posted January 09, 2008 11:38 PM         

The few times I have said "fine and you" and I am not really fine I get this feeling in my stomach, a turning uncomfotable feeling that I will actually tell the person..."no, you know, I lied, I am not doing that great, but I will be better soon"

I don't know, I guess to me liying is so bad that I actually catch myself and change my answers just because I am that uncomfortable.

posted January 10, 2008 01:03 AM         

quote:

---

I get this feeling in my stomach, a turning uncomfotable feeling

---

quote:

---

I don't know, I guess to me liying is so bad that I actually catch myself and change my answers just because I am that uncomfortable.

---

quote:

---

even if it is just a stupid little lie.

---

posted January 10, 2008 03:52 AM         

Even sin itself is not black and white. So lies, which are based on the same thing that sin is based, a decision of the conscience and intention is not black and white either.

Many people see white lies as having good intentions. The good intention is love based if the intention is to spare the feelings of other people. What's more noble? The feeling that your honesty is still intact or the feelings of the other person? The first is self-serving intentions and the second is empathetic in that the person is willing to compromise their honesty a bit for the sake of anothers' feelings. I am not talking here about the extreme which would be telling others a white lie instead of what we feel they need to know for their own benefit, well-being and personal growth. Again, honesty, when to apply it and when to withhold, is a judgment call.

To say a lie is always a lie is black and white thinking. It is not always a lie if the person believes it to be true. Even though it may well not be true in reality but only based on their perception of things and people. What we believe to be truth or true is largely based on our perceptions. For that reason our truth may change over time given more evidence and information. So can what we think to be true about our world or other people and the events that happen in our life. Those "realities" can change over time.

If a person says something they believe at any given time to be true they are not lying, even if it isn't true in reality. They are not being dishonest either because they are speaking the truth as they know or think it to be.

So no, I don't hold the notion that a lie is always a lie. My thinking is not that black and white, either about what is seen as a sin by others or what is seen as a lie or being dishonest.

Dishonesty is lying deliberately, on purpose and usually for our own sake or benefit. It is never deliberate lying or deliberate dishonesty if the person believes it to be true. They are being honest by speaking the truth as they know it or perceive it to be at any given time in their lives.

Honesty is first and foremost meant to be directed at ourselves. It is always easier to see the flaws and faults of others than to be 100% honest with ourselves and not only see our own faults and flaws but be able to admit them to ourselves. We cannot possibly be always 100% honest with others and 100% authentic until we are first that way with ourselves.

In effect unless we are that way within ourselves first it is being dishonest and lying to say we are always, under all circumstances honest and authentic with other people.

posted January 10, 2008 05:36 AM         

I don't always succeed in being diplomatic though- quite often I can be the complete opposite of this, failing miserably after putting my great big foot in things.

But I think it's also important to remember that the way we view things is all down to perspective anyway;- is the cup half full or half empty?

Likewise, we can focus on the negative aspects of people and emphasize them along with emotions, or we can focus on the positive in people and uplift them.

I think judgment and criticism aren't helpful.
Advice offered in a wise manner can be.

posted January 10, 2008 06:08 AM         

quote:

---

But I think it's also important to remember that the way we view things is all down to perspective anyway;- is the cup half full or half empty?

---

That is a classic example on Reality and Truth. For a person who sees the cup as half empty,it is their reality. For someone who sees the cup as half full, it is their reality.

posted January 10, 2008 08:22 AM         

As for perceptual/relative truth, those are not always truth;
And those that are not actually true,
may not be viewed by all as a lie, they are still not the truth/reality. If it does not hold for all, and provable, it is not a truth.
For example,
one person says;
"Johnny Depp is hot!".
Well is it true?
For all?
If another says;
"Yucky..I think he looks stupid!"
Is Johnny now hot or does he look stupid?
Which person is right?
Then how about these two ask a third to confirm stupid or hot.
The third replies;
"I do not want to comment, I have my own views on the Johnny hot or stupid issue."
Is that person lying or being honest?
And is their unspoken view about Johnny true or again merely another opinion?
What if they base Johnny's looks on a scientific analysis of balance and form as to what is considered by most to be the most aesthetically pleasing? Is that view true or merely theory based on statistics and mathematical equations of form and balance?
No one can truly quantify Johnny's looks can they?
Even someone who is the model of human perfection may not be viewed by some as attractive, to them personally. Maybe they find so called imperfection beautiful. What is beauty?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is it not?
Or lets say Bobby is short for a guy, according to statistics and averages. Is Bobby really short?
Ben is taller than Bobby, so Bobby is "shorter" than Ben. Bert is shorter than both Ben and Bobby. So now is Bobby short or medium height?
Betty is very tall statistically for a woman. She is taller than two of the men. Is Betty tall?
Bonnie is shorter than all of them and thinks even Bobby and Bert are tall.
Who/what is the truth?
Or someone tells another;
I do not like Cindy, she is very bad.
She gave me this black eye and robbed me!
Is Cindy bad or is that just the other person's opinion?
Did Cindy strike them unprovoked or steal from them?
Or do they simply not like her because they
do not agree on things? Or got jealous when they saw her talking to someone they desired?
Lets say the other claims Cindy hit them.
But Cindy did not hit them. The other is attempting a frame up.
So the other is definitely lying and at that moment becomes a liar.
If it can be proven it is not a lie or opinion.
It is the truth.
Cindy knows the truth...
But if Cindy has no witnesses,
The other can slander Cindy, and some may believe the slanderer and some may not. It will depend on if they like Cindy or not.
The other may even get their friends to believe them and Cindy goes to jail for assault, as false witnesses are produced. But Cindy is still innocent of the assault.
Now if Cindy calls them liars, Cindy is telling the truth. But there is nothing Cindy can do about it.
This is why court cases are so difficult. Without physical proof, word of mouth and oaths are near to worthless.
So the other has a black eye, tells their buddies Cindy did it. Cindy has no alibi.
The others say they "saw her do it"...
So Cindy is basically screwed.
Yeah....
truth and honesty is still the best policy all around....
Now is that fact or an opinion?
It is logical.
And clean and clear and does not require weaving those tangled webs.
I was watching "Desperate Housewives",
a good example...in my opinion...of the little white lies that cascade into terribly complex messes after a time.

posted January 10, 2008 12:06 PM         

quote:

---

And both points of view are right.

---

posted January 10, 2008 02:05 PM         

Asking a question such as " Is Johnny Depp hot?" is not a good example of lying or telling the truth. Because whatever the response may be in that case it is just an opinion and opinions have nothing to do with being honest or telling the truth. They are just opinions. Any of our opinions at any given time are what we personally feel or think so how does it apply to lies and truth to say that I think that Johnny Depp is very hot?

Here is another scenario and one that often does apply to real life situations and experience.

If a person - just based on their own perceptions of an individual or a situation that happened with the other person - which may or may not be the way it really happened but instead just the way they perceived it - then passes on their views and perceptions to other people about this person and what happened, is that telling lies? Is that spreading lies? My answer would be, not if the person actually believes that what they are telling others is the truth.

I ask because in this scenario you are only going by your own perceptions and therefore may be twisting and distorting the reality of the person and the whole situation. In that sense you are actually passing on erronous and possibly character damaging information to others that has no bearing on the actual reality of either the person or the situation.

So are you telling lies and being dishonest or not? I say no, not if you believe it to be true. Not if you actually percieve the person or the situation as your reality. You are not deliberately and with malice telling lies about the person or the situation because it is how you see it in your mind. We do create our own realities which become truth to us. Even though it is not true reality.

So once again, when it comes to truth, and always telling the truth, that is relative and based on our perceptions of what is truth. Not necessarily on reality.

It sometimes helps to put yourself in the place of other people and try to understand that how you would feel is most probably how they would feel as well.

Is it always under all circumstances necessary to tell other people exactly what we think of them without regard for their feelings? Is it always a lie if we don't? Because to not say anything is actually an omission of what we actually feel and think about a person and to say something nice to them when we don't actually mean it is a white lie. What is most important here, our direct honesty or the feelings of the other person? Depends on the circumstances.

I don't think it matters to the other person how "tactfully" you tell them they are not pretty or they are overweight or whatever. What should their reaction be to that, " thank you for being honest and tactful in hurting my feelings and making me feel like nothing?" Does knowing that the other person was only being honest make you feel any better over what they said? That is something to think about when applying your direct honesty to other people.

To me, it is putting ourself above the feelings of someone else. Your feeling that you are always under all circumstances - black and white - no grey areas - honest will be intact. However, it is intact at the expense of hurting someone else and I don't see how anyone can be self-satisfied under those circumstances.

I don't like lying either. But many people who say they personally don't like lying - if they really are being 100% honest - will be able to admit that they actually don't like it when others are honest with them and tell them something they don't want to hear about themselves or their behavior or whatever it may be.

Truthfully and honestly I don't like it when someone tells me something about myself or a situation as if it were the truth when in actuality I know it to be only based on their perception of me and what I said or did and then dishonestly refuse to listen when I tell them otherwise. That just tells me they are using honesty as a guise to attack and attempt to discredit my character.

Truthfully I only want someone's honesty applied to me when it is helpful to me and to them. Most people who apply their honesty to others do not like it when the other person is honest in return to them. They don't like it when the other person is honest in telling them they are wrong and perceiving the situation wrongly. There is never a mutual giving and taking of honesty in those situations. If a person is going to be honest with me and claim to value honesty so highly, then they should in return respect my being honest with them. Most often they don't respect my honesty if it repudiates what they believe to be true.

Love means under certain circumstances in life we may be willing for the sake of others to compromise. True love, unconditional love, does require a willingness to compromise. The reason there are so many divorces these days is that people refuse to compromise for the sake of the other. They refuse to bend an inch when it may be needed for the sake of the relationship. Of course, because there is a tendency on these boards to take what someone says to the extreme, I will clarify I do not mean compromising our morals or our individuality as a person. I mean being flexible and willing to compromise on what may be a very little thing in the whole bigger picture. Our morals never change. Our values can change.

Life and people are too complicated to place any absolute black and white, either/or kind of thinking on. There are always grey areas in both. There are always times when the direct truth may have to be applied and there are always times when we need to compromise and bend a little in both our thinking and actions.

When it comes to honesty with others and when to apply it and when not to apply it, that is the one time when following the "Golden Rule" should apply. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." If you can't handle their honesty, don't ask for it. If you are going to be directly honest, you better be willing to accept that direct honesty in return.

Truth is that most people I have encountered in life who may claim to highly value my honesty actually don't value it at all when they get it. Though I have honestly met a few who can and those people I do cherish. My husband is one of them which makes him a keeper to me and someone who I do make compromises for. But even if he asked me to give up my morals or something I highly value (such as God) for him, I would not compromise for his sake or the sake of the relationship.

posted January 10, 2008 02:44 PM         

quote:

---

We do create our own realities which become truth to us. Even though it is not true reality.

---

quote:

---

So once again, when it comes to truth, and always telling the truth, that is relative and based on our perceptions of what is truth. Not necessarily on reality.

---

Perhaps introspection is needed as to why one would choose the "Matrix" over the world of the real in communications.

Perhaps folks would in time learn to trust if they knew they were never being given false
feedback for any reason.

That created false reality is where communications fall apart.
No one is any longer on the same page.
How can they be, when either one or all have different ideas all in their mind, their self deception reality of what is true and what is not?
Add to the mix anyone who adheres to the actual reality facts and communications fall apart even more.

I do not know what the fix is for any of this dilemma except for no one to live in and communicate from their false reality created in their individual minds.

I am still trying to figure out why anybody would desire to live in and communicate from
a false reality created in their mind that may or may not bear any actual relationship to the world and facts of the real world.
That is self defeating, pointless and contributes virtually nothing to honest and true interactions.
Illogical.
Illogical.
Illogical.

quote:

---

It is not a lie in any circumstance or scenario if the person actually believes it to be the truth.

---

And the following mindset will hurt others badly and malign the innocent.
Wars have begun by such thinking.

quote:

---

We do create our own realities which become truth to us. Even though it is not true reality.

---

quote:

---

So once again, when it comes to truth, and always telling the truth, that is relative and based on our perceptions of what is truth. Not necessarily on reality.

---

quote:

---

It is not a lie in any circumstance or scenario if the person actually believes it to be the truth.

---

quote:

---

If a person - just based on their own perceptions of an individual or a situation that happened with the other person - which may or may not be the way it really happened but instead just the way they perceived it -

---

quote:

---

then passes on their views and perceptions to other people about this person and what happened, is that telling lies? Is that spreading lies?

---

quote:

---

My answer would be, not if the person actually believes that what they are telling others is the truth.

---

quote:

---

I ask because in this scenario you are only going by your own perceptions and therefore may be twisting and distorting the reality of the person and the whole situation. In that sense you are actually passing on erronous and possibly character damaging information to others that has no bearing on the actual reality of either the person or the situation.

---

quote:

---

So are you telling lies and being dishonest or not? I say no, not if you believe it to be true. Not if you actually percieve the person or the situation as your reality. You are not deliberately and with malice telling lies about the person or the situation because it is how you see it in your mind. We do create our own realities which become truth to us. Even though it is not true reality.

---

quote:

---

So once again, when it comes to truth, and always telling the truth, that is relative and based on our perceptions of what is truth. Not necessarily on reality.

---

posted January 11, 2008 10:43 PM         

We were not discussing absolute truths in the posts previous to my response. We were discussing relative truth. My responses were discussing relative truth which is our truths based on our own perceptions. Thus that is what I was discussing in my replies.

The trick is in determing what the reality truths are as compared to what truths are based on our own conceptions and perceptions of reality. Which may not be accurate at all but instead distorted by our psyches. The human mind plays a lot of tricks on us. That is why any determination of what is absolute truth compared to what is relative truth has to be based on soul intropection and a life of prayer or meditation. Our minds alone can trick us. Since God is The Absolute only absolute truths can come to us from God and the spiritual. All else is relative. Relative to our individual perceptions which take form from our psyche. "Now I see through a mirror dimly. But then I shall see face to face."

I see nothing illogical in anything I stated about relative truths. We do create our own realities. Our own realities of everything, including God. It may be closer to the truth to say that just as God created humanity in his own image, humanity has also created God in their own images. Not to mention everything and everyone else.

So I totally agree with what you said, valcap.

posted January 11, 2008 11:01 PM         

I never said the person " believes" they are not lying. I said they actually believe it to be the truth. They are speaking the truth as they believe it to be.

For that reason they are not lying because it is the truth to them. They are honesty telling the truth as they know and believe it to be. Even though it may not be actual reality at all but only their perception of reality.

It is for this reason that I said that we all lie and no one is 100% honest in all circumstances. I guess you could say in that case the person is lying but they don't know it, aren't at all aware of it. So that does not make them dishonest because they are not culpable of anything they are not consciously aware of.

Actually though you could say no one really lies if they are telling the truth as they perceive it to be. No one is dishonest if they truly believe it to be the truth. It is only lies when they know it is not true. It is only dishonest when they know it is not true and tell it anyway. It is then culpable and deliberate lying and dishonesty.

These are the grey areas of both honesty and sin. How culpable is the person? Even when it comes to sin we do not sin because we are attracted to evil. We sin because we find some good in it. How culpable a person is when it comes to lying or dishonesty depends on how consciously aware the person is of the true reality as opposed to their own perception of the reality.

posted January 11, 2008 11:07 PM         

Opinion/belief

Not absolute.

The definitions of true and false/lies/truth
are fairly clear.

quote:

---

false (fôls)
adj. fals·er, fals·est
1. Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.
2. Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath.
3. Arising from mistaken ideas: false hopes of writing a successful novel.
4. Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises.
5. Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend. See Synonyms at faithless.
6. Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents.
7. Erected temporarily, as for support during construction.
8. Resembling but not accurately or properly designated as such: a false thaw in January; the false dawn peculiar to the tropics.
9. Music Of incorrect pitch.
10. Unwise; imprudent: Don't make a false move or I'll shoot.
11. Computer Science Indicating one of two possible values taken by a variable in Boolean logic or a binary device.
adv.
In a treacherous or faithless manner: play a person false.
[Middle English fals, from Old English, counterfeit, and from Old French, false, both from Latin falsus, from past participle of fallere, to deceive.]

---

quote:

---

true (tr)
adj. tru·er, tru·est
1.
a. Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous. See Synonyms at real1. See Usage Note at fact.
b. Truthful.
2. Real; genuine. See Synonyms at authentic.
3. Reliable; accurate: a true prophecy.
4. Faithful, as to a friend, vow, or cause; loyal. See Synonyms at faithful.
5. Sincerely felt or expressed; unfeigned: true grief.
6. Fundamental; essential: his true motive.
7. Rightful; legitimate: the true heir.
8. Exactly conforming to a rule, standard, or pattern: trying to sing true B.
9. Accurately shaped or fitted: a true wheel.
10. Accurately placed, delivered, or thrown.
11. Quick and exact in sensing and responding.
12. Determined with reference to the earth's axis, not the magnetic poles: true north.
13. Conforming to the definitive criteria of a natural group; typical: The horseshoe crab is not a true crab.
14. Narrowly particularized; highly specific: spoke of probity in the truest sense of the word.
15. Computer Science Indicating one of two possible values taken by a variable in Boolean logic or a binary device.
adv.
1. In accord with reality, fact, or truthfulness.
2. Unswervingly; exactly: The archer aimed true.
3. So as to conform to a type, standard, or pattern.
tr.v. trued, tru·ing or true·ing, trues
To position (something) so as to make it balanced, level, or square: trued up the long planks.
n.
1. Truth or reality. Used with the.
2. Proper alignment or adjustment: out of true.
[Middle English trewe, from Old English trowe, firm, trustworthy; see deru- in Indo-European roots.]

---

Manipulating the definitions in one's created just in their own mind and not in reality...does not alter the standard definitions.

posted January 11, 2008 11:20 PM         

quote:

---

I never said the person " believes" they are not lying. I said they actually believe it to be the truth. They are speaking the truth as they believe it to be.

For that reason they are not lying because it is the truth to them. They are honesty telling the truth as they know and believe it to be. Even though it may not be actual reality at all but only their perception of reality.

It is for this reason that I said that we all lie and no one is 100% honest in all circumstances. I guess you could say in that case the person is lying but they don't know it, aren't at all aware of it. So that does not make them dishonest because they are not culpable of anything they are not consciously aware of.

Actually though you could say no one really lies if they are telling the truth as they perceive it to be. No one is dishonest if they truly believe it to be the truth. It is only lies when they know it is not true. It is only dishonest when they know it is not true and tell it anyway. It is then culpable and deliberate lying and dishonesty.

These are the grey areas of both honesty and sin. How culpable is the person? Even when it comes to sin we do not sin because we are attracted to evil. We sin because we find some good in it. How culpable a person is when it comes to lying or dishonesty depends on how consciously aware the person is of the true reality as opposed to their own perception of the reality.

Many times people may lie through no fault of their own or no bad intention or not because they are just dishonest by nature. Because it is the truth as they see it. It is being honest as they see it.

---

quote:

---

From a psychiatric point of view, lying is simply a type of behavior, albeit a complex one, that demands an appreciation of the abstract concept of truth. What makes a behavior psychiatrically abnormal is not its degree or its purpose, but the extent to which the individual has power over it.

---

quote:

---

The fact that a behavior may cause the individual more harm than good and that there does not seem to be a rational reason for it may be indicators of psychiatric morbidity, but neither is necessary or sufficient to establish a disorder. What these indicators suggest, however, is an apparent lack of control. For pathological lying to exist, therefore, the individual must lie despite himself, just as someone with an anxiety disorder cannot help feeling anxious.

---

quote:

---

If this formulation is right, then there are no pathological lies, only pathological liars.

---

quote:

---

And whether or not this is primary or secondary to another condition, it suggests a disorder that is either compulsive in nature or something akin to an impulse control disorder. Although if it is true that some or all pathological liars are in fact unaware of their lies, something more fundamentally organic seems likely. Without evidence of compulsivity, excessive impulsivity, or brain dysfunction, habitual lying, no matter how grand, is not a symptom, syndrome, or diagnosis, but just plain lying.

Given the inherent difficulty in relying on self-report in these individuals, a productive approach might be to use polygraphy to examine the pathological liar’s physiological responses to lying. Although polygraphy is not 100 percent accurate in identifying either liars or truth-tellers, its accuracy rate is believed to fall within the range of 81 to 91 percent,15 sufficient for a study of this nature. The key aspect of the polygraph examination is not, as some believe, that subjects should feel anxious when telling a lie, but rather that they recognize they are lying and that the aim of the examination is not to be caught doing so. If pathological liars regularly "beat" the polygraph, then this would suggest either that

they do not perceive themselves to be lying,

or that they are particularly good at using countermeasures.

We know very little about pathological liars. We may think we can recognize one when we see one, but without a better understanding of the phenomenology of the condition we cannot even say with certainty that it exists as a pathological entity. Questions involving their responsibility for the lies they tell or their fitness to plead can therefore at present be answered only speculatively and based on opinion, which will be heavily influenced by examiners’ psychiatric biases (that is, whether they come from a psychodynamic, psychological, or biological tradition), their moral views on the nature of lying, and the extent to which they are willing to stray beyond the limited evidence available.

---

posted January 12, 2008 10:50 AM         

Theory of truth

Wilber argues that there are multiple aspects to existence, and that each has its own truth-standard, or test for validity, as follows:[citation needed]
Interior Exterior
Individual Standard: Truthfulness
(sincerity, integrity, trustworthiness) Standard: Truth
(correspondence, representation, propositional)
Collective Standard: Justness
(cultural fit, rightness, mutual understanding) Standard: Functional fit
(systems theory web, structural-functionalism, social systems mesh)

1. Exterior individual - "We check to see if the proposition corresponds with or fits the facts, if the map accurately reflects the real [exterior] territory... if we cannot disprove it we may assume it is accurate enough. But the essential idea is that... my statement somehow refers to an objective state of affairs, and it fairly accurately somehow corresponds with those objects or processes or affairs. [...] All of which is fair enough and important enough, and I in no way deny the general importance of empirical representation. It's just not the whole story..."
2. Interior individual - if we look at the actual interior of an individual [entity], then we have an entirely different type of validity claim. The question here is not, is it raining outside? The question here is, When I tell you it is raining outside, am I telling you the truth or am I lying? You see, here it is not so much a question of whether the map matches the objective territory, but whether the mapmaker can be trusted.... you can always check and see if it's raining... Interior events are located in states of consciousness, not in objective states of affairs, and so you can't empirically nail them down with simple consensus location. I might lie to you. I might lie to myself. I might misrepresent and not know it."
3. Interior collective - "The subjective world is situated in an intersubjective space, a cultural space... without this cultural background... I wouldn't have the tools to interpret my own thoughts to myself. So here the validity claim is not so much objective propositional truth, or subjective truthfulness, but intersubjective fit. This cultural background provides the common context against which my own interior thoughts and beliefs will have some sort of meaning, and so the validity criteria here involves the "cultural fit" [of a statement] within this background... What is so remarkable about common understanding is not that I can take a simple word like "dog" and point to a real dog and say "I mean that." What is so remarkable is that you know what I mean by that. [So it is] a matter of how we arrange collectively, our ethics, morals, laws, culture, group or collective identities, background contexts..."
4. Exterior collective - "The main validity claim is functional fit, how entities fit together in a system... So in systems theory you will find nothing about ethical standards, values, morals, mutual understanding, truthfulness, sincerity, depth, integrity, aesthetics... It describes the system in purely objective exterior terms, from without. It doesn't want to know how collective values are intersubjectively shared in mutual understanding. Rather, it looks at how their objective correlates functionally fit in the overall system."

posted January 12, 2008 01:28 PM         

"All four of these are valid forms of knowledge, because they are grounded in the realities of the nature of every holon. And therefore all four of these truth claims can be confirmed or rejected by a community of the adequate [those competent in that knowledge]. They each have a different validity claim which carefully guides us, through checks and balances, on our knowledge quest. They are all falsifiable within their own domains, which means false claims can be dislodged by further evidence...."[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber