Instigators |
| In any structure of belief, there will exist a set of
individuals known as the Instigators; they who will share
in common the aim of Persuading others with regards to
that particular structure of belief. There can be said to
be two distinguishing or identifying features; for others
who don't fall within such categorisation may simply have
failed to make any initial observation whatsoever, such
that there is no position to communicate, or
alternatively, those who having identified such
observations, yet have no desire to communicate with
others concerning the issue. Therefore, there must be
something to communicate, and a desire so to do. The
reafter, there is little common ground; for the
Instigator may himself believe in the particular
structure, or merely wishes so to Persuade as a means to
achieving some other desirable end. The Instigator may
chose to communicate the structure as he perceives or
understands, or devise some other construction that will
induce an understanding. Perception of the effective mode
of Persuasion may vary from; rational or philosophical
debate, to indoctrination by idolised figures of
authority, to submission by force. Instigators may also
vary from one society to another, or with time as society
evolves. Even within a given society at any one time, the
Instigators may find that the spectrum of individuals
that he may wish to Persuade are such that he must take
note of the varying suitability to differing individuals. In the current world that is in existence, there are a large number of structures in circulation, many of which are compatible with one another, but some of which may not be so, and therefore might be said to be in competition. Most of these structures will declare their own truthfulness, and require belief thereof. There is at least such a thing as Individual Truth; that is personal belief of any given individual concerning any given structure. Though some would do ubt whether the average individual might have given any thought at all over whether he does or does not believe in any given structure, it is sufficient that he would be able to decide and answer if presented with the question, or at least to say that he is unsure if such is the case. But most would find that this Individual Truth is merely a single opinion that cannot be decisive, and that something more objective must be look at. What is the meaning of this objectivity that is searched for? And how does one construct this objective truth, to gauge the various structures in existence? Such an objective truth must be able to select from amongst those that are in competition, or one or more of those that are compatible, or provide for something new, in satisfaction of the search for something objective, that is more than an Individual T ruth. But it would be interesting to ask why it is that there is any need at all, for this objective truth? And what is the meaning of such a concept? Though personal beliefs might be sufficient for some individuals, there are clearly others who find this insufficient, and it is they who require this separate mechanism. Examples of some that are commonly recognised as objective truth mechanisms would include; religion, science, physical experience or experimentation, and absolutism. In investigating the possible objective truth mechanisms, there are various issues that are worth close attention. Does the mechanism provide for it's own validity? If so, what are the means of self-proof, and are they compatible with the mechanism itself? If not, is there something else that validates or supports this mechanism, and what is its nature? Or perhaps even more fundamentally, why does the objective truth mechanism need to validate or prove itself to be true? On the other hand, does the mechanism allow for its own dispr oof, and what are the implications of this? And are other alternatives that exist accounted for either by inclusion within the mechanism, or exclusion? |