[7.3.3] Trust not those who claim to know - Vector - 6/19/07

Threw Science. That is the purpose of it is it not? To explain the world around us and discover the truth behind what happens in our world.

Indeed.  But my point is... any scientific endeavor is limited to what you can accomplish through your own limited perspective.  Actually, the very idea that science can explain the world around us is an idealogical construction that cannot be backed up by facts.  In other words, sure, you can identify facts in a certain worldspace, but you cannot explain the need for facts if you are depending upon facts for all your answers.

So there is some truth to what Cryptos is saying about "Trust not those who claim to know."

But Cryptos is falling into a contradiction of his own, as you pointed out, that if you can never really know anything, then that statement itself is not valid, because you cannot know it to be true.

What I'm saying is, there is truth, but truth evolves, there is a direction to consciousness, and there is not one static set of facts that determines anything.  There is a grain of truth to what Cryptos is saying, because those who have complete conviction in a universal set of truths are often claiming something is more universal than it actually is.  You can take that as you will, it's clear that we're not going to convince each other of anything, but this has been an interesting dicussion to say the least.

GamiSB wrote:

Threw Science. That is the purpose of it is it not? To explain the world around us and discover the truth behind what happens in our world.

Indeed.  But my point is... any scientific endeavor is limited to what you can accomplish through your own limited perspective.  Actually, the very idea that science can explain the world around us is an idealogical construction that cannot be backed up by facts.  In other words, sure, you can identify facts in a certain worldspace, but you cannot explain the need for facts if you are depending upon facts for all your answers.

Science isn't one mans job but everyones. The facts are obtained when everyone reachs the same tested conclusion. If a crowd of people looks up at the sky on a clear midday afternoon and every one of them announces that the sky is blue. It can be said that on a clear midday afternoon the sky is blue. That is a fact and that is how all scientific laws have come to be. Science's job is to explain the world. Your trying to now mix Science and Psycology in explaing why we need to know those facts. Why do we need facts? Simple because it is smart to know the why of something rather then just believe everything your told. This was my point about Cryptos' quote. Do we need facts? No, really we don't but without them we would be a very primitve spieces bound to simplistic ideas and believeing whatever we were told.

So there is some truth to what Cryptos is saying about "Trust not those who claim to know."

But Cryptos is falling into a contradiction of his own, as you pointed out, that if you can never really know anything, then that statement itself is not valid, because you cannot know it to be true.

That and it just isn't smart. It's smart to disbelieve a man that comes running up to you claiming the sky is falling without any show of proof. It isn't smart to disbelieve a man that comes running up to you claiming the sky is falling and has proof. As I said at the start Cryptos is right but only to an extent. If someone can prove to you why they are right then you should believe them.

What I'm saying is, there is truth, but truth evolves, there is a direction to consciousness, and there is not one static set of facts that determines anything.  There is a grain of truth to what Cryptos is saying, because those who have complete conviction in a universal set of truths are often claiming something is more universal than it actually is.  You can take that as you will, it's clear that we're not going to convince each other of anything, but this has been an interesting dicussion to say the least.

If the truth evolves then it wasn't the truth to begin with. Thats the idea of evolution right? We came from money's but because we evolved we are no longer a monkey but now a man.  The only way a truth can change is if it wasn't the truth to being with or was only half a truth that has yet to be fully developed or explained.

Truth can grow in fullness, but that does not mean it was not truth before.  I don't imagine we're going to agree on that point, but that's what I beleive, and not merely because I choose to out of personal conviction, but because I've seen evidence that this is the case.  If you cannot imagine what evidence can support that, I reccommend checking out Ken Wilber's work, and AQAL theory.

I'm not saying that evidence isn't useful, I'm simply saying that depending on evidence exclusively, to identify a set of pre-given universal laws, fails to recognize the extent to which reality is constructed through perception.

For example, how do you know that other people around you are truely verifying that the sky is blue, at least, the same "blue" that you are seeing, or even that the sky or the people around you exist at all.  The intricaces of perception and communication are an important part of the overall equation of figuring out this vast experiment that is reality as it arises.  I'd think someone who has been awakened from the Matrix might be a bit more skeptical.

Truth can grow in fullness, but that does not mean it was not truth before.  I don't imagine we're going to agree on that point, but that's what I beleive, and not merely because I choose to out of personal conviction, but because I've seen evidence that this is the case.  If you cannot imagine what evidence can support that, I reccommend checking out Ken Wilber's work, and AQAL theory.

I think we are argueing two difrent things. Are you saying that the truth can be expounded on or changed completly? The later is what I'm argueing against and I'll wait till thats cleared up before going further.

I'm not saying that evidence isn't useful, I'm simply saying that depending on evidence exclusively, to identify a set of pre-given universal laws, fails to recognize the extent to which reality is constructed through perception.

For example, how do you know that other people around you are truely verifying that the sky is blue, at least, the same "blue" that you are seeing, or even that the sky or the people around you exist at all.  The intricaces of perception and communication are an important part of the overall equation of figuring out this vast experiment that is reality as it arises.  I'd think someone who has been awakened from the Matrix might be a bit more skeptical.

Evidence isn't what makes the laws nor is perception. How you perceve something isn't going to change what it is. Just because you see the sky as being red doesn't change the fact that it is blue. Just because they can't see that color doesn't mean that color no longer exist. Evidence and perseption are only tools given to define the laws. They don't make them they only help us understand them. And I'm not saying you should depend on evidence alone. You have been given sight, smell, tastee, touch, and hear as well as rational though and a brain to determine if what your being told is true. All I'm saying that to blindly follow anything jsut because your told to, is wrong. And to not listen to someone that can prove they are right is just as wrong. You can trust a man that claims to know and can prove what he says.

As for how do you know people are truely verifying the same color? Because you test them afterward. Again you don't jsut take there word for it thats stupid. You make them prove it. You hold up a picture of the sky with a lable under it that says "blue" and if what they see in the picture is waht they saw when they looked up then you know they all saw blue.

What I'm saying is that for a child who is absolutely terrified of a monster in her closet, that monster is very real, and I dare you to try to convince her otherwise.  As she grows older, and has more experience to draw from, she may realize that it is a scientific impossibility for some obsene, horrible creature to simply appear magically in her closet, but that does not mean the reality she vividly experienced as a child was not real.  For her experience in that moment, it was very real.

If you simply say that one thing is real and one thing is not, and are always that rigid about it, it will always come back and bite you in the *CENSORED*.  Some people always will, and it is their right to do so, but there are going to be a lot of problems you can't solve with that kind of thinking because it's overly simplistic.  It has some very positive uses, but Cryptos is bringing its flaws into question, and I'd say he's right in that regaurd.  Of course, his perception is also limited to some degree, as are all perceptions.  But perceptions evolve, and for each evolution in perception, there is a corresponding worldspace that is very real and has it's own set of rules.  But then those rules are broken and a new worldspace emerges.  The worldspace where there is one true reality that can be supported by evidence is a valid worldspace, but there are more advanced ones beyond it, and more advanced ones beyond the more advanced ones.

What I'm saying is that for a child who is absolutely terrified of a monster in her closet, that monster is very real, and I dare you to try to convince her otherwise.  As she grows older, and has more experience to draw from, she may realize that it is a scientific impossibility for some obsene, horrible creature to simply appear magically in her closet, but that does not mean the reality she vividly experienced as a child was not real.  For her experience in that moment, it was very real.

Open the door the monster is gone and she can see it wasn't real. Just because she thinks there is a monster in there doesnt mean there is nro does convincing yourself to the point of instanity make there one as well. Ignorance to how the world works is no excuse or evidence for believing in some false reality. Its like killing someone and haveing no clue it's against the law. Your still going to jail knowing wether you knew you broke the law or not. Not knowing that monsters aren't real does't make them real just as not knowing murder is wrong doesn't make it right.

If you simply say that one thing is real and one thing is not, and are always that rigid about it, it will always come back and bite you in the *CENSORED*.  Some people always will, and it is their right to do so, but there are going to be a lot of problems you can't solve with that kind of thinking because it's overly simplistic.  It has some very positive uses, but Cryptos is bringing its flaws into question, and I'd say he's right in that regaurd.  Of course, his perception is also limited to some degree, as are all perceptions.  But perceptions evolve, and for each evolution in perception, there is a corresponding worldspace that is very real and has it's own set of rules.  But then those rules are broken and a new worldspace emerges.  The worldspace where there is one true reality that can be supported by evidence is a valid worldspace, but there are more advanced ones beyond it, and more advanced ones beyond the more advanced one.

So far my simplistic view has been able to stand up and defend at everything you have thrown at it and you have yet to even so much as point out one of these suposed bite marks that it's going to give me. Please, if you want to remain ignorant to the fact go ahead because thats exactly what Cryptos is preaching. Believe whatever you want to believe but your belife won't change the fact that there is a right answer. This conversation proves it. You believe what you believe I believe what i believe but the fact that we are argueing proves that there is a set answer and truth we are trying to find.

Listen, I'm not saying your wrong.  All I'm saying is that you have a conviction that is not necissarily going to work with all the problems humanity faces.  If it always serves you well, more power to you, but what Cryptos is arguing is the type of truth that post-modernism has to offer, which is the importance of recongnizing the extent to which interpretation constructs a reality.

That said, the truth Cryptos offers is also very limited.

For the record, I'm not a post-modernist.  I'm a post-post-modernist.  I'm also EPN.  I don't agree with Cryptos in most of what he says.  Wanting to "go back" is not the path humanity should take, because it is regressive and leads to pain and suffering rather than freedom and enlightenment.  But as Ken Wilber says, no one is smart enough to be 100% wrong.  Everyone has some degree of truth to offer.

I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong, because you're not, and if your path has lead you to EPN, surely you've been doing something very right.  I'm simply saying that in my personal experience, there are not only pre-rational and rational ideas, but also trans-rational ideas; things that rigid evidence that provides for only one "true" reality cannot explain.

Listen, I'm not saying your wrong.  All I'm saying is that you have a conviction that is not necissarily going to work with all the problems humanity faces.  If it always serves you well, more power to you, but what Cryptos is arguing is the type of truth that post-modernism has to offer, which is the importance of recongnizing the extent to which interpretation constructs a reality.

That said, the truth Cryptos offers is also very limited.

For the record, I'm not a post-modernist.  I'm a post-post-modernist.  I'm also EPN.  I don't agree with Cryptos in most of what he says.  Wanting to "go back" is not the path humanity should take, because it is regressive and leads to pain and suffering rather than freedom and enlightenment.  But as Ken Wilber says, no one is smart enough to be 100% wrong.  Everyone has some degree of truth to offer.

I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong, because you're not, and if your path has lead you to EPN, surely you've been doing something very right.  I'm simply saying that in my personal experience, there are not only pre-rational and rational ideas, but also trans-rational ideas; things that rigid evidence that provides for only one "true" reality cannot explain.