I will now demonstrate why we must accept that truth is knowable at least insomuch as our imperfections allow it. It is evident that we are able to reveal truth with some level of accuracy because by that same level of accuracy, we are able to predict the future. If truth was not knowable, we would have no predictive capacity whatsoever. In fact, I would posit that knowledge of truth and predictive capacity are essentially synonymous, in that they are directly proportional. A clear example of this is the pursuit of science. Science can be said to be the pursuit of physical truth, and can in fact predict the future as much as it has revealed the underlying truth. For example, the kinematic equations allow us to assign quantitative descriptions of motions, and can in fact predict the nature of motion as much as the terms in the formuli are accurate and as much as the formuli themselves account for the relevant factors.

If one can accept the proportionality between truth and knowledge, as measured by “predictability,” then we may extrapolate this further:

1. Knowledge can reveal truth, and this can be verified by predictions.
2. More verified knowledge can reveal more truth.
3. The theoretical upper limit of knowledge is omniscience.
4. All knowledge, or omniscience, can reveal all truth.
5. Therefore, all truth is “knowable.”

Obviously, this is a cursory inspection of a deeply complex topic, yet I believe it is a vital precept to further philosophical contemplation. I also anticipate that this conclusion will have further implications and will need further nuance. For instance, if an omniscient being can predict the future, how does this reconcile with free will? Before that is addressed, I will have to establish the nuance between physical and metaphysical truth and how they are related. For the time being, I will leave this entry nice and succinct, with a brief summary below:

• All that exists must be based in truth, regardless of our human perception.
• Human perception is naturally imperfect, as it is subject to constraints in time, space, and mental capacity.
• Humans are able to reveal aspects of truth, and this can be proven by our ability to predict those aspects of the future.
• If all aspects of truth were known, then all aspects of the future would be known, thus existence is knowable.

Waiting for the words to come
Waiting for the orbs to run around the sky
Looking for the answers to
The things we thought we knew but couldn’t reason why

All we know
Is what our bodies think is so
Perceived by what our minds believe

I try to wrap my head around
The infinite expanding bounds of time and space
I think about eternity
About increasing entropy and sense of place

All we are
Is matter from the stars above
Endowed with cognizance and love

I was wrong when I said I knew what I was speaking of
And you were wrong when you said you knew what I was thinking of
And I was wrong, but so were you

I don’t know when I’m truly right
‘Cause nothing’s ever black and white best I can tell
I live my life the best I can
I try to be an honest man who’s doing well

All I see
Are people wanting to be free to
Make mistakes and catch some breaks

Our time of cognizance is brief
A speck of time before the grief of parting ways
And I just wanna know it all
To figure out the words to scrawl upon my grave

All I do
Won’t matter when I’m to depart
But weighs on all the nearby hearts

And I was wrong when I said I knew what I was waiting for
And you were wrong when you said you knew what I was living for
And God was wrong when he said the world was made in seven days
We all know that it’s been four and half billion years
And God was wrong when he told Abraham to kill his son
We all know that it’s wrong to kill a fellow human being
And if God was wrong then what chance to we have of ever being close to right
And I don’t know anything but I think I’m gonna be alright
And you don’t know anything about my soul, about my life
And we don’t know anything but I think we’re gonna be just fine

Accept what you will never know but learn the things that help you grow
Enjoy the only life you own before you body turns to stone

And I was wrong when I said I knew what I was speaking of
‘Cause I don’t know anything but I think I’m gonna be okay
And you don’t know anything but I think you’re gonna be okay
We don’t know anything but I think we’re gonna be okay
And I was wrong, but so were you

In reference to an earlier post, “The Dichotomy Of The Universe,” I discuss what I consider to be the compliments of existence: math and art, exactness and abstractness, or physical and spiritual. As I have previously claimed, everything in existence is composed of these two compliments in some form or another and politics is no exception. Politics has tangibility- facts, figures, costs, debt, statistics, and other properties that physically define the parameters of a given viewpoint. The reason though that these are not substantial in order to objectively reach a conclusion is that so much of it is intangible as well. Certain things make us feel a certain way and many of our political beliefs are deeply rooted in our philosophical or theological beliefs. As such, they cannot be proven or disproven, and in fact often result in simply a difference in a particular root opinion that can be proven neither right nor wrong.

Let’s take for example the abortion debate. The “pro-choicers” want to kill babies and the “pro-lifers” want to strip women of control over their bodies. This is the typical vitriolic dichotomy that pits one side irrevocably against the other. However, even a cursory scratch beneath the surface will reveal the root of the dilemma. Yet, this scratch requires that we allow our opponents the slightest courtesy of not demonizing each other and assuming the very worst intentions. Do “pro-choicers” believe that murder should go unpunished, as the “pro-lifers” often claim? Almost certainly not, if I can be so bold to say. Is the “pro-lifer’s” intention that a woman forfeits her right to determine her health and state-of-being? Again, I really do not believe that this is the primary intention of most “pro-lifers.” So what is at the root of this debate?

The only source I can see are the fundamental questions of ‘what is life?’ and ‘when does it begin?’. Well not only is that a matter of semantics, but furthermore a function of your own opinions, which cannot be objectively proven or disproven. There is no scientific consensus on the issue, and what’s more, there never will be. The semantical argument is all in the definition of life, which could just as well be defined by Merriam Webster as it could by a scientist, a theologian, a philosopher, or you or me. Some definitions include computer viruses as life and others exclude mules (both as a result of their reproductive capabilities).

If a “pro-choicer” were to believe that life was defined at the fertilization of an egg, then he would rationally believe that abortion is murder, and if a “pro-lifer” were to believe that life began at birth, or perhaps at self-sustenance, then abortion would be nothing more than a medical procedure. That is fundamentally the only difference in the controversy, yet it continues to fuel so much vitriol in our political discourse. Of course if the issue is to be consistently legislated, then at some point an arbitrary decision regarding the eternal question of life has to be made, and this would be of great concern to the side that fell on the opposing side of that subjective decision, however this should not warrant outright hate towards our fellow man! For full disclosure, my personal belief is that due to the rudimentary inconclusiveness of this issue it should be left as a personal decision among the the parties most directly concerned and furthermore that legislation should be left out of the equation as much as possible. I guess one could say that makes me “pro-choice” however I accept that my differences are based only on an inconclusive opinion that I have reached independent of any presumed reason, other than how I feel, and as such do not assume malice intent in the people who have decided differently than I.

Of course this is only one issue, albeit one that I believe most clearly represents my views on the subject of vitriolic political discourse. I would hold though that nearly all political debates wind up boiling down to fundamental differences of opinion that have no more basis than a mathematical axiom. The only difference is that mathematical axioms tend to be more obvious than our base opinions are. It is foolish to believe that political opinions can be reached objectively of arbitrarily held beliefs as evidenced by any two intelligent people each using a rational, logical approach reaching differing, often contradictory, opinions. It can be best thought of as a game of Plinko, with each peg representing a decision based purely in rudimentary beliefs and the path of the puck representing a rational sequence of conclusions. You can start at the same spot, yet depending on where each base opinion leads you, arrive at entirely different conclusions. Invariably, the logical progression will be tested against your unprovable beliefs at every stage and how it proceeds is therefore completely subjective.

I understand that this may make any debate seem futile, however I do believe that it is important for personal growth to consider what your fundamental beliefs are and furthermore, to challenge them and try to broaden your perspective. Even if at the end of the day we still have just as many people who disagree on the issues, we can at least appreciate the sincerity of others’ intentions as well as the subjectiveness of our own. Maybe then we will be able to talk to each other as fellow human beings rather than ignorant masses of flesh and bone.

My skin will press against your skin
An impenetrable boundary to which I am confined
My eyes attempt to trespass
The space between your sternum and your spine
But to no avail!

Your flesh is translucent as stone!
And when we are alone it keeps me from falling into you
My flesh is just a vail, opaque and pale
It protects my organs from the air
Yet you stare through

You’ve locked me in your heart but have hid the key
Let me walk around please let me wander free
Please let me dance across the synapses
Swim along the vessels and lay upon the brain
Let me explore the kingdom behind the fortress of your skin

I’ve loved you all around now let me love within

As darkness is to night
As daytime is to light
Every time that we collide I feel those sparks ignite

As pencils trace the words
To thoughts we thought we heard
Laying in the cot we find ourselves a better world

And when you call my name I can’t explain the way it makes me feel
And when I’m next to you I swear my heart will skip a beat or two
Oh, baby can’t you see
That I’m the one for you and you’re for me

There are stanzas in your eyes
Your hips are full of rhymes
Poems in your fingertips and verses in you smile

The stars gaze from above
The hammock where we hug
Where all we are is what we have and what we have is love

And when you call my name I can’t explain the way it makes me feel
And when I’m next to you I swear my heart will skip a beat or two
Oh, baby can’t you see
That I’m the one for you and you’re for me

When we were almost young we came upon each other’s love
And there we stayed upon the stars so bright, so far

A pen transcribes your name
Across an empty page
As letters coalesce they form the makings of our stage

A needles threads the line
Between what’s real and what’s divine
Sail with me across the sea across the sands of time

And when you call my name I can’t explain the way it makes me feel
And when I’m next to you I swear my heart will skip a beat or two
Oh, baby can’t you see
That I’m the one for you and you’re for me

When we were almost young we came upon each other’s love
And there we stayed upon the stars so bright, so far

And when you call my name I can’t explain the way it makes me feel
And when I’m next to you I swear my heart will skip a beat or two
Oh, baby can’t you see
That I’m the one for you and you’re for me
Yes, I’m the one for you and you’re for me