Metaphor and Truth

I'm weird.

When I write I usually don't have a problem starting. I open this door inside me and the words just flow. I usually have a problem stopping. I'll be deep in the flow of words and realize I need to wrap it up or it'll just go on indefinitely.

But this time I am having a problem knowing where to start.

So I'm just going to start with a couple definitions and principles that are at the core of what is to follow. Needless to say I will likely have to repeat these things from time to time, but if you can keep these things in mind when reading the rest of the papers things will definitely make more sense. 

First of all, we have a problem with language. This problem is a very big deal. It is very pervasive, which is a word that means everywhere we look we can find a part of this problem. 

It is also subtle, which is a word that means that we have a tendency to think that the parts of this problem we do find are not that important: They slip beneath our notice. 

And its a problem on multiple levels, by which I mean that it is a problem from our most fundamental levels of life to our most advanced concepts and beliefs.

Language is a metaphor. Every word we use, every syntax or context we understand, its all a metaphor. It is not the truth. The truth is the concept we are describing with our language, the language itself is not the truth.

For example, if I say “table” or “mesa” it doesn't change what I'm talking about. It was here before I got here, and will be here after I leave. It doesn't change how it acts like a table, nor does it change the appearance of the table. If I tell you my laptop right now is sitting on a table, you will have an image or an understanding of some sort of platform holding up my laptop to the proper height and keeping it from falling, but the actual representation of the table in your mind is not going to be the same as the one in my mind or anyone else's, nor will it likely be what is actually present in reality. Reality being the table I am looking at right now under my laptop.

But it is enough for us to communicate. And that, ultimately is the purpose of language. To communicate. Whenever we try to change reality with our language its a lie. Its kinda what a lie is. Being honest includes being honest about the limitations of our language and our understanding of language.

So let's be honest. If you get a hundred Christians in a room and ask them to define what Christianity is, you will not get ONE definition. That is just a fact. You would be likely to get more like 250 definitions out of a hundred people. A hundred definitions that we apply to ourselves, a hundred different definitions we apply to others, and a miscellany of other definitions that people understand or believe in but do not subscribe to; or are in the process of refining and adopting.

The same with just about any word or concept in the world you can think of. That's just the way it is. Our definitions are close enough that we can communicate, but we have to admit that there is no one on this planet that accepts reality with the same understanding that we do.

And so what happens is that when we have deep meaningful conversations, about 50% of the conversation is semantics. Half the conversation is about us agreeing on what our words mean. Sometimes if its a “teaching” type conversation it can be more than 50%, sometimes if its a continuing conversation it can be less because we will use words that we've already agreed upon.

Having said that, I would like to point out that whether its a translation study, or a language study, or contextual reading, we still have the same problem. We are simply trading one assumption for another, but its still an assumption. This is why literal and/or legalistic interpretation of the Bible creates problems. It's like looking at the world with one eye. You can still see the shapes and colors and beauty of the world, in fact you can still see it using either eye. But without BOTH eyes there's no depth, things are only two dimensional.

What makes it more effective is to see things in three dimensions. AND to be able to conceptualize the place objects hold and their significance in a three dimensional “space” in our understanding. Its not that the two dimensional picture is wrong, its that the three dimensional picture is richer, more robust, more REAL.

And that brings us to what I think is a good place to start: Truth.

For the purpose of our discussions let me make a few points about “truth” so that we can start on the same page. I've already explained how “truth” is different from language or metaphor.

The first point I'd like to make is something that is central to understanding God. The first maxim I will present is this:

“Nothing unreal exists.”

Think about that for a minute. If something exists, its real. If something is real, then it must exist. Merely not having experienced something does not make it unreal, nor does having experienced something make it completely real. This is exemplified in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis when he talks about thinking that all swans are white, until you see a black one. Experience can lie.

Furthermore, there's this thing called perception. Perception is unconscious. “Managing perception” used to be the battle cry of a job I used to hold. It meant to act or behave in a way that pleased the client. But if we look at it critically it basically means to “lie”. If our perception of anything occurs without our conscious knowledge, then the things we perceive we don't really have the control over that we assume we do. If we did, we would be immune to illusions, or lies. So once again, experiences can lie.

So where does that leave us? If truth simply “is”, but how we experience what "is" can be untrue, how can we know what truth is?

The reason I make this point has to do with a very critical concept related to understanding “truth”. It has to do with humility and acceptance. The danger is in the importance we place on what we label truth.

The very sobering realization is that anytime we insist that something we have experienced or something that we know is true, well its the insistence that is the problem, its the importance we put on that something that is the only thing we have control over.

So I'm going to say something that will immediately be unacceptable to some: The crucifix is just a piece of wood or metal. The only importance it has is the importance we put on it. I can provide a great deal of evidence in history and etymology and theology that supports this assertion. But there are some that will immediately reject the assertion and everything else that I say because of this one assertion. No where did I say it was bad... in fact the statement I said could actually make the importance of significance of the crucifix greater. The perception just happened.

The thing about illusions or lies, and perception, is that they often rely on this difference in depth. The difference between something “two dimensional and three dimensional” in a metaphorical sense. Seeing something on a two dimensional image that appears to be three dimensional is an “optical” illusion, one that uses our perception to appear to be something that its not. Without our conscious effort to include other factors like the knowledge its on a piece of two dimensional paper, we would be fooled.

The second point I'd like to make is about contrast. Sometimes we understand truth by what contrasts with it. Now in this case I am not saying that what is contrasting with truth is untruth, because it still exists. So my use of the word “contrast” in this context should not be taken to mean an opposite member in the sense of real and unreal.

What I mean by this is that we can better understand what is by defining what it is not.

If you study and examine every Christian denominational doctrine, from Catholicism to Moony-ism, you will notice a contrast that is at the core of every system. This is the contrast between the attraction of the image of God vs. the repulsion of the definition of sin. Each helps to make the other real.

Now I thought about that sentence, I didn't just blurt it out. Each word is important. How each system defines sin is the object of the repulsion; just as what image is perceived to be “of God” is the attraction of the system.

The last point I would like to make about Truth in this first paper is the subject of context. The maxim is: “Text without context is false”; but this maxim applies to much more than merely text. It also speaks to one of the problems we have with a mutual understanding of truth.

For example: As alluded to before, experience lies and yet our understanding of truth comes directly from this experiential framework. The application of context to the situation will always increase understanding. In the example with the swans, before we experienced a black swan it was “true” that all swans were white. After experiencing a black swan we can state that our previous belief was incomplete, that time and reality was larger than our experiences had been to that date.

But if we are critically honest with ourselves we will admit that the black swan existed before we experienced it, therefore it was us that was in the wrong, that reality and therefore truth had not changed one whit.

The trick is to keep this lesson in the heart of every truth we have or will have.

The problems begin whenever we assume that any truth we hold is the absolute truth.