rogiaeu:

Azeda Booth - “In Red” 

Truth

And how I found her to be a gross misassumption; a proclamation to whom we account all personal beliefs. But whom none can know. Her faces:

The Empirical, Intuitive, and Absolute

The observed and clairvoyaged, so connected and yet none encompassing all to be experienced. And what is this absolute truth? What is, of course, and how independent of our claims it is! Empiricism is not Rationalism. She is the pride of eyes, and a cognitive death of potentialities. Too often do we aggregate elements of reality that clearly occupy separate realms. This is important to remember because it seems to be the cause of strife between so many of us and our individual perceptions. When we stand in the same place looking at seperate fractions of space, we find conflict without causation. To realize when one speaks of a soul, they aren’t referencing something to be witnessed or scietifically assessed. The concept is intuitive, not empirical, and it is not absolutely true absent of the mind or spirit. While conjoined, the truth rests in actuality which we can only know to whatever limit we can combine and comprehend both the observed and inferred. We must give weight to the potential of incomprehensible truths, because we have not been for all time and will always infer for much of what we hope is explanatory of the universe. Similarly we can not reference the laws and orders by which life has developed and mathmatically holds consistency as the ”end all, be all” truth and explination of reality. ”It simply is” isn’t a a fair decimation of the empyrean. The burden of proof belongs to no one, because we simply can’t be omniscient. Much of what we believe is based upon scripted literature. Biased compositions, written not necessarily as manipulative manuscripts, but simply descripting a unilateral observation as truth. The small fraction of belief that follows from what we directly experience is too weak to avoid translation through these amalgamated unilateral scripts we have absorbed. Every thought, creation, outburst, and introversion is simply reference. Our acceptance or aversion of certain references doesn’t give our beliefs a more weighted or justified position. Your preferences of those who have doubted the physical or those who have doubted the spiritual should not face you against those in contrast. Edjucation is the development of mental strength but is followed by the swift consequence of newfound burdens of consciousness. To avoid this we often sway dogmatically, hoping to form some settlement with reality and his unforgiving vastness. We’re all one plinko peg of abuse, disillusion, isolation, or doubt away from settling safely amongst a unified belief. More than likely, if anyone could know everything they would find themselves too depressed to share any amount of wisdom. Unless of course they were not bound to the current limitations of the developed mind, but instead were at peace with the uncooperative nature of corporeal and immaterial. So what hope is there for us? The incomprehesible truths, I previously referenced. You know them by names like love and hope; mercy and beauty. They position themselves without a set of rules or pattern; illogically and with reason. Encompassing both the empircal and intuitive. They can be observed, measured, calculated, yet they can vanish or appear without warning. They can be felt physically and yet possess no corporeal form that we can grasp or contain. They develop and change, and yet remain true through this. No matter of cynicism need break them, for they will not cease to exist; one will simply deny themselves the peace of such things. The argument should have always been the perfect complexity of these hybrid(intuitive/empircal) truths and the incapacitable nature of their immaterial force is too beautiful to have developed without reason.