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.