GENIUS FORUMS

There is truth and there is Truth. The truth is a lack of falseness as in what is said, implied, or represented as a symbol of something else does indeed match that something else. The Truth includes falseness, in the sense that falseness does exist for a variety of reasons.

I believe that the truth is the most important trailmarker on the path to enlightenment - no exaggerations, no false positions to make a point or to provide adequate balance to another untruth, no falsehoods because the communicator believes the communicatee would totally misunderstand the truth (although the truth can be reframed or rephrased to promote understanding as long as the communication is still universally truthful).

Granted, many women do wear make-up and do other things to alter their appearances, and neither gender appears particullarly stellar at telling the truth, but it seems to me that there are certain things that both genders feel it is okay to lie about (such as physical safety reasons), some things that both genders lie about even though they know it is wrong (lie to manipulate someone), some things that neither gender is really sure what to do about (like what to say if the boss directly askes what you think of a project he created that looks like a total flop to you), and there are some things that the genders are quite opposite on as far as whether or not it is okay to tell the truth.

Guys tend to think that it is okay to exaggerate in order to look macho or to completely lie to cover up their feelings - and then their excuse is "everybody knows what was really meant, so it wasn't really like a lie," but that again is another lie. Females view that as stupid behavior because if people are truthful about what their needs are, then those needs can be met, and no one is going to waste time or embarrass anyone by asking someone to do something he can't do. Women have more of a tendancy to lie to not hurt someone else's feelings, even though ultimatly everyone would have been better off if the truth were told in a receivable manner at the beginning.

Here are a few questions to get this rolling:

Why do guys think it is okay to lie and exaggeraterate to make themselves look tougher than they are? (I know this was partially covered in one of David or Kevin's writings, but I want to hear some other direct theories)

Why would some guys rather live in a world of deceipt where on the one hand they think their buddies are going to be there to empower them but on the other hand they know that guys lie about their abilities? Wouldn't it be better to know for sure who could do what and who needed help so where one was strong he could help another fix his weakness, and the other could help the first person where it was the second person who was strong and the first weak? Then both would be strong - but instead they want to keep their lies and delusions - why?

What are some other differeces and similarities between the genders do you see in regards to who values truth?

Is it ever okay to manipulate someone with a lie? If so, when?

How much do you value the truth?

1. Why do guys think it is okay to lie and exaggeraterate to make themselves look tougher than they are?

Every man feels separate, isolated, and entitled, to/from something greater than themselves. Lying, or exaggeratering the truth, is a form of succombing to this instinct, in order to overcome it.

2. Wouldn't it be better to know for sure who could do what and who needed help so where one was strong he could help another fix his weakness, and the other could help the first person where it was the second person who was strong and the first weak? Then both would be strong - but instead they want to keep their lies and delusions - why?

Male bonding is designed to weaken the separation (ego) between men, but it is rarely more than a superficial exchange, for the same reasons stated above.

Men prefer to will their own natures.

3. What are some other differeces and similarities between the genders do you see in regards to who values truth?

Women tend to value truth that relates to their own vanity.

Men tend to value truth that relates to an ideal.

4. Is it ever okay to manipulate someone with a lie? If so, when?

Sure.

Situation: By telling the truth you'd be commiting a greater vice than telling a lie.

5. How much do you value the truth?

As much as I value the quality of my life.

3. What are some other differeces and similarities between the genders do you see in regards to who values truth?

Women tend to value truth that relates to their own vanity.

Men tend to value truth that relates to an ideal.

I find this a perplexing mix. Do you mean that men value the truth about an ideal as much as a woman wants a truthful answer to "Does this dress make me look fat?"
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

3. What are some other differeces and similarities between the genders do you see in regards to who values truth?

Women tend to value truth that relates to their own vanity.

Men tend to value truth that relates to an ideal.

I find this a perplexing mix. I don't believe mean that men value the truth about an ideal as much as a woman wants a truthful answer to "Does this dress make me look fat?"
.

Subjective truth is determined by what we're receptive to. More often than not, a woman is more concerned with appearences, than working to maintain an ideal state of being.

Steven wrote,

Women tend to value truth that relates to their own vanity.

In other words, woman want lies. A girl I knew, who was quite overweight, would convince herself that she was prettier and more physically appealing compared to her best friend (who was by far much sexier) and then proceed to call me up crying about how this so called best friend of hers had sex with the boy that she liked.


What's the lyrics to the that Sheryl Crow Song?

"Lie to me, I promise, I'll believe".

Lies make life bearable for people who have not adapted as well to life. Lies ward off anxiety and the pain of ones inferiority.

My uncle is always telling lies and exagerating the truth. My father is always so suprised and puzzeled about his brothers inclination toward lies. To me, its no suprise.

My uncle has a stuttering problem, he failed a grade in elementary, and he starting balding in his late twenties.

Factors such as these seem to leave the poorly endowed man with no alternative other than to tell lies as a way of feeling good about himself.

Liars have more intense inferiority complexes than those who have adapted better.

Unfortunately, using lies as medicines are only a quick fix and the anxiety that is warded off comes back later, even stronger.

Yes, lies are like opiates. Addicting and degenerating

Steven Coyle wrote: More often than not, a woman is more concerned with appearences, than working to maintain an ideal state of being.

And I will never understand it. I am not particularly attractive, so rather than try to turn a sow's ear into a purse, I chose to work on the inside. However, my other siblings and mother are attractive but getting older and showing the signs of age. They turn to cosmetic augmentation in an attempt to make themselves appear younger and prettier...and they just look like old people trying to look younger and prettier.

I am at peace with my appearance, but yet, they still are inclined to ask me if I would like to get a Botox injection with them. I suppose that tells me a lot about what they think of my looks. I haven't worn make-up in many, many years, and frankly I find it dulls the natural beauty women have. You cannot see the sparkle in their eyes when they have mascara, eyeliner, and shadow encasing them. You cannot see an innocent blush if they have on dark powder. It's a mask.

But, yet, if you put the same woman side by side, with and without make-up a man will go for the make-up everytime. If you put her in a box where he can't see her but can talk to her and know that she is independent and true to herself, he might go for her... until she comes out of the box.

So, if man searches for truth in an effort to find the ideal state of being, why is he so stupid when it comes to a woman's appearance? It is he that causes the woman to worry about it in the first place. So, instead of working on her inner ideal self, she is at home in front of the mirror trying to look like an ideal self. Although it makes you wonder which one is more stupid.

Same with men...why do hair plugs? My father balded early in life, so I had really no idea that being bald was particularly a bad trait. I have found that those people who have accepted their lack of physical attributes to be much more interesting to talk to because they have tended to develop their "ideal state of being".

passthrough wrote:So, if man searches for truth in an effort to find the ideal state of being, why is he so stupid when it comes to a woman's appearance? It is he that causes the woman to worry about it in the first place. So, instead of working on her inner ideal self, she is at home in front of the mirror trying to look like an ideal self. Although it makes you wonder which one is more stupid.

If you sort through all the confounding vocabulary, that's basically what David wrote in his Woman: An Exposition... work

I wrote,

Lies make life bearable for people who have not adapted as well to life. Lies ward off anxiety and the pain of ones inferiority

Here I was just refering to the blatant, calculative, manipulative liars.

As for the more well adapted people, their lives are based more or less on a more unconscious dishonesty. Some people often pride themselves in their honesty, when in fact there really is not much truth in their life - usually these people are theistic or pretend to be, but don't know that they are pretending to be

passthrough wrote:So, if man searches for truth in an effort to find the ideal state of being, why is he so stupid when it comes to a woman's appearance? It is he that causes the woman to worry about it in the first place.

My impression, from talking to women, is that they spend so much time on their appearance, wearing makeup and so on, not for men, but for other women. It's a sort of competition. That seems to be the main motivation.

DHodges wrote: My impression, from talking to women, is that they spend so much time on their appearance, wearing makeup and so on, not for men, but for other women. It's a sort of competition. That seems to be the main motivation.

I think for many people it's a self perpetuating cycle.
Last weekend I had an experience where we were going to play battle of the sexes American football. Well, I love playing sports, and if I get to actually play tackle football I'll go with it - but part of the requirements to play on the girls' team included wearing short-shorts, make up, and pink shirts. So I hated myself while getting dressed, but once I was dressed, I found myself acting like the other girls until I managed to put my own clothes back on...

Perhaps putting make up on is what one is "supposed" to do and then go back to acting like other people like you until it becomes habit. :(

-Rory

DHodges wrote:

passthrough wrote:So, if man searches for truth in an effort to find the ideal state of being, why is he so stupid when it comes to a woman's appearance? It is he that causes the woman to worry about it in the first place.

My impression, from talking to women, is that they spend so much time on their appearance, wearing makeup and so on, not for men, but for other women. It's a sort of competition. That seems to be the main motivation.

Basically, I wear make-up when I have to, if I have to. If I expect to see people, I'll put mascara on because I look sick if I don't. Actually I got sent home sick one day when I didn't feel all that bad, and when I got in the car I noticed that I'd forgotten to put on mascara that day. That proved to me that if I didn't keep up with the expectations society places on me, I don't get to participate in society. If I'm supposed to look extra nice for a presentation, or if I'm meeting with a client that I believe expects that a professional appearance includes make-up, I put it on. It's kind of like figuring out whether to wear a nice dress or jeans and a T-shirt - just going along with the cultural mores that are supposedly what make us "civilized."

It's silly, but it's harmless enough. What's important is what's on the inside, but there are many shallow people out there that won't look at the inside unless it's wrapped in a pretty package. Even the ones that are not so shallow, and maybe consider themselves to not be shallow at all, initially dismiss a whole package that isn't wrapped the way they expect.

To a degree, that goes for guys too. Guys may not have to wear make-up, but they are expected to present a certain appearance depending on the event. Some places won't let a guy in unless he is wearing a coat and tie. To the other end, I understand one landlord changed his mind about renting to David after his wife saw how he was dressed. How badly did David have to dress to manage that?

Society is shallow. Sometimes we have to do harmless shallow stuff for a greater purpose.

Elizabeth:

If you sort through all the confounding vocabulary, that's basically what David wrote in his Woman: An Exposition... work

Well that is kind of scary. I haven’t read that one. When I first came here, I found the men to be a little rough on women…but after reading, writing and thinking, both sexes have a lot to straighten out. Understanding one and another’s point of view is the first step in achieving this purpose. I find that what you might think on first glance of some people’s posts offensive, if you gain some understanding of the person and their beliefs, you see ideas and thoughts from a whole new perspective…hopefully they gain that insight as well.

The only thing I’ve managed to get through is the Wisdom of the Infinite, and although the thread is probably lost down in the archives by now, I am trying to ask Mr. Quinn for his explanation of how the spiritual interrelates with the physical based on a comment he made in another post. After reading WOTI, I thought I understood what he believed, but now I am not so sure.

DHodges:

My impression, from talking to women, is that they spend so much time on their appearance, wearing makeup and so on, not for men, but for other women. It's a sort of competition. That seems to be the main motivation.

They wear makeup perhaps to outdo the other women to get the man. Survival of the fittest works as a theory here. My own personal perspective is if the guy is that shallow, who the hell wants him anyhow? Which then leads me back to the women in competition, how shallow are they?

Rory:

So I hated myself while getting dressed, but once I was dressed, I found myself acting like the other girls until I managed to put my own clothes back on...

Sometimes it is nice to give your mind a rest, hmmm? *smile*

Elizabeth:

Basically, I wear make-up when I have to, if I have to.

But why? Who made up that rule? A guy? I’ve heard it said that men invented high heels and pantyhose to torture women, and women invented the tie. To what end does this serve? If you look pretty, they will take you more serious? I think all they will think about is how you would look with all the makeup and no clothes. I think if you wouldn’t wear makeup, they may listen rather than look.

To the other end, I understand one landlord changed his mind about renting to David after his wife saw how he was dressed. How badly did David have to dress to manage that?

A situation of this sort happened to me as well. I had just gotten a new job. I needed to wear suits, so I went to the department store in very, very casual attire. I was not given the time of day. I was ignored completely. So, I went to another store who waited on me hand and foot, despite the fact that I was dressed down. I purchased three nice suits. The salesperson thanked me for my business….I told her to call so and so at the department store and thank her for sending the business her way.

You cannot judge a book by its cover, everyone deserves respect and dignity until they show you why they don’t.

Sometimes we have to do harmless shallow stuff for a greater purpose.

I guess I’m a rebel. As my mother says, you do what you want to do. If they want makeup, they can wear it themselves…some guys do, you know?

passthrough wrote: They wear makeup perhaps to outdo the other women to get the man. Survival of the fittest works as a theory here. My own personal perspective is if the guy is that shallow, who the hell wants him anyhow? Which then leads me back to the women in competition, how shallow are they?

I think that's kind of a cop-out, trying to put the responsibility on men. Do men try to excel in sports, or business, or whatever, just to impress women? No, they like to compete with each other. It may have something to do with women at some level, but really, they enjoy the competition - they want to be the best at something. They compete even when there are no women around. They like to establish rank, in some sense.

I think the same is true of women: they mainly dress up to impress other women. That men find it attractive is only sometimes the point. It has more to do with status, I think.

I needed to wear suits, so I went to the department store in very, very casual attire. I was not given the time of day. I was ignored completely. So, I went to another store who waited on me hand and foot, despite the fact that I was dressed down.

Being a white guy who usually dresses pretty well, I generally get very good service.

The exception was when my motorcycle broke down on a Sunday, a few weeks back in downtown Philadelphia. I kind of regretted being dressed all in black, including a t-shirt with a picture of Satan on it. (The jolly, "Satan loves you!" one.) Eventually two very nice Mexicans helped me out, though.

I even offered them some money, afterward, but they refused. Muchas gracias, señores.

DHodges wrote:

passthrough wrote: They wear makeup perhaps to outdo the other women to get the man. Survival of the fittest works as a theory here. My own personal perspective is if the guy is that shallow, who the hell wants him anyhow? Which then leads me back to the women in competition, how shallow are they?

I think that's kind of a cop-out, trying to put the responsibility on men. Do men try to excel in sports, or business, or whatever, just to impress women? No, they like to compete with each other. It may have something to do with women at some level, but really, they enjoy the competition - they want to be the best at something. They compete even when there are no women around. They like to establish rank, in some sense.

I think the same is true of women: they mainly dress up to impress other women. That men find it attractive is only sometimes the point. It has more to do with status, I think.

Teenage girls are really like that. They get cliquish, and the in-crowd is always covered in make-up and hairspray. There is a significant emphasis on sexuality, but ultimately getting the "right" boyfriend is more about getting the one that all the other in-crowd teenage girls want rather than even really considering who she might be interested in. She’ll find something to be interested in about him, but the guy is just another status symbol - an accessory, like a hairclip or jewelry.

In-crowd girl behavior is like a lot of the sillier guy behaviors, but just played out differently. In-crowd girls keep conversation shallow so that no one will know anything that someone could get catty over and cause them to lose status in their clique. Same as how guys tend to keep everything bottled up inside so they can climb to the top of the tough-guy crowd. Difference is while teenage in-crowd girls are swapping tips about how to be sexier, guys are talking sports or something else impersonal.

Some girls never outgrow that behavior, and most guys don’t ever outgrow that. Although most adults grow more isolated from everyone outside their families, while more females tend to grow to recognize the value of being real and supportive of one another, most guys never develop the guts to speak the truth about themselves even (or maybe especially) to those closest to them, and maybe that’s because a lot of guys never get mature enough to be strong enough to hear the weaknesses of other guys. The mature reaction is to hear and work together to build each other up, but goofy guys and prissy girls just use that to laugh at or be disgusted with someone else. It’s the one laughing or being disgusted who is showing his or her immaturity. If more people could open up about “been there, done that, this is how I got through it” then so many guys wouldn’t be needlessly worried about being the only one to have messed up or needed help – and if everybody is helping each other, it reciprocates rather than becoming points on some false scale of social climbing.

The most rational action is the most practical action. There is no practicality to the false construct of social hierarchy through withholding the truth. It is not rational to live under delusions by withholding truth from one another.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Difference is while teenage in-crowd girls are swapping tips about how to be sexier, guys are talking sports or something else impersonal.

I don't talk about sports, because I'm not interested in them and don't know much about them, really - at least, not the mainstream American ones. Also, the obsession with sports - especially an obsession with one particular team, generally the local one - strikes me as irrational. I guess I just don't get it.

I've noticed that being straightforward about this makes some guys really uncomfortable. They don't really have anything else to talk about - or not with me, anyway.

DHodges wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Difference is while teenage in-crowd girls are swapping tips about how to be sexier, guys are talking sports or something else impersonal.

I don't talk about sports, because I'm not interested in them and don't know much about them, really - at least, not the mainstream American ones. Also, the obsession with sports - especially an obsession with one particular team, generally the local one - strikes me as irrational. I guess I just don't get it.

I've noticed that being straightforward about this makes some guys really uncomfortable. They don't really have anything else to talk about - or not with me, anyway.

David, I was speaking in general. I believe that rationality and logic are pure - unfettered by cultural or hormonal influences. Wisdom transcends the shallowness of either gender.

Nice title by the way - but I disagree with the sentiment behind it. Really shallow men put a high priority on baseball (or other sports). I believe there are far wiser uses of funds than huge salaries for sports stars. More accurately, I think that is a particularly unwise thing to spend funds on. The big salaries and bonuses inspire kids to focus more on sports, dreaming of becoming a big star against odds that they will never fathom the meaning of because they are too busy practicing to learn math or other things that would do the world more good than any play at a sporting event.

Shallow guys behave one way and have one polarity of interests, shallow girls behave another way and have another polarity of interests. These shallow things of either gender have nothing to do with sagacity.

Steven Coyle wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

3. What are some other differeces and similarities between the genders do you see in regards to who values truth?

Women tend to value truth that relates to their own vanity.

Men tend to value truth that relates to an ideal.

I find this a perplexing mix. I don't believe mean that men value the truth about an ideal as much as a woman wants a truthful answer to "Does this dress make me look fat?"
.

Subjective truth is determined by what we're receptive to. More often than not, a woman is more concerned with appearences, than working to maintain an ideal state of being.

If subjective truth is determined by what we are receptive to, then I do not believe that subjective truth is true. If we are not receptive to the whole Truth, then we only get filtered Truth, which is only a partial truth, which is ultimatly a lie.

The difference I see between the above is which is more important to know the truth about. A sage would want to know the truth about both, but as far as gender differences regarding what lies are more damaging - I think that "about an ideal" is far more damaging than "about vanity."

Here are some examples. Assume that all four statements are true, but out of the first and second (vanity), one is more true than the other, and out of the third and fourth (ideal), one is more true than the other. Which of the less-true satements is more damaging to believe?

"No, the dress doesn't make you look fat."

"No, it isn't the dress that makes you look fat, it's the extra 30 pounds."

"A sage has the lack of emotion that is associated with wisdom."

"A lack of the intensity of emotion that overpowers wisdom is a sign of a sage."

************************
How about the manipualtion question? In "Letters Between Enemies" Kevin wrote: "While the purpose of "Poison for the heart" is to trick people into becoming enlightened, and "Power words" is to trick people into beginning to think, "The love base" is to trick people into thinking about doing something." Why, with guys, must so much be a "trick" to be played on someone rather than straightforward Truth?

Eliza,

Why, with guys, must so much be a "trick" to be played on someone rather than straightforward Truth?

If a simple trick works best, then it is a worthwhile teaching method. For instance, I learned the colours of the rainbow by "Roy G. Biv", a fictional character.

But that may not be what you mean. Everyone instinctively avoids straightforward truths: to speak truthfully is a learned skill. If there were a way to bypass this instinctual aversion to the simple truth, there is no reason not to take advantage of it.

If subjective truth is determined by what we are receptive to, then I do not believe that subjective truth is true. If we are not receptive to the whole Truth, then we only get filtered Truth, which is only a partial truth, which is ultimatly a lie.

Where do you find truth?

Here are some examples. Assume that all four statements are true, but out of the first and second (vanity), one is more true than the other, and out of the third and fourth (ideal), one is more true than the other. Which of the less-true satements is more damaging to believe?

"No, the dress doesn't make you look fat."

"No, it isn't the dress that makes you look fat, it's the extra 30 pounds."

"A sage has the lack of emotion that is associated with wisdom."

"A lack of the intensity of emotion that overpowers wisdom is a sign of a sage."

This only illustrates the quality level that separates the two.

Why, with guys, must so much be a "trick" to be played on someone rather than straightforward Truth?

Most would be able to see through, or understand the intention behind the "trick" - which is, in most cases, used as a teaching tool anyway.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Everyone instinctively avoids straightforward truths: to speak truthfully is a learned skill. If there were a way to bypass this instinctual aversion to the simple truth, there is no reason not to take advantage of it.

Steven Coyle wrote:Most would be able to see through, or understand the intention behind the "trick" - which is, in most cases, used as a teaching tool anyway.

Lies do not beget the truth.Trickery by the learned only gives the average student more excuses to accept the agents of deceipt. 'If the master can use trickery, why can't I?' - and then, where would the limit be? That was the gist of the original question - "Is it ever okay to manipulate someone with a lie? If so, when?"

A=A means truth =truth, not truth = trickery or trickery = truth. Although one may be tricked into speaking the truth (and I bet there's a class on that in law school), there must be examples of pure truth-tellers for people to even believe it can be done, as well as that truthfulness is good. How can the people believe that truthfulness is wise when the supposed masters of wisdom "take advantage of" any agent of deceipt especially for the purported purpose of enlightenment?

Steven Coyle wrote:

If subjective truth is determined by what we are receptive to, then I do not believe that subjective truth is true. If we are not receptive to the whole Truth, then we only get filtered Truth, which is only a partial truth, which is ultimatly a lie.

Where do you find truth?

Objectivity. Subjective truth is only filtered truth, but objective truth is unadulterated truth.

This only illustrates the quality level that separates the two.

How about replacing the second set with this:

"I don't think there's anything wrong with your business plan."

"I don't think there's anything wrong with your business plan, I know there is. You're seriously underfunded because you didn't take employee insurance into account, you don't have the skill set to balance your checkbook so I know you can't handle payroll, and if you try this, you're going to lose your house."

Now, what harm is it if she thinks she looks okay for the night versus how much harm if he tries a business plan that is doomed? That's the difference in quality level - it's a matter of what messes with someones lives or not.

Where do you find truth?

Objectivity. Subjective truth is only filtered truth, but objective truth is unadulterated truth.

Where do you find objectivity?

This only illustrates the quality level that separates the two.

How about replacing the second set with this:

"I don't think there's anything wrong with your business plan."

"I don't think there's anything wrong with your business plan, I know there is. You're seriously underfunded because you didn't take employee insurance into account, you don't have the skill set to balance your checkbook so I know you can't handle payroll, and if you try this, you're going to lose your house."

Now, what harm is it if she thinks she looks okay for the night versus how much harm if he tries a business plan that is doomed? That's the difference in quality level - it's a matter of what messes with someones lives or not.

That's what I was trying to say.

Eliza,

Lies do not beget the truth.Trickery by the learned only gives the average student more excuses to accept the agents of deceipt.

Poetry is never true, but there is almost no way for someone to ever develop an interest in truth unless it is spoken of poetically. I do not think of such tricks as lies, so much as intentional fallacies: appeals to emotion, etc. Such things do not stand up in argument, but work very well in an extended work.

Unadultered truth is unappealing. People, and in people I include everyone, avoid it. There is nothing idealistic, beautiful, or apparently valuable in it. But once a truth is learned, as far as truth goes, it does not matter how it was learned, or one's history prior to learning it. What you are concerned with is a matter of ethics, something that has nothing to do with truth itself.

The "intentional lies" of the enlightened don't make them any less enlightened, or the truth any less true.

Hmm, so you want unadulterated truth, Elizabeth? Well, as soon as I can sort out a computer problem which is causing Windows to randomly restart I'll give you some of that very thing. There's a lot of shallow thinking as misconceptions that need to be dealt with in this thread. I'l get to it asap.

Also, those hoping for a reply on anything from David might have to wait indefinitely as he has little free time these days.

Steven Coyle wrote:

Where do you find truth?

Objectivity. Subjective truth is only filtered truth, but objective truth is unadulterated truth.

Where do you find objectivity?

By setting aside filters such as emotionality, preference, valuation judgements against unsound (i.e. illogical or irrational) measuring devices, and acceptance of what is as raw data as it is.

If out best friend Joe says there is water on the table, and we have never known Joe to lie or misperceive anything, the objective data is still that Joe says there is water on the table. It would be subjective to say that there is water on the table due to the trust we have in Joe. It is not objective truth until we directly perceive the water on the table for ourselves.

Joe alerting us that there was water on the table may have been useful. If, instead of water, we find a magazine - Joe loses credibility and we pay little heed to the magazine. If Joe tricked us to look at the magazine because there was an article inside that we would have been interested in, we may or may not notice. This is a difference in the usefulness of trickery in subjective data.

Now what if it is something more important and less easily distinguished than water and magazines? What if it is Ultimate Reality versus delusions? The only way to perceive Ultimate Reality is directly (objectively), but UR is so big that it can take some doing to find it all - so much that many people do not even bother looking for more than what they think they really need at the moment. If they only happen across falseness, they will be disillusioned about Truth and be unmotivated to rise from the easy, drunken stupor of falseness.

A taste of sweet Truth is addictive, and makes the bitterness of lies unpalatable. If everyone who thinks they see a piece of UR shares it with others, we can examine it closely enough to shatter any illusions and share True pieces. By sharing a taste of Truth rather than luring with deceipt, we can rouse people from their drunken stupor. Handing them another drink of falseness just sends most staggering on their way.