On Truth and Language

There appear to exist certain truths that seem always true, everywhere, for everybody. However, saying what something inherently “is” would be pushing it. Even claiming that a principle is invariably true raises doubts, at least some of the time. It can be easily demonstrated, for example, how a mere shift in viewpoint, or a sense of self for that matter, “changes” things. Though we’d like to believe that something is this way and not that way, we’re just not sure, most of the time. (Unless we think we know it all, of course.)

Truths that seem always true

How, then, shall we proceed? We could start by supposing that there are, indeed, truths that are always true—on the grounds of living in a seemingly orderly universe—and that these laws can be discovered, understood, and applied, at least to a certain degree. Then we would recognize that we all seek happiness and try to avoid suffering, and, if nothing else, entertain the idea that living according to these universal principles may actually help us get what we want. Ideally, we would “hear the words and put them into practice.”

The map is not the territory

Further, we would realize that “the map is not the territory” (Alfred Korzybski), and try not to confuse the two. Treat darshanas (Sanskrit, plu., usually translated as ‘philosophical system,’ literally ‘vision,’ ‘apparition,’ ‘glimpse’) as models of reality only (that is, visions; brief, incomplete views of “ultimate reality”), and “eternal truths” as working hypotheses. Finally, we would try to eliminate “the ‘is’ of identity” and “the ‘is’ of predication” from our language as much as possible (Korzybski again; e.g., “Joe is a fool,” “Jane is unhappy,” respectively), and word our experience in more operational language (e.g., “Jane seems unhappy to me in the way she has come across lately.”).

Misusing “the ‘is’ of identity” and “the ‘is’ of predication,” as we’ve started to see above, tends to confuse opinion with fact. But it usually doesn’t end there. Once we attribute something to something else, we hold on to our belief and fixate on that particular rationale. Once we fixate on that rationale, we have no way to see otherwise. We find ourselves stuck in that particular reality-tunnel. However, the Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski Hypothesis, according to Robert Anton Wilson, “holds that a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos.”

What do we mean by ‘map’ and what by ‘territory,’ in this discussion? The ‘map’ denotes ‘thought,’ and the ‘territory’ refers to ‘thing,’ where ‘thought’ can be defined as a one-sided view of “the thing,” a momentary or partial view, like a “snapshot,” a reality-dump. It only takes a change in time or location, that is, basically a shift in viewpoint, or “state of mind” as a matter of fact, for a thought to change or seem different. Add to that the fact that we verbalize in order to understand and communicate, that is, make a map of a map, and that the other person, hearing our words, translates them into their language, that is, makes a map of a map of a map of a territory, and it becomes obvious how we misunderstand and disagree with each other. In the best-case scenario, another would end up looking at things from our angle—which could be a definition of understanding in communication—but not necessarily agree to it, though.

How do we know what we know

But how do we know what we know, if we know anything at all? If we look at thoughts as one-sided views of reality, that is, notions, mere intellectual representations, we can’t really tell if we know or not, and ‘knowing’ comes down to hanging on to a particular point of view, a state of certainty that something “is” so, based on... anything. People who don’t know stuff cannot seem to make up their minds or keep changing their minds all the time.

One last thing, thinking and writing in terms of what something “is”—inherently and exclusively—instead of in the proposed E-prime (English without the “isness of identification”) also tends to make statements ambiguous if not meaningless, which is somewhat visible in the following quotes, “Thought is creative” (Leonard Orr), “All statements are equally true” (Jim Leonard & Phil Laut), “Thought is matter” (Charles Berner), “We are what we think” (Gautam the Buddha), “God is love” (John the Apostle), etc. But it also makes them hypnotizing, like slogans.

The above mottos appear so grandiose, yet what do they mean? Understanding them takes “filling in the blanks.” They come across as capturing some eternal truths, yet the meaning escapes us. We can try like crazy to get it, but we only end up imputing the meaning. On the other hand, everybody can think he’s got it right. We call them “hooks.”

We could have started this essay with, “There are truths that are always true, everywhere, for everybody,” which would have worked as a powerful propaganda ploy to get naive followers to join the cult. Instead we went with “seem” (that is, E-prime) which has greatly weakened the impact though. So if you want to lie, deceive, convince, or convert people, stay away from English Prime.

A word of clarification. Since one can commit all kinds of identification mistakes in E-prime as well—that is, by simply replacing or omitting the verb ‘to be’ (e.g., “He looks ugly,” “John, the commie, did that,” respectively), and since there are times when identification is desirable (when naming things for example) and cases in which E-prime would actually hinder the author’s intent (e.g., colloquial language, novels, plays, poems, jokes, advertisements), we don’t advocate using E-prime blindly and for all occasions. We claim we interact with objects and ascribe attributes to things where none actually exist in them independently, generate strong cravings and aversions, and suffer in consequence.

Exercises

1.: Reflect on “the map is not the territory” and “with our thoughts we make the world.” Three times a day, catch yourself confusing the two.
2.: Recall at least seven incidents where you used to think that something was so, but you found out later you were wrong. Didn’t you think you were right in the first place? How on earth do you know you are not wrong now?
3.: Next time you have a headache, deliberately create the headache. Put that headache there. Make it worse. Continue until you catch yourself in the act of giving yourself a headache. At that point you will cease to create it, unless you have ulterior motives. Repeat this with a few other unwanted feelings and sensations.
4.: Find ten “isness” “hooks,” such as the U.S. Army’s motto, “Be all you can be,” in religious scripture, political ideologies, and advertisements, but exclude those used in colloquial language, literature, and jokes. Analyze each for its ambiguity, meaninglessness, propaganda and selling strategies, as well as its intended message. What characteristics or patterns, if any, do they share? Think seriously about each statement and take time to notice details that you normally overlook. Finally, rewrite them into English Prime.