Skepticism and Truth

[s3nru]

Hi Neighbors,

I thought I'd share some ideas that have been percolating. A lot of interesting times are ahead of us, and I'd love to participate in a higher level of information sharing with everyone.

Purveying Avalon these days I notice a lot of knee jerk 'skepticism', usually because of the outrageous claims about reality which tend to surface on Avalon.

Most of the users here are aware of the omnidimensional nature of reality and indeed it's illusory nature. That which you focus on becomes more present. That which is neglected tends to fade away.

And hopefully we're aware that nothing 'is' any one way, it may 'appear' or 'be experienced' as a certain way but there's always a specific context. (ie. 9/11 could be either a terrorist attack, or a false flag, a planned demo, all of the above, etc. depending on when and where you are)

My proposal is that the words 'useful' and 'accurate' can be much more useful (:p) descriptors when dialoguing about the veracity of information presented to us. 'Truth' can be misleading as a concept for many discussions. Indeed there is a maxim from Hassan I Sabbah - 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted'

So for example; there is very little to be gained arguing about the truth in 'the charles material', 'benjamin fulford's latest post', or 'mitchell coombes predictions'. However within each topic there's a wealth of information to be gleaned and assessed for it's accuracy or utility.

A linguistic example: 'The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.'
As you can see, the accuracy and usefulness are much easier to address than the 'truth' of Hoffstaeder's self-referential couplet.

Anyways, hopefully this resonates with you guys, I'd love to improve the 'ratio of conversation to noise' if possible. Avalon is my favorite forum to visit simply based on the caliber of information and discussion here.

[Bollinger]

Hi Neighbors,

I thought I'd share some ideas that have been percolating. A lot of interesting times are ahead of us, and I'd love to participate in a higher level of information sharing with everyone.

Purveying Avalon these days I notice a lot of knee jerk 'skepticism', usually because of the outrageous claims about reality which tend to surface on Avalon.

Most of the users here are aware of the omnidimensional nature of reality and indeed it's illusory nature. That which you focus on becomes more present. That which is neglected tends to fade away.

And hopefully we're aware that nothing 'is' any one way, it may 'appear' or 'be experienced' as a certain way but there's always a specific context. (ie. 9/11 could be either a terrorist attack, or a false flag, a planned demo, all of the above, etc. depending on when and where you are)

My proposal is that the words 'useful' and 'accurate' can be much more useful (:p) descriptors when dialoguing about the veracity of information presented to us. 'Truth' can be misleading as a concept for many discussions. Indeed there is a maxim from Hassan I Sabbah - 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted'

So for example; there is very little to be gained arguing about the truth in 'the charles material', 'benjamin fulford's latest post', or 'mitchell coombes predictions'. However within each topic there's a wealth of information to be gleaned and assessed for it's accuracy or utility.

A linguistic example: 'The following sentence is true. The previous sentence is false.'
As you can see, the accuracy and usefulness are much easier to address than the 'truth' of Hoffstaeder's self-referential couplet.

Anyways, hopefully this resonates with you guys, I'd love to improve the 'ratio of conversation to noise' if possible. Avalon is my favorite forum to visit simply based on the caliber of information and discussion here.

I agree with you about the accuracy and usefulness of information being an important and integral part of any statement or assertion that one makes. It is also quite normal to discuss and digest each other’s point of view with regard to one’s own experience and frame of reference. All that is quite normal and accepted; however, you omitted one other aspect of any assertion (other than its veracity and grade of usefulness) and perhaps the most important of them all. Is it harmful?

There are people in this world that have no sphere of existence outside their own centre of gravity. Everything else is there to be used and utilised until whatever goal they desire is achieved. So, they cook up some cock and bull story about something that “occurred” to them and publicise it in the best possible way they can. If it lends itself in any way to hope, salvation, justice or end to tyranny; i.e. positive aspects of human desire, it can certainly do no harm whether it is true or not and it might in some small even inspire and lift one’s spirit.

Now let’s take the person who wants to achieve recognition by spreading imminent wide-scale disaster to hit either the whole world or some large part of it? Suppose, out of the thousands who might come across this information, 1% of them took it seriously and at great expense and inconvenience acted on the advice to move or stock up or whatever it is they need to do. Beside the induction of fear and misery it might bring, it is clearly harmful and anyone who lends their support to obvious scamming fraudsters should have a long look in the mirror and ask the question: how gullible have I really become?

People here and elsewhere have, through many years of exposure to hoaxes and lies have become so engrossed in almost anything that passes for “alternative information” that they no longer have any objectivity left. Everything becomes a conspiracy; everything is driven by the evil Illuminati; nothing is every an accident; every atom is being controlled by the powers that be.

So one very important thing you have to put into the mix is whether a piece of so called “information” has a chance of causing actual harm to people should they act on it? If so, you better make absolutely certain that your evidence is rock solid and irrefutable; otherwise it is at best worthless and at worse counter-productive to everything we claim to stand for.

[s3nru]

I would caution against fearing information to be harmful. Information itself by it's nature is not harmful, it's our interpretation and application of the information which can be harmful. Again I would hope that this can be discussed as an aspect of the 'usefulness' of certain information.

For example; Fulford's claims that Fukushima was an underground nuke and that there's no radiation in Tokyo isn't harmful unless one decides to act upon it. Even then the information is not necessarily 'harmful'.

While the number of hoaxes and lies and disinformation one has to wade through will always increase, so will the usefulness and accuracy of information within the hoaxes and lies and disinfo. I'm not saying we should lose our skepticism, I'm saying we should upgrade the mentality behind it.

[Bollinger]

...
I'm not saying we should lose our skepticism, I'm saying we should upgrade the mentality behind it.


That statement is completely meaningless. What does "upgrading your mentality" mean?

[s3nru]

Just acknowledging that languages/words are the tools that we use to process information, and by 'upgrading' the tools we use, we may process the information better (more accurately, more usefully).

Sorry I've obviously hit a nerve, it's not my intention to offend you. I'm interested in being a part of positive creative change, and I hope considering the efficiency of slightly different wording might benefit the conversations on the site. Or at least make them more accurate and useful.