What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

Originally posted by Mayura
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I'd just listen to him, it's hard to be lied to once you know YOURSELF.

It all depends if it resonates. I'm starting to sense things energetically as opposed to intellectually.

Indoctrination and the intellect can be very misleading...

edit on 4-1-2011 by Mayura because: (no reason given)

My wife would agree with you. I love my wife because she really does experience life in this manner. I haven't got this capacity, but I do appreciate it.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Alethea
reply to post by NorEaster

 

"By their fruits you will know them."

I would not need to ask any questions at all. I would just need some time to observe his actions. Truth is something that resonates with others who hold the same values. "The Spirit bears witness."

Would that everyone was so gifted. They aren't, though. What questions would you have someone who isn't as equipped ask such a man about the nature of his information? Surely something specific would alert you to whether his premise was plausible enoiugh to warrant further investigation. At least it would alert you to whether it wasn't plausible. Most people are not very observable, and many are natural performers.

I think you reveal more about yourself by the questions you ask rather than anything the mystery person might reveal to you. I learned a long time ago that once people know where you stand on certain things, they can deduce how to play you and pretend that they conform to your likes, dislikes, and standards. For instance, if someone knows you do not smoke pot and that you do not approve, if they do such things they will keep it hidden from you. It is better to just observe. You can only see the truth when it is through actions. Words lie. And actions can become deceitful if you reveal your standards and judgments through questions or statements first.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Besides, what does a man who's had the truth concerning the whole of reality dumped in his lap look and act like?

He would look and act like Julian Assange. Incarcerated in a dungeon in solitary confinement, he would still be thinking of others who had it so much worse and his pain and compassion for them would outweigh any hardship he himself was experiencing.

A man who has had the "truth concerning the whole of reality" would do everything in his power to make it known to the world and not just to one person asking a question. He would not be secretive about what he knew, but would go to great lengths to make it known to all. He would be willing to make this his life's work and he would be willing to risk death to get this knowledge out to everyone.

It is said in scripture that in the last days one who is like the son of man will appear. (Jesus never referred to himself as a son of god). Being "like" the son of man, and knowing that the mission of Jesus was in speaking truth, I would expect to see this similarity. It is also said that this one will be like the Archangel Michael who was both a destroyer and a protector. Would anyone in this evil world recognize such a man if he did appear?

Originally posted by NorEaster
Keep in mind that nowhere in my question is it suggested that this is a super-knowledgable person. Just that he claims to possess a very specific information set. This could be all that this person knows. That's what needs to be ascertained through extended questioning. The first task is to quickly determine whether he's legit enough to go to that level with him.

Oh okay. Then I suppose the questions I would ask for verification would depend on the specific nature of the knowledge he claims to possess.

Relative truth, yes. However, for a true sub-structure to exist (and one does) then a True that transcends all contextual environments must exist.

I don't understand what this means. What is a "true sub-structure'?

what has become increasingly obvious is that redundancy is the go-to strategy regardless of what contextual setting is setting the agenda. The nature of this redundancy (impetus, initiation, broad application, parameters) would likely be a very critical aspect of this man's information suite, and certainly a good target for inquiry.

Nor this. Can you rephrase these parts?

I. What are you on?

II. Where do I get some?

III. What makes you think you know the "truth"?

IV. Are you okay with how unbelievably arrogant claiming to know the entire "truth" sounds?

V. Now, seriously... 'fess up. What are you on?

Sorry, perhaps its the natural cynic in me, but I sincerely doubt ANY one person could be privy to the entire "truth". It makes no sense. In a world of secrecy, where knowledge is power, anyone in a position of power would do their level damnedest to make sure that ONE person was not privy to everything. It would then be too easy for someone to get at this one person, or to have this one person go rogue and walk up to some poor sod on the street and spill his guts. At best this mystery man would hold a piece of the puzzle, nothing more.

Sorry (part II: Even Sorrier), perhaps its also the natural misanthrope in me, but I sincerely doubt that any puny human has the CAPACITY to know the entirety of the truth. I'm about to commit a crime against humanity here and ask everyone to remember Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Chrystal Skull. Evil Commie Lass, asks to know everything. It doesn't end well for her. We're little better than apes, what gives us the impression we can handle the truth?

To sum up, I have a quote that describes my thoughts in much better prose than I could ever dredge up, its one of my faves...

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." -H.P Lovecraft

...so this guy walks up to me and says he has the truth... i get five questions to determine if i want to believe his truth... if thats how the game goes, heres the only question i would ask...

...will you stop the war machine forever, right now?... if he says yes and actually does that, terrific... he's a got HUGE fan for the rest of my life... if he says no, i say "okay, have nice day", and then i go back to doing whatever i was doing before he intruded with his hooey...

If the truth were so easy to understand It would be printed in books for all to see. Without knowledge you cannot find wisdom. Without wisdom you cannot find truth. Say you are in school, you didn't study for the test and it's test time. Now someone can give you the answers but you don't understand the steps they had to take to get and understand the answers. Would you still take the answers even though you don't understand and thus learned nothing on your own? If you are truly ready for the truth, your wisdom needs to reach the level needed to identify it. I would not ask questions to validate to myself if what they were saying were true. I would simply listen to what they have to say. Truth makes sense, lies tend to fall apart when examined closely.

Originally posted by NorEaster
...

If a man walked up to you (no one you've ever seen before, and there's nothing remarkable about this man either physically or in how his presence affects you viscerally) and he told you that he possesses the Truth about life, about reality, about the concept and/or existence of God, about humanity, and about why you (specifically) exist; what list of questions would you need this man to answer correctly, for you to take him seriously as someone who just might be the one guy who actually has that Truth?

I would focus on physics/reality because the Higher Truth is in my opinion is unknowable to us at this point in time, hence:

1. What caused the Big Bang?
2. Is M-Theory correct?
3. If the answer to 2 above is "no" then what is the nature and extent of the Universe(s)?
4. How did intelligent life (humans) arise, i.e., design or chance?
5. Where are the non-human intelligent beings exactly in the Universe?

1 - What religious affiliation do you claim?

2 - What is your definition of the word "TRUTH"?

3 - How can you be certain that these "TRUTH"s, are indeed 100% fact? Or, are you?

4 - Why are you telling me? Right here? Right now?

5 - Tell me of your own aspirations, or plans, for the remainder of this lifetime.

Not even 24 hours of interogation could achieve an absolute certainty on the validity, or non-validity, of his claims. As they say, nothing in Life is certain but Death and taxes. But, his answers to these questions, and how he answered them, would be an extremely beneficial gauge.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...so this guy walks up to me and says he has the truth... i get five questions to determine if i want to believe his truth... if thats how the game goes, heres the only question i would ask...

...will you stop the war machine forever, right now?... if he says yes and actually does that, terrific... he's a got HUGE fan for the rest of my life... if he says no, i say "okay, have nice day", and then i go back to doing whatever i was doing before he intruded with his hooey...

Knowing the "truth" doesn't necessarily suggest that this man would also have God-like powers. All the truths and knowledge in the world would be useless in stopping war, if it was known by only one man. Its only in the spreading of that knowledge, that those truths can become powerful.

Jesus said "I am the truth".

The truth is a frame of reference and a perspective, since context and framing is everything.

And everything is made from nothing, out of nothing is made everything. It cannot be any other way. Nothing is therefore the foundation of everything.

The only known, of any certainty, that can be known, must reside in the realm of an unknown unknown, or what we don't know we don't know, yet.

What comes out of that domain, since context and framing is everything, can only be drawn forth into the sphere of knowledge as Truth, to the degree that we begin with the premise that the only thing we can know for sure is that we don't know anything with any certainty (supported by Hiesenburg) whatsoever. We must therefore die to self (all our contextual frames and filters of personality + paradigms or worldviews) by fully accepting uncertainty, and be reborn into a new domain of Truth and Spirit (the previously unknown unknown - known).

What is truth and spirit? Truth and spirit is all there is, it's all that is left when everything else is carved away by reason.

How can this be tested?

Test it by entering into the realm of the unknown unknown, while retaining your own awareness or your own frame of reference, however uncertain that may be.. what's there? Is there any spirit and truth there that can be "known" by felt experience..?

Truth, like Spirit, is not a construct, but an essence, a motivator, it's perfect form following perfect function.

So we can't really KNOW truth, in our mind, it can only be known in felt experience, in the heart and soul, that's where it lives.

And since it is the reality, the only real reality, then we all share it together, on the OTHER side of all our own subjective POV's, it's still there, waiting for us to enter into it, but people can only go one at a time on their own AND can only go together, I think this is the great paradox of truth, that it's both entirely personal AND something that can ONLY be shared in intimate participation, and validated, together, and so someone has to speak and someone, listen.

As for me, I don't have a single novel idea of my own, I just borrow the frame I see, the frame I've come to understand, from he who said "I am the truth".

P.S. Light is the mechanism of creation, as is love, the motive force of creative action in the space of nothing, and so light is the physical manifestation, of God's love. The whole universe is controlled from the perspective of a single photon of light, relative to which there is no time or causation, paradoxically. Once there was light, there was ALWAYS light. From what frame of reference did God "say" "let there be light"? No one can know, such is the eternal mystery of the Godhead, who appears to take on the role of creator and limit by subtraction from the Absolute in order so that experience, including our own, might be possible.

With all this in mind, there is no longer any room left for fear, which is the antithesis of faith, where righteousness is measured not by works or by good deeds, but by faith, and it can be no other way than this, since the infinite, eternal reality, cannot be understood, nor subject to human understanding.

Therefore, because the Absolute cannot be understood, the "goal" cannot be to understand God, but only to realize the truth and spirit through our human experience in mutuality, born of, or motivated by, the very same love which gave rise to existence in the first place, and there, through that participative framework in loving bhakti, can God be known and experienced to any degree.

The larger frame of reference then, from the perspective of what to us, remains an unknown unknown, is then made available for a continual and never ending process of mutual exploration, a domain or a realm I refer to as "the holy of holies" or the realm or domain of limitless possibility, that is our true condition as consciously aware, free will causal agents, as servants, of both people, and of the light/love transcendant.

The "truth" then is an opportunity - for growth, mutuality, freedom, happiness and joy.

What more do we need?



To further illustrate, allowing someone else to speak

Now, keep in mind that in the past, people would expect such a man to have extraordinary abilities - to be able to perform "signs and wonders" as proof of his access to the Truth

Maybe not. Mohammed pulled it off, with no miracles. Even the "miracles" of Jesus were apparently pretty much the same as what contemporary secular magicians like Simon of Samaria (Acts 8: 9 ff.) could perform.

I never reach a concern about advanced technology. Satan is supposedly able to do all sorts of things I can't do, and whatever his acess to the Truth may be, supposedly he doesn't tell the truth. This shows that there is no logical relation between being stronger than me and being better informed than I am and being willing to tell me honestly what someone knows. So, there's really nothing for a concern about advanced technology to rebut.

If miracles were presented, then I think they would simply become a topic of questions in their own right. That actually happened to Jesus, and he had to go off-message to defend himself against accusations of being in league with the demons he cast out.

I am unsure that he ever did make that defense convincing. Obviously, a house can be divided and stand. Militaries sacrifice some of their members in the interest of the mission all the time. Oddly, Jesus' defense is a non-issue now mainly because few people today believe that there are any demons for Jesus to be in league with. But, that's not his defense; he seems to share his audiences' beliefs about demons.

The miracle, then, became an impediment to some people's reception of the message, even if it was helpful for others. As the example of St Paul illustrates, scribes and Pharisees could be high-value targets, and yet these were the people Jesus' miracles were turning away.

Anyway, I would only have one question for your prophet: How do you know? Depending on the person's answer, I would walk away or pursue a conversation. During that conversation, I may well have other questions about what I am being told. I really couldn't say in advance what those questions would be, since they depend on what the person says.

So, for example, Mohammed, how do you know? He tells me something about talking with the angel Gabriel. Not good enough, in my opinion.

Had he gotten past that question, then I would have listened to his stuff. At some point, I would surely have noticed that I had read much of it before, in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Since Mohammed adds little that is really new to what was already available to me, I would ask him about that. Unless he came up with something, I would resume my search.

Maybe you were looking for something "hard" like "Is there a largest prime pair, and if so, what is it? Prove your answer." Meh, you know how prophets answer that sort of thing. "My truth is not the truth that can be revealed by reason..." blah, blah, blah.

Fine. It really could be that the reason why I am asking the questions instead of answering them is that I fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Truth. Maybe it is something that cannot be revealed by reason. In which case, "How do you know?" simply becomes an even better question, IMO.

So, I'll cut to the chase and ask that.

reply to post by eight bits

I can't know for sure unless you know with me (see my post above, subjected to your scrunity). Then and only then can I tell you how I know for sure. It's a paradox, which requires your validation, to close the circle in mutuality as the final frame of reference, since no man is an island.

Hi, NewAgeMan

Although our posts ended up running back-to-back, my answer was directed to the OP, and not to anybody else on the thread personally.

If I understand your posts, you correctly point out that a very similar problem might present itself in a different form from that described in the OP:

I can't know for sure unless you know with me ...

So, here and now, you don't know. In contrast, the OP situation, as I understood it, is about somebody who comes forward claiming to know here and now, and wishing to share the contents of their already secured knowledge.

I suppose in a case like yours, my reaction depends on what you specifically ask me to do, in order to "close the circle in mutuality." Obviously, if that means "engage in a discussion on an internet board," then here we are, doing just that. But, if it's something else, then you'd need to tell me what that was.

But at some point, I'd still ask you how you know that that process would reliably lead us to the Truth. I'd probably ask sooner, rather than later.

reply to post by eight bits


That type of knowledge (what the OP is asking for) can only ever at best point to the thing.

I guess what I am saying is that all of it is on the other side of what we THOUGHT we knew, and that there is a difference between thinking about, or even describing and the knowing of truth, which i've described as a loving invitation to participate co-creatively. You'll note that I added a video to the post to better describe it, which, to be "truth" must by its very nature surpass our conceptualizations. The frame of reference of the atheist is flawed right from the get go imho, as if everything, including truth and life and spirit can be subject to a mere description, or produced in a formula. That said, on the other hand, if there is such a thing it also would have to be accessible and sharable, as I mentioned, just not from our present contextual frame of reference and our ideas about what knowing is, which I suggest is a shared felt experience (really knowing must be experienced, must be "ah ha"d), and which can be described only to the point that it may be framed, in this case, by uknowning or more precisely, by uncertainty.
When we take away everything we think we know or knew, and everything that does NOT make sense or hold up under scrunity and analysis as well as scientific analysis ie: that we live in a Newtonian materialist monist reality - all that is left is this marvelous domain of potential knowing, as a possibility, which is why I describe the "truth" as an opportunity for mutual discovery and exploration. An open mind however, is its prerequisit, not only open, but empty.
It has been said that the Christ mind (knowing of truth, as truth) is like an emptied Buddha bowl first filled with Hermes.
That bowl I am indicating, is filled with Truth and Spirit, which is both innerent and transcendant (the all in all).
All of life resides in this same bowl, because it's all there is, there is only truth and spirit in real reality, it's all that is left when everything else is carved away by either reason or science.
So when we get to the end of what it is not, it's all that remains.
So I am speaking about it here, not evading. I am stepping in as "the guy", although I understand you were addressing the OP.

As a good friend says; "in paradox lies truth"..


The mormons didn't seem to like it when I looked them in the eye and told them I am god Although they do drop by for chats still.

Originally posted by Tearman

Originally posted by NorEaster
Keep in mind that nowhere in my question is it suggested that this is a super-knowledgable person. Just that he claims to possess a very specific information set. This could be all that this person knows. That's what needs to be ascertained through extended questioning. The first task is to quickly determine whether he's legit enough to go to that level with him.

Oh okay. Then I suppose the questions I would ask for verification would depend on the specific nature of the knowledge he claims to possess.

Relative truth, yes. However, for a true sub-structure to exist (and one does) then a True that transcends all contextual environments must exist.

I don't understand what this means. What is a "true sub-structure'?

I'll use molecular physics as an example. For the gathering of atomic structure to be predictable and dependable, beneath that structure must exist a foundational sub-structure. Like the foundation of a building that keeps the entire structure square and rigid. Reality itself is replicated by what we see in existence around us. Atomic structure, cellular structure, ecosystems that feature multiple systems that are interdependent for mutual survival; all of these easily perceived structures share the same general design concept, even if they express that concept in their own unique ways. What provides the consistency that each structure requires is what I suppose would be the sub-structure - or the reliable matrix of interdependence that is gathered beneath what has the potential to be malleable and responsive to change.

This sub-structure cannot be malleable. If it is, the ripple-effect would be devastating to the enormous amount of organizational development that has been progressively built upon it. Of course, in the case of something as primordial as physical reality, the structure isn't made of steel or bricks or anything that is molecular. It's made of the impact of contextual precedence (the basis of natural selection, but at a much more primitive level of expression), and the nature of raw data information upon the activity that is affected by precedence.

That would be my guess.

what has become increasingly obvious is that redundancy is the go-to strategy regardless of what contextual setting is setting the agenda. The nature of this redundancy (impetus, initiation, broad application, parameters) would likely be a very critical aspect of this man's information suite, and certainly a good target for inquiry.

Nor this. Can you rephrase these parts?

edit on 4-1-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

Look at the simple orbit. Look at how much of what "works" in nature employs the orbit to its own end.

Why does the orbit exist? How primitive is the orbit, and is there a redundancy that is even more primitive than the orbit?

What causes the orbit to maintain any level of redundancy? You can claim that it is due to gravity, but in the case of water swirling down a drain, is gravity what causes the water droplets to swarm together in an orbit around the circular opening? What about the orbit within a tornado, or a hurricane?

And why is the orbit circular in the first place? Yes, it is efficient, but what allows it to seek this very specific course of redundancy? Why not simply vibrate? After all, each employs units of active change in consistent and organized expendature. What makes the orbit more maintainable than the vibration? Or is it?

I would ask questions like this to a man who claims to have the Truth concerning reality. Redundancy is a pervasive concrete aspect of physical existence, and definitely a testable premise that exists within the larger premise of physical reality itself.

reply to post by DeadJester


This is probably how most people view things, huh?

As if knowing the true nature of reality would give anyone power over it. As if learning the true nature of reality would do anything besides allow you to stop being afraid, or in some cases, force you to stop feeling omnipotent.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...so this guy walks up to me and says he has the truth... i get five questions to determine if i want to believe his truth... if thats how the game goes, heres the only question i would ask...

...will you stop the war machine forever, right now?... if he says yes and actually does that, terrific... he's a got HUGE fan for the rest of my life... if he says no, i say "okay, have nice day", and then i go back to doing whatever i was doing before he intruded with his hooey...

Having the Truth about reality is one thing. Having dominion over reality is quite a different thing. This man hasn't claimed to be Jesus on a cloud come back for the 2nd act. He's claimed to have the Truth concerning what we are, how we fit into reality, the nature of reality itself, and the truth about God as it relates to us. Where does this claim intersect with "the war machine"?

Knowing the truth about something is not the same as having control over it.

Originally posted by Rezwar
If the truth were so easy to understand It would be printed in books for all to see. Without knowledge you cannot find wisdom. Without wisdom you cannot find truth. Say you are in school, you didn't study for the test and it's test time. Now someone can give you the answers but you don't understand the steps they had to take to get and understand the answers. Would you still take the answers even though you don't understand and thus learned nothing on your own? If you are truly ready for the truth, your wisdom needs to reach the level needed to identify it. I would not ask questions to validate to myself if what they were saying were true. I would simply listen to what they have to say. Truth makes sense, lies tend to fall apart when examined closely.

Let's say that he offered you nothing without a question. In fact, he wouldn't even make small talk. Just a question that you ask, and as much answer as it took for you to understand that answer. What would your first question be? Now remember, you're asking each question in an effort to help others discern whether this man is to be taken seriously. What verifies his credibility for you, personally, may not verify his credibility for someone who isn't as perceptive as you are. The questions alone must be sufficiently effective in forcing this man to either put up or shut up. I've given many potential examples, even though I will admit that I'm not satisfied with my own either.

Originally posted by greenorbs

Originally posted by NorEaster
...

If a man walked up to you (no one you've ever seen before, and there's nothing remarkable about this man either physically or in how his presence affects you viscerally) and he told you that he possesses the Truth about life, about reality, about the concept and/or existence of God, about humanity, and about why you (specifically) exist; what list of questions would you need this man to answer correctly, for you to take him seriously as someone who just might be the one guy who actually has that Truth?

I would focus on physics/reality because the Higher Truth is in my opinion is unknowable to us at this point in time, hence:

1. What caused the Big Bang?
2. Is M-Theory correct?
3. If the answer to 2 above is "no" then what is the nature and extent of the Universe(s)?
4. How did intelligent life (humans) arise, i.e., design or chance?
5. Where are the non-human intelligent beings exactly in the Universe?

This is going in the right direction. Still, the answers to 1 and 2 would be extremely difficult for the average person to verify, since scientists can't verify them either. That'd be a problem.

Question 3, again, would be tough to fact-check - even concerning how his answer may directly affect what can be easily verified by using common logical extrapolation.

Questions 4 and 5 could also be answered in a way that you'd have no way of directly confirming his answers, or even a way of logically associating those possible answers to anything that can be verified.

This challenge is not as easy as it might seem to be at first blush.