"Your truth" v "the truth"

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

Hi all, this is my first post on project Avalon, other than the introductory one to set up the account. So please let me know if this post is -- for example in the right place -- appropriate to forum protocols etc.

As it goes the same day I was accepted onto the project Avalon forum I was also accepted on another group.

Anyway the reason I'm posting, is that they are constantly saying 'please share your truth <3".

I believe dissinformation takes many forms. It might seem irrelevant to some people - I don't know. But to me this is a particularly pernicious type of mis-information.

It's sounds all warm and fuzzy but what they're actually doing is denying the truth. It's new age psychobable designed to pull the wool over peoples eyes. If you accept the notion that anyone can make up the truth that's exactly the same as saying truth doesn't exist. In essence putting any lie on an equal footing to the truth.

If you think about it there is only one truth, which is the actual reality, call it what you will -- all that is -- the totality.

The truth in fact is both infinite and etternal.

I don't believe anyone has undiluted access to the truth in totallity, we all have partial information, and our perspective on it.

So no one can be expected to be right about everything (myself included) and we all have a) things we don't know b) things we're wrong about c) things we're not totally sure about but have an intuition or gut feeling about. d) personal bias.

and as it's true for all of us I don't think we should be condemning each other for it, which is what does seem to happen in society at large to anyone who attempts to speak the truth.

which I guess is why people say 'speak your truth'. As a way to circumvent such 'judgementalism'. The problem is it also circumvents any kind of objectivity whatsoever.

going back to the root cause of this, I think it's peoples tendency to put on a pedestal -- i.e. to become worshipful -- of those who speak the truth.

This is highly problematic in a number of ways. Firstly putting someone else on a pedestal for speaking the truth is not the same as valuing the truth. It might seem like it but if that were the case then why is the truth speaker seen as above the listener. If the listener values truth so much why don't they speak it themselves.

The other problem is that it creates an unreasonably stringent circumstance for the truth speaker -- who after all is mortal and has all of the same limitations as everyone else.
If one thing that person says is even slightl wrong then everything they say is disregarded.

It also becomes personality lead instead of truth lead. In other words it's not down to the validity of what is being said but whether that person is a 'good person' or a 'bad person'.

In short we demand perfection from the truth speaker, and in doing so, effectively eliminate all truth speakers. At the same time total liars rarely face such scrutiny.

People look at the world and seek to change it by lobbying their politicians or taking to the streets, but I think in the end we can depersonalise it entirely and simply ask do we want to live in a world governed by truth or by lies.

And the root of what determines that is the modus operandi of communication -- the way in which we interact with each other.

Really i think the actual rules are quite simple but the exact opposite of what is being propagated (by a manipulative media which will often seek to reduce things to personality - make hit pieces on those trying to speak the truth - and limit any 'debate' to the mere repetition of the narrative given to us to repeat (a version for each side- which has become increasingly polarised).

correct -- and i'm guessing we all know it already -- is:
a) the person get's to speak -- (rather than censored prior to speach)
b) if the listener disagrees -- they state their view in the positive (i.e. what they think and why). --(rather than attacking/condemning)
c) each person having heard the perspective of the other -- is then personally responsible for forming their own judgement about what they believe - based on the evidence avaliable to them. --- (not cornered into stating otherwise.)

This is the 'two men on a mountain' approach, both on different peaks. Where the purpose of discussion is akin to each saying to the other --"hey what do you see from over there" --- as opposed to two stags fighting for dominance.

But the basis for all of this is that for the two men on the mountain, there is something actual for them to see, to which they refer.

I.e. and understanding that there is truth, and even if we can't speak it exactly -- we can share our perspective on it.

None of that is really possible if you accept the notion that truth is simply something each person makes up. That there is my truth and your truth -- where no discussion or growth can occur because truth itself has been thrown out the window.

[palehorse]

Welcome to Avalon :D

I do not know if I understood well the thread, but here it goes as i see.

Nowadays people tends to "follow" instead of research and learn from experience, I think this explains a lot.

People in general could have a better life quality if they stop listening to mainstream lies and start to question things by themselves and have their own experiences of life instead of buy the pre-programmed experience sold by the globalists.

I would say we have 3 main categories:

1 - Most people goes with the media consensus, easy and painless, just obey like a good sheep, in my opinion they are doomed.
2 - Some are really in great doubt, on top of that dam wall, didn't decided yet which side to jump, one thing is sure, that wall won't last longer.
3 - Not so many (but growing sharply now) that broke away from the media consensus and are now verifying thing by themselves using their own brains and having their own experiences in order to get answers.

These are big decision on an individual level, most people are attached to society in a way, that they care too much how people will be looking to them.

There is paradigms to be broken in order to evolve. Big decisions and every thing comes with a price.

[Harmony]

Thank you for starting this thread and welcome to the forum weAllMustLeanToNavigate! :flower:

'Truth' is indeed an important topic and will hopefully bring interesting and thoughtful discussuions from the very good members here.

[norman]

Always be 'True'.
https://i.vgy.me/XfcURN.jpg

[Patient]

This is the topic that we are dealing with on a daily basis now. What is the truth? The two main subjects weighing heavily on the world - the truth of the pandemic and the truth of the U.S. election.

Interestingly, a few hours earlier I was considering starting a thread about how could we go about finding the truth of the covid-19 numbers. I suppose it is not really possible to know the real truth of how many people have even had the real virus.

So there are things such as this that we will not be able to find the absolute truth about. This alone tells its own truth about our societies and the world we live in today.

Another thing we have now are "influencers". I suppose we always had people like this, but now as there is the internet as their stage, they are much more prominent.

[Bluegreen]

"What's true for you is true for you."

– L Ron Hubbard

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@palehorse thanks for the first reply (breaking the ice as it were) and I like the tagline in your profile picture. indeed the only true religion must be the truth. Yes big decisions on the personal level for all of us as it becomes increasingly obvious that we at a fork in the road. The only inevitabiliy IS change. The Buddhist principle of attachment and suffering springs to mind -- for some people it will be easier to let go than for others. But also it's not a passive process as individual and collective decision are all part of one holistic process.


that's true @Bluegreen, but unless we contextualise that in a wider picture how can there be interaction between these viewpoints of experience (which is what they are).

@Patient very good point -- we have very large diverging views between beliefs on both these issues (Covid & Trump). And for most of us (myself included) it's difficult to be completely certain. We do have our direct experience though -- how many serious cases are happening arround you. This is actually a statistical sample. Direct experience even if it seems small does tell you something. Then if you talk to others what is their direct experience. -- these are the starting point. If there are 'official numbers' from varying sources - to what extent they can be believed, it's also possible to guage how well do they reconcile with direct experience.
I was thinking about this after making the initial post -- I was thinking about a pub quiz program that's on here in the UK called Egg Heads (terrible name -- and I'm personally not a general knowledge guy) but anyway there are times when one of the quizers knows the answer definitely and the others will defer. There are other times where they don't know the answer, but one of the quizers will share a hunch, or some information, then that will change/update beliefs in one of the other quizers and by a process of successive approximation they arrive at a reasonable answer given what each of them knows. -- it seems to me that if in society at large this is what we were doing, things would be very different, and that actually what's happened is the very idea of conversation or debate has been coopted by a simple 'two sided narrative -- where both parties unwittingly are simply repeating the talking points they've been sanctioned and are reacting as they've been cued to' --- why so many 'discussions' (like atheism v theism on fb --- have continued ad nauesium almost indefinitely without any real progress.) . The reason this is able to happen is precisely because of a lack of understanding that a) there is such a thing as truth b) what information actually is (i.e. can people distinguish between information and noise/entertainment) - it seems like they can but if you try it peoples reaction to either is pretty much the same (like a spectator of x-factor -- they think what's pertinent is whether they find it entertaining or not -- and don't really engage with veracity). I don't really blame people for any of this b.t.w. I think it's been rather carefully constructed that a kind of 'relativism' has pervaded -- which like the apparently benign "your truth" -- has really thrown the anchor point of objectivity out the window.


Thank you @harmony :handshake:

[Vangelo]

Always be 'True'.
https://i.vgy.me/XfcURN.jpg

Thank you norman, your post is a great example of a picture being worth 1000 words... There is a nuance inherent in the picture that I hope people are aware of i.e., 'perspective' and/or 'context'. This picture illustrates perspective well and places it within the context of the one truth i.e. the cylinder and multiple perspectives of the truth.

Each perspective is valid in its own right BUT each perspective is incomplete. And that is the point I wish to highlight. The problem we often face is when we argue validity and truth solely from one perspective without knowledge of the truth and without recognition of the other perspectives. Many arguments use this method of focusing only on one perspective, either naively or overtly to deceive others and there in lies the point of this post and in the OP (I suspect your point as well).

I learned how to draw these illustration when taking an engineering class in mechanical drawing decades ago. All objects have 3 dimensions, and in the case of the cylinder, the 3rd perspective is identical to the blue truth when the object is viewed from the top down. Most objects are more complex than the cylinder and the 3 perspectives look very different. A cube however, will have 3 identical perspectives as will a sphere.

People often choose the perspectives and contexts that strengthen their argument while ignoring the other perspective(s). Some may even argue that their position has to be true because 2 of the perspectives are true without acknowledgment of the third.

I end with the fact that most arguments are not limited to just 3 dimensions like objects on our 3D world. If one wants to deceive others, all one has to do is eliminate one or more of the perspectives, a technique the mainstream media does all to often.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@Vangelo I agree but it's not just the mainstream media - i think it goes deeper than that to the philosophical underpinings of the world view which we are fed. The standard so called 'rational' perspective really sees only what is physical as real. As such thought, and particularly higher awareness are not well integrated into one one picture.
" If one wants to deceive others, all one has to do is eliminate one or more of the perspectives" -- the standard behaviourist perspective does precisely that. By seeing the brain only in terms of inputs and outputs, and specifically precluding mind from the model (the result of reductionistic thinkng -- like how we assume in applied maths that there is no friction etc -- but much more catastrophic -- because the model tends to become the view. (for example when we talk about physics we're really talking about mathematical predictive models - and we tend to think of that as 'reality' -- but don't consider that being able to predict some aspects of something doesn't really tell you it's nature) ---- on the other side -- people who regard themselves as 'spiritual' -- disregard mathematics from their picture of reality. So both pictures are seriously empoverished.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

This is cut and paste from my application to join project Avalon -- but might explain better where I'm coming from:

I eventually reached the realisation that even though I thought I was awake, that I am living in a world in which mass mind control, and mass hypnosis, are in opperation.

So I realised, how many even of my own thoughts have been influenced by this. In what ways am I being guided without my even realising it.

A thought came to my mind: "the only true religion is the truth" --- actually almost no one would disagree because this is a tuatology.

Even though I was outspoken atheist for many years, I also realise how these movements are being lead and manipulated. Not only that --- that there literally parts of reality which they are blind sighted to. That the conventional 'rational' perspective is actually delusional.

A delusion is a mis match between a belief and reality. I realised this is a direct consequence of a reductionist approach.

Where the model --- is simplified --to be more manageable mathematically. So by definition fails to match the actual. But pretty soon people confuse the model with the real --which of course is a type of mind trap.
In particular the biggest mind trap of the rationalists stems from behaviourism. Which actually makes the very worste simplifying assumption of all. It disregards MIND.
So I'm listening to Christians arguing with Atheists, and realising that a lot of what the Christians are saying is correct. Heart and introspection are part of their picture --- scoffed at by the 'rationalist'.
So there's only on true religion the truth.
Like any mathematician I go back to first principles --- what is actually true without making any metaphysics assumptions. And I realised the correct starting point.
That is the navigation system perspective. The brain is the navigation system for the body.

A fundamental property of all navigation systems is that there is a decision process. (for example a thermostat is a simple navigation system and it can be described in terms of a decision process whereby if it is not warm enough it heats up if it is, it doesn't).
Well the decision process of the navigational system for the body -- is considerably more complicated. But it has a decision process. And that decision process IS the first person perceptual perspective. I.e. that the first person conscious self IS the navigator.
When I say YOU are a navigator. The you I'm referring to is not your brain, because the YOU is the decision process.
b.t.w while I'm not making metaphycs assumptions about what we are beyond this -- regardless of what those facts may be this simple fact remains true. That the I we identify with and as, IS the deciosn maker, of the mind.
This is fundamental in terms of having an integrated perspective of what we are. It's also fundamental to integrating different reality perspectives. (in this world in which like the tower of babel -- we all speak a different language --- and so the great deceiver divides and conquers).
People say things like we are the conscious observer -- or we are all our peceptions -- or we are all our memories --- but actually none of those statements are true because all of them are only aspects of the navigator --- which doesn't just observe - perceive - or remember.
Also you can't in fact define terms correctly without having some definition of self. The meaning of anything is contingent on what it is doing the observing.
---------------------
In the absence of metaphycal assumptions, the statements that can be developed from a navigational system perspective are in some sense uncontentious. (in fact it's even formalisable --in such a way that --correctly expands the rationalist view --- from it's mind cage).

Coming from this viewpoint also it's way clearer what's relevant or not. The physical reality viewpoint sees all of physical reality as real, but doesn't really tell us what's relevant or not --- why we don't all remember everything like rainman. --the closest we get to relevancy is proximity. But even that doesn't really cut it. And when you think about the way in which we talk, we don't describe literally the physical state of the world.
From the navigational system perspective --- it's much clearer what's relevant or not.
It's relevant if it pertains to a decision in the decision process.
Also it's extremely difficult if not impossible to talk from an intentional perspective -- using only a literally physical description. Again, intention has a very clear definition --it's intended direction of the navigational system.
-----------------------------------------------
so why all this abstract theory??? I guess your probably thinking that.
In maths to move away from a point ---- is not the same as to define a direction.
I realised that under the mind control, in fact nearly ALL of what I thought of as REAL was actually part of the lie. That there is a kind of SIMULACRUM which passes itself off as reality to blind us from the truth.
We might all agree that we don't want some evil government --- but if we lack the common ground to define direction --- the simple negation of evil is not sufficient.
to use an analogy it is like a battery hen, when first released from a cage it must learn again to navigate.
................................................................
b.t.w this navigational system perspective came to me in a moment of lucid realisation -- at which point I realised that it's ramifications actually constitute a set of truths --- which are potentially formalisable -- applies to all species -- and constitutes a core almost meta religion. (meta in the sense it doesn't comment on metaphysics -- as such probably wouldn't technically constitute a religion) --it would however be consistent with any relgion that is true.
...........................................................
so yeah my interests are kind of essoteric, to do with unlocking the mind control, being grounded in truth --- which can be the only basis for correct navigation.

I very much believe it's not enough to know what you don't want but to have a correct and well founded vision, of what you do.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

This is cut and paste from another email -- which extends the idea:

The key feature of a navigational system is that it has a decision process.
This is true even of the simplest navigation system -- such as a thermostat --- at any instant it has data from the external and makes a decision.

Any physical system follows the rules of physics, which are ultimately mathematical. So any mathematical theory can be expressed as a function from observation to prediction (possibly probabilistic).

The physical system of the brain is the navigation system for the body. All navigation systems have a decision process. In the case of the decision process of the particular navigation system of my brain, the first person 'I' -- IS that decision process. (more precisely is part of it).

So I the conscious me --- what I actually perceive as me -- is the navigator. The notion that we are all that we observe, or the sum of our memories, is not the true identity --- and both those things are fundamentally passive. The I is the navigator which has the perceptions, the memories but also acts.

There are three basic levels ---level --1 reflex level 2 --value/survival level 3 -- informational
level 1 is self explanatory.
level 2 ---- is our main seat of intelligence --- which is the mamalian (which for most people is conscious) and the reptilian (which for most people is unconscious).
level -2 thinking is characterised by answers to the question --- is this good or bad i.e value judgements.
level -3 thinking -- which i guess is cortical thinking (i'm not a neuroscientist and am guessing about brain areas ) answers factual questions. E.g. have I got my keys yes or no. such binary yes no questions form a big part of this thinking but there are also non binary knowledge based questions -- such as what is the capital of Spain?

So in the overall decision process of the navigational system level 1 thinking is really the top level because it allows fast response time, however not everything can be processed at this level.

leve 2 thinking is the survivor --- it's interested in whether something is good or bad, friend fo, food, or mate etc.
level 3 thinking acts as a map --- better level 3 thinking can improve our decisions by telling us more about the world.
......

So the navigational perspective is a level 3 thought --- which can act as a map for core understanding of reality ---- without making comment on the metaphysics --- which various relgions ascribe to.

[Agape]

Only remember that the weight of the doubt rests upon the questioner and right to the top leading philosophers of past, presence and probably even future fell under the burden of their doubt,
at some point of their history,

even that much as falling for the false side of truth perspective
if not for the sheer beauty of that perception.

In the midst of current “pandemic calamity” many people stand around, out there, watching out for the Christmas Star, asking the same question, “what’s wrong here ?”


Some would like to go somewhere else and others miss their endless evening parties.

But the question still rests upon the questioner and “what’s wrong ?” is a doubt about our existence here that we have either developed or someone has given it to us,
doubt about ourselves and what we know and who are we, in the Universe.

If you know answers to your questions , you are free in silent harmony with all.


But protesting habitually all the times, asking questions , habitually too, some people never leave the burden of their doubts behind keeping them pinned to uncomfortable places.


Questioning others more than ones self brings no benefit indeed


Merry Christmas


🙏🌟🙏

[palehorse]

This is cut and paste from another email -- which extends the idea:

The key feature of a navigational system is that it has a decision process.
This is true even of the simplest navigation system -- such as a thermostat --- at any instant it has data from the external and makes a decision.

Any physical system follows the rules of physics, which are ultimately mathematical. So any mathematical theory can be expressed as a function from observation to prediction (possibly probabilistic).

The physical system of the brain is the navigation system for the body. All navigation systems have a decision process. In the case of the decision process of the particular navigation system of my brain, the first person 'I' -- IS that decision process. (more precisely is part of it).

So I the conscious me --- what I actually perceive as me -- is the navigator. The notion that we are all that we observe, or the sum of our memories, is not the true identity --- and both those things are fundamentally passive. The I is the navigator which has the perceptions, the memories but also acts.

There are three basic levels ---level --1 reflex level 2 --value/survival level 3 -- informational
level 1 is self explanatory.
level 2 ---- is our main seat of intelligence --- which is the mamalian (which for most people is conscious) and the reptilian (which for most people is unconscious).
level -2 thinking is characterised by answers to the question --- is this good or bad i.e value judgements.
level -3 thinking -- which i guess is cortical thinking (i'm not a neuroscientist and am guessing about brain areas ) answers factual questions. E.g. have I got my keys yes or no. such binary yes no questions form a big part of this thinking but there are also non binary knowledge based questions -- such as what is the capital of Spain?

So in the overall decision process of the navigational system level 1 thinking is really the top level because it allows fast response time, however not everything can be processed at this level.

leve 2 thinking is the survivor --- it's interested in whether something is good or bad, friend fo, food, or mate etc.
level 3 thinking acts as a map --- better level 3 thinking can improve our decisions by telling us more about the world.
......

So the navigational perspective is a level 3 thought --- which can act as a map for core understanding of reality ---- without making comment on the metaphysics --- which various relgions ascribe to.



I did read about the Eight-circuit model of consciousness (a.k.a. 8 circuit brain model) long time ago and the levels you are talking about just fits in there, it was "developed" to the western world, I've seen the same model in very old writings in Asia (can't remember book name) and I know Timothy Leary studied Tibetan Buddhism in many details, including "the Tibetan book of dead" which he later turn into something bizarre called "The psychedelic experience", it is some sort of psychedelic manual based on the original Tibetan book. Antero Ali developed the Eight-circuit model of consciousness further, after Leary passed away.

He gained knowledge from "Lama Anagarika Govinda" who was a very influential monk in terms of linking knowledge from the orient to the occident (west), Dr. Leary also wrote "Your brain is God", "High Priest" and "Start your own religion" both very interesting, but the late one was used and abused as a complement to start small sinister cults in US based on satanic stuffs like the ones written by Crowley.

Without any doubt Dr. Leary navigated in many levels of consciousness, he was extremely intelligent human being, he knew the root of evil and good, if you read his books you will know what I am talking about :) but of course he was just a man with knowledge like many others.

I started reading Dr. Hyatt a while ago, not finished yet one of his books, but it is scheduled to do soon. Dr Hyatt is the best I know to exposes every hypocrisy we have in ourselves and push us extremely hard to face ourselves as we really are. It is definitely not for everybody, but since the thread says "the truth", this 2 authors are the ones on top of my head.

I would also give a try to Madam Blavatsky, despite what many people refer to her as the creator of a new age movement, in the very same sense I heard about the enneagram used by Gurdieff being just another new age satanic tool or a satanic symbol of the occult or whatever they are calling it nowadays.., and many other "theories" behind the knowledge Blavatsky try to expose, I started with "The Secret Doctrine", but still not finished the first volume, it is a very extensive book and just for the records I am NOT a Theosophist and I am not preaching anything or pushing anything here and I will never do it.

We are all free to make our own choices and the references I put above are just interesting people that knew a lot about our world, it is just another perspective, a raw one! I learned many lessons from them, some practical lessons to apply to daily life.

"We are all handicapped by our traditions and conclusions"
Dr. Hyatt

Here is a brief explanation of the Eight-circuit model of consciousness I am talking about https://web.archive.org/web/20081016163754/http://deoxy.org/8circuit.htm

[Agape]

One truth about life and consciousness that needs to be acknowledged beyond the cube thinking of scholars,

they’re both a flow more than a model, they’re river displaying reflections of many patterns including the most miraculous ones,
they are a wave more than a particle or static phenomenon,
and they’re always bigger than we can contain in our thinking
or words.

Every truth is part of a flow with evolution trajectory and timeline of its own merging with countless other patterns.


And while we always try to develop forecasts and models like mandalas applying them to our consciousness and no matter how many beautiful life plans do we develop 😀

Life and its bigger truth always proof bigger not smaller than we thought ( kindly notice that 🙏 ).

And it’s going to be so ahead, we will experience selves and reality as even more complex and complicated beings than we seemed to be yesterday ,
with each day adding some new information to the “truth model”

we have built or manifested

only for it to crash day after Xmas.


But life WILL continue with or without us manifesting new models of Chevrolet’s


⛩

[Deborah (ahamkara)]

Thank you to all posters here.

Trying to come to terms with "truth" is critical. The sheer weight of data, facts, information, opinions and perspectives is overwhelming. We are hard wired, in an evolutionary sense, to pay attention to new information. In the past, the information about what was happening in the neighboring village was critical to your survival. News traveled slowly and each bit of information from afar was precious. We are now drowning in information and sensory input. We have not evolved, physically, to keep up with this information flow. It often creates stress and anxiety trying to sort things out. This, to me, is the insidious appeal of Transhumanism to so many bright young minds.

Anyway, thanks for the introduction to a critical topic.

[Open Minded Dude]

Avalonians and generally 'conspiracy' researchers or whatever are also called (or call themselves):

Truth SEEKERS.

Who seeks has not found yet, right? It's a process, constantly revised, evolved, changed.

And yes, it is subjective for sure. It is personal.

I know as a sure truth that I do not know the truth.
But at least that is for certain.
And truth.

[daddy-keith]

Welcome weAllMustLearnToNavigate.
Excellent post. I am reminded of a question that I was asked many years ago when I joined a certain society. The question was "Are you Prejudiced?". In other words "Do you have preconceived Ideas". We often seek truth based on our own belief system. There is also the story of a wealthy upper class young lady who went to India many years ago, seeking enlightenment from her eventual teacher. She was given every menial task for months in order to break down her ego so that she could learn. In the East you have to "un-learn" before you can learn.
I have a note on my computer which asks the question "What is your motive?", which reminds me to think about my motives for doing things.
As "palehorse" says, do your own research. Trust your own intuition. Truth is relative to our conditioning.

Peace to all.

[Mike]

This is a real problem. It feels like I've been ranting about it for ages.

Subjective "truths" have become something of a plague. Problem is they're often not true at all - they're opinions at best and delusions at worst.

Even that wouldn't be so bad if the people harboring them kept to themselves. But we're all now being required, sometimes with extreme social pressure and sometimes by the law, to not only recognize the subjective "truths" of others but to treat them as the actual truth, with a capital T. I don't think I need to explain why this is an enormous problem.

Well I'll explain just a little: There are so many f#cking groups now, so many subjective truths, so many identities, and they are all demanding equal outcomes. How do you equalize outcomes among a long and ever expanding list of identity groups? It's impossible. When you try to do that, in earnest, you get nothing but tyranny. And Marxism, which is basically the same thing.

[Soullight]

Interpretations depend on experience and definitions, and who subscribes to those definitions.

I've heard that since everything exist, no matter if it's actual (manifest) or conceptual, or spiritual, or potential, etc, that it is TRUTH. In other words, since everything IS, and no one can claim to know or argue against anything Absolutely (including what I am saying here), this means everything IS TRUE.

I think this scriptural statement rings TRUE. ~Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial~

I also think as far as the human experience is concerned, the Golden Rule works pretty well as far as applicable Truth is concerned.

[Mike]

Interpretations depend on experience and definitions, and who subscribes to those definitions.

I've heard that since everything exist, no matter if it's actual (manifest) or conceptual, or spiritual, or potential, etc, that it is TRUTH. In other words, since everything IS, and no one can claim to know or argue against anything Absolutely (including what I am saying here), this means everything IS TRUE.

I think this scriptural statement rings TRUE. ~Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial~

I also think as far as the human experience is concerned, the Golden Rule works pretty well as far as applicable Truth is concerned.



Yes, there are a million ways to interpret the world but there are only a few ways that actually make for a coherent society and world. If we desire order and sanity we all have to be playing some version of the same game. If we have large groups of people all playing different games then you get nothing but chaos and disorder. Subjective truths become problematic when they begin to seriously challenge our most fundamental truths...which is to say, things that are really, objectively true. Things quite literally become insane. Men declaring they are women and women declaring they are men is one obvious example. Even 2 + 2 = 4 is being challenged, by serious academics no less!

There are still plenty of ways to be different and original while still staying within the bounds of rationality. But you have to stay within a reasonable structure. It's like a game of chess. There are countless moves one can make, but flipping over the board and swallowing the chess pieces isn't one of them....not if you have an interest in keeping the game going in a mutually productive way, that is

[rgray222]

The truth is an issue that we have all been chasing for a long time.

The truth is what you choose to believe, you may have evidence of the truth and even rock-solid proof of your truth but others may not choose to believe it. This is frustrating particularly when it comes to issues like politics but there is not much you can do about it. You can attempt to convince or persuade (huge difference) but that may not change minds.

The problems for me is when lies become institutionalized. When people hear the same lie over and over from multiple sources it becomes almost impossible to reach them with the truth. The perfect example of this the Russian Collusion that President Trump was accused of. There were a total of 5 investigations (house, senate, 2 intelligence committees and one special prosecutor) and every single one of them found that there was absolutely no Russian collusion but yet people still believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. These lies were perpetuated by the mainstream media and still are today. Many of these people will watch or read the same media day after day and never search for truth because their media is their truth. Their media reported the honest findings of these investigations but they told their readers and viewers in the same story that collusion happened but it did not rise to a level of criminal behaviour. When you actually read the investigation reports you can only conclude that the media is lying. Most people don't take the time to dig or search for the truth.

Politics touches every aspect of our lives so the mainstream media has taken institutionalized lying to new heights. You'll find it in science, health, crime, race relations, medicine and even weather reporting. Many people (but not enough), particularly on Avalon, seem to have a fairly good balance of where they find their news. Most will search the truth out on liberal, conservative and alternative media, so in my view, it gives people a better perspective on the truth. Also throwing some of these topics out for discussion to a wider group brings us just a bit closer to the truth.

The problem arises for society when millions get their news from a single source or multiple like-minded sources. These people actually believe that they arrived at their truth through thought but in reality, they were simply handed their truth, there was no search or effort. The sad "truth" is that they get a new dose of their truth every day without any thinking or effort. Millions have eagerly embraced institutional lying.

[Lunesoleil]

Hi all, this is my first post on project Avalon, other than the introductory one to set up the account. So please let me know if this post is -- for example in the right place -- appropriate to forum protocols etc.
Welcome to the Avalon Forum Oh how topical is the topic of truth and I'm 100% with your thought.

And I would add: Criticism is easy, but art is difficult.

Truth is the passing of one inspiration before the expiration of another truth?

the first breath of the divine ... before the silence of words triumph ...

:Avalon:

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

This is a real problem. It feels like I've been ranting about it for ages.

Subjective "truths" have become something of a plague. Problem is they're often not true at all - they're opinions at best and delusions at worst.

Even that wouldn't be so bad if the people harboring them kept to themselves. But we're all now being required, sometimes with extreme social pressure and sometimes by the law, to not only recognize the subjective "truths" of others but to treat them as the actual truth, with a capital T. I don't think I need to explain why this is an enormous problem.

Well I'll explain just a little: There are so many f#cking groups now, so many subjective truths, so many identities, and they are all demanding equal outcomes. How do you equalize outcomes among a long and ever expanding list of identity groups? It's impossible. When you try to do that, in earnest, you get nothing but tyranny. And Marxism, which is basically the same thing.

Yes I so agree with that. And of course when you do try to speak truth --- you get preached at about 'non acceptance' or referred to some book or other. Basically nicelly disguised way of trying to scilence people.

RE- Equal Outcomes ---- Ken Wilber talks about this. He has a nice (and I think quite accurate distinction) between what he calls 'orange liberals' and 'green liberals' -- Aaron Shwartz is a classic example of orange liberal. So Orange Liberals want equal opportunity - freedom of speech (opposite of totalitarian). Green Liberals --hate freedom of speech, and want equal outcomes.

B.t.w. I tried the youtube link but it's 'not available'. (probably one of the green liberals at Youtube -- or their AI counterpart :))

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@Soullight "Everything is true"--- is exactly the same as saying 'nothing is true' because it renders truth meaningless. That's another new-age way of throwing truth out the window with fluffy words.

[thepainterdoug]

welcome we All must Learn To NAVIGATE,,, All I can say right now is welcome to the rabbit hole. The best rabbit hole on the net .

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@palehorse
re the Eight-circuit model of consciousness
yes this is a similar formalisation, possibly going into more detail. Although the difference is the starting point. The starting point in my model, is that the physical system of the brain (which could be thought of as essentially deterministic) is a navigational system. It's a propperty of all navigation systems (biological or electronic) that there is a decision process. (because it's a fundamental property of a navigation system that it decides direction). What we experience consciously in the first person IS that decision process. So it's a very formal model. But introspection fits very naturally into that. And if you think about it from your own first person perspective -- within the domain of the physical -- that IS what you are. (i.e. statement of fact).

From there the categorisations are really secondary but it makes sense to break down that decision process, and the three levels I'm presenting are very clear and directly map to actual introspections. I.E for a given thought you can easily confirm for yourself is this a level 2 thougth or a level 3 thought. (so it's a functional categorisation). (and it's also fairly clear what is reflex or not).

Of course it's possible to break down further (at the risk of losing simplicity) and the eight steps woud potentially be a starting point.



re Timothy Leary, I've read parts of his book that he wrote in jail and watched every interview of him I could find on youtube. I also did have that book " The psychedelic experience", at some point and possibly read parts of it. No doubt he was being used by the CIA who were actually using LSD to political ends, but I believe he was very genuine - highly intelligent - with some very fascinating ideas. His view of the world as it should be was very much ahead of his time.

Dr. Hyatt and Madam Blavatsky (the name rings a bell), I don't know much about but will look into.

[Mike]

B.t.w. I tried the youtube link but it's 'not available'. (probably one of the green liberals at Youtube -- or their AI counterpart :))


Lol! No worries. I've listened to Ken talk about that stuff, and I think he's great.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@rgray222
"The truth is what you choose to believe, you may have evidence of the truth and even rock-solid proof of your truth but others may not choose to believe it. This is frustrating particularly when it comes to issues like politics but there is not much you can do about it. You can attempt to convince or persuade (huge difference) but that may not change minds."

I realised that most people can't really discern between fact and fiction -- i.e. the difference between information and entertainment. The reaction to either is along the lines of how someone watching x-factor determines if they like the performance of a contestant. So if your presenting fermats last theorem and john who has a crayon up his nose drew a butterfly -- they're pretty much on the same footing.

And this really is because when relativism pervades and the very notion of truth is thrown out the window. Without which the capacity for independent thought simply cannot exist.
(that's why it's rather fundamental to get truth back into the picture )
It's the established authority does the 'thinking' for them, and they lack the confidence to hear their own inner voice. For fear of being wrong -- under the impression that they can't be right when this apparently so much more powerful external speaks otherwise. (and unless they've been fortunate enought to stumble upon some alternative source which does speak counter to it -- they may not even believe it is possible.)

B.t.w It's not a sin to be wrong, or to not know something if you have never heard it before --- but it seems a lot of people don't know that and the way we treat those who try and speak the truth as they see it, are usually torn down for making the slightest error. (which makes it rather terrifying for many people to speak their mind)

Re the mainstream media -- anyone whose seen a clip with mainstream reporters from multiple channels all delivering the same talking point line -- word for word -- knows that it's an echo chamber -- the appearance of many voices orchestrated by the few.

It's very much like herding sheep --- they know people feel safer in the center of the pack so their giant echo chambers of lies propagate an impression of where the center of the pack is (even though it might in reality be massively mis-construing actual public opinion) -- it also uses the stick. This takes many forms -- like social pressure. (construing those who wear a mask as being helpful to others -- and those who don't as being selfish and anti social). They defame those who speak publically against party line - knowing that most people read things on the level of personality (again like x-factor ), rather than assessing for themselves the veracity of what was actually said. (it's much easier just have a list --- believe everything these guys say --- disbelieve everything these guys say (the authorised version of reality ) )

In a sense it is very much like the wizard of Oz -- where she pulls back the curtain and there's a little old man -- in place of the 'great and powerful Oz'.

" The problem arises for society when millions get their news from a single source or multiple like-minded sources. These people actually believe that they arrived at their truth through thought but in reality, they were simply handed their truth, there was no search or effort. The sad "truth" is that they get a new dose of their truth every day without any thinking or effort."

Yes -- this is what I mean when most 'discussions' are really just both sides parroting their sanctioned perspective. (repeating the public speakers on their side of the fence).

at least the guys on the alternative side of the political fence usually have to be a little more creative -- but increasingly those inside the bubble are less and less inclined to hear any opposing view.

[Soullight]

@Soullight "Everything is true"--- is exactly the same as saying 'nothing is true' because it renders truth meaningless. That's another new-age way of throwing truth out the window with fluffy words.

BTW I’m not a moral relativist and don’t support the so called New Age ideology, nor do I support the looney left and their insane personification pronouns, etc.

And I agree with Mike’s views regarding a fairly narrow band of consensus truth in 3D. Otherwise it would indeed be la-la land, oh wait, that was 2020, the Left, Democrats and the Biden administration, lol...

However, I disagree that “Everything is true"--- is exactly the same as saying 'nothing is true‘“- because nothing is nothing. And since we’re living and actually something and everything else is something, even if it’s a concept or indescribable energy/anomaly, etc, it cannot be the same thing as nothing.

Further, stating that “Everything is true” can’t negate anything, especially truth, since according to the premise that everything that IS...IS, cannot negate any-thing by the sheer fact that it IS, regardless of whether it is or can be known.

The irony/pun in your conjecture is that meaninglessness can actually only be “nothing”.

[palehorse]

@palehorse
re the Eight-circuit model of consciousness
yes this is a similar formalisation, possibly going into more detail. Although the difference is the starting point. The starting point in my model, is that the physical system of the brain (which could be thought of as essentially deterministic) is a navigational system. It's a propperty of all navigation systems (biological or electronic) that there is a decision process. (because it's a fundamental property of a navigation system that it decides direction). What we experience consciously in the first person IS that decision process. So it's a very formal model. But introspection fits very naturally into that. And if you think about it from your own first person perspective -- within the domain of the physical -- that IS what you are. (i.e. statement of fact).



I totally got what you mean by navigation and this quote explains further the the limitations of it:

"The circuit III "mind" never gets beyond the permutations and combinations of those tunnel-realities originally imprinted, or abstractions associated with the imprints through later conditioning. And so forth."

Despite it been a third circuit from Leary's model (because I actually do not follow his model nor totally believe as absolute truth, but I give due respect), I can confirm some realities in the model, because God knows how many time I tried to get rid of some imprints that I consider to be harmful to myself, we all have it, some people will live an entire life without even notice that they are made of imprints and it starts before physical birth.

My point is: there is limitations in the "navigation software", it won't allow us to fully explore the surroundings due to imprints that formed us as we really are, unless we fully understand where the limitations are and carefully remove them, it is like remove a stone from the path in order to continue the trip further, not impossible but there is some effort involved.




From there the categorisations are really secondary but it makes sense to break down that decision process, and the three levels I'm presenting are very clear and directly map to actual introspections. I.E for a given thought you can easily confirm for yourself is this a level 2 thougth or a level 3 thought. (so it's a functional categorisation). (and it's also fairly clear what is reflex or not).

Of course it's possible to break down further (at the risk of losing simplicity) and the eight steps woud potentially be a starting point.


re Timothy Leary, I've read parts of his book that he wrote in jail and watched every interview of him I could find on youtube. I also did have that book " The psychedelic experience", at some point and possibly read parts of it. No doubt he was being used by the CIA who were actually using LSD to political ends, but I believe he was very genuine - highly intelligent - with some very fascinating ideas. His view of the world as it should be was very much ahead of his time.

Dr. Hyatt and Madam Blavatsky (the name rings a bell), I don't know much about but will look into.


The 8 circuit brain model developed by Tim Leary was actually based in old indigenous writings and adapted to fit the western understand of things, I always knew the model came from somewhere in Asia, but never had the interest to dig enough to find out more about it, well until now, I did a little research and found out that the original model came from a little known manuscript called "Hindu Tantric regimen" also referred as "Little Asian Jewel".

Here is a talking between Leary and a professor his friend, the origin of the manuscript that gave origin to the 8 circuit model of Tim Leary, interesting piece of history https://web.archive.org/web/20081022074439/http://deoxy.org/8origins.htm

I will look for the original manuscript, probably it was written in a more simplistic way, but for what they say in the article above it has the 8 levels with 24 stages, it is separated in 2 main parts with 4 levels and 12 stages each, it worth to comment that this separation "layer" is called by some as "limbo" or "Black iron prison" or "Chapel perilous", a very dangerous "imaginary area" that one enters once in life, where the mechanical body or robot body that follows all stimulus suffers rapture. Yet another proof for myself(s) that this separation layer (2 parts of the model) is quite real, I had my bad moments getting rid of old paradigms, old programming stuffs in my brain and I survived the chapel perilous. :)

Leary probably worked for CIA, but he was one of those guys that were not motivated by money but by searching the truth, which put him in a very privileged position that no one not even CIA could corrupt him (see CIA mind control), this alone make him some sort of myth nowadays in some closed circles, I could say the same about Robert Anton Wilson and Terrence McKenna, all illuminated beings with their own differences and they left a tons of good research for us.

The puzzle is huge, no human alone would be allowed to put it all together due to our own limitations, does not matter how intelligent one can be, I believe that one way and probably the only way to really get a great understand of the situation is working in group, uniting people, but it requires a huge effort from all sides, Gurdieff promoted his studies in group, no one could possibly do anything alone, it is just impossible and madness.

If you have more details about your model, I would love to read it and learn more about it, it seems to be very interesting the way you put the navigation system.

Thanks for the thread, this subject is infinitely amazing.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@palehorse if you think about truth as being simply what is -- then either our internal model / view is aligned with it or not.
So the Buddhist notion of Karma and Darma, map nicely to this simple observation. Darma being associated with alignment to what actually is, and Karma being associated with mis-alignment.

One of the most fundamental mis-alignments is when your world view is blinkered or blinded to one aspect of reality. (This is a type of mind cage --- (and links also to the Buddhist concept of attachment -- Imagine reality as a beautiful infinite and beautiful tapestry -- the problem being it is so beautiful we easily become captivated by part of it, through attachment, and thus separated from the whole))

On one side of the fence those with a spiritual bent often disregard mathematics. This is very big part of reality to disregard.

On the other side of the fence the supposed rationalist whose views are based on a physicalist perspective rooted in behaviourism. Behaviourism views ourselves in terms of inputs and outputs (stimulus respons) and specifically disregards what happens in between (MIND). As such this is very terrible mind cage -- and can easily lead to nhilism. Things not fitting into this blinkered world view are disregarded (so such a believer is blind sighted to whole parts of reality) .

There's two seperate issues --(the world view rooted in physical as primary) -- and the second issue is being rooted in behaviourism.

The navigation perspective specifically keeps the physical as primary perspective -- but by approaching these physical systems as navigational systems, allows introspection to fit naturally into the model. (Where our thoughts, observations, memories and perceptions are all aspects of the decision process. -- and we the concious first person IS the navigator. ) So the you I am talking to is not your brain but the conscious navigator -- of the decision process. )

All this is entirely factual -- in the sense that it actually is the case that the you, that you perceive in the first person, actually is the navigator, and you the navigater are a fundemental aspect of the decision process, of the physical navigation system which is your brain. (remember your brain itself is a physical system, which is really like any other physical system following the laws of physics.).

The same events that you perceive through introspection could be described in terms of neurons firing etc, but in fact, when understanding a navigation system it is the decision process which is pertinent. (e.g. it's easier to understand the simple decision process of a thermostat (if it's too cold warm up) than it is to analyse it's electrical circuits. Notice it's perfectly reasonable to think in terms of decision process, even from an extremely formal perspective. Hence this is a rational viewpoint but one that circumvents the serious issues (and giant blind spot) associated with a rational perspective rooted in behviourism.

Now you talk about a limitation. Well the model says nothing about the metaphysical. For example we may be something much more than appears on the surface, and these meat suits are more like avatars. In which case our true selves -- may be eternal -- souls -- higher dimensional beings etc. -- there are a host of possibilities in the metaphysical, and different religions have different beliefs. The secular atheist would see the physical as the totatility.

The point is regardless of your views in the metaphysical the navigational viewpoint is true and correct within the domain of the physical. (what I would call the domain of the apparent temporal physical.) .

So the idea is to bridge -- the blindspots on both sides of the fence with a simple and reconcilable perspective -- which is potentially formalisable. Without making any specific statement about the metaphysical.

I.e. I'm not claiming it is the totality -- but I do consider metaphysical statements to be contentions and for that reason none are made. It's not a disagreement with either perspective. (i.e. I'm not saying people on the 'spiritual' side are right or those on the 'rational' side are right)

@palehorse I hope that makes the purpose clearer.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

b.t.w the definition of 'information' actually makes a lot more sense from this viewpoint -- in fact there's a whole area of mathematics called decision theory, and it's really only in the context of a decision that information makes sense.

[daddy-keith]

Whether you seen it or not, a video that puts things into some perspective is:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ic70cVN5IdQ

Interview by Freedom Central with Bill Ryan. I look at it from time to time to keep my spirits up.

[Ernie Nemeth]

The Truth cannot be known because it is objective.

Personal truth is known, because it is subjective.

The Truth, of itself, has no personal truth because it is not a person.

The Truth is akin to a circle. It is whole and complete, with no beginning and no end, eternal and unchanging.

Personal truth is akin to a line. It has a source, a beginning, a duration, an end, is fundamentally reducible, malleable, forever changing, and never complete.

Bias is a completely natural and efficient adaptation in response to incomplete information. There is only so much time and far too many dead ends of potentials to pursue. Choices have to be made without all the relevant data. Mistakes have to accumulate so data can be confidently discarded; experience has to be gained in order to gauge the merits of particular information.

Personal truth is forever biased. That bias can be honed by wisdom. It can approach perfection. It can spiral towards The Truth. It can even orbit Truth. But personal truth will never be The Truth because it cannot contain It.


Somewhere it was said "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." It is true. But even the king is blind in one eye...that is truer.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

The Truth cannot be known because it is objective.

Personal truth is known, because it is subjective.

The Truth, of itself, has no personal truth because it is not a person.

The Truth is akin to a circle. It is whole and complete, with no beginning and no end, eternal and unchanging.

Personal truth is akin to a line. It has a source, a beginning, a duration, an end, is fundamentally reducible, malleable, forever changing, and never complete.

Bias is a completely natural and efficient adaptation in response to incomplete information. There is only so much time and far too many dead ends of potentials to pursue. Choices have to be made without all the relevant data. Mistakes have to accumulate so data can be confidently discarded; experience has to be gained in order to gauge the merits of particular information.

Personal truth is forever biased. That bias can be honed by wisdom. It can approach perfection. It can spiral towards The Truth. It can even orbit Truth. But personal truth will never be The Truth because it cannot contain It.



yeah as I said in another comment bias is inevitable in everyone --for even something like physical height -- being very tall or short, may introduce bias in perspective.

The truth is indeed eternal and impersonal, and our subjective awareness of truth more temporal but on the other hand mathematical proofs tend to stand the test of time. So it is possible to be subjectively aware of eternal truths.

B.t.w yet another way of throwing truth out the window is to make absolute truth the thing, and our subjective awareness of it nothing. (that does seem to be the general consensus in society in which we live. Anyone trying to speak the truth is generally persecuted for not speaking it perfectly (which is impossible anyway) -- meanwhile the most abominable liars go unquestioned. That's why we live in a world ruled by lies!)

although by comparison to the etternal truth our awareness of it is but dirty rags

(when they say in a court 'do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth' --- if you are honest you should say NO -- because it's impossible -- for precisely the reasons you mentions.)

[Ernie Nemeth]

Personal truth cannot exist alone, it must arise out of The Truth.

And Parts of the The Truth are not The Truth.

Parts of The Truth are personal truths - those parts of The Truth made known, which are only approximations of The Truth - even mathematics. There is no formula for love, for example. There is no reason for 1 + 1 = 2 either, there is no explanation for it.

It is the comprehensive nature of The Truth that makes it impossible to be known. The Truth is one thing, in our manner of thinking. It is not a conglomeration or an aggregate, it is full and inclusive, binding and unifying.

The Truth is totality.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@daddy-keith
this is another approach -- indirect -- if someone is trying to speak the truth treat it like their unsettled or need to be given perspective.

what I'm trying to get at here is that it's the patterns of behaviour carried out by all of us, in our sub conscious and socially programmed attitudes toward any attempt at speaking truth, that effectively hinders almost anyone from ever doing so.

people say the truth doesn't need defending -- in a sense that's correct because the truth simply is.

but the truth does need defending -- if it is to exist at all in the minds of men -- and it's a pretty sure bet that survival will in some way be contingent on knowing the truth at some point . (The truth will continue to be the truth whether humans have any realisation of it or not - but our species won't if we don't ) .

not only is the brain a navigational system, an entire society is also a navigation. For it to function in a health manner it needs to be grounded in truth (all navigation systems need correct information about the environment to navigate)-- which is contingent on people being able to speak it -- before it's not possible any more. Imagine a ship sailing to a rock, and someone whispering in the captains ear -- there's no rock it's a figment of your imagination -- the whole crew start laughing at him because he thinks there's a rock. Or maybe the captains persuaded by some new age philosophy which sees a 'rock' as a problem and the best way to solve all problems is to imagine they don't exist.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

Personal truth cannot exist alone, it must arise out of The Truth.

And Parts of the The Truth are not The Truth.

Parts of The Truth are personal truths - those parts of The Truth made known, which are only approximations of The Truth - even mathematics. There is no formula for love, for example. There is no reason for 1 + 1 = 2 either, there is no explanation for it.

It is the comprehensive nature of The Truth that makes it impossible to be known. The Truth is one thing, in our manner of thinking. It is not a conglomeration or an aggregate, it is full and inclusive, binding and unifying.

The Truth is totality.

@Ernie Nemeth
Yes truth is the totality.

(b.t.w. I know full well that when i talk about maths most peoples response unconsciously is a kind of smug superiority - thinking it reflects a kind of limitation to my understanding which you assume - where as mathematics is just another language for expressing truth - (more precise -- but not totally). (re the 1+1=2 --- actually what exists here is functional certainty not absolute --(which is i think the point you are making) but I will anyway).

I'm rather unusual, perhaps unique -- i don't know -- in that I came to some very deep philosophical understandings as a result of understanding certain mathematics. (if your technically minded -- it was an understanding of Bayes theorem in conjunction with the full joint distribution over multiple variables -- which is really a formalisation of something our brains do naturally (we don't use numbers though -- the process of thought is more like the weighing of stones (but the same dynamic applies)). (hence why understanding it in the maths - was revelatory)). --- anyway the reason i mention it is that is how I also came to the conclusion that:



"It(The Truth) is the comprehensive nature of The Truth that makes it impossible to be known. The Truth is one thing, in our manner of thinking. It is not a conglomeration or an aggregate, it is full and inclusive, binding and unifying."

The equivalent statement from a quantitive impirical perspective would be that all variables in the full joint distribution are dependent.
The vast majority of models actually assume independence which is the opposite. (when two variables are independent the their joint distribution P(x,y) is equal to the product of their independent distributions P(x)*P(y). However in reality in the totality it's most likely that all variables are interdependent, so that the full joint distributions is not reducible.

Indeed the truth is the totality -- and for that reason it is most likely not reducible. (slight problem with reductionist models) -- however because this is always the case our own internal models (i don't mean just mathematical but our internal mental representations also) are always partial and incomplete.

When we attempt to express the truth - it is not that we are able to speak it - or even see it in the absolute.

The truth for us lies at the limit, of a process of successive approximation. So technically it's innacurate to use the phrase 'to speak the truth' -- more precise would be 'to speak the approximate truth maximally aligned with the totality' -- but it's really much easier not to get to pedantic about semantics -- inferring intended meaning is more fruitful than clinging to the sematically precise linguistic construct.

None the less whether we call it 'expression of our limited comprehension of the totality' or 'attempting to speak the truth' -- I believe the indevour to be important.

[O Donna]

Truth is always there or here, as the case may be, regardless of how deep it is buried.,

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

The reason it's difficult to describe what I'm talking about is that people by and large fall into two categories -- those who see no value in precise mathematical reasoning -- and those who do but don't get it.

It's a pretty sure bet that if there are advanced extraterestrial species out there, one of the features that makes them advanced is their mathematics. This alone should tell you that there is something about mathematical reasoning which is useful. That's because mathematics is real -- and in the case of certain understandings in machine learning -- can actually tell us about information -- and inference.

On the other hand those that are mathematical are very often not able to integrate holistically. This quote from Vinny Eastwood show --(which I transcribed) put's it pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anqpn5LG1ho
(transcribed from timestamp: 1:42:15)
"One of the things I wanted to talk about is in the accademic world we're training people to be brilliant halfwitts. They've got incredibly well developed left brains but their right brain intuition and their spiritual connection is being denied.
And so our education system is giving us incredibly well trained left brained logical rational computers but where's the heart connection, where's the spiritual connection, where's the intuition telling them what's really going on.
And so they're only getting half the picture..[goes on to compare with mainstream narrative]"
So why don't they get it --- well that goes back to my earlier posts about the mainstream 'rational' perspective being rooted in behaviourism -- which excludes introspection, and is WHY i'm proposing an alternative perspective, (which is still rational -- and also rooted in the same physical empirical perspective -- but actually integrates with introspection, the human heart, and higher reason --(i.e. all those things the standard model is blind sighted on) )

[Ernie Nemeth]

I only come across that way, I am not actually smugly superior.

It is just that I have thought about this stuff for so long it is rote, it is fundamental. For instance, the idea of whether there is The Truth and whether that can be known is one of the very first necessary questions. Without a decision in that regard, the rest of the information will fall in the wrong categories, and may not make sense at all. Another fundamental consideration is whether there is a Creator. These have to be answered, however tentatively, before any other information can be assembled into a coherent pattern.

Mathematics is a great way to arrive at answers for these fundamental questions. But certainty at this stage is secondary. Once decisions on the fundamentals, and even what is fundamental, has been accomplished, more information can be sorted and catalogued. Decisions on this additional information can wait, it is only imperative to add them to the whole in a manner that makes them easily accessible when needed.

Pertinent tidbits can be added to the core fundamentals as more data is crunched, which in turn refines and expands the categories of interest.

A point is reached where the incoming data either falls neatly into established categories or they fall outside the scope of study, becoming anomalies and exceptions.

It is these anomalies that are important. It is what guides the direction of focus because it is these that are not understood and threaten the entire edifice of understanding so far assembled.

Sometimes the entire edifice must be torn down, if you are truly honest about the search for truth. Those times can be devastating.

I find, and this and probably most of what I refer to does not apply here, that most people are not equipped to debate because they are uninformed about too many topics. How can one debate if topics of pertinence are beyond the scope of the challenger's knowledge?


I much prefer, for instance, a person like Daniel Quinn and his book, Ishmael. That book gives insightful perspective on the world of man and humanity's philosophy.

People who have scrambled their brains with hallucinogens and opened the inner door will have wonders revealed to them, to be sure. But to assemble that esoterica into a comprehensive and comprehensible whole, so far removed from the average human experience, will drive them mad or beyond the veil prematurely. Certain knowledge cannot be had in these containers of flesh. That is another reason The Truth can never be known.

Interestingly, I read how you came at this from the atheist perspective...I chose the believer route. One period not long ago I tried the atheist approach but too much data just won't fit, and my bias was already fixed. I now hold to an impersonal god, the Creator of all things, who looks out at It's Creation through the eyes of its creation in a strange synthesis of retro-introspection with infinite permutations and limitless potential.

WAMLTN, welcome.

Good thread.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@Erneth Nemeth I think we arrived at a very similar place.

And yes it is a kind of meeting point -- as I said, there came a point where I noticed that many of the things being said on the 'theistic' side were actually true statements (regardless of what is the case in the metaphysical) -- things like heart, human intentions, that the closed model of conventional rationalism is blindsighted on.

There's an old NLP phrase which is very apt "The map is not the terrain". However we cannot conceive of the totality - whether mathematical or not our representations of it are always partial to some degree. (so again i'm not knocking maps) -- but when there's whole regions not on the map -- it makes sense to expand the map. What makes a good map is that all that data as you put it is integratable -- i.e. everything fits into one picture) . (another way to see this is about integrating the two hemispheres of the brain - the rational and the holistic). The navigational perspective can be viewed very formally like a mathematics, but it doesn't have to-- it can also be viewed holistically. The point is that the two reconcile.

at the same time it's still a map -- it's domain is the apparent temporal physical and introspection.

it's a better map -- and could potentially be extended to a kind of formalisable philosophy - similar to 'law of one'.

On a personal note - I don't know what my label would be now, as my beliefs have changed - but it's not specifically atheist. As I said the navigation perspective makes no comment on the metaphysical.

It's like this - physicists might learn to make predictions quite accurately about certain measurements - but that doesn't tell you the true nature of what it is that's being measured. There's a kind of fundamental mystery - which will never be solved - because the totallity will always be beyond it. Actually even though he was an atheist I think earlier physicists like Richard Feynman definitely had a comprehension of this -- the limited nature of what we do understand - and the awe and mystery of nature. The misapprehension that later students might have -- that in some way nature has been pinned down and understood - is far from the truth (and an artifact of confusing the map for the terraine).

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

b.t.w both atheists and theist both make the same wrong argument. The atheist will claim there is no God but demand proof of the theist, and the Theist will claim there is a God and demand proof of the atheist.

I don't think the existence of God is something you can demonstrate to another person, put I don't dismiss the belief either. The rules in the metaphysical domain are different because it's only for ourselves that we can assertain such thing. What we are beyond the meat suit avatar in this apparent temporal physical is the subject of a kind of deep knowing. (For example people with experience of past lives, can't prove it but for themselves they may know it -- a kind of residual memory.)

In a sense even if we don't effectively 'go' anywhere after our departure from this mortal coil -- the perspective that we are eternal is not effectively contradicted because in the totality -- we are. A more transient way of expressing it is like a pebble landing in the water, even after the splosh is over the ripples continue, and forever will the path be slightly different.

[palehorse]

In regards of religion and God, I personally do not believe nor follow closely, I do believe in a creator of the cosmos (absolute) and I do practice vipassana in accordance with the Theravada tradition, but I do not limit myself to the teaching of this tradition alone, I am open to others teachings. A while ago I was a student of the Fourth Way School (Gurdjieff teachings, which is considered to be an esoteric teaching of self transformation).

I believe we all agree that there is different perspectives in how we see and interact with the ray of creation, and it is important to notice that and respect each and all traditions/teachings available to us. We can learn from it all, it take time and patience. We do not need to be scholars in order to gain knowledge through experience, I know one scholar that is very limited, the only truth is his own line of thinking that he won't accept anything outside his own circle of experience, I personally am more into the openness, wilderness and free will I want freedom and not enslavement.


My intention is far from turn the thread into a drug research :P , but I just have a few thoughts I would like to point out..

Regards psychedelics: as we know it has been present in our civilization since ever, but only about 4.000 years ago it became more a thing of leisure (see high priests of Egypt), in fact that neural state of "high" is the transcendence of the 4 initial levels of the Leary's model (gravitation, digital, linear, Aristotelian, Newtonian, Euclidean, planetary orientations, and so forth and so on as explained in the Leary's third circuit of the brain). The same levels that our beloved governments around the globe try at all costs to keep us in.

Our brain is a chemical factory, it can produce by itself chemicals that we can experience through the use of any so called drugs. The drug itself (the chemical compound) act as a trigger to certain neurotransmitter receptor (membrane receptor protein) and activate by the neurotransmitter, these chemicals outside of the cell can bind into the cell membrane which will find the corresponding receptors, then the subject get "high". e.g. The Dimethyl Tryptamine is produced naturally by many plants and animals (include humans, a scientific study says that the very moment of death a huge amount of DMT is released into the brain). another example is pheromones, anyone can increase it just having the right amount of sleep, eating the correct food, allowing natural odors (e.g. armpits), use of essential oils, etc..

Some legal "prescribed" drug, lets say Diazepam/Valium, it produce a very calming effect (aka zombie effect with many side effect), studies proved that a simple poppy (Opioid) tea could provide the same effect naturally without any side effect.

My intention was to explain how practically it is possible to choose ones realities/perspectives and improve their way of life without compromising their biological system.

Drugs play a huge role in this regards, because it opens the doors of our perceptions, hence we question the "authority" and they do not want that. They want to keep the mass in the dark.

sorry back to topic


About the navigational system I believe we all can direct ourselves in any direction if we are open for that and allow ourselves, as I said before, our tunnel of reality is the only limitation, and as someone said here the map is not territory, we can always expand our maps. ;) I know it is more complex than that, but the words are failing me today.

I would like to say that I appreciate very much everything I did read in this thread until, so far so good. :)


Merry Christmas to everyone.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@pale horse

I only have limited experience of psychadelice -- I tried LSD once and grew Cubensis mushrooms at one point. (also many years before this I tried mushrooms which I bought at a shop in the high street). I think one of the key factors of these experiences is a kind of profundity -- in those moments the eternal and the present are somehow experienced as profoundly linked. (actually I think nhilism and a psychadelic experience are almost polar opposites).

I agree with you very much about free will. One way of viewing things, is that in nature there is always a tension between single celular autonomous and multi celular. I don't believe a multi-cellular borg type future is optimal for our species at this time. The reason for that (beyond personal preference -- I have pretty strong feelings on the matter :) ) is that centralised control is in some sense brittle - decisions made locally can better incorporate full information of circumstance. For our species to become like a bee hive, would not fully harness our true capacity to self navigate.

re authority -- this is one thing that Timothy Leary said "think for yourself - question authority" which definitely didn't come from the so called 'high ups'. (I think most of what he said didn't actually - he was kind of irrepressible - even if he was seen as useful (in terms of making decentors into non-threatening peace-nicks) - the philosophy he spoke was his own.

Merry Christmas