There is no good or evil. These are brands. There is only desire or its antipathy “un-desire”. Where desire and its antipathy are not present, ambivalence reigns. Ambivalence is a state of not knowing, perhaps ignorance. Law makers count on ambivalence when they express legislation couched in rhetoric personalising fanatical desire. Other views neither have influence nor are accepted, however cogent. Desire will win at any cost.

People, on the other hand; regular folks who are viewed only as pawns by the political machine, flit from circumstance to circumstance as butterflies pollinate flowers. The in-group and the in-group views are always good or, at least, were good until the in-group changed as with its opinions. Thus, this leads to a supplementary battle between old and new good which becomes and is the current state of tension. The out-group is the producer of designer evil. That is, until the out-group joins the in-group and old evil is new good. Of course there are the standard issues which seem to affect opinions throughout society. Should sexual expression be overt of covert? What age should people be allowed to marry? Is the sexual union between male and female the only partnership blessed by God?

There is room to consider drugs and alcohol, murder, theft, blackmail and a host of other modern conditions. Nevertheless, this post is considering the mechanics. Symptoms are unimportant. In order to personalise their fanatical desire, law makers concocted brand good and brand evil. However, without a champion that transcended the legal due processes, they knew the brand would fade into oblivion. People would work it out. They would realise they were being conned. The champion needed to be so powerful it, he or she would be beyond access. It would need to be beyond physical and so huge, so awesome, so overwhelming it not only is beyond contact, but all would fear direct contact. Of course, when the fear waned the great pretenders would emerge, but they would only ever be able to speak figuratively in light of some unimaginable expressive force. That champion and necessary invention was God.

Having an all-powerful force beyond reason blessing brand good would soon unhinge without an almost equally powerful arch-enemy; the bastion of brand evil. Without the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub or the host of other labels for the precise same concept, brand good would unravel. Exponents of brand evil could argue their brand was good. As the people are ambivalent or ignorant, opinions could be swayed in favour of the out-group given the right personalisation. The same forces behind the clandestine “all powerful” God created the almost powerful Satan. Satan, of course, always needed to be trumped by God so the in-group and its greater good would remain the favoured option of the mindless masses.

There is the analysis of macro desire. Micro desire works very differently. The term parasite is well known and both used to describe blood sucking creatures and analogic one sided relationships. Parasites do not just suck blood. A parasite is an individual who may combined to form a group strategy where the targeted body is deliberately kept alive, where possible, to ensure a constant supply of sustenance. The targeted body receives no deliberate payment or benefit and usually is unwitting. This amply describes micro desire. Just as with macro desire, good, evil, God and Satan have roles to play. However, the rules are rather different.

Good and evil are functional blocks that can be used to influence. God and Satan are the carrot and stick which, scientifically, might manifest as the empirically possible or impossible.  Micro desire is as likely to manifest as support for or from. Parasitic and reverse behaviour is possible. Both have conditions. The conditions are simple are can be summarised in two words – no conflict.


Faith and Religion

Though there are numerous variants, there are only two fundamental structures categorising religious inherence. Each might cross over the other, in part, depending on the religion. The first, and perhaps older inherent philosophy, determines the individual [or group] is guided, influenced or dragged along by external forces. The commonest of these external forces are good and evil, but the range of expressions and their combinations are potentially limitless. Introspective development free of external influence is the other system. For that, there is no good and evil and the only relationship between the external and internal is as a consequence of connection. The external is made up of inconsequential objects or events. This does not remove the observer from valid interrogation of purpose or deny the possibility or consideration of the pre-destination catalyst. There are merely two approaches to resolve of the state of existence which is always from the introspective. As external influence is beyond control, even though once discovered might be controllable, from the introspective its model hinges on faith. Introspective development relies on control from a religious perspective.

This post is not focused on dwelling on the attributes of a religion or, even, the importance or plausibility for validating faith. Deciphering the elements which define religion and assessing why the user is drawn to faith is the prime objective. Faith is the acceptance of something, known or unknown, whether beyond comprehension or fully understood. It transcends belief as it is the essence of positivism. Conversely those without faith are guided by the essence of negativism. Blind faith, in true definition, is a euphemism for virtual enslavement of the mind, body and soul. The hope is so forlorn, direction so lacking and understanding so null, the user exists in a void dragged along blindly by any interposing force simply by the merit it is. Blind faith, in its corruption of the positive, becomes negative. In fact the use of terminology blind faith has corrupted the very essence of faith.

To understand these notions better, one first must consider the dynamics of existence. Current science, in the mainstream, has given the brain no added value over a rock or a turnip. Followers of Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake are not entertained and use the label circular reasoning as the great flaw of post-Darwin supporters, such as Richard Dawkins. Though Richard Dawkins has built up a reputation for censoring disagreement and removing any evidence that discredits his views, circular reasoning is an unfair slur. In fact current science is quite correct in its findings. The brain has no added value over a rock or a turnip and is made of particles which are also the constructive elements of the two dimensional universe. Though everything is expressed as part of the package which defines the expressive resonance of D3 (third dimension), actually things become solid in D2 and real scientists know that D2 is the great illusion. What connects the brain, turnips and rocks is something that is loosely termed soul network. The soul network is made up of unlimited numbers of resonances which span time and dimension and attach themselves to everything. Every single rock, readers will be surprised to learn, has a soul. However, rocks do not allow souls to function. This is fine as the soul is something like a sponge in the way it operates. The soul is there merely to feed off the introspective (and its relationship with the retrospective), so if the vehicle is inanimate it makes no difference.

Human bodies, for instance, are “powered” at a number of levels. The body itself is made up of a number of specific units comprising independently intelligent specialist cells and other materials. The coordinated perception via the master computer brain is sometimes called the ego. In fact the ego is immortal and will be stored as a shadow upon the death of the body as the next step of its journey. Death is in fact a transmutation when the body ceases to function as it was and becomes something else which is likely to be a number of things. A resonating soul was very much behind the development (maturity) of the body. Its soul in this form is both light (electro-magnetic) and dark (shadow) energy. These energies are both resonances that manifest the fixed impetus which [in manifest form] is best described as desire. In order to discover and record, the human body is accorded with a spirit. Spirits are erroneously described as angelic white light. Though some may be regarded pure or fulfil the objective definition of purity, they are only messengers designated to the course of discovery and, as such, append the mission of the body identity in that capacity. This discovery is guided by the impetus of the soul at its root.

Complex subjects desire additional information to avoid miscomprehension, so here is a recap. The body is made up of circles of cultural environments which are apart from, but may be guided by the brain, which is the functional computer for the impetus manifesting desire. Apart from and outside the body resides a fixed soul which never moves. Its impetus is attracted to a number of filters which include the dark shadow and light ephemeral body which [should] bear all the characteristics of the physical [flesh and blood] body. The light ephemeral is sometimes called the electro-magnetic body and usually aligns itself to the heart. Acting as a force field, the spirit is sometimes described as an ectoplasm surrounding the body. As any other force field, it repels intruders; although certain technologies and techniques can bypass the security. In some instances parasitic spirits can infiltrate the body. However, basically the Taoist yin yang philosophy adequately describes the collaborative relationship between body, soul and spirit. As light is the consequence of desire, the spirit is a concept of the soul. When the soul ebbs, the spirit flows and vice versa.

Faith, therefore, is something inherent and nothing to do with religion. Religion is a vehicle for faith and illuminates categories supported by wise and less than wise philosophies. Whether the body is the temple and external forces are consequences or proscribed systems that transcend reality, faith will still [or rather, always] be inherent. The only way to be the essence of “what is” is to tune into that which is inherent. As inherence is what always was, this can only be purity for that which is impure has become corrupted. This is not to say that to be creative defies purity. Rather, the creative force could not produce the desired output if it were corrupt. If the reason for manifestation was the desire of the impetus, then its corruption would manufacture un-desire. Finally, what was desired [in the state of inherence] must have been desirable else it would not have been desired. Unless inherent desire evolved, its corruption is the only plausible change.

It is through the dynamics of existence that religion has categorised faith in terms of the external and internal. At the time of its collapse, the Satan star was a vent as any other. It allowed the explosive transfer of intent and its transition into materialisation. As it was the centre of the universe (this universe) its blockage and inevitable collapse might be categorised as error. As it is the state of existence, which underpins reality, it is “is” rather than error. Whether the event is categorised as the formation of a giant black hole or the creation of a Satanic Black Sun does not capture inherence. Though it plausibly started as something different, it became what it was, and that was because it was, and there was no other reason. Only consequences attributed emotion. The net effect of that change was a shift to a state of tension populated by the dynamics of opposing forces holding everything in position. The introspective, that is deeply selfish as it is built on the principle of the manifestation of desire, judges opposing forces as [emotional] influences or objects. That is why the two directions of religious philosophy are in interoperable union or discord. They either side with inertia, tension or both.

The importance of mother

Mother’s birthday is coming up so hopefully this exploration will turn into a tribute in some way. Though I have been independent for most of my life, I have always felt in some way connected to the umbilical cord. The physicality may be a distant non-memory, but its essence is ever present both in terms of the continuation of life and the explicit, intrinsic connection beyond physical. There is no argument, or perhaps plenty of argument, that that immaculate power source, the shared power source, radiates a spectrum of desires from absence to intensity. These fizz out into reality, first as opinions, then as beliefs and finally as outcomes – outcomes built from the sheer will to exist and make existence productive. Of course, they may disappear over time but they will always exist as they were “why”.

My first memory is [of me] sitting on a pram. Below me, I am told, was my new born sister. Though I have no memory of it; the time before, that is, I do remember thinking it was odd having to share the limelight. It is funny that I have no memory of my mother as a physical entity then. She was the loving force that propelled the pram but I, her two year old son, did not “see” her. The first time I remember seeing my mother was around age five. No doubt I saw her when I started seeing, but she did not register in my memories until I was five.

The wasp

From my earliest thoughts I have never found a place to forgive wasps. They are as bad as the larger sized cockroaches I now regularly see in Sydney. Cockroaches, they tell me, are harmless. I learned that wasps are not. A regular lunchtime treat, in my infant years, was jam sandwiches. Raspberry or strawberry preserve, and occasionally black currant were the popular selections. But that fateful day, as a five year old neatly tucked into the kitchen table, flavours were of no consequence. While waving jam covered hands a wasp landed on my thumb. A natural consequence of a vented room on an unusually hot summer’s day. Until then, I had merely feared these tiger striped insects that angrily buzzed “we’re going to get you” at distance, or so I thought. Now, five years old and wedged into position at the kitchen table they, it, was here. My moment of truth, I was petrified. I was so petrified I could not move or, in other words, I did not just look like stone, I may as well have been stone. The wasp was not easily amused. It stung me on schedule and disappeared into distant memory as I cried. This is my first physical memory of my mother. On one hand she consoled me, the incoherent wailing child, as no other could. Then, once I had become lucid long after the fact, she told me off for being stupid.


Being stung was a proud lesson. First it taught me fear and being petrified is a great hindrance to resolution. Second it taught me if you can act, act now and do not lose a moment. Time has shown I am as stupid as I am gifted. If there was a qualification for stupidity I would be doctorate material. As the only way to learn is through mistakes, stupidity is a greater blessing than any gift. My mother never missed an opportunity to highlight my stupidity. In doing so she is more than a valid guide.

This is not to say that mothers are error free or beyond self-serving. Quite the reverse as all mothers are subjectively objective. She came from a place of wanting her best for me.


One of my great achievements was being able to read before I could walk. This was before any memories bubbled up into the repository I regularly draw on for perspective, but I believe it to be true. The only reason I did not write was my fingers were too small to hold a pen. It is important to say, this did not just happen. Sure, it was in me and found a way out, but most importantly I was guided by someone who could bring it out. That was my mother; the teacher. Without her constant coaxing I would not be what I am today. Teaching is not conveying information, but rather supporting the mechanisms and disciplines required for the impetus to do, while providing the necessary precautions to fend off stupidity.

She cares

Caring is not about the money or even any physical support. Those may be symptoms. Caring is. It cannot be faked, but it may encourage fakers offering false hope. At times even hatred might be a symptom of care. What of the stupid who are stupid and refuse to be anything other than stupid contrary to all advice, all initiatives and all experiences? Might not their carers hate as the only plausible resolution for unresolved stupidity? Might hate be the final sanctity? Would not one small transgression, one small victory over stupidity counter all that welled up bitterness, befuddlement and anger? Would not the hatred evaporate? Stupidity can never halt caring. The carer will care for ever for this is inherent.

A Mother blessed

Every mother is blessed whether good or bad, selfish or indiscriminate. However, how mothers treat their blessing determines who they are. If they are great, they will revere and will be revered. My mother is blessed.

Infinity defined

infinity_symbolThis is the next instalment of “how real history connects with purpose”. Infinity is a theoretical permanent time space relationship. If there was no space, theoretically, there would be no time. Conversely, if there is space (which must be infinite, as it cannot be contained), time must theoretically exist. Nevertheless all these inferences are couched in terms that affirm existence introspective, as defined by human beings. In fact space may be limited if that introspective was illusory and time does not have to satisfy rules determining introspective perception. If space was not natural, other than by the token we occupy it, then confinement might not only be possible but logical. For instance, if the difference between existence and non-existence was uniform, then anything could be created out of nothing. In fact, nothing would be a poor classification as there would be a constant state of everything. Everything is contained in a spectrum of frequency bands which define existence from the introspective. In our frequency band, the vast majority is nothing by our classification. This is not to say that our perception of nothing is nothing, but that is how we classify it.

Cynicism in the introspective has drawn irrelevant conclusions that time just happens and there is no order, even though there is absolute order defined by very clear rules. Natural law cannot be broken for what is possible is natural law. The impossible is not possible and can never be possible because it is impossible. Because human morality is adrift from and bears little relation to natural law, there has always been confusion over what is possible and what is not possible. What is impossible in the introspective may well be possible in the retrospective. As frequency changes, introspective will eventually become the retrospective. Evolution is merely a symptom of progress. Frequency changes are different. They limit or extend reality. Our sensory perception is feeble considering the full spectrum. There are many senses we simply do not access because we have no capability. However, as frequencies change, new senses will morph as if by magic. Some will be an occurrence of generation changes. Others will be the accrued effect of real time DNA upgrades. The mysterious, paranormal, magical can always be explained in the retrospective.

There is order and time not only does not just happen, but is much more complex than the self-serving introspective definition of a simple unerring, forward line that neatly ties in with perception. Without an architect designed blueprint, would it be possible to build a house? Maybe a simple design, yes. But a complex multi-level encased city? Absolutely not! How could something as seamless, but as extraordinarily complex as our universe been built with no blueprint. That is impossible. Therefore, it is not that there might have been a blueprint for time. There must have been one. The only way for the blueprint to be effective, to be ‘structured’, would be to start at the end and work back, otherwise there would be no perspective. Therefore, “blueprint time” unravels. Just as with a builder’s architect’s plans the design rarely perfectly matches the blueprint, but it is always a good guide. So it is the same with time. Forwards time is drawn to backwards time as metals are drawn to magnets. There is not a single modern architect that has designed an encased city, though several have designed large multi-faceted purpose built properties which include over-sized shopping centres. Eventually, confidence will lead to the design of encased cities, maybe spanning hundreds of miles squared. They started with a simple room. Might it have been the same for time? Could have each new cycle become more and more complex as trial and error determined the direction of outcomes?

The Vedas mention the extent of time runs for three hundred and eleven trillion years. Is that blueprint time or time manifest? Was that the original (or test) run or is that this cycle? As the core resonance that defines definition is cyclic, can a cycle be linear? There are a number of problems with this consideration – finite time working to a three hundred and eleven trillion years cycle. Firstly, as already postulated, the very nature of a cycle is contained by its own momentum. Control mechanisms can limit and halt the momentum, but that would reduce time to absolute pre-destination and free thought would be impossible. A blueprint would be pointless, as that would be the end product – a constructed illusion. The next problem is what science classifies as “big bang”. This is, in fact, creative order’s kill switch. When outcomes move too far away from the design to resolve, order can kill the physical elements. “Physical elements” are all the structural elements which amplify resonance. Resonance simply starts over after being “killed”.  The modern duality between proscribed good and evil symptomatically blamed on God and Satan is merely a simple state of absolute tension at the root of existence. Therefore nature is the embrace of the balance of opposing forces.  However the most pertinent reason why there is no fixed duration or cycle length is there are a potentially infinite number of time lines, for every diversion from the plan results in a brand new independent continuum each guided by blueprint time. We now know, of course, infinite is limited to outcomes or what is, was or will be. Outcomes for each of these timelines might be almost identical or entirely different to the other.

The materialisation of time has a number of facets which conclude the part is as important as the whole. If the present is perceived as a bridge or the juxtaposition between the past and the future, time takes on a whole new function. As the physical body is an amplification of an electro-magnetic body which, in turn, is the amplification of an “invisible” light which amplified the impetus which is behind everything and was the result of the realisation of everything, time intrinsically connects everything via a complete string of rational parts from past to future and from start to finish. Therefore sections of time can be broken up into small exercises or points to the path of progress. As elements across all frequencies are connected via this path of points, not necessarily in any particular order, a patchwork quilt is the best simple analogy explaining the definition of time. As with the patchwork quilt, the parts are sewn together and belong because they are sewn together and not because they are the best design. The designed can be rationalised because it is. So it is with time and those who can decipher the intrinsic joins between each of the connecting parts have accessed the fabric of what is, because it is what is. This is not to say that manipulation would not result in tragedy; the greatest of which would be the evocation of the kill switch. Of course, as it is the only design, time must be the best design as well until and if it is redesigned. Though, as time is complete, technically a redesign would be the [extended] old design.

Confused? So am I! I have stretched my own mind with this one, but that is infinity defined.

Who sets value and what is the meaning of love?

There are three consecutive themes to be explored. Money, sex and commitment underpin society. They are what makes or breaks society. All exploitation stems from the abuse of either. It is an abuse which starts at birth. For a significant period of our lives we are slaves without rights. Law makers heeding commercial interests eventually grant adult society rights. The “crop” is now ready to be processed.  Therefore that development is a transition from slavery without rights to enslavement with rights. The cornerstone of repression is sex. Due to the power of marketing, a fictitious standard of purity has been based on virginity. It subtly infers that ignorance is everything noble and experience is bad as that leads to sin (no comments please!). Therefore under this false protocol, to remain pure, children must neither have sex nor be encouraged to do so. To overstate their insistence lawmakers have put some of the most draconian and savage laws in place to persuade those branded children and adults to comply. Thus far, their initiatives have failed dismally. This is because human nature is far stronger than any synthetic law.

Though the focus of this post is not the child sex debate (a debate that has not been freely aired due to jurisdictional censorship), the many articles that appear discrediting Islam due to the death of young brides are, as always, misrepresentative both in terms of factual analysis and wider parallels. The most recent case of an eight year old Yemeni girl, who allegedly died of genital tears and internal bleeding, perfectly enhanced the mainstream crusade. Nothing has been printed about parallel successful relationships, for instance. Nevertheless, referring to literatures written in a time of less prejudice, the consensus of expert findings claimed while full sex between adult males and prepubescent girls was possible, it required patience and understanding. A turn of the 19th century British (?) post card featured a ten year old prostitute who (at the time) was four months pregnant to raise the issue of the plight of the street urchin. The complex interplays defining teen relationships have been reduced to the same Edwardian problem-reaction-solution treatment. Loving sex has been redefined as consensual rape (when the use of the term “rape” is farcicle). Sex has become the great prize for adulthood with no children allowed. Currently one minute before the eighteenth birthday the child morphs into adulthood and in the space of two minutes the fledgling process is complete. The only development change is one is permitted to have restricted sex whereas the other is forbidden.

Brand childhood conditions brand adulthood. There is a window of opportunity for you, the individual, to break the law. Yes, criminal behaviour is serious, but most will be let off with a warning for most things. You are told, for the most part of your upbringing, that sex is evil and should be avoided like the plague. Those that are not told that are informed that sex is either dangerous or we, the adults, are too frightened to explore it for fear of reprisal. We the adults could be brand paedophile for merely supporting antipathy. You are processed by an indoctrination methodology called the education system, which insists you conform to the whims of commercial government. Those who perfectly mimic these wishes make the top of the class. Those who chose innovation and free thought more often come a cropper. In the meantime, family structures make the financial value of the support mechanism crystal clear. This happens in one of three ways. Either the bread winners lecture those that receive support that they should be grateful of this support, financial issues fracture the support relationship, or external parties impose superficial advice. What commercial government produces are brainwashed slaves who understand only that they need money to survive and the greatest prize of all is sex.

It is no wonder that the core values of marriages or other cooperative relationship based on love, are none other than extensions of will to survive (greed), lust (sex) or compliance (fear of change)? Females, in particular, have a preference for partners who measure up to their fathers. Lesbians tend to have deeply flawed fathers, whether physically disfigured or with character issues. Gay men are often the product of overbearing or unfair mothers. Ironically, deeply flawed fathers also contribute to males forming gay identities. Those who have happy upbringings with solid parental guides tend to replicate what they had. They become the next generation of “normal” society. Therefore, one of the challenging questions people have not sufficiently addressed is, “is love infatuation?” Or rather, can love be anything more than infatuation?

Generosity is an interesting theme to consider. Is there any real generosity? Families support out of perceived obligation and when there is no perceived obligation there is no support (unless enforced). Altruistic gifts are given to those that are liked. Charities, even, merely heed corporate edict and most were established to enable crusades built on principles of revenge. If there was truly such a thing as unconditional love, would that not materialise in support of the hated? For instance, a corporation up against a truly detested impoverished individual offering and paying their prosecutor’s legal bills would demonstrate true love. That is philanthropy. Their reward of an unscheduled bonus to the defence teams merely reinforces infatuation and the will to win at any cost. The same is with marriage. Is not the greatest love between those who find a way to co-exist even though they are repulsed by the existence of the other?

Ultimately does not that define value? In this self-serving world what is the value of loving those that repulse? What is the ultimate cost of repulsion?

The Cycle of Life

Those who take to time to explore my writings quickly conclude that I am one of a kind. Though, for the most part, there is nothing unique in the material I put forward, my diagnosis, rationalisation and drawing conclusions are exceptional. My own mother remarked that my book A Brief History of Conscience was like a “string of ancient proverbs” which challenged every modern day convention.  She had heard it all before, but this was as fresh as if it had never been conceived. So how would I, someone like me, view the cycle of life?

We have a veranda at my place. Yes I know I perhaps should have said our place, but I don’t care about them and I do not own it. I am not even the primary lease holder, so we live there but it is my place because as far as I am concerned, they don’t exist. We live under heavy tree cover and this restricts light in the day, but the nights are really dark. The veranda is a pretty good size and fenced to conform to limits of the apartment. We are on the ground floor so perhaps have a greater connection to nature.

At night I often flick on a solitary light. Its marbled plastic casing had been broken long ago; before I moved here. That exposes a clear 40 watt bulb and from the right trajectory, you could just make out the filament. I sort of know how it works, but not precisely. I know they generate electricity at a power station, but I couldn’t precisely say how they manage to tease it onto the vast network of copper wires which eventually connects to the socket of my veranda light. I don’t know if they distribute electrons, photons or some other kind of “on”, but I do know that by a miracle we call modern technology, I can flick the switch and the light lights. Notwithstanding power cuts and other disasters, natural or otherwise, my veranda light has never failed me, broken though it may be.

At night, when it is switched on, my broken veranda light with its filament exposed attracts a chorus of moths. Where did they come from? Did they come to pay homage or was it a passing affection? Would they return? Who knows? They were there; they were always there, heralded by the light and that is all that can be said.

Did I mention we had a cat?

It is not my cat. It was here when I came. The cat also loved the veranda but was not attracted to the light. She did not mind if the light was on or off, but she preferred it on because she was on a secret attack mission. Those tiny dive bombers whirring towards their heavenly destination were her fascination; her prey. She would crouch into a tense ball of fluff and tendons. At the right moment she would morph into an animated flying machine limbs swinging to the precise pulse of the moths; her beloved prey.

In a flash a fat grub like body could be seen protruding from her mouth like a large, grotesque swollen tongue.

Her expression said it all. That wasn’t meant to happen. What was this thing doing there? It feels strange and I am not sure I like this. Only one solution now! A big gulp later and she was back as a crouching ball of fluff ready for a new adventure.

If I think about the cycle of life, I picture that beautiful bijou veranda bathed in its semi-luminance courtesy of a sole broken light surrounded by moths transfixing a fluffy female cat statuette. I had the power over the switch and I appreciated that power in its vision. That is my cycle of life.

What is truth?

It would be hypocritical to question the truthfulness of official statements without coming to terms with the implications of truth. We all live in a goldfish bowl I call reality. Though only I know how I perceive and I can only inherently know my perception, standards of communication and comparisons allow me to divine the greater me. The greater “me” is the essence of my group and that group might be great or small. In this ectopic reality, it would be fair to say that if there was no variance beyond what is and that variety had not changed in any way, truth would be existence. Even as a spectrum, existence would be a constant. Our existence, we are told, evolves. This means that nothing stays still for even a moment. Everything does not just change; it constantly changes. In an evolution of change truth can only be found in the evidence. However is this world as it seems? Is my perception of it reliably limited? I know it is limited because I know there are other life forms that appear to perceive this existence and rationalise it in a very different way to me; in ways I might not even fathom. There is a modern assumption that non-living things have no sense. This may be correct in scientific paradigms, but science is modelled on human group perception. It has become standardised rationale. To which end certain scientists are trying to rationalise that which is beyond rationale – emotion. In fact science is good at measuring symptoms but so often misses the cause.

There seems little point in pre-empting the perception of a bull frog, tree slug or even a quartz stone. Science would not allow me to transpose human rationale over entirely alien experiences. It will not let me “be” a frog, a slug or even a rock for that matter.  I can only review behaviours or traits (or lack of) in human terms. Resonance is a different matter. As a resonating entity, I can evaluate that. We all know the concept we call Earth. It is a pretty easy concept to identify with. There is lots of evidence to suggest that resonance is correct. We see, feel, hear and smell. Ok, not everyone can do that. But even if a couple of senses are missing there is enough in the others to validate Earth’s existence. Few would have heard of a place called Tara. This is the “dark matter” version of Earth which may be up to seven hundred times the volume of “physical” Earth. Even fewer would appreciate the true concept of Gaia, even though Mother Gaia has become something of an environmentalist sound bite in recent times. Gaia is the concept of a “light energy” Earth and is deeply connected to the cycle of root DNA changes that affect what science calls “evolution”.  Uh oh, I thought this was going to be a relatively straightforward post. Truth sounds pretty simple to me. It’s only one word, after all. When I take the “trinity” Earth-Tara-Gaia (sometimes codified as HU-1, HU-2, HU-3) seriously further inconsistencies are revealed. Depending of the evaluation scale, up to 16 dimensions are offered as an explanation for simultaneous existence.

Simultaneous existence! What the hell is that? This is when an entity can exist is multiple time/space continuums simultaneously. Maybe this is why only a tiny portion of the brain is used at any given time and, perhaps, this goes beyond the brain as it is only part of the physical reality of low vibrational Earth. In fact, surprisingly few seem to know what the differences between the dimensional bands are. In fact dimensions are merely frequencies. Therefore the straight line, flat drawing and cubic sculpture analogy is not representative of dimensions. The first dimension (D1) is an active pulse. The analogy might be a particle on an endless journey. D2 is a force field created by a pulse ring. How ironic it is that solid Earth is found in D2. D3 is a resonance attracting low-range supplementary frequencies such as temperature. D4 is a mid-range frequency resonance which allows the experiencer to by-bass many of the “rules” defined by D3. D5 allows the manipulation of space and time. D6 is the bridge to pure light existence. Light dimensions go right up to a network of “cubed light”. Yay, Einstein was absolutely wrong in his definition of the essence of  light. Even Charles Hall’s Photon Theory is lacking, but is a step towards truth. How about a reality where I could think an object into existence? Would the object no longer exist if I forgot it? In such a reality, the answer would be no as nothing is forgotten. That which does not take priority is not considered. How about ordering a coat make only of fluid with matching gaseous shoes? Just because my D3 reality does not permit that, does not mean all realities are the same. So what is truth?

I can say that comprehension of truth requires understanding through knowledge. There are three fundamental types of knowledge. That which is; that which is sourced and that which belongs. Scientists would feel more comfortable with the terminology inherent knowledge, research leading to balanced understanding and tradition. Does not the group reject inherent knowledge as that is singular and deeply personal? For instance, if I said I inherently knew what “God” is, would my group believe me because I made the claim that the basis of my statement was inherent? Unlikely as my experiences have no group basis. Conversely, any research leading to balanced understanding acts as a cooperative bridge between the individual and the in-group (or the out-group and the in-group). Science has become the limiter for the most part. Mutual values escalate to form the basis of tradition. Traditions can be assumed to have had some basis at their time or for their peer group. However that basis is not necessarily found on truth. Some traditions, quite frankly, are deliberate deviations from truth. So we are back to square one in a sense. In another sense we are not, because any lack of truth determines a deliberate or consequential lack of basis at the time. Data, direct experience and competence may have been lacking. The impartial observer will conclude that political spokespeople provide the framework and basis for the evolution of all traditions. The tribes they represent might mimic the path of enlightenment or reverse depending on the data resources, direct experience and competence of the observing group. In addition, if enlightenment was the symptom, truth is the cause. Where the reverse is so, ignorant incompetence precipitates. Total enlightenment is a state free of corruption – a state of absolute truth. To add another layer, order is currently defined by “preferred” truths (which may be anything but truth) of the in-group versus ridicule or censorship of the out-group. Under or over statement of opinion is more important than inherent truth. Policized opinion determines progress.

Here is the conundrum. Inherent truth is something that defies logic, rationale or emotion. Yet it is also everything that might substantiate logic, rationale and emotion. That is the truth.

Is official statement truth?

I had originally planned to title this post, “what is a conspiracy theory?” As the conspiracy theory has direct relevance that seems the place to start. In fact we, the readers, are asked to believe that a conspiracy theory is the precise opposite of an official statement. Propaganda profiling has presented symbolism akin to religious arguments persuading the course of good and evil. Official statement is everything noble, whereas its nemesis the conspiratorial is everything devilish. Yet, free from emotion and hype, it is easy to determine the flaw in this concept. For instance the latter comprises two words – conspiracy and theory. A conspiracy is a deliberate attempt to pervert truth. This is interesting as conspiracies are not accidental perversions of truth. Theories are assertions. Some assertions are without basis; correct or incorrect. Others are with basis to the point of undeniable truth. Therefore, within this scope it would be possible (in line with the concept) for a conspiracy theory to have exposed perversion and presented complete truth in its place. There are two problems with the term conspiracy theory. Inadvertent perversions of truth don’t count and clinically proven data is given the same status as untested junk. I have not heard of any valid refutes of official statement, for instance. There is simply (unblemished) official statement versus (dodgy) conspiracy theory.

Deconstructing the words official and statement, we also learn a valuable lesson as to why those particular words have been chosen. Official has a God-quality about it. It is both the package of authority and credential leveraged off belief and faith. That which is stated is a statement. This means an official statement is the voice of authority. It is presumed to be true or as true as possible for it has been issued by those who claim they act as the highest authority and backed by the highest credentials. Truth defies human nature, so it is important to define what is meant by the notion. For instance a statement can be completely true, whilst drawing erroneous wider conclusions. For instance the statement, “our network of ponds supports two thousand yellow toed tree frogs and the population is thriving” may be true relative to other frog populations. However, if we suppose an earlier survey had revealed the pond network had supported 50,000 yellow toed tree frogs. Then, far from thriving they are under intense attack and facing extinction. Simple errors of judgment can result in disastrous falsehoods. For the next example, let us consider the use of terminology. The United States of America is supporting the freedom fighters in Syria. Though the expression freedom fighter sounds like a clunky oxymoron and no one has successfully defined freedom, putting that aside how are freedom fighters any different to terrorists, for instance? I have yet to find United States of America using the term freedom fighters describing those they are attacking. Indeed, in the case, of Syria even official statement is not denying that some freedom fighters in Syria were “brand Al Qaeda” terrorists in Afghanistan.

Syria offers a particularly good control for truth variance in official statement. Recently a number of civilians (we are to assume) perished as a result of the use of chemical weapons. US official statement has pointed the finger at the legitimate Syrian government; a government being attacked by forces sponsored by US. Official statement rarely attempts to justify its claims thoroughly, but in this case its readership is expected to take the leap of faith. The issuers of official sentiment may actually be peddling third or fourth hand accounts, so genuinely may believe the Syrian government is to blame. It is not so much that this is the way those [terrible] people behave, but more along the lines that my side is beyond reproach so I need to see no evidence and can have confidence that my storyline is correct even though it is baseless. The power of patriotism in the commercial world was comprehensively revealed a couple of years back. An Italian inventor was preparing to release a new energy solution, but first his invention was subject to the scrutiny of industry experts. Scientists ran modelling to test the solution and ran extensive data reports. The experts analysing the data represented different commercial entities. Some welcomed success. Others required the opposite outcome and the rest were ambivalent. Not surprisingly, the interpretations of the data ranged from the invention being branded an undoubted failure to an overwhelming success and everything in between.

It is obvious to the impartial and unmoved truth-seeker that “official statement” should be renamed “political sentiment” as truth is merely incidental. By the same token “conspiracy theorists” could be renamed “sentiment testers”. That would, of course, remove all “kudos” from official spokespeople and experts. They would actually have to provide detailed evidence with cross references and “open them up” to impartial scrutiny. Their current high ground has reduced official statement to “what’s the catch”?