What is going on?

Part 1: Thought and perception
There are only two things that go on.

To pay attention to the surrounding, is to perceive. To see, to feel, to smell and so on, that is to perceive. But there is also another thing that can go on. To perceive is to perceive the universe, or some small area in it.

To cease and stop paying attention to the events in the surrounding. That is to follow your thought. That is the other thing that can go on.

There are things that have gone on but no longer is going on. And you can go back to that time when it went on. This is what is called remembering. Remembering is a sort of thinking whereby you become aware of what happend earlier. Memories are a part of what determines perception, but perception is not fully controlled by memories.

It is not possible to perceive what is false. What is false is negation and negation cannot be perceived. You cannot perceive a negation of a rock, a wall or a human. So then, what you perceive cannot ever be false. And so what you perceive is the truth.

However, we perceive what we think. We perceive it as a voice nobody else can hear but yourself. And since, like we just said, perception is the truth and thought is perceived, so thought is also the truth. Meaning no thought is false.

Perception is the sort off thing that does makes things readily availiable. Its the sort of thing in which "I am standing over here", "The table is over there", "The water is cold." and so on. But also less tangible things like how you describe certain kinds of light or what can be gleaned from the look in someones eyes.

Of course it is possible that someone might say this or that is wrong. In that case the meaning of what is said or written is then compared to the world around us. And if it doesnt seem to match up, that thing that is written or said then sometimes is called "a lie" or something that is "not true". This however is not really a problem. We can simply stop. We can simply stop comparing what is written or said with the world around us. Let us instead compare what is written or said with what is perceived. We can ask a person, do you perceive it that way or another way and that person can answer the question. And so we can be done with the whole problem if something is true or not.

Someone might say that this way of looking at the truth means that everybody is right and that nothing is worth  saying any more. I happen not to agree, i see no reason at all why we should stop talking, stop thinking or stop and not be merry along our way. But still someone could say that there is no supreme truth, no absolute truth in this way. But in that case what i have written have been misunderstood. For what is proposed is that this is a version of absolute truth. . At least thats how i consider it. But, im not offended if somebody dont agree with me. I fight for a free society, and in such  society people dont need to agree. But preferably they are at least talking about something interesting.

Part 2: Truth
For you who are interested there is a second part to this, but see it as an appendix, its not necessary, but for those of you with such flavour i will in the second part explain further what the first part ment.


Throught all of history, philosophers have argued about a lot of things. I think its safe to say that most of what has remained of that and is unreadable bullshit. Plato where, from what i understand, of the opinion that there is not much point in writing down what is said in philosophical discussions. And i think i sort of agree. The thing is, the context of a discussion is often not transferred in text. I however have found a solution to Platos problem and it is this: Give the readers the context. And so i will.


My context is that of someone who dont lie. If you read or hear what i have written, you will see none of it can contain lies. Meaning it does not have the possibility of containing a lie. So if it cant contain a lie, its the truth. And you know what, it doesnt matter if you believe me or not, because im not trying to convince anybody. I am only intersted in telling the truth. 


What i did or at least tried to do in part one was to do away with most of the bullshit and impossible problems. To make a way through all that stuff, so we dont need to bother much at all with it. And i think that is a pretty noble goal, to do away with the stuff we dont need and get down to the truth. What i tried to do was to explain what truth is, and in so doing perhaps i also explained something true. Both those things i take pride in doing. Even if i do just a little bit of truth before i die, im pretty content with that. So then i will continue to explain what amounts of bullshit i have tried to stay clear off. 


Also one other way of explaining what i did in part one is to say that i cut right through the dilemma of postitivist during 1915 to about 1940. This i did by totally ignoring the superfluos idea of trying to express what truth is in terms of language. The positivist, i think, tried explaining what the truth is, by only trying to tell us how it can be expressed in wrighting or speaking. Instead i expressed what truth is in terms of those things going in our perception and those things that we think. In such a way i steered clear of an insolveable problem. I found another way that is. 


Further in part one i also cut across all of the kind of psychology that says truth take place in experiments and tests. See how i at least seem to have spoken about the truth, and i didnt use any laboratory experiments at all. Im not saying that experiments are a bad idea. Im just saying that truth must also occur outside of experimental situations. And so we have done away with most of modern psychology.


I am really sort of intrigued by Freud. He had his bright moments. Maybe you want to know why i bring his writings up. And i will explain that. Even though Freud never really talked about truth, he didnt use that word much, that is still what he wanted to do, and in a way he did. Since his idea was to understand what people are all about, to me, that is pretty much like he wanted to know about peoples minds. And that, at least to me, is the same as wanting to know what the truth is. Anyway, Freuds problem was that he never thought about thinking and truth in general, and i am convinced you need to deal with those things if you want to know peoples minds. Since what does it really mean to sit down, or to stand up or to wave your arms around or to sit down calmly and let a sound vibrate inside your body. Or what does it mean never to be able to be close to the one you love? Or what does it mean to withhold secrets from the ones you love? What does those things mean? If you are asking that kind of question, you want to find out the truth about them. And if you want to find out what the truth is, you first have to now what truth is. Its kind of like if you want to fix your car you might want to check out what a screwdriver is, how it can be used and how to hold it. So Freud was sort of confused since he never got into the question of what truth is.


A lot of recent philosophical debate has concerned itself with saying what we cant talk about. Some have even reached the conclusion we cant say much of anything about anything, or that there is no point in saying anything about anything. Of course if there is no point in saying anything, even saying that there is no point in anything is also afflicted by itself meaning there was no point in saying that either. In this way, a lot of the modern philosophical debate has stagnated and enslaved itself. If you think there is no point in what i have written here, i feel sad for your sake. For there is a point to what i have written. I want to liberate you. And again, im not trying to convince you, and you dont have to believe me.