To truly understand plasma, we almost need to suspend what we think we know about it.
And, in today’s pursuit of truth, we’ll go beyond plasma.
Truth By Inches (Full Presentation)
If we experience truth in an instant, do we wonder if an alternate truth would have been possible if we were moving a little more slowly and a little more intentionally?
Do our intentions change when we experience a truth in an instant? Because we’re left with an uneasiness about the outcome and how we got there.
On the other hand, do we avoid intentions that might heighten our fear or cause us to be puzzled more than we are, or render us awestruck by the wonder of an unexpected reality?
Do we avoid intentions that might lead us to experience truth by inches?
Embracing Mystery, Uncovering Truth
The benefit of opening the window between science and myth is to allow all of the generations to inform one another. By refusing to write off the observations, experiences, and imagination of the ages as merely ignorant, backward or stupid, we open up the possibility of something brand new from sources that we’ve too easily branded as old and irrelevant.
We can go from just believing everything on our side of the window, and believing nothing on the other side, to exploring the possibilities that just looking through the window might bring.
If we’re motivated to explore these possibilities, we don’t have to accept myth as pure fact. We simply have to be willing to engage myth as a kind of imaginative expression of fact.
In this video, Frederick Tamagi explores why sciences have increasingly begun investigating myth as new alternative sources for the very facts that fuel science.
TQP 003: The Context of Truth
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
We can choose to examine a faraway object in the night sky with binoculars or a telescope. Or we can choose to examine a very tiny object with a magnifying glass or a microscope. Sometimes we don’t intentionally choose the option that will provide more clarity. Sometimes it’s just easier not to.
Like Alice in Wonderland, will you choose to chase after the white rabbit? What will you discover when you examine truth using a tool that matches the object you are exploring?
The third TQ podcast features highlights from our third gathering in November. You’ll hear clips from our presenter Frederick Tamagi, as well as music from Jonathan Ferguson who reveals the meanings behind his well-written songs.
Thank you for listening!
What questions will you be taking with you after listening to this episode?
We encourage you to connect with us via social media:
We look forward to interacting with you.
Why “The Question?” Pt. 2
The search for truth isn’t just about our curiosity. It’s also about our cynicism.
Many people today are in search of truth, but they are also cautious. They tend to reject anyone or anything that claims to be the authority on truth.
Cynicism can oftentimes overshadow our curiosity. People want to be personally responsible for their understanding and knowledge of truth. They want to initiate their own search without pressure.
In this video, presenter Frederick Tamagi discusses the parallel that exists between curiosity and cynicism in our individual pursuit of truth.
Men are probably nearer the central truth in their superstitions than in their science. – Henry David Thoreau
Men are probably nearer the central truth in their superstitions than in their science. – Henry David Thoreau
Henry David Thoreau probably needs little introduction. He was a transcendentalist, an author, a poet, a philosopher, a historian – and much more than that – in the 19th century.
He is probably most known for his book Walden, which explored the idea of simple living in natural surroundings.
What prompted him to say that men are closer to truth in their superstitions than in their science? What did he mean by that?
Was he suggesting that our intuitions are better at sensing truth than what can be proven through science? Or was he being sarcastic or facetious?
There are several different ways of defining the word, “superstition”, but among them are “irrational fear of the unknown” or “a blindly accepted belief.”
Was Thoreau really saying that beliefs not based in reason or knowledge could be truer than our scientific findings?
What do you think? What was Thoreau really getting at? Why did he conclude that our superstitions are nearer the truth than science?
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. – André Gide
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. – André Gide
André Gide was a French novelist, essayist, and dramatist. A Nobel Prize winner in Literature, many see his novels as his most important works.
Gide’s works often centered around values. He continually challenged his own thinking, even through the works that he published.
One can only wonder what made him conclude that those who claim to be finders of truth are to be doubted.
Is he suggesting that truth isn’t findable? Did he mean to say that there are no absolutes when it comes to “truth”? Is he saying that no man or woman could ever fully know the truth?
Maybe what he’s saying is that truth-seekers are actually closer to truth than those who say they’ve found it. Maybe he had once found “truth”, but decided to challenge his own thinking, and found something else entirely.
What do you think? What was Gide trying to say here? Why did he conclude that truth-seekers were worth believing, but truth-finders were to be doubted?