to convey meaning, though they can often be an imperfect means of doing so, or even deliberately misused to convey meaning which is untrue. But until someone comes up with a direct mind-to-mind link that allows flawless transference of intent and meaning between people, words are the best we've got.

[tresch.livejournal.com]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is

[kitsunetorn.livejournal.com]

WHAT IS A MAN? A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS!
BUT ENOUGH TALK... HAVE AT YOU!

[cyaneus.livejournal.com]

"two seperate messages cannot be the same truth"

I'd have to disagree. Or I'm leaving too much in the interpretation of separate messages.

truthiness

[thenickman.livejournal.com]

this argument is logically flawed. words cannot contain trueness nor falsity. if you get around this by saying that the statements, formed by individual words, are true or false, then i would further argue that the part about separate messages is a severly misled statement. "truth" is to indifinitive of a word to use here - "interpretation" is more appropriate, i think, and that whole part depends on the discretion with which you interpret the meaning of interpretation. so the analogy here would be, "when you see an image of an apple you are not seeing an apple but an interpretation of an apple, and that interpretation is false." that doesn't really make any sense, because you know that you're looking at the apple, and the whole idea of interpretation includes the part where you can internalize and explain to yourself the meaning of the information perceived. i'll probably posit this question to a friend tonight, but for now, i have to rescue my clothing from the town laundromat.

[razzek.livejournal.com]

You are looking at black marks on an electronic screen.

LIES! I'm looking at green words on a black screen. >D

I think this is a bad viewpoint, but I want more opinions.
What do you think?

This viewpoint is indeed bad. It's total crap, honestly. But alas, I couldn't explain to you why. It's one of those things I know in my head, but I know it in such a way that it's not something I can describe in words with any sort of ease or clarity.

I love philosophy but, like most things with me, it's not something I can explain logically. I still need to grow into my writer's skin. :P

[mythos-amante.livejournal.com]

I think that it's actually an illogical way to think. Arguement for the sake of arguement is what it sounds like to me. Philosophy and different realities are only so worthwhile as they pertain to the world around us. So, I think it's all fine and well for someone to think of words that way if they are living alone in a cage with only a word processor for company, but the moment they start interacting with other beings in a physical context, their philosophy is useless. Like saying "The pen is mightier than the sword!" when a sword is at your throat, context is everything.

Just as I think it is strange and foolish to think that reality is ONLY in your mind, and that other people and their emotions and thoughts aren't real because you can't feel them. That is a rather stupid way to think in my opinion, because it assumes that other people only matter as much as you think they do, which, while true in one way, runs into obstacles when those people take it upon themselves to be more important in their own eyes than you are.

These ways of thinking look very pretty in writing (which is ironic) and sound very profound and deep, but they're just copouts for people who have a difficult time interacting with others and who either are lashing out at their inferiority complex or truly have difficulty making human connections that matter to them.

That is my opinion! :)

[synchra.livejournal.com]

mine are kinna dark orange marks. :P

[skadjer.livejournal.com]

I'm one of the few weirdos who is, in fact, looking at black words on a mostly white screen........ or AM I !???
You want an additional mindfudge, the letters are not black at all- they are neutral screen-colored... it's all the pixels around them which are lit, thus creating discernable contrast and the illusion of subtractive value.
In actuality, my screen is displaying everything BUT your words.

And yet, through a sneaky process of elimination, I am inadvertantly given sufficient evidence to discern what your words might very easily have been.

As for the contradiction of multiple truths, remember, remember, the feline of Shrodinger... and that the newest of theories within the bowels of quantum mechanics suppose that, until proven otherwise, not only are all possible outcomes possible.... they are, in fact, simultaneously real.
Contradictory realities are allowed to exist in the - decidedly different-functioning - unobserved spacetime.

So not only does the turth that caused you to document it in a specific pattern of nonexistent letters exist, but until I hop in my car and pay you a visit, and perhaps turn back time to the point at which your writing was inspired, so does the version of reality I visualize upon its reading.

Truth is little more than the first angle at which you choose to slice the twisted, convoluted cake of possibility.

Take THAT, irksome viewpoint!

(mmmm... cake.)

[stokerbramwell.livejournal.com]

Words are man-made tools, just like hammers, and can't be lies anymore than hammers can.

[reizar.livejournal.com]

Simple.

Words are words, no matter what medium is being used to deliver them. Be they read through paper or electronically from pixels on a screen, spoken calmly or shouted at the top of one's lungs, words form the base of human communication. Truth and lies are subjective. A picture of an apple is very much an apple; the apple may not be there for eating, but an apple is still the idea being conveyed.

I believe that people overcomplicate things far too much for their own good. I also believe that the pixels I've just keyed into this document represent what I'd say if I were standing face-to-face with...well, whoever asks such a question.

Actually, I don't believe that. It's already fact, regardless of establishment. So, you could say that I know it instead.

I also know that my throat is try, and so I must embark upon a quest to the kitchen, for I have developed a craving for tea the likes of which I have never craved before.

[spazfox.livejournal.com]

Wow. I remember being able to enjoy half-baked philosophy. Then I was beat down and broken by the man. Every time I tried to explain that reality was, in fact, made up of collective perception, they kept insisting that what I perceived at that moment was a boot up my ass.

[dour.livejournal.com]

Truth (or falsehood) is a property of facts. Words are not facts, they are symbols. Discussing whether or not they are true is like discussing whether the moon is spelled right: it's nonsensical, because the quality doesn't apply.

[sci.livejournal.com]

Lies are intentionalal, and only the intended missuse of words can be concidered a lie. The rest are simply inaccuracys inherent to the system itself, or mistakes made by those using it.

[dirtylittlelie.livejournal.com]

Lie.



My words are white.

[joeypoey.livejournal.com]

I swear I´ve heard this somewhere before.

Bleh, too many film classes >.

[mtnsqrlcat.livejournal.com]

I agree with both.

It doesn't mean you are lying to those who read your words or hear you speak. It's more a representation of how limited this form of communication truly is. Words will never fully represent the original Thought.

The viewpoint is one that must not be heard or looked at emotionally to understand it. It is a Factual viewpoint. Your 'emotional' ego is having issue with the viewpoint because it sees something telling it that it is a liar.

So remove thyself! You don't lie to people. Now how does that viewpoint look?

-Sqrl