July 7, 2013
Theory – Action – Subconscious
My son impressed me recently when he came out with a bit of an insight.
Theory – Action – Subconscious
Our thoughts need to be turned into Actions which then rewrites the Subconscious.
Good thoughts lead to right actions leads to a healthy subconscious which leads to more healthy thoughts/actions etc – and so one starts to rise up the spiral.
I think your son is on to a true principle. Many people think the way to reprogram our subconscious is with our thoughts, but an action is much more powerful.
For instance, many have daydreams of being courageous but fall apart when confronted with real danger. It is the person who acts with real courage that sends by far the strongest message to his subconscious of who he is becoming.
that is not to say that thought does not play a part for it starts the process.
July 10, 2013
I see some benefits that this psychic mechanism called guilt can have in many circumstances. For instance, when somebody lies to somebody and realizes he did a mistake, guilt makes him realize that and tell the truth.
The benefits are very minimal and the harm from guilt is very great. The Biblical word for sin is the Greek HAMARTANO which means “to miss the mark.” In other words when the Greeks 2000 years ago shot at a target with an arrow and missed they “sinned” (HAMARTANO) or missed the target.
Now imagine if a target shooter felt guilty when he missed the target. He may throw the bow down and not feel worthy to pick it up and try again for another month.
But when guilt is removed and common sense replaces it he no longer curses himself for missing but tries again immediately. The person who moves forward without guilt progresses much more rapidly than one hampered by it. He may feel bad when a mistake is made but feeling bad for missing a target is much different than the unworthy feeling created by guilt which often immobilizes the individual.
What about forgiveness? Couldn’t forgiveness help us transcend the retribution morality.
Of course. The greatest benefit of forgiveness comes to the one who is the victim. If one harbors a grievance it can do harm to soul and body. On the other hand, forgiveness does not undo the results of the sin or offense.
Let us go back to our example. The offender stole the operation money from the victim and his daughter died just before she would have accepted Christ. Let us suppose the victim forgives the thief. Does it bring his daughter back to life?
The forgiveness is good for his soul and body but both the victim and the offender live the rest of their lives in a world where the effect of the theft remains. The girl remains dead and the father misses her until he dies.
Forgiveness lifts a dark cloud over the soul but the effects of our actions remain.
Jul 10, 2013
A Course in Miracles
I know this has discussed before and I tried to search for it. But someone was recently telling me about “the course” and there is a meet up group on Mondays near my house.
Don’t know too much, sure there are kerns of truth etc…but sort of beastly it seems to me…or at least how it was presented to me. Anyways…what’s the consensus on this?
A Course in Miracles (ACIM) does have some good material in it. The most important guides the student toward the removal of grievances. “The truth is true and nothing else is true” is my favorite quote from it.
Even so, any writing, even mine or the Bailey writings, can become a beast of authority if teachers insist his version of the teachings be accepted or no conversation is allowed that seems to contradict or give additional enlightenment. I know many of the ACIM students seem to tap into a particularly beastly mindset that does not allow the consideration of alternative opinions.
If the effects remains, isn’t forgiveness the solution that Christ brought to the world for ending what it appears to be an infinite chain of effects, that can no longer be balanced via the retribution system? We seem to be in a vicious system, as we keep harming each other and create endless karma chains. Shouldn’t we focus more on forgiveness?
Yes, forgiveness ends the cycle of retribution but it does not negate the effects of the offense. In our example the guy’s daughter is still dead no matter how much he forgives. Forgiveness does not negate effects and the girl is not brought back to life.
Through forgiveness, however, he does not propagate additional harm by attacking the thief and creating a new round of retribution.
A lot of people have the mistaken idea that forgiveness neutralizes effects but cause and effect always plays out. There is not one exception in our billions of years of history. Forgiveness itself is a cause that produces an effect.
Where I live religious people are mainly judging and acting, albeit entirely subconsciously more often than not, based on fear. They understand everything through fear, submission and retribution.
Many think this problem applies particularly to religious people but it applies to over 99% of humanity but is hidden from people through their blind spots.
For instance, doctors are controlled by the same beastly fear when they tremble at the thought of endorsing an alternative treatment for cancer, even though it may work better than radiation.
The politician is terrified at going against the mindset of his party.
People are terrified in challenging the IRS.
A journalist is terrified at writing something that goes against the mindset of his fellow workers and editors.
Common people tap into what their group thought tells them is acceptable to believe and they accept without question or critical thinking.
New Age believers have many of the same fear based and illusionary beliefs but merely use a different vocabulary.
For instance, instead of preaching an apocalyptic end they may preach a shift into the 5th dimension that will take the righteous and leave the wicked behind to be destroyed.
July 11, 2013
Is there a Principle of Absorption and will you be expanding on it?
Yes, there is such a principle and will probably get to it at some time. Not sure when.
Of the 5,000 Light workers in Germany who were supposed to pick up on the Shamballa energy, did all, any, or many of them work in the German army for
Hitler? Did any of them kill Jews? Did any of them go down the wrong path with Hitler, instead of working against Hitler?
A lot of them worked for Hitler including Stauffenberg until he realized the situation. Some are pound of how the handled a difficult situation and others not so much.
If so, what is their karma in this lifetime if they have reincarnated?
Different for each one. Many learned the lesson to not follow an unjust authority.
Would they be able to pay off any bad karma through service in this lifetime?
Sure. Service is the best and least painful way to pay off karma.
I only ask, because I swear that I was a German man and my family were German too in our past lifetime.
If you sense this there is a good possibility it is true.
JJ, it clearly says here that Jesus died for our sins. It right here in the
Bible. So far you have not proven that Jesus did not die for our sins. It
right here in plan English.
1 Corinthians 15:3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
My last article does not say that Jesus did not die for our sins, but that he did and the point is misunderstood. The Greek meaning of sin is to miss the mark or error and my point was that Jesus died to correct our errors in thinking which in essence is dying for our sins. His example wipes away our errors or sins so long as we accept the correction.
Also, what happens to those who die like my Grandparents who believed
Jesus died for our sins yet were wrong, in the afterlife? I asked you a similar
question like this before.
Those trapped in illusion go among others who are in the same state and live out their illusions in the spirit world until they realize something is wrong with them. At that point teachers come to assist them.
On a spiritual level or a higher level, is Justice weighed up in the balance of
Karma when in this type of scenario, Zimmerman shot the younger guy in self
defense, but…… is this because the younger guy had killed Zimmerman in a
previous lifetime, so Cause and Effect caught up with him?
This doesn’t mean that Martin killed Zimmerman in a previous life. It could be just one of those situations that arise through our decisions. But because it is having such a world wide impact it is possible the event was planned out on a soul level to assist humanity in learning a lesson.
Does this now balance out the two karmic lifetime crossovers of these two men,
so that in their next lifetime, they won’t murder each other or anyone else?
The most likely scenario is that Martin killed someone (didn’t have to be Zimmerman) in a past life and incurred some debt and this was payment for it.
July 20, 2013
Or when one kills another person “in self defense”, then what sort of karma or
effect does one accrue personally in how the karma plays out?
If self defense or one’s own death was the only choice then there would be little or no karma.
How do the scales of Karmic Justice carry to fruition the ending of a negative
effect for any particular person?
Lots of ways. More than I have time to explain here, but I have written quite a bit about it in the past.
Concerning the Zimmerman case, I get a strong impression on George’s brother Robert. He is a very advanced soul and I get the impression his Higher Self saw this situation evolving before his birth and he placed himself in the family in an attempt to be a spokesman for truth and justice in this confusing situation for the masses.
July 21, 2013
Feeling vs Mind
The Left/Right Paradigm in America is two illusions chasing one another.
They both have their illusions but both are creators of reality that we must deal with.
If the Right was the side of the Mind, they would be generating thoughts and ideas, not blindly trying to stop the Left at every turn.
And the Left tries to stop the Right at least as much. That’s what they do because they both see reality through different filters.
The fact that they both oppose each other does not indicate whether they are polarized in the mind or emotion.
Real workable ideas comes from the atmic plane and when they filter down they may appeal to either the mentally or emotionally polarized depending on how it suits their purpose or desire.
When I spoke of the polarization of the Right I did not say mind, but the “analytical mind.” 90% of the members of both sides are polarized in the emotional/astral body and very few are able to use the pure reason of the upper mental body.
Also remember the meaning of the word “polarization.” The fact that one is polarized in the emotions or analytical mind does not mean that is his total influence. It only means the influence dominates.
For instance, most females are polarized in their right brain or the emotions, but this does not mean they do not also use their left analytical brain when it suits them.
Case in point: immigration reform.
Few in Congress ever come up with original ideas (which come from the atmic) but when ideas do filter down they may be embraced in some warped manner by either party.
On immigration the Republicans do take the more analytical approach. Most want the border secured before we liberalize immigration. The Democrats feel that they want to pass a bill legalizing the illegals now and all will work out okay without applying thought. The Republicans definitely have the left brain approach here.
The same goes for the application of the law where Republicans want current laws enforced and if they do not work we should replace them.
Democrats pass laws that feel good and then generally are not concerned about enforcing then. This particularly applies to immigration.
We may not like all laws, but without consistent the rule of law a nation will deteriorate into lawlessness and chaos.
If the Right was the side of the Mind, they would be able to present rational ideas, not hysterical religious rhetoric for why marriage equality should not be the law of THIS land.
Both sides promote their ideas with religious fever. What you want to look for in polarization is not whether the person is flawless in his reasoning but whether he presents his case using emotion or reasoning.
As far as gay marriage goes the Left pretty much say they feel it is just and good and that is about it.
The Right analytically breaks things down and makes their case. For instance, they say that if we take this step then the next step could be legalizing polygamy or possibility something more hard to swallow. You may not agree with this but it is presenting a case with reason.
The fact that the Right is polarized in the analytical mind does not mean that they are always right for they have not mastered illusion.
We need both mind and emotion, but Mind must rule over Emotions, as the higher controls the lower, but the Right does not rule the Left.
In our society emotion has ruled over mind for thousands of years. It is desirable that mind rule over emotion and in a few people this does happen. These people face an uphill battle in presenting their case but when they can prove their point beyond emotional doubt then even the astral ones will accept. For example, Edison invented the light bulb using his mind and it was so useful that even the most emotional of people eventually accepted it.
The Course in Miracles says that when Truth is placed in opposition to Falsehood, Truth will always win, hands down.
Truth will eventually win but many will embrace a falsehood as being true even when wisely contrasted. It takes time for truth to become manifest to those in illusion.
The fact that neither side has won shows that neither side represents the complete truth.
As long as there are two sides neither will be declared the winner. Their contrasting viewpoints does help the public in the middle see truth in ways they could not if there were no contrast.
Without contrast we could not see anything revealed by the light of the sun or the light of the soul.
July 22, 2013
Two Different Approaches
I’ve been thinking about the subject of the polarization of the Left and the Right and I thought I would tabulate some of their differences.
I stated that the Right is polarized in the left brain/ analytical mental area and the Left centers more on the right brain/ emotional nature. A lot of people, especially from the Left would disagree with this as many of them consider the Right as being flat earthers who do not even accept science, or what to them appears to be common sense.
Discussing polarization is a much different animal than talking of intelligence. There are some very intelligent people polarized on both sides of the brain. Determining that polarization just tells us the direction their intelligence is focused.
Here is a tabulation illustrating the differences of the two sides. Keep in mind that all is not black and white. Both sides analyze and feel but one will always dominate more than the other.
(1) The Budget
The Right approaches this from the analytical mental angle. They advocate balancing the budget as much as possible for if we overspend too much the whole financial system could collapse as it has done for other nations in history.
The Left approaches this from the emotional side. If they feel a project is benevolent and desirable then they are willing to purchase it with borrowed money without taking the time to analyze what the end result will be if we continue to buy programs with money we do not have.
(2) How the money is spent.
The Right supports spending money on defense and national security. Their analytical minds tell then that even if the is not a great threat in the present history tells us that we can expect something to crop up soon and we must be prepared for it. They only support social programs that are essential and put emphasis on self reliance which appeals to the analytical mind.
The Left seek to defund the military any time that we are not facing an imminent threat. If it feels like we are not threatened in the present then it feels like it will be that way tomorrow. Instead of concentrating on security they seek to spend money on programs that feel good, even though they are not essential.
The Right does not support strong authority or powerful centralized government that does things for us that we can do for ourselves. It takes analytical thinking to be self-sufficient and this is the direction they pursue.
The Left wants strong authority and a strong central government that prevails over states and restricts individual freedom. This takes the thinking out of much of our decision-making and forces the people toward focusing on emotion.
(4) Career choices
The Right tends to gravitate toward business, especially in the small and intermediate range. They are big on being entrepreneurs and working for themselves if at all possible. To be successful in business requires a lot of analytical thinking.
The Left gravitates toward bureaucratic work, especially in government. These jobs often require little analytical thinking but provide security which appeals to the emotional side.
The Left excels in the entertainment industry and creative arts. Highly charged emotional people do well here and the mental types are seen as backward.
Though both sides use facts in their arguments the Right tends to analytically piece various facts together to make a point.
For instance, on global warming the Right will lay out quite a number of facts whereas the Left will make maybe one statement and expect that to settle the argument. The most popular one is, “All scientists agree there is climate change.” By declaring this statement the guy seems to think the argument is settled even though there are a thousand loose ends to clear up.
Then a while back I heard a person on the Left state, “Haven’t you heard of Hurricane Sandy?” He felt that this reminder should be enough to settle the argument for any reasonable person for everybody knows (in his mind) that Sandy is the concrete proof of the dangers of global warming.
(6) The Constitution
The Right definitely approaches this from the analytical side. Many study it carefully analyzing the meaning of every word and every phrase.
The Left tends to read the Constitution much more casually and interpret it the way that feels right rather than how it may literally read.
That’s probably enough to make my point. We could go through all the differences and discover how one side approaches it from a more analytical side and the other from the feeling side.
(7) How they handle things when they do not get their way.
The Right is, of course, disappointed and may complain about unfairness and what is seen as a bad situation, but they regroup and attempt to work within the system to make change.
On the other hand, this is where the Left really shows their emotional polarization. When they do not get their way, instead of regrouping and merely planning a strategy, they will often protest and march in the street. This they do at least ten to one more than the Right. In addition they will often confront those who are at the center of their discontent by going to their homes and even harassing their kids. If they are really upset they will turn violent, break windows, set cars on fire and physically attack police and innocent bystanders. This type of reaction is definitely from the emotions rather than the mind.
Examples of this are several of the most famous trials in recent memory.
The first was O.J. Simpson. Almost all the Right thought he should be judged guilty and most of the Left were sympathetic toward his innocence. When the Right did not get their way there were no marches and no violence. Even OJ himself did not consider his life being in danger and he was seen in public regularly after his trial.
On the other hand, after the Left did not get their way in the trial of the policemen involved in the Rodney King beating the reaction was based on pure unbridled raw emotion. Mobs formed and extreme violence erupted with many innocent people being injured. And it wasn’t just whites that were attacked but many Asians and black businesspeople suffered damages.
Then when the Left didn’t get their way in the Zimmerman trial, again there were protests. The media portrays these as being peaceful and yes, the reaction is not as violent as with the Rodney King case but there as been quite a bit of violence that has not been reported.
Here’s a site that lists 35 incidents:
Unlike the OJ aftermath, Zimmerman is in fear of his life and has received many death threats, some of them from public figures published in the media. In addition, his family has received threats. These threats create a great contrast to the problems OJ faced which were merely of a legal nature created by the rational mind of Fred Goldman.
July 27, 2013
You once wrote that we never lost the knowledge of restoring our bodies, how does one do that exactly and why are you not at the body age of 25 JJ?
I do not recall saying that – especially in the way you are interpreting it.
Everyone who is born will age fairly normally until they become a master. Then they can rejuvenate themselves so long as they are fulfilling higher purpose.
I am not yet a master so my aging process is proceeding normally. I am thankful that I have been blessed with good health throughout my life and I take no prescription drugs. That, of course, with a few exceptions, that helps the overall health.
We have all the knowledge of the universe programmed into the atoms of our various bodies but that does not mean that you or I can access and make use of it all with our current limitations. As we remove our limitations the access becomes greater. To recreate a past physical body one would have to be working on the Seventh initiation or higher. To extend life indefinitely one must pass the Fifth. Not all Fifth degree initiates extend their lives as it is sometimes more beneficial to be reborn in a new and more useful body.
July 29, 2013
The Truth is True
I agree with Rick that the group is making good comments on the latest assignment. Perhaps Alex made the most controversial statement in saying;
“Since this principle works so well, is it even possible to find the truth?” Alex: No, it is not possible to find truth. In this environment we are supposed to live in illusion, and any “truth” is only a slightly better model or variance of the illusion, let alone everyone has different truths.
Then after receiving some counterpoints Alex added this:
Let us say that you take the statement “The Sun is bright” as truth. Well, it is not the truth. Sun is not bright. Brightness is only a perception or illusion created in your brain because your eyes happen to be sensitive to certain energy photons.
I would agree with Alex if he had said that it is not possible for us in our present state to find the ultimate truth or the complete truth, but it is indeed possible to find many things that are absolute truths as indicated by the Course in Miracles:
“For if what is not true is true as well as what is true, then part of truth is false. And truth has lost its meaning. Nothing but the truth is true, and what is false is false.”
There are many things that are absolutely true. Millions of truths can be found in mathematics. For instance 2+2=4 and does not equal anything else.
Now let us examine Alex’s statement that he says is not true. “The sun is bright.” He says this is not true because it is only a perception. In other words, the brightness of a thing is relative to the eyes of the beholder, for if our sun was placed side by side with Sirius, which is many times brighter, then the sun would not seem so bright.
Does this make the original statement untrue?
Absolutely not. When someone says the sun is bright they are comparing its brightness to other things not as bright. So in comparison to the moon and stars it is absolutely true that the sun is bright.
To say that you cannot make true measurements within a standards that is accepted by your consciousness is a thing that is not true.
If I say it is 100 degrees Fahrenheit out there and you say that is not true because it is 37.7 degrees Celsius you are just making a contentious and false argument. Both statements are absolutely true within the reference points of accepted measurements here on Planet Earth.
Absolute truth exists within relative measurements. If a thing is bright to me and dim to a visiting alien then it is still true that it is bright to me. I care not how bright it is to the alien.
There is truth within illusion. For instance, you may dream you are being chased by a monster and wake up to your relief and discover the monster is not real. Even so, it is absolutely true that you did dream of a monster and had the experience of being chased by him.
Our whole universe is created out of wavelengths (an absolute truth) so in reality solid matter is an illusion. Even, so it is still true that I am having the experience of sitting in a solid chair. It is absolutely true that the chair is solid to my reference points.
The path to greater truth is to first accept the truths that we see about us. If you dream that you are being chased by a monster it will not make the monster go away if you just think, “I am not being chased by a monster.” Outside of waking up, the best thing you can do is turn and face the monster and fight it. I did that once in a dream and beat the dickens out of it. That was a wonderful experience.
I have already written a lot about the subject of absolute and relative truth. If you want to check it out go here:
Then scroll down and read these post numbers:
258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 268, 269
Over the years people have learnt a “truth” that Fgrav = k * M1 * M2 / (R^2).
This law of gravity is very helpful particularly in space tavel. This equation
has been proven true by experiment. It serves mankind well. But can this law of
gravity be considered truth? No, because no one, no one scientist knows, WHY the
(celestial) bodies KNOW that they have to be attracted to each other? The real
truth is hidden.
(And if you tell me that you know the answer to that question, for instance
because all the bodies possess some sort of magnetic female energy, etc.,
blah-blah-blah, I would laugh. It would be just another illusion even less
useful than the concise equation above.)
Why do you say that an incomplete knowledge about gravity negates the truth about its law and effects? That’s like saying that because you do not know how a radio works that it cannot be true that my favorite station is 670 on the dial. That’s silly.
If you do not know how gravity works then average people still know many truths about it. Here are some.
1. Gravity pulls us toward the earth.
2. If we jump over a cliff we will hurt ourselves.
3. If we overeat we will wind up weighing more.
4. Gravity keeps our orbit around the sun in place and consistent.
I could go on and on.
Conclusion: You do not need to know all truth about a subject to know some truths about it.
You do not need to know how consciousness originated to know the truth that you are conscious. Let us hope you are, anyway.
I figured you were using an unorthodox definition of truth. Here is what the dictionary says it is:
“The actual facts or information about something, rather than what people think, expect, or make up.”
What you are defining as truth is not even in the dictionary and to be technically correct you should have used something like “ultimate truth’ or “complete truth’ rather than just “truth.” Any fact or accurate piece of data is true.
The use of unorthodox definitions without clarifying how one is using the word is the cause of many disagreements where no real disagreements are to be had.
We had this problem when talking about law a while back. I tried to get everyone to use the dictionary definitions of the words “law’ and “legal” and because all would not accept the same definitions we couldn’t get off page one in the argument.
Well, Alex, you say that you do not go by the dictionary definition of truth and it appears that in your mind truth can never be discovered or known so it is pretty difficult to have a discussion with you about a subject that does not even exist in your mind.
For instance, because my favorite radio station is different than yours means to you that it is not true that I have a favorite radio. That is pretty strange thinking.
As I said, we had a discussion a while back on what was legal and because we could not agree on the meaning of the word the discussion was stopped in its tracks. I had about seven points I wanted to make and we couldn’t even get to point one because the word legal was a moving target. Truth seems to be a moving target in this case.
Like I said I covered these points on truth earlier here:
Then scroll down and read these post numbers:
258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 268, 269
Maybe they ought to add a new logical fallacy to the list. You could call it:
The argument from definition
Basic idea is when a person tries to define a word so that only her conclusion is “logical.” 🙂
Good point. Many do define words in their own way making any other conclusion other than their own valid in their minds.
I always just go by the dictionary definition unless some original new meaning is needed which is rare indeed.
I think it was only one or two men in the group who had a problem with your
Most of us here probably agreed or did agree with the terms that you were
defining legal as.
I understand but it just takes one in a group to distract from unity. What I was doing at the time was demonstrating how difficult it is to reach unity when one or more people in a group disagree. If we cannot contact the soul as a group we have to at least agree on definitions of the words we are using or there is no hope. People often get hung up on their own slant on definitions instead of using the common one that everyone understands.
As far as truth goes 99% of the people would accept as truth that my favorite station is what I honestly declare it to be. Alex is defining truth to be the ultimate cause behind all things that can never be understood by us. Since it cannot be understood by us then it does not exist to our consciousness. if it does not exist to our consciousness then it does not exist for us. If truth does not exist then it is useless to talk about a subject that is a no thing.
Aug 2, 2013
Here’s another letter I submitted to the editor of my local paper.
Obamacare – A Train Wreck
Obama stated that his healthcare plan would cost us a mere $900 billion over ten years. The most recent estimate of a Senate Budget Committee now places the amount at $2.6 trillion. All but the true believers from the Left knew this was going to happen.
The outrageous cost is just one of the problems. Because it mandates businesses with over 50 employees to provide Obamacare to those working 30 hours or more a week many are now hiring part time workers. Even Obamacare’s call centers are avoiding insurance expenses by hiring part time.
Then to top that, not only Congress, but unions, including the IRS are now trying to get out of the Obamacare exchanges.
Even Senator Max Baucus, one of the architects of Obamacare, says he fears it will be a train wreck.
They say there are 47 million uninsured, but take away the illegals, and those who have healthcare access and we are left with only around 20 million citizens that need help with insurance. Some type of voucher system for them would cost far less than Obamacare and eliminate the need for 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce it. Let’s eliminate the 20,000 pages of legislation and pass a new bill of no more than three pages.
Aug 3, 2013
The Complete Truth
It all boils down to subjectivism and relativity in finding the truth. One paradigm is replaced by another. One truth — by a more true truth.
There is no such thing as a more true truth. If a thing is true then it is true and nothing else is true. If attention is shifted to something else that is true then the first thing is still true.
For instance, if your attention is on 2=2=4 and is shifted to 8+8=16 then 2+2 still equals four and it equals nothing else.
What is more true: to say that a physical body is connected to astral body by a silver cord or by cigarette smoke? Both are not true. It just our way of interpreting something we do not fully know.
The truth has nothing to do with interpretation. Either the astral body is connected to the physical by a silver cord or it is not. Either it is composed of cigarette smoke or it is not. There is no grey area for something that is true. A thing or statement is either true or false. If two statements contradict then both cannot be true. Either one is true and one is false or they are both false.
However there exist complete truths. A complete truth always takes place if you create something and fully master and control it.
I think you are using the wrong word in what you are trying to say. There exists complete knowledge of various principles, ideas, concepts etc. This complete knowledge may be composed of thousands of truths and each truth is a complete piece of data.
For example, Euclid made his geometry based on several axioms. In that system the sum of the angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees. This is an absolute truth. He created it by definition. We accept it if we accept the Euclidian system altogether.
Because a truth is defined within a system does not mean the truth is changeable or relative. If we divided the circle into 180 degrees instead of 360 then the angles of his triangle would be 90 degrees rather than 180 and the truth of his equations would still be the same ratios. Pi is 3.14â¦ in any system.
Similarly, if we write 2+2=4 in Spanish nothing changes. Just because we use different words does not change the equation or the truth.
This is really basic reasoning if you think of it. Sometimes we should stay with what we learned in the third grade.
But when it comes to seeking for the truth in something broader — the quest for truth becomes a quest for refining models in one’s minds.
This does not apply to me. There are plenty of models that make our current reality and as I seek for truth I define the truths I see using the models already available. No need to reinvent the wheel and create new ones. Instead of refining a model I seek to refine my understanding of what is and exp5ess it within the current model.
lwk: Whatever one knows that conforms with what is, is true.
Alex: This is far better definition than JJ gave. It has two very important words: “one knows”.
As Ruth said, the definition I gave was not mine but the dictionary. The one given by lwk is more concise.
If JJ got a more sensitive radio receiver or a receiver with shortwave bands and explored more radiostations, he could have found that there exists another radio station even better than his current favourite 670 KHz.
If I found a thousand stations I like better than my current favorite the truth would not be changed. The truth is this: as of this day, Aug 4, 2013 on planet earth this is my favorite station. Changing my mind tomorrow does not alter the truth of today. You should read my past posts about points of truth in time and space. They are not relative and do not change. It is true that what I like may change, but what I like at a point in time and space does not. I didn’t like peas as a kid and now I do. The truth that I didn’t like peas as a kid will be true for all eternity. That truth or any other truth does not change and you cannot tell me one that does. It is impossible for truth to change. Because our understanding changes does not mean that truth changes. If what we believe to be true changes this does not cause truth to change. The truth is still true.
The fact that circumstances change does not mean the truth changes. It only means circumstances change. In fact it is a truth that change is always occurring in the worlds of form.
I would be more cautious and paraphrase your “The Truth shall set you Free” into:
“Replacing illusions with better illusions is setting you freer and making you feel happier.”
It is true that we all have illusions to unravel and one illusion is often replaced with another illusion that contains more truth than the old one. None of us knows all truth but all of us know many things that are true. Putting the pieces we call truth together so an accurate picture of reality is formed is the great quest.
Copyright by J J Dewey 2013
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE