In “Ferris Bueller’s day off” the titular character stdies, looks super closely at the famous pointalism piece, “a Sunday afternoon in the island of la grande jatte.” The more hw looked, the more details he sought to extrapolate, the less there was. I feel truth is much the same way.
© 2026 – SoulSequel
56 responses to “pointilism and the truth”
There is no truth, because people believe what they want to believe, based on their preferences.
I am the truth.
@five2one not necessarily. The stoics taught that belief in and of itself caused suffering, and a change in the facts, change your beliefs. For instance, if you get dumped by your significant other, only to find out that they had killed their last 10 significant others over the last year, you would be relieved to not be in the relationship, because they were psycho.
@five2one
That’s more postmodernism. (as per Jacques Derrida).
Truth is Truth regardless of what temporary manifestations might think or feel it is or want it to be.
That’s what makes it Truth; and not just an opinion or a fad!
Perhaps “Truth” is a grand, encompassing thing?
The small dots are no less a part of it. But focus on just one, and the grander picture is lost to you.
@griz or if you have to step back to make sense of it, it’s not as coherent, cohesive, or one single, unified thing as everyone thinks. It could be that the fact that everyone and everything has its own separate truth, and pretending otherwise is a fool’s errand.
@Jear77
I think you’re talking about opinions; not Truth.
@griz really? Shouldn’t truth be ultimately provable in the realm of science? Yet even in that limited sphere, we can have dissenting views of the *exact same* data. So is x true or is,y, or both are, but in different ways, during different, extenuating circumstances. Maybe z is somehow true too, because of b new development or c new experiment.
@Jear77
Absolutely not.
That’s saying there was no truth before science which is not only patently false, it’s also very ego-centric in a callow sense.
@griz if the bible is to be believed, Adam and eve were the world’s 1st scientists. All science is the question “what happens when I/ you do x” and then later the ideas of repeatability, double blind studies, and the like came about.
@Jear77
The cognitive disconnect is in trying to equate the Bible to a modern scientific text.
Which again begs the question, “Why would we be trying to do that?”.
@griz the other option is that sin came about due to complete ignorance as how the world works. Which do you prefer?
It’s inexcusable to punish an entire existence (not just man) to death because the concept of death wasn’t sufficiently clear or they weren’t explicitly instructed what to do if confronted by temptation.
@Jear77
You’ve shifted gears without using the clutch! Are we no longer talking about trying to equate the ancient stories of the Bible to a scientific text?
If so, consider this.
A & E had already been told that consuming the “forbidden fruit” would come with a great cost. But they had no “proof” of this. Indeed, what “proof” would have been sufficient to those of such limited experience?
The serpent offered . . . only an assertion as “proof”. And they were perhaps so consumed by the need for “proof”, that they took it.
Consider also the fallacy that growing up (or waking up) . . . is somehow . . . “punishment”. Are you suggesting that reality is punishment, and only the dream is the reward?
Consider further that the parent who tells a child exactly how to solve every problem, is a bad parent. A “consuming parent”. Someone who hatefully spoils them; does all their homework for them and fights all their battles for them.
A good parent sets forth the framework within which a child can successfully learn the value of cautions, the value of trusting someone who is their “parent”, and can set about learning that wisdom doesn’t HAVE to grow out of being a fool.
@griz I’m looking at the story and simply saying that no matter how one looks at it, the whole thing is messed up, in that it shouldn’t have happened that way in any reality. Anyone who says that the punishment fits the crime (when in fact a true understanding of the situation would show that no crime had been committed for one reason or another) is simply insane!
@Jear77
Let’s be blunt.
What you’re saying is that it wouldn’t happen that way in a reality where you are God.
And again we’re back to a religious ideology that still has it’s hooks in you. WHERE are you getting the notion that becoming waking up/becoming conscious . . . is a punishment?
@griz ok. Try not to die. Forever.
@Jear77
In the works!
And my not knowing exactly the mechanics or equations by which it might happen, doesn’t keep what is here before me right here and now, from being the most amazing ride I can imagine.
Just remember though, that to be at odds with death is to be at odds with life.
And I’m seriously hoping that this is not what you have “in the works”.
@griz there’s one flaw. I didn’t think I had to spell this out, but I guess I do. I mean In your current body.
@Jear77
Why limit the possibilities, just because we don’t yet have a full understanding of . . . . everything?
@griz it’s one thing to die from one’s own stupidity, from acting the fool, from deliberately ending one’s own life… It’s quite another to die with a body that is full of aches and pains where every breath is agony, where you can’t eat because the medicine to control the pain won’t allow you to do so, so you whither away. Or perhaps in a situation where there is no food or water to be had – either because none is available or because to eat what is there is equally suicidal. Or perhaps to be burned alive – or at the opposite end of the spectrum, frozen to death by cold that seeps into the bones? Or torn apart by wild beasts? Or maybe stretched apart or crushed? As what we do with dogs, wouldn’t it be more merciful to end it the moment we realize they can’t take the pain? But no. It’s some random moment (unless we’re deliberately killed)
@Jear77
Your “issue” . . . is with the very nature of Life.
So are best efforts spent trying to point out the reality that we all exist within (without any real plans on how you would “fix it”) . . . or with being reconciled to it so you can better endure it and put on a dance to remember?
@griz everything that this life does ends in death!
@Jear77
Can you prove this?
And if so, how?
In what arena, and according to what parameters?
If you say “science”, then you need to be prepared to accept the ample limitations of science as it CURRENTLY manifests. (Including the many “We just don’t know”s.)
@griz we can’t prove god. But that everything dies is obvious, so much so it shouldn’t need to be stated. Yet i have to do so time and again, as if you are unaware of your own mortality.
@Jear77
For the sake of your assertions, it does need to be stated.
In scientific terms please.
@griz i don’t know. Is there a morw precise definition than the cessation of life? There are 2 main ones the medical community are concerned with: heart activity and brain activity stoppage.
@Jear77
We do have “points of no return” so far as Dr’s are concerned. But I’m mindful that these keep getting pushed back and back; and that there are still “miracles” that defy modern medical convention. I remember back in the 80’s (?) there was a case on the pilot episode of Rescue 911 where a young boy survived 45 minutes underwater and arrived at the hospital with no heartbeat or brain activity and was still resuscitated with no brain damage to the utter shock of all the doctors.
So really, we still don’t know where the actual “point of no return” is. We’re not nearly so clever about such things, as our ego wants to believe.
And there is just “no evidence” from beyond this. And as an axiom of science states, no evidence is not evidence that there is no evidence. It just means it has not yet been found.
@griz actually we kinda do… but not in the way you might think. Look at the Matrix movies. I know its science fiction, but looking at the science behind it, the fact the human body isn’t an efficient battery. Neither are the bio-electrical impulses (able to be detected by various machines) able to be stored for later use. Wouldn’t this inability to store these impulses for later access seen to indicate that there is nothing beyond?
In regards to your cold water example, that’s nothing. People are routinely brought to that point nowadays not just for 45 minutes, but oftentimes for hours at a time. Cold slows us down to the point where we’re almost dead, but not quite.
@Jear77
The flaw in that theory, is human arrogance: the presumption that just because WE cannot currently do something, it is undoable.
Common now, yes. But in the 80’s it was unheard of. It was iirc the attending Dr’s words, “landmark”.
And even now we’re not sure of the outcome (ie, will they be brain-dead). And when they are and aren’t, really isn’t something we can predict ahead of time.
So “we kinda do” has to be taken with a goodly dose of humility.
@griz your argument falls apart. Anytime you go under the knife – even form something as simple as an ingrown toenail to a simple tooth extraction, you risk death – either immediate or from complications. Any moron knows that!
@Jear77
Hmm.
Think I’ll just let that one quietly fall apart!
For the record, it’s very . . . poignant . . . to see you making such reaches while trying very hard to give a reasonable response and keep you from perceiving me as an enemy out destroy you.
As I’ve shared recently with another poster, I am more interested in dialectic than debate to win/lose.
@griz no win lose. Simple truth about surgeries. Why? This thing called infection, coupled with allergic reactions to some medication they give you. Once one system fails, it’s a cascade effect that shuts the entire body.
@Jear77
(sigh!)
We went from a total recovery from a medically-defined state of death for 45 minutes . . . to something about the fatal potential of ingrown toenails and tooth extraction.
Don’t always feel like to need to “defeat” a point. Sometimes they are just truths; and the attempt to will just end in folly.
Returning to the very theme of your post . . . sometimes we can get SO obsessed with a single dot on the canvas . . . we entirely lose track of the big picture.
It’s a very clever way to establish character.
Cameron’s an uptight fella.
In film a tight shot is a very close close-up.
Cameron’s character squeezes too white-knuckled tight.
The ‘tighter’ the shot the less sense it makes.
I think the deal with truth is that it doesn’t come in a tight package where one size fits all,… comfortably.
@luftballooneyegouge and, how, at day’s end does a looser focus help us discover truths?
@Jear77
Where do I say that it does?
@Jear77
Perhaps by recognizing that the Truth is far bigger than just us . . . or what we might currently think — or feel — that it is.
@griz maybe. Maybe not.
@Jear77
Under what conditions might it be; and might it not be?
@griz when you try to put all your hopes and dreams, the past, the present, and the future on the understanding of something that is neither provable within the laws of science nor with irrefutable logic nor with a jury of the most brilliant people who have had other beliefs throughout the centuries.
@Jear77
So, under the condition that you are the one in total control.
Essentially, when you are the arbiter of Truth.
@griz that’s the claim of your god.
@Jear77
That would have to be the claim of any God worth surrendering one’s life to.
Even if that god is just us or our own current understanding (scientism).
Look, I can see that this REALLY pisses you off that you are not He. I just hope that you can see it.
@griz Not so. Gives up a weekend, claims infinite suffering (yet over eternity, any cost grows increasingly smaller and smaller the more eternity stretches on), wants us to do things his way, yet can’t accommodate our wishes or wants in the least, the path is so difficult maybe one in a million, maybe one in a billion actually find it, add to that everyone who didn’t even have to hear about it, — aborted fetuses, children, people who were simply born in the wrong location, or the wrong time — all condemned to hell. No thanks.
@Jear77
So again we come back to your thinking you would be a better God, than God?
@griz If perfect god doesn’t want people to point out its flaws, its foibles, and its fallacies of being worshiped by “inferiors”… perhaps it shouldn’t claim the attributes of perfection, ultimate power, and ultimate wisdom and justice after all!
@Jear77
So you’re in contention for the position of God?
In so much as it applies to you?
How do you think you would fare using the same parameters of judgement you would bring against the current contender?
@griz nothing should claim perfection. God has a plank… many planks on his eyes!
@Jear77
Evidently, judged by a “greater God”?
You’re really not connecting the dots here, are you?
@griz accusations of greater is neither unnecessary nor warranted. All that is necessary is to see is the current state of affairs
@Jear77
Which you have apparently judged as “All God’s fault”?
Again, you’re not connecting the dots . . . are you??
@griz there are things that lie in man’s control. But those things are infinitely small, compared to the things that came before, the dominoes that fell all have an initiator. And according to you, according to the bible, the one who laid the situation, the one who set things in motion is god.
@Jear77
Our undisputed area of absolute control, is in “how we choose to respond to what happens to us”.
Sour grapes that we don’t have absolute control over everything else is not a worthy badge to pin over our eyes!
@griz not always. Get shot or stabbed… and bleed out all your blood. Try to choose to cpntinue to live!
@Jear77
I still have an awareness of my corporeal temporality . . . yet such things as you mention don’t alarm or frighten me.
I think it was the character of Commander Riker who asserted something to the effect that how we face imminent death is the greatest test of one’s convictions and character.
And now tie in the various Far East philosophies about “transition energy” as a function of “the next incarnation”. If that energy is not also “bleeding out” in fear, it can be applied to other purposes.
It’s a hypothesis that we each get to test out just once. Provided we have laid the proper pre-experiment framework.
@griz the point I was making is that when making points/ arguments, statements of “always” or “never,” or any form of absolutism rarely is able to capture the complete reality in a situation. Keep that in mind. There are (ALMOST) always exceptions to the rule, and you can bet I will find them.
@Jear77
And if there is some sense to the rule, I will make concerted effort to find it!
And we could be on opposite ends of a kind of spectrum: with one of us always looking for exclusions and the other always looking for inclusions.
(The “inclusion thinking” is part of James P Carse’s concept of an “infinite game”: and the “exclusion thinking” is what he conceptualizes as the “finite game”.)