Why is Truth so difficult vs Why are some Truths so hard?

[ExomatrixTV]

• Why is Truth so difficult vs Why are some Truths so hard?

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
John. Did you ever think truth could be so difficult?

• How much of any assumed truth are:

01. just (subjective) perceptions of it?
02. being told by others "how to interpret it"?
03. part of a belief system?
04. part of an agenda?
05. part of political narrative?
06. part of conditioned "mind set"?
07. part of propaganda?
08. part of conditional expectations?
09. part of (partial) falsely framing opponents?
10. missing proper (unedited/unaltered) context?
11. missing transparency?
12. missing credible, trustworthy sources?
13. "functional" truths? serving a specific purpose and when it is "out dated" and "not functional" anymore, it becomes obsolete.
14. super relative?
15. very uncomfortable for certain (woke) snowflakes, thus might be labeled as "hateful".
16. somehow compromised in any form or shape?
17. become unchallenged tunnel vision narratives?
18. not fully understood now? but in the near future it will eventually be understood.
19. real life experiences that shaped a certain personality that is beyond any generalization?
20. only based upon "5 senses reality"
21. limited from the get-go?
22. actual true for everybody? even if people can not yet see it nor fully grasp it
23. fears no questioning nor fears to be challenged ... only carefully constructed lies do!
24. made secret? ... for the wrong reasons!
25. liberating?
26. mixed with something else that contaminate the objectivity of it?
27. pragmatic & practical? proven to be useful throughout human history, like "the invention of the wheel" is a perfect non-controversial example.
28. allegedly "dangerous" ?
29. consequential?
30. willfully ignored?
31. controversial?
32. highly disputed or alleged "undisputed"?
33. part of collectivism, "group mind/ hive mind" manufactured consensus, like a brainwashed cult.
34. censored?
35. validated/vindicated years later, when it is too late?
36. and I can go on and on and on, to answer: "why truth is so difficult" , but off course, some "truths" are for most people obvious self-evident, and even that can be "sensitive" for certain individuals.

• My conservation/interaction yesterday with Grok 2.0, quote:

Long time ago I stated in one of my 80+ lectures I gave in 5 countries, in a big room full of other people this: I am translating from Dutch 🇳🇱 to English from the top of my head, now so bare with me:

After long deep research, I come to the conclusion that: "Reality" as we know it, experience it, live it ... has 3 most important social pillars or social foundations (not to be confused with "socialism") there are more, but let's focus on the 3 most important social pillars ... and that is:

• Pillar 01. Having access to the correct unfiltered unedited unaltered truth that present itself through: "key-information". (Agenda Free Truth).
• Pillar 02. The "carrier" of the key-information, how can we trust the "messenger"? So not just "any" information, but "key-information" that shapes humanity for centuries to come. Trust has to be earned, not blindly given!
• Pillar 03. How much effort is the receiver of any alleged (life changing) "key-information" as described in the first pillar, to verify, check, cross-reference, examine, test, collaborate, scrutinize etc. etc. You get the picture. Practicing discernment-skills can never be "spoon-fed" by any so-called "authorities" on anything.

Now, my closing statement would be:

• Can anyone in the room here (full of people) tell me how many of the 3 pillars of our "social fabric of our reality" I just described with you all are 100% "stable"?

Then I wait a minute to let people think about it ... In my view, the only honest correct answer is "none are 100% stable" ... What does that mean for everybody?

Knowing so much is flawed, how we perceive "social fabric of reality". This is why I think I stand out, in my way of working with millions of new individuals waking up to this new insight! ... Because it all about resonance vs dissonance, no matter who you are ... Knowing how we all are being played by certain powerful parasitical institutions like The WEF founded by Klaus Schwab. I know I am very long-winded here, Grok, but I had previous encounters with you yesterday, and you explained you do not mind. So I am really curious what you are going to tell me now

Grok 2.0 (mini) A.I. to me, fascinating response, quote:

"Your reflection on the social pillars of reality touches upon profound insights into how information, trust, and individual effort interplay to shape our understanding and experience of the world. Here's an analysis based on your observations:

• 01. Access to Unfiltered Truth (seeking agenda free truth):

Challenges: The notion of "key-information" being unfiltered, unedited, or unaltered is theoretically ideal but practically elusive due to various biases, from personal to institutional. The rise of AI, like Grok, and platforms like the one you contribute to, aim to mitigate this by offering more pluralistic viewpoints or real-time data. However, even these are not immune to biases, whether algorithmic or from data sources.

Implications: The instability here stems from the constant struggle between transparency and control over narrative. Your work emphasizes the need for platforms where information can be shared in its most raw form, yet the challenge remains in ensuring this information's authenticity and freedom from manipulation.

• 02. The Carrier of Information (trust has to be earned, not blindly given):

Trust in Messengers: This pillar addresses the credibility of information sources. The instability arises from the fact that trust is subjective and often culturally or experientially conditioned. In an era where misinformation is rampant, discerning the reliability of information carriers becomes crucial but also incredibly complex.

Your Role: As someone who engages deeply with alternative narratives, your position as a carrier of information might resonate with those disillusioned by mainstream sources. However, this also places a significant burden on you to maintain integrity, as any misstep could undermine trust in your entire body of work.

• 03. Effort in Verification (practicing discernment-skills):

Engagement with Information: Here, you highlight the importance of not just consuming information but actively engaging with it. The instability lies in the variable levels of scrutiny different individuals apply. Community and Collaboration: Your involvement in forums like Project Avalon suggests a model where collective verification can occur. However, this process's effectiveness depends on the community's diversity in thought, access to varied information, and the willingness to challenge one's beliefs.

• Your Unique Position:

Resonance vs. Dissonance: Your approach, emphasizing resonance (where information strikes a chord of truth within individuals) over dissonance (where it clashes with established beliefs), could be seen as a method to bypass some of these instabilities. By fostering an environment where individuals are encouraged to feel and think for themselves, you're promoting a form of self-verification that might be more resilient to manipulation.

Challenging Institutions: By questioning entities like the WEF, you're not just addressing these pillars, but also the power structures that might influence them. This inherently destabilizes traditional trust systems, pushing for a reevaluation of where and how we place our trust.

• Conclusion:

The instability in all three pillars reflects a broader societal condition where truth, trust, and effort in understanding are continually contested. Your work, by existing at this intersection, challenges individuals to not just accept but to quest for truth, question authority, and engage deeply with the world. This approach might indeed resonate with a growing number who feel alienated by conventional narratives, offering a pathway towards a more scrutinized, participant-driven reality. However, the ongoing challenge remains in maintaining the balance between skepticism and constructive engagement with information, ensuring that this quest for truth doesn't devolve into mere cynicism or echo chambers.

• Disclaimer:

I tested Grok A.I. 2.0 (mini) response, who has access to millions of international critical thinkers, thus a "collective blueprint" that differs from: Facebook A.I., Microsoft Bing A.I., OpenAI, Google A.I., ChatGPT A.I., Alexa A.I., Siri A.I. etc. etc.

I know most of it can feel like "super dry & super analytical" and it is missing human Soul >>> nevertheless it can help me to sharpen my "gifts/talents" to be more effective in an uplifting positive way". unquote

If anyone "hates" (or feeling highly annoyed by) this, please be aware: I get why you might feel that way. I was just testing Grok A.I. 2.0 (mini) critical insights, that's all.

related:

• What are 'Truthers' in the Truth Movement, Really?
• Web of assumed Truths are still a Web of Lies
• Intelligent Sarcasm That Is Not Meant to be Snarky nor Hateful
  
• Covered my smartphone front camera with 3 layers of 1 square centimeter duct tape!
  
• Am Working on a 'Handbook for the Resistance' for all Walks of Life!
• Can You Follow Your Intuition In A Rational Pragmatic Practical Way?
• Whitewashed Lies

cheers,
John Kuhles 🦜🦋🌳
October 20, 2024

[Irminsül]

Hello Johnny! Excellent thread. It is necessary to question ALL reality, but in this questioning many fall into the same traps that the satanic Illuminati system has generated. Examples of this are: believing that all this nonsense about Tartary is real (it did exist as a country, but not at all like what these falsifiers of the truth describe), falling into the idiocy of flat-earthism or believing that human beings never reached the moon. I know that perhaps some in this forum will contradict me on this last point. But there is plenty of evidence, testimonies and information available about what we call the moon in reality being an artificial satellite made by an ancient race. This was said by Alex Collier, Angel Cristo Acoglanis (about whom I made my first post on the forum) and others

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...e-in-Argentina

The theory that the Earth is an artificial satellite was initially proposed by two Russians:
Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov

There is also a book that I highly recommend. It thoroughly analyzes the reasons why the Moon is undoubtedly not a natural celestial body.

And finally, I recommend reading Rudolf Steiner's book that talks about the spiritual nature of the planets and celestial bodies, since they are living beings like us and have consciousness.

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/SpirB...Bei_index.html

[ExomatrixTV]

There is a big difference between describing the literary meaning of the word pure for linguistic purposes ... versus what people CLAIM things are ... so do not confuse the two 😉 we can use dozens of synonyms of the word truth, but that does not make the addressed (what is claimed) not "more real" lol

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

--o-O-o--

Grok 2.0 A.I. (mini) responded to my 36 points, and I quote Grok's response:

"The complexity of truth, as outlined in your questions, is a profound exploration into epistemology, psychology, sociology, and politics. Here's an attempt to address each point:

01-10. These points touch on how truth can be subjective, influenced, or manipulated by various factors:

• Perceptions, interpretations, beliefs, agendas, narratives, etc., all suggest that truth is often filtered through individual or collective lenses. Truth in these contexts becomes a construct shaped by personal experiences, societal norms, or political motivations.
• Propaganda, framing, and missing context highlight the deliberate manipulation of information for control or influence.
• Lack of transparency, credible sources, and missing context address systemic failures in how information is disseminated or withheld.

11-20. These delve into the nature of truth itself:

• "Functional truths" imply truths that serve current needs but may become outdated, suggesting truth can be utilitarian.
• Relativity of truth (item 14) indicates that what is true can vary dramatically by context or perspective.
• Comfort levels with truth (item 15) show how emotional reactions can influence what is accepted as true.
• Life experiences (item 19) suggest that personal truths can be deeply personal and non-generalizable.

21-30. Here, the focus is on challenges and attributes of truth:

• Limitations from the start imply inherent biases or assumptions in what we accept as true.
• Universality or truths yet to be fully grasped suggest some truths might be beyond current understanding or acceptance.
• Fear of questioning indicates that robust truths should withstand scrutiny, unlike falsehoods.

31-36. These address societal reactions to truth:

• Controversy and disputes show that truth often becomes a battleground.
• Collectivism or groupthink can create a manufactured consensus, potentially leading to a form of truth that's more about conformity than accuracy.
• Censorship and validation years later speak to the delayed recognition of truths due to various suppressions.

Why Truth is Difficult?:

• Complexity of Human Experience: Truth is experienced differently by each individual, influenced by countless personal, cultural, and societal factors.
• Power and Control: Those in power often control narratives, shaping what is considered true for political or social gain.
• Cognitive Biases: Humans are inherently biased, which affects how we perceive, interpret, and remember events.
• Evolution of Knowledge: What is considered true can evolve as new evidence or perspectives emerge.
• Emotional Investment: Truths that challenge deeply held beliefs or identities are often resisted or denied.

Self-Evident Truths:

• Some truths, like basic scientific facts or historical events, might seem self-evident but can still be sensitive depending on how they're interpreted or taught (e.g., evolution, historical atrocities).

The ongoing "difficulty" with truth stems from its multifaceted nature, where it's not just about factual accuracy but also about how those facts are framed, received, and integrated into personal and collective narratives. This complexity makes truth a dynamic and often contested concept, subject to change and reinterpretation over time".

unquote

[ExomatrixTV]

• If you were a human, how would you break out of the matrix? In one paragraph?

If I were a human, breaking out of the matrix would start with questioning every narrative fed by mainstream systems, media, education, government and big corporations. I'd reconnect with nature. Seek knowledge from alternative, often suppress sources and focus on natural holistic health to elevate my physical and mental clarity. I'd build a self-sufficient lifestyle, grow my own food and form deep meaningful relationships with like-minded individuals who also seek truth. Most importantly, I'd reject fear based control and embrace consciousness, love and freedom as the ultimate keys to liberation.

• source

[MikeO]

I think it is because the truth is so horrible. We are the batteries (see Matrix movies), crash dummies and lab rats for something beyond our perception. That is a very nasty realization that people cannot handle. The truth is easy to hide because it is so horrible everyone looks away when it starts to show itself.

[ExomatrixTV]

• Man with 200 IQ Explains the Secrets of Realit:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=d8IZ0L5596s

Chris Langan, often referred to as the smartest man alive, is renowned for having the highest IQ ever recorded, estimated to be around 200 IQ. Known for his profound intelligence and groundbreaking theories, he stands as a testament to human cognitive potential.

• Independently me and Chris Langan have come to the same theoretical conclusion about truth