What is Truth? Nevermind the “absolute”...
Philosophical arguments of Gray Witchcraft
by Mandrake 2006 Copyright 2006, Gray Witchcraft, All Rights Reserved

“Truth” is commonly defined as constancy, fidelity, faithfulness, fact, and actuality. It is a word that is slung around which has great influence and often changes the minds of the masses. So great is the word “truth” that we place great “faith” in the things that are said to be “it”. To the rational-minded individual (as well as the masses) “truth” is the only thing you can count on. Truth is a denotation of what IS!

Well, that narrows it down doesn't it? “Truth” is defined as “what IS”, and “what IS” is defined as “truth”. All of this is beyond the point, and is not a rational, or remotely scientific argument (as these are the arguments we are all so accustomed too). Simply because the definitions go in circles does not mean that there isn't a monitor in front of you, right? Certainly not, but the circular definitions given by language do shed some light on what “truth” really is...

So how do you “know” the “truth” or fact that the monitor IS in front of you? For the sake of an expanded argument we shall deal with the individual now and speak of what IS to the masses later (another circular argument). Perhaps it would be appropriate now to mention that I am about to expose the most basic methods of discovering “truth” for what they really are while at the same time shutting down the immediate backlashing argument that shall be used against me (perhaps also disproving myself, but then again, this argument is really against the faulty process by which we acquire facts in this day and age). How? You are about to see how even “truth” (as you know it, and as it is used in scientific method) is one huge circle just like the definitions mentioned above!

Let us begin by “proving” the existence of your monitor. It is there because of many “proofs” from the microscopic scale right on up to the macroscopic scale, but I'm not going to confuse you with an in-depth analysis that uses the exact same methods to prove the same thing again and again, nor will I insult you by arguing that because those exact same methods prove the same thing again and again that makes it all the more “truth” (there is a certain method we live by today which can do that plenty). In fact, I find it deceptive to ignore the basic “needs” of each method and experiment, the ways by which they are perceived and used, all the while saying “see they work, they work!” Allow me to explain...

No matter what method you use to show “proof”, “evidence”, or “truth” about anything at all there is only one way by which to do so- perception. You cannot prove anything IS without the ability to perceive it: see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. In other words, without your five senses “reality”, or “truth”, is a whole new ball game. I invite the reader to do one simple experiment to prove (using the scientific method) that the “truth” is that their monitor sits before them while imagining they have none of their five senses. You cannot see the monitor or anyone nearby telling you it is there, you cannot see anything, you can't hear anything, you can't smell anything, you can't taste anything, and you can't feel anything at all- you are senseless...

Now I have an even more difficult experiment for you... “Prove” to anyone what “your truth” IS without your perceptions (your five senses) as well... While you are at it, let's go on a tangent and have you consider this: If you can “imagine” the monitor before you, and you can also imagine a purple carrot with wings, which is more “truth” to you? Why? Furthermore, how can you now perceive one being more “real” than another (you may need to imagine you have always been senseless and do not know any better)? What has “truth” now become? The answer is “belief” and I shall reverse the roles to show you how...

Without using one “sense” (or more) to support the other according to the same irrational and circular approach we have grown so accustomed too, by what “truth” do we know our perceptions are correct? By what evidence (remember the very perception of your senses are being questioned here so you cannot use them in anyway to test them- that is a circular argument, as well as the same point brought up against most religious beliefs, being the method of supporting self with self) can we “prove” this rather than “believe” in it? How can you “prove” more than “I see therefore it is”? As an individual using any method of your choosing you can not prove anything “IS” without first believing that your perceptions are telling you the actual “truth”.

In actuality this means that everything that you perceive as “fact” is in “reality” a “belief”. So now we “know” that each individual perception (whether it be the same perception among two or more people or not) is based entirely on their whole-hearted “belief” in what their perceptions are telling them is “truth”. In essence, this means that every mass perception (I think we all would agree anyone with decent eyesight is able to see the monitor before you) is in “reality” mass “belief”, or the “common belief”. Therefore, if “truth” is based upon “perception”, and “perception” is based upon “belief”, then “truth” is based upon “belief”, which means all “truth” is simply “common belief”. How much weight does the word hold for you now? More importantly, how much weight do you give the word “truth” over the word “belief” now? Careful, for they are one in the same...

Certainly, I am not saying the methods of modern (or even ancient) science do not work, but I wish only to make clear what the basis of those methods are, and what they are based upon. They are “common belief”, certainly extremely “common belief”, but nonetheless, they are simply “belief”.

This all begs the philosophical question: “does common belief create and command law, discover law, or obey it?”

If you walk off a cliff simply believing you shall not plunge to your death will you? Who is able to try? Gravity is so ingrained within our beings as law that I find it impossible to ever “out-believe” it! However, man did believe he could fly regardless of this law, did he not? In fact, there were creatures with “thought” (which is required for belief to exist) which came before man who were already doing it! Did “belief” create the law of aerodynamics as well as the law of gravity? Was there (or is there) an existence of some sort with the ability of “thought” that put all laws in place? Do you honestly think you can not create a law right now (one that is weaker than the common belief, mind you- no one I know of has greater belief than the whole of existence)?

We must (as practitioners of the Gray Craft) always remember that “belief” is a powerful force. We must always remember that "belief" is the only "true sense" that exists. It is from this FIRST realization that your power eminates. Test it and you shall start to "wonder". Deny it and live as you have. Are you satisfied with your life??? Every practitioner of the Gray Ways understand that "we control our own desitny"... This is the way of the Gray Witch or Wizard!

Gray Witchcraft is about observing "reality" for what it truly IS, and expanding your knowledge from there...