Pure Free Thought.
It is not what we think, but the way we think that matters. Thoughts are ephemeral, constantly shifting, but the type of reasoning one uses only changes in response to extreme circumstances or a result of some kind of training. Training yourself to think more clearly has greater ramifications than you might imagine. Actions are usually the results of thoughts, and vice versa. Changing your way of thinking, will change the way you behave. Clear thoughts lead to more positive outcomes, and positive outcomes make it easier to think clearly. This does not just affect you, but everyone around you. Good sense is infectious. The opposite effect can be seen with muddy thinking which leads to confusion and indecision, which in turns leads to poorly considered actions. Here we have two circles of consciousness, the virtuous circle of clear thinking, the vicious circle of opaque thinking. The two are quite separate and cause movement in opposite directions. The first is the path of evolution and progress, the second the path to decline. You cannot go both ways at once both at once. The same is true of society.
The truth stands alone. It does not need to be separated from falsehood. There is no truth in falsehood, and no falsehood in truth. ‘Grey’ areas are an artificial concept created by dark leaders to confuse the unwary. Truth and falsehood cannot mix and that which is ‘part true’ is really just falsehood. Yet, truth can never accurately be defined, as no measure is truly accurate. That a kilo weight, weighs, very nearly one kilo, is a true statement. That a kilo weight weighs exactly one kilo is not. An exact kilo weight is only possible in the world of mathematics. In the phenomenal world truth is always an approximation. This is why quantifiers are vital in free thinking.
Each class of objects has its own parameters of truth according to its usage. The kilo weights used by traders are not as accurate as the ones used in a laboratory. The difference in size of eggs is a very important issue, but one easily solved. Three nice little ‘rule of thumb’ quantifiers; small, medium and large do the job perfectly. As long as there are chickens there will always be eggs and eggs can always be graded as small, medium and large. Provided an object is within the parameters required by its use that is good enough. Objects, or ideas used with the correct quantifier are like little nuggets of truth.
Quantifiers can be as accurate as needed. A barrel of beer should be almost ‘completely’ full and , ‘not quite full’ is not good enough. Then we must go into further detail. How much less than full are they? Time for a statistic; say, 20% less. Many people mistake a statistic for a real number, there are exact percentages of course, but mostly they are not used that way. 75% is just a way of saying ‘most’, 90% is the same as ‘nearly all and so on. The important thing is not to confuse real mathematical percentages and a quantifier percentage. 20% off must mean what it says, but 75% of people support the government will be an approximation. In the media a percentage is really just a flag to wave and its connection to reality is not that important.
I have read in many times that there are tribes who don’t use numbers. They count up to ten then everything is else is ‘many’. I bet, they use quantifiers though. A hunter comes back to village and says “There many antelopes on the ridge”. The other hunters ask if there are a lot than more yesterday. The first replies, ‘not a lot, two, three.’ With accurate quantifiers and just few numbers you find out the truth you need to know.
The truth is not defined by exact measure but by the nature of a thing. No two apples are identical, but they are still apples. An apple is an apple and can never be a peach. There is no one measure of ‘appleness’, and you cannot say one apple has 75% ‘appleness’ and another only 65%. Color, size, fragrance, texture and flavor define an apple. The problem of defining an apple is easily solved, pick it up and take a bite. Truth is still an absolute even though you cannot define it exactly and just because someone tells you an orange is an apple does not make it in any way true.
Now we see that truth is question of sovereignty. Each thing, each creature, each plant is sovereign, that is how we tell them apart. I do not need to measure my friend to know who he is. It is from the ‘wholeness’ of something that we confirm it’s identity. This is quite different to computers. Computer face recognition depends on measurements. This serves the purpose of basic identification, but tells little more. The computer can only what it is programmed to find. When I recognize someone as a whole being I can draw a wealth of information from my observation, not just what I looking for. That is the beauty of sovereignty like truth, it can never be accurately defined, but it is all the more real because of that.