What If You Really Had Discovered The Truth....

Originally posted by ChiForce

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ChiForce
What you called the truth is simply a cessation of doubts. You cease to doubts because you haven't realized the further branching or ramification of your newly found truths. If only you let this truth to seat with you a bit longer, doubts would set in. Hence, you have to continue to strife for more greater truths. What I thought I knew when I was in my 20s are no longer relevant to me now in my 30s. I am pretty sure when I am in my 70s, I would see the truths differently.

Actually, what I call the truth is a very definitive description of the structure and nature of physical reality, the fact that reality only exists in a sub-structurally shared physical form, and the precise nature of the true relationship between humanity and the being that initiated the entire contextual environment that includes our Earth, our universe and whatever else exists that can interact with what we know to exist. Yes, I have no doubts, but it's not quite the same as being convinced of anything that is subject to alteration due to life circumstances. It's having worked out the responsible alternatives and discovered the linkage between what obviously is and what logic demands as responsible extrapolation due to what obviously exists.

I seriously doubt that my own personal preferences would have any impact on what I've discovered. In fact, some of what I've learned has debunked some wonderful beliefs I held, and I still miss them.

edit on 10/16/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Is not personal preference. Is a paradigm shift...

Your state of consciousness will determine how you perceive your truths. Even in science and the so-called logics, once the paradigm shifted, you will see the truths differently.

edit on 16-10-2010 by ChiForce because: (no reason given)

It's been 34 years researching and connecting these dots. I wonder what shift will obliterate this as a truth for me, then. It'll have to be a hell of a paradigm shift.

reply to post by NorEaster


I would like to see what you put down about it.

I was not good in observating the world and discovering it myself. I did the second best thing: I approached it by excluding what it is not in all the material I read. I found pieces of it in everything but was never able to put it together. But by doing that I found enough pieces of the puzzle that one day I could be presented the whole which another one had found out and grasp it. After that I spent most time with experimenting with it how far "the rules" can be stretched for others to get it and my results are: They can't if they do not want to find it. Not because I think I am or others who found it are in any way superior in anything than others (which I am and they are definitely not!) but only because they don't want to go the whole way down without a "safety belt". It is a personal "game" and who doesn't want to win this isn't allowed to win.

Namaste,

Deckard666

Originally posted by Deckard666
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I would like to see what you put down about it.

I was not good in observating the world and discovering it myself. I did the second best thing: I approached it by excluding what it is not in all the material I read. I found pieces of it in everything but was never able to put it together. But by doing that I found enough pieces of the puzzle that one day I could be presented the whole which another one had found out and grasp it. After that I spent most time with experimenting with it how far "the rules" can be stretched for others to get it and my results are: They can't if they do not want to find it. Not because I think I am or others who found it are in any way superior in anything than others (which I am and they are definitely not!) but only because they don't want to go the whole way down without a "safety belt". It is a personal "game" and who doesn't want to win this isn't allowed to win.

Namaste,

Deckard666

The truth is that reality is fairly redundant and extremely predictable. Yes, that doesn't seem like what most folks want to hear, but within that predictable redundancy, there's plenty of drama for those who are bored.

My premise details the drivers and directives that have always existed, and how those drivers and directives have caused physical reality to be what it is. Again, that may seem pretty dull, but when you get into ultra-sophisticated organizational development and the existential identity expressions of such development, the fun really starts to show up. A lot of it has made itself foundational to the human experience (emotional, inspirational, mystical, transcendental) while never variating off the existential fundamentals that exist at the sub-structural level of each contextual environment that hosts such epitomical expression.

I actually have that book I've been mentioning, and if you look in this thread, I detail what that book reveals.

reply to post by NorEaster


It takes 118,000 words and with little or no reiteration - which can be challenging for some people, since most non-fiction books beat a premise into hamburger before the author is satisfied that the point's been made. If I did that, the book would be 900 pages long.

The specifics are extremely difficult to present without the supporting and directly associated specifics, and especially concerning the more counterintuitive aspects of most of the specifics. That said, I do think that I staged the information rollout pretty well, and didn't lose the reader over excessive digressions or assumed knowledge. I also never asserted anything that I could not defend with very accessible information that can be immediately verified. In fact, 90% of this thing is absolutely familiar to most people. It's the implications that are unique and can be a little counterintuitive at first blush.

Check it out. I'd love your reaction to it.