The Truth is Never Right

Senses are reliable.
Senses are unreliable.

Depending on how you think – both are true, and neither are right.

It’s a bit like light as particles or light as waves. Whichever conceptual approach you take, you find irrefutable evidence to support your concept. That is, until you think differently.

Isn’t all life like that?

Don’t we all find “reasons” why our point of view is the right one (and yours is wrong)? I think so – I do it all the time, and I find myself constantly working to unwind it. These days, I feel more comfortable with people who doubt and question, even immutably held beliefs. I get my Self cramped by people who already know. Maybe “having a belief” is overrated?

Let’s take the example of sensory appreciation.

Alexander declared his sensory appreciation unreliable, despite the fact that his senses were the means by which he was able to come to his astonishing conclusion.

Don’t you think that’s rather odd?

If sensory appreciation is truly unreliable, then isn’t any conclusion based upon them the fruits of a poisoned tree?

I recently read Simon Singh’s wonderful book on Fermat’s Last Theorem. Based on this casual look into the world of numbers, I realised that Alexander’s logic would be demolished. You can’t hold that sensory appreciation is unreliable, then go ahead and declare truths based on that same sensory appreciation – it’s absurd. It’s preposterous. And it’s true.

Thoughtful consideration of Alexander’s process will reveal that what he actually did is expand the categories of material information upon which he relied for his conclusions.

There are many ways to categorize senses, and perhaps the simplest is to turn to the material world, rather than sensory receptors within our Self. From this perspective, we can say there are four kinds of material information we can collect:

1. Chemical information
2. Mechanical information
3. Electromagnetic information
4. Thermal information

Alexander was primarily relying on mechanical information. He got “suspicious” that he was not doing what he thought he was doing, so he decided to add electromagnetic information (light from the mirror) into the mix and – presto! FM saw in his mirror what he had already become suspicious about.

When was vision not a sense? Therefore, how can you say sensory appreciation is unreliable when Alexander relied upon it?

To do so refutes Alexander’s enlightenment. You can’t have it both ways. Or can you? This is where “right” diverges from “truth”.

The reality is that both are right, neither are true.

When you are relying on just one category of material information, the conclusions you come to are muddled. When you rely on two, the conclusions are sharper. Finally, gathering information from three or more – if that is even possible – pretty well guarantees reliability.

Or does it?

Turns out, it doesn’t.

We are geniuses at deluding our Selves. Which goes on to show that, yes – senses are unreliable. Neuroscientists delight in pushing out tests which demonstrate how easily you can trick the senses. Senses are relative to the conditions – for example, put a snow chilled finger into lukewarm water and you experience your finger burning!

It’s getting like politics: how do we spin this?

And this is my point. In our community, and in the science community, the spin we put on it is “senses are unreliable” or “sensory appreciation is unreliable” and personally I think that is almost a breach of honour in the love we have for our Self.

It’s all spin remember? I can argue cogently against senses being unreliable, while simultaneously acknowledging that it is right.

Still, if you insist on saying something is unreliable, say “perception is unreliable” and stop bullying the senses. The senses simply report what actually happened in the material world – chemical, mechanical, thermal and electro-magnetic.

Senses are innocent. They did nothing wrong. They don't have an opinion.

It is potentially dangerous, disempowering and abusive to suggest otherwise. In the guise of “senses are unreliable” and “sensory appreciation is unreliable” I have seen AT teachers perpetuate emotional abuse, setting themselves up as the final authority on your wellbeing. Yuk. I have seen students lose confidence in their own ability to change.

How is that helpful to the cause?

A better spin is simply saying – senses are limited in what they can report.

An eye with cataracts will report a dimmer world. A dog sees only black and white. When you make conclusions based upon limited information, you are bound to increase the likelihood of errors. Of course! This is no great revelation, this is plain common sense. And this is what FM did, although he did not express it that way.

FM discovered that the reliability of sensory information increases as you broaden your base of material world information.

Feeling his movements, and listening to his voice, gave him limited information. When he could feel, hear and see simultaneously, FM had a breakthrough in his understanding. FM relied on his vision, his hearing and his feelings to conclude his discoveries. If his vision was also unreliable, how in heavens name did he make his discovery?

Saying senses are unreliable is itself unreliable. It’s ridiculous.

And it’s right. And it’s not true.

The truth is never right.