View Full Version : true or false

solomon levi
06-05-2012, 11:41 PM
I spoke in the thread "Athene's theory..." about the differences in believing
or caring about true and false. I just found another group who doesn't care about true
or false:

“In regard to propaganda the early advocates of universal literacy and a free press envisaged only two possibilities: the propaganda might be true, or it might be false. They did not foresee what in fact has happened, above all in our Western capitalist democracies — the development of a vast mass communications industry, concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with the unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant. In a word, they failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”
– Aldous Huxley, Preface to A Brave New World

Weapons of mass destruction... were they there? True or false? Does it matter?
Whether it was true or false a war still occurred. The real objective, the bigger
picture, is still achieved.
It's the same with all true or falses. Did Castaneda make it up, or did he really experience
those things? Does it matter? Can we undo his influence? Unsell the books and remove
the ideas from the minds of the readers?

So some people are worried that people will believe in something untrue... as if you know
the whole truth?? Who knows the whole/totality of who they are? What truth?
Anyone arguing "this, not that" can be readily dismissed from knowing the whole.

But what I'd also like for people to see is that every false becomes true if we change/enlarge
the parameters. And maybe you'll even see that there are people who see the bigger picture
and would rather you not - would rather you argue about the true and false while they go on
manipulating world events.

Two choices? Republican or democrat? Will that change the world?

I was trying to find the name of that scientist who spoke on the Thrive video.
As soon as I google it the first page has someone debunking him.
I really hope you see what's going on - the "distraction" Aldous Huxley referred to.
I really hope people can broaden their minds to not be so concerned with true or false.
There is a third option, and a fourth....

True or false? You only want what's proveable?
Only your past is "proveable". But in reality, only the present is proveable.
So what do you know of truth/proof? And is all you care to recognise as valid
that which conforms with the past? Or with the parameters of known science/knowledge?

Everything is relative. We can dismiss the possibility of faster than light travel because
that would mean infinite mass... or we can allow that infinite mass has a place in the multi-
dimensional universe.... Or other options you can imagine.

It has been said, "if you argue for your limitations, you get to have them". Well, for me,
true and false is arguing for a limitation. We can stay lost in an infinite limbo of true or false,
or we can transcend these concerns and broaden our parameters.

Again, I end up saying, "we can do this, or we can do that." But this is more dualism.
I've been thinking, maybe instead of "returning" to unity, we can move forward to trinity.
As it is for most now on earth, we do the duality thing. Right and wrong, victim and tyrant,
etc, etc... Maybe we can move to perceive the third force, and then the fourth and so on.
Maybe that's evolution. Maybe evolution is bullshit because it's based on time. I don't know.
Just be aware of closing yourself to possibilities. These possibilities are the rest of you, your
totality, your All/Awe-ll.

Which reminds me... awe, wonder, mirabile, miracle...
Where is room for miracles within the true or false parameters?
What can you possibly know about alchemy with the chemists' mind?
Why are you here?
I'm surprised to see this in this forum. I'd say you're in the wrong place, but I can't know that.
You must be where you are.

"All is true." eehhhhh. I understand. But that is different than being unconcerned with true or false.
Why does that cross our minds at all? To say "All is true" is to respond after the fact to the judgement.
It's an answer to a question that, for a larger parameter/frame/mind is never asked. "All is true"
acknowledges a polarity/duality - a false. In the video "Athene's theory..." the guy mentions this
as backward rationalisation. It seems better/bigger/broader than true or false, but is it really?
For me, there is no "better" within the box/frame of the question. Better is to not ask the question -
to not have the thoughts/ideas/beliefs in true or false. But this doesn't happen by making an effort
not to ask such questions. It happens in a timeless instant I prefer to call "insight". Yes, "All is true"
could be an insight to some. I've had that insight (not to be condescending). All I can say is that it is
still in the box compared to not being concerned at all with true or false.

Of course there is no better really. I find it hard to post anything at all anymore because everything
is bullshit/relative. The larger parameter is always going to be smaller/not better compared to
something else - a box is a box is a box, no matter how large or small it is. So what's the point?
Well, folly is the point. Controlled folly is still folly. Why go all this way just to fall to/believe in
pointlessness? True or false... point or pointless... purpose or no-purpose.... I don't know. If I choose,
I know it's all bullshit/subjective. If I don't choose... well, when I don't choose I have confusion/chaos
and I bear it as long as I can until I choose again. :) So I'm just saying be aware when you are choosing,
whether it's the choice of true or false or whatever. Your choice collapses the quantum wave potential
into "actual" (subjective reality).

I'll shut up now.
I love you. This is not a post of judgement. It's a post of awareness.
But who the fu** am I to say "be aware"?
I don't know. I'm an object. I just have to surrender.
I don't "have to", and yet i do.