What is Truth?

Quite often on our sites and on this Forum we are using the term "Truth". But while using it - do we fully understand each other? Are we having in mind the same thing? This forum has a certain history and was created with some idea in mind. One of the functions of this forum is to enable an intelligent and noise free discussion for those who are colinear. But colinear with what precisely? The following attempt to define the Truth, one of the most important concepts and one of the most important factors that the moderators of this forum have in mind, may well serve as compass against which "colinearity" can be measured and non-colineariry discerned.

This being said:

What is truth??

*** Introduction. ***

"What is truth?" is a question that has been asked for millennia. As we ordinarily use it, the adjective "true" means "an assertion that corresponds to the facts". More precisely, the word "true" denotes the validity of an intended (or expected) correspondence between a representation and what it represents. There are many interesting essays that deal with this question on the internet. In this one, an example is given of a map being "true to geography" because "the lines of the plan exhibit approximately the same two-dimensional shape as streets". A painting is said to be "true to life" if it accurately shows to any viewer how something really looks when you see it with your eyes. This essay also suggests that "truth involves two 'systems', purportedly linked by a 'mapping'."

But here, I want to describe how I understand this concept when I am using it. What is an "objective truth", that is a more difficult question. But I will also say a few words about that.. It is quite possible that the reader, while reading what follows, will have an impression that, once in a while, I am contradicting myself, but I am taking such a danger into account, and I am trying to take measures against such misunderstandings.

When I write "how I understand this concept", it does not mean that it is only about me. It would be better to write: "how *we* understand this concept. The point is that the discussion enters the domain of philosophy and therefore goes beyond my professional competence. Therefore I took precautions, and I discussed it and came to an agreement with Laura. So, what I am writing concerns both of us, not only me. But I am taking a full personal responsibility for what I am writing. Therefore I wrote "how I understand this concept."

********

We are operating with a finite set of concepts, therefore in our "definitions" it is difficult to avoid "defining by what is being defined". This is not always a disaster. We know from the mathematical "set theory" that, sometimes, self-referencing leads to paradoxes (A barber that shaves all those who do not shave themselves. Does this barber shave himself or not. If he shaves himself, then it is not true that he shaves only those who do not shave themselves. If he does not shaves himself, then it is also not true that he shaves ALL that do not shave themselves.) Recursive algorithms, that is algorithms with a function that calls itself work pretty well (though they are slow), but they do not always terminate. If our universe is not finite, then recursion, even one that does not terminate, can still "better and better" approximate the "solution". Here is another trap. I wrote "better and better" in quotation marks, because what is better and what is not depends on our choice of the distance estimating function. This function can change from step to step, and when things are getting complicated we arrive at the "Halt Problem." (Halt = Stop)

http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Halt+problem

"The problem is determining in advance whether a particular program or algorithm will terminate or run forever. The halting problem is the canonical example of a provably unsolvable problem. Obviously any attempt to answer the question by actually executing the algorithm or simulating each step of its execution will only give an answer if the algorithm under consideration does terminate, otherwise the algorithm attempting to answer the question will itself run forever."

We will have a similar situation with my definition of the truth. It may be so that we do not know in advance (and there is no algorithm that would allow us to know in advance) whether our "algorithm" of getting to the truth will ever find its end or not. The only thing we can do is let it run it, wait and see.

(What I wrote above will be easier to understand for those who have some experience with programming. The terms "self-referencing" and "recursion" will then "tune" to the right frequency, and may ameliorate possible objections.)

*** Definition ***

First a short definition: Truth is Objectivity.

Now let me develop this definition and make it more precise.

Assume that there is such a thing as "the Universe'. If you reject this assumption, then all that I am going to write below is useless. I am considering such a possibility, I am taking it into account. Now, "We" are part of this Universe, but only a small part. Our perception of the world, our concepts, our vocabulary, our programming, both inborn and genetically conditioned, but also that which is modified or built from scratch by our interactions with what we call the "external world", all of them carry the stamp of this "smallness" of us vis a vis the greatness of the Universe. They are stamped with the marks of chaos and uncertainty, of randomness, of the whole history of development of life and of civilization. Not always are we objective. Sometimes we are objective when we judge others, but we cease to be objective when it comes to judging ourselves. In Matthew we find this:

MATTHEW 7:1-5 [...] "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."'

Sometimes it is the converse. We see well our own problems and faults, but we shut our eyes to the lies around us; we have problems with believing that people, sometimes very close to us, are able to lie deliberately. This is the way adults sometimes see their children or their spouses. There is no objectivity in such a perception.

Both cases happen. This concerns not only the relations with our fellow men, with society, but also our perception and our grasp of the material world, of the world of concepts, of the world of "knowledge".

Therefore approaching the truth involves the discovery of any mechanism that negatively affects our objectivity, involves analysis of these mechanism, and searching for methods of their neutralization or elimination (the elimination is not always possible, but in such cases neutralization may help).

While progressing on this path of eliminating the mechanisms that are distorting our objectivity, we are also able to define, better and better, the very notion of objectivity (here again we have an example of a recurrence).

We are also burdened with the problem of anthropomorphism which may distort our perception of the world. It is necessary to analyze this problem as well. To see "objectively" is to see the Universe the same way the Universe is seeing itself; that is to see on a scale that goes beyond our genetically determined interests, our experiences, our small size in space and time, and in the space of "knowledge".

Does this process have an end? Is it convergent?

My working hypothesis, as of today, is as follows: this is a question of the same type as the question of the Halt of the Turing machine. We can't answer this question except by letting the process "proceed".

Someone may rightly ask: how can we subjectively decide what is objective and what not? Don't we have a paradox here?

Indeed, we do have a paradox. But a paradoxical paradox. Equally well one can ask: how can a machine that is heavier than the air fly? Evidently, it is not possible. Yet, as we know, when there is a will, there is a way. Machines heavier than air can fly, and we, while being always, by necessity, somewhat subjective, can work on removing as much of this subjectivity as possible and approach objectivity. It's like the famous Urobouros - the dragon swallowing its tail; an apparent paradox. But, at the same time, as it seems, this is the only method that works - within and without.

So that is my (our) understanding of the "truth". If there are questions - I will try to address them. But this short essay would not be complete if I did not make a comment on the "meaning of life." Here I will use another analogy from the world of computer programming. By the way, it seems to me that the development of computer programming, the science of algorithms, our experience with programmable calculating machines, coding theory - all of them have opened to us new cognitive perspectives. Today we are able to operate with new, and, as I tend to believe, important cognitive categories. We can see the world more objectively than we did before because we have these new cognitive models to "map" our thinking.

Therefore: *the meaning of life*

My hypothesis here is more risky, it is just a working hypothesis.

Our Universe is a complex system. The degree of its complexity is rather high. In this complex system, in some yet to be understood way, "programs" are operating. There is no reason for assuming that these programs are free of bugs. Thus it is not excluded that the Universe has also "debugging mechanisms". Consciousness, intelligence, life itself, may also have - among others - such functions. Therefore the role of intelligence may be this: to discover these bugs in the programs that run in the Universe, and to debug the Universe.

Therefore I am going beyond the pure "self-replication" as the meaning of life (as in Dawkins "Selfish Gene"). Self-replication may be a tool, but not the goal. The goal may be different: to debug the Universe. The time needed for that may be quite long. Moreover, the positive outcome may be not guaranteed. It may well be like with the Halt Problem: there is no way to predict the outcome, what remains is to let the debugging programs run, to allow for its self-modifications.

If we admit this hypothesis, then the question about the role of the intelligence and the meaning of life takes on new colors.

One may ask: but what can we - such "small" creatures - accomplish in the grand scale of the Universe?

An interesting question. Yet we know that in complex systems small changes can lead to unexpected global "phase transitions". We can't exclude that something like this can happen. We can't exclude that admitting such a hypothesis can change completely our perspective on the problem of responsibility of the human kind - this would be just a logical conclusion from our premises

As I wrote above, this is just my working hypothesis, a hypothesis that I am using on a daily basis. It seems to me interesting, it fits all the knowledge that I have (physics, mathematics, philosophy, genetics, biology, psychology). But if I discover new data, then I will re-think my hypothesis again. After all, in order to debug the Universe, we first need to debug ourselves. And here we are coming back, again, to the question of the "truth" and "objectivity".

A (colinear :) ) discussion is welcomed.

If debugging the universe is the meaning of life doesn't that admit that creation has flaws? Isn't that the same philosophy proported by the love/light kids? That something's wrong and needs to be fixed?

Or is the scale what matters... IE Earth is a perfect school created for the purpose of evolving entities capable of debugging the universe. The universe outside of earth is what needs fixing/maintainence.

Im getting confused by the proposition that the universe requires debugging, but is perfect at the same time, maybe because it evolves its own methods of said debugging.... kinda paradoxical, then again, what isn't when you get "deep".

Cyre2067 said:

If debugging the universe is the meaning of life doesn't that admit that creation has flaws? Isn't that the same philosophy proported by the love/light kids? That something's wrong and needs to be fixed?

Or is the scale what matters... IE Earth is a perfect school created for the purpose of evolving entities capable of debugging the universe. The universe outside of earth is what needs fixing/maintainence.

Im getting confused by the proposition that the universe requires debugging, but is perfect at the same time, maybe because it evolves its own methods of said debugging.... kinda paradoxical, then again, what isn't when you get "deep".

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't the universe have flaws? It seems to me that the L/L crowd promote that the universe is flawless, that nothing needs debugging, because it is as it is. They do not consider that debugging also is. Flaws are. I think we can look at flaws/perfection in the same way we look at STS/STO. The One divides into Being and Non-Being. This polarity is needed for experience. In order to experience or learn, we need a frame of reference, we need something 'other.' But in reality (i.e. 7D, or the Absolute, which may be called perfection, osit) this 'other' does not exist.

As Ibn'arabi says, "The Beloved keeps himself absent from the lover for the sake of imparting knowledge." This creates an inner yearning. "The sweetness of unceasing security is not nearly as intense [as the frightened person finding security]." By being in a buggy world, those with the yearning to debug this world can possibly reach an end where this seperation from Objectivity is reunified.

But, as Ark says, it isn't certain that an end is possible. I think that William James' lecture, The Will to Believe, speaks of this issue. (http://falcon.jmu.edu/~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html) I think what he is talking about is not belief as in blind faith, but belief as in taking 'working hypotheses' out of the realm of intellectual curiosities and into the realm of action. As he says, just accepting the possibility of truth, but not acting on it, is as bad as rejecting the possibility of truth. The will to believe is the will to operate on the working hypothesis that there is free will, and that something can be achieved; that we can strive for truth.

I think what it comes down to is this. What are our options? Either we operate as if there is no truth, and thus do nothing. Or we operate as if truth is possible, and then we have nothing to lose except our sacred cows. It's like Pascal's wager, but more realistic, osit.

Cyre2067 said:

If debugging the universe is the meaning of life doesn't that admit that creation has flaws? Isn't that the same philosophy proported by the love/light kids? That something's wrong and needs to be fixed?

Click to expand...

Perhaps another perspective is not that the Universe has flaws, but that it is a work in progress. Perhaps its evolution to "perfection" marks the completion of a certain stage (which to us would be "perfection" until we get to it and further horizons are opened). So then "debugging" would be the final stage before completion (as usually occurs before a program is marketed in this society).

If we consider that reality is capable of learning, then we must consider that there are experiences not integrated into coherence, possibilities not realized. For the Universe to come into focus the possibilites that are part and parcel of that focus must be separated from those that are not. If the Universe begins in a primal state of ALL possibilities, then for it to reach its intended stage of completion, I would think it should sort out the possibilities that represent its creative fullness from those that do not.

Freedom says all is possible. Freedom also presupposes the choosing of some possibilities over others. Debugging would then be the application of feedom, as well as the completion of a stage of universal growth, osit.

This brings to mind something on the SotT page on January 1st, 2005 - I remember it really well because this was the second time I had read this, but it was the first time that it really 'sunk in' - it made sense - and it applied directly to something I was going through at the time - here it is...

1-31-05 SotT said:

Our universe seems to be made up of matter/energy and of consciousness.

Matter/energy by itself "prefers", as it seems, a chaotic state.

Matter/energy by itself doesn't even have a concept of "creation" or "organization". It is the consciousness that brings to life these concepts and by its interaction with matter pushes the universe towards chaos and decay or towards order and creation.

This phenomenon can modeled mathematically and simulated on a computer using EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory). Whether EEQT faithfully models the interaction of consciousness with matter, we do not know; but chances are that it does because it seems to describe correctly physical phenomena better than just the orthodox quantum mechanics or its rival theories (Bohmian mechanics, GRW etc.)

What we learn from EEQT can be described in simple terms as follows:

Let us call our material universe "the system". The system is characterized by a certain "state". It is useful to represent the state of the system as a point on a disc. The central point of the disk, its origin, is the state of chaos. We could also describe it as "Infinite Potential." The points on the boundary represents "pure states" of being, that is states with "pure, non- fuzzy, knowledge". In between there are mixed states. The closer the state is to the boundary, the more pure, more 'organized' it is.

Now, an external "observer", a "consciousness unit", has some idea - maybe accurate, maybe false or anywhere in between - about the "real state" of the system, and observes the system with this "belief" about the state. Observation, if prolonged, causes the state of the system to "jump". In this sense, you DO "create your own reality", but the devil, as always, is in the details.

The details are that the resulting state of the system under observation can be more pure, or more chaotic depending on the "direction" of the jump. The direction of the jump depends on how objective - how close to the reality of the actual state - the observation is.

According to EEQT if the expectations of the observer are close to the actual state of the system, the system jumps, more often than not, into more organized, less chaotic state.

If, on the other hand, the expectation of the observer is close to the negation of the actual state (that is when the observer's beliefs are closer to being false than to being true according to the ACTUAL state - the objective reality), then the state of the system, typically, will jump into a state that is more chaotic, less organized. Moreover, it will take, as a rule, much longer time to accomplish such a jump.

In other words, if the observer's knowledge of the actual state is close to the truth, then the very act of observation and verification causes a jump quickly, and the resulting state is more organized. If the observer's knowledge of the actual state is false, then it takes usually a long time to cause a change in the state of the system, and the resulting state is more chaotic.

What this means is that order can be brought out of chaos by observing chaos as it IS and not pretending that it is otherwise.

In short, everyone who "believes" in an attempt to "create reality" that is different from what IS, increases the chaos and entropy. If your beliefs are orthogonal to the truth, no matter how strongly you believe them, you are essentially coming into conflict with how the Universe views itself and I can assure you, you ain't gonna win that contest. You are inviting destruction upon yourself and all who engage in this "staring down the universe" exercise with you.

On the other hand, if you are able to view the Universe as it views itself, objectively, without blinking, and with acceptance, you then become more "aligned" with the Creative energy of the universe and your very consciousness becomes a transducer of order. Your energy of observation, given unconditionally, can bring order to chaos, can create out of infinite potential.

Click to expand...

Now, I'm not sure if you have come up with data the invalidates this application of EEQT in the time since this was published, but to my rather unsophisticated mind, it still rings, if not 'true', then 'similar'. Basically, is debugging the Universe closely tied with debugging our perception or understanding of the Universe, and as we percieve the objective reality of how the Universe is, it 'jumps' toward a state of 'more order' - thus, 'less bugged'?

I may have totally misunderstood the point here, and, if so, please clarify it for me, but if our consious perception is approaching an objective one, would it not follow that the effect on the Universe would be one of an increase in order, or, in other words a 'debugging'?

a

There are error correcting codes even quantum error correcting codes and it would be surprising to me if physics/consciousness did not use them. For this I guess you could say neither the errors nor the correcting codes are bad, they would just be something that is.

Ahh much clarification. If the universe has a "perfect" solution or "final state" sotospeak, then it does begin in chaos. Therefore the fun is in the entities inhabiting the universe striving towards perfection by debugging. Heh interesting... that would make the universe kinda like an extremely large puzzle, each observation correctly tuned toward objectivity would be a piece, and each entity could either add pieces or remove pieces depending upon their alignment (objectivity vs subjectivity, light/dark, STO/STS), interesting.

Then, going with the thread, truth would be objective pieces of the puzzle, but that definition only applies to STO-leaning entities which i would consider myself at this point. The darksiders would view truth as quite the opposite, removing the puzzle pieces. Or perhaps, "false" (chaotic, mis-shapen) pieces. You'll have to excuse me as im still exploring the analogy.

Perhaps it is now time for me to reveil where my idea of 'debugging the Universe' came from:

Gurdjieff, Belzebub, Vol II, Ch. 39, THE HOLY PLANET PURGATORY:

"Our Endlessness, Almighty God, once observed that the Sun-Absolute, itself, on which He existed was, owing to Time, diminishing gradually but perceptibly in volume, and He decided immediately to review all the Laws maintaining the existence of the Sun-Absolute.

"In the course of this search, He discovered that the cause of the diminution of the Sun is the Heropass, that is to say, Time, which gradually diminishes the substance of every force.

"As this question was very serious, He became thoughtful, and in these Divine reflections of His, He saw clearly, that, if this Heropass should continue to reduce the volume of the Sun-Absolute in this way, then sooner or later, it would eventually be to its complete destruction. Our Endlessness was then compelled to undertake several appropriate measures, so that this destruction of the Sun-Absolute from the Heropass should be averted.

"After great labours, He completely averted the whole of the threatened danger; and He accomplished this, in the following way:

"You must know that up till then the Sun-Absolute had in itself, for its existence, only the force of the 'Autoegokrat'; that is, an independent force depending on nothing external itself. This same force, in its turn, was formed only of two Laws, namely, the Law of 'Triamonia' and the Law of 'Eftologodiksis'. To these two Laws, Our Creator added the third force, called 'Fagolgiria', by means of which the 'Autoegokrat' became the 'Trogoautoegokrat', that is, a force depending on other forces exterior to itself. Or, as it might be said, after the addition of the Fagologiria, the Laws of Triamonia and Eftologodiksis could function only by feeding on the substances and forces coming from without.
[...]
Here it is very important to notice well in your consciousness that in the Law of Eftologodiksis, during the process of movement from one center of gravity to another, to the final completion of the whole process, there are gaps, or as they are called 'intervals', in two places, at which intervals there was 'all', when Our Endlessness made the existing, self-supporting and independent forces for the existence of the Sun-Absolute dependent on the foreign forces from without; that is to say, He transformed the Autoegokrat into the Trogoautoegokrat. Well, then, Our Endlessness made, but only in this Law of Eftologodiksis, two gaps or intervals through which forces or substances coming from without should enter. From the time of this change, the Law of Eftologodiksis could no longer completely evolve or involve without foreign help coming through its two intervals. And this according to this property of the Law of Eftologodiksis, by means of these two intervals, it now effects the evolution and involution of substances in the beings composing the Tritacosmoses. That is to say, during the transition of substances from one centre of gravity to another, substances of the fundamental cosmic Triamonia of quite other densties, must, without fail, help in two places. And in those organic machines, such a help proceeds in the following way.[...]

Click to expand...

As far as I understand the above "Trogoautoegokrat" is an open system, that is one where it is impossible to "predict" anything - because it is open to "external" influences. But, because of this, there is a hope. we are the "organic machines" that can do something during the "two gaps" - whenever they happen in any cycle. Or, expressing it in somewhat different terms: we, the organic machines, have a "Free Will", which we can use to "fill the gaps", and to push the Universe this way or another way. Or, still in another way: if a hacker comes to your computer and deletes or corrupts an important system file to introduce chaos, you can restore the file and add something to the system that will create even more order than it was before. But in order to be able to do this - a good knowledge of the operating system is needed. That is why "Knowledge Protects" - not only "us", but also, and more importantly, the System we are functioning in.

Whether my interpretation is correct or not - I do not know. But, knowing all what I know today, I am giving it a rather high probability of going into the right direction. In this way my idea of "debugging the universe" is a re-phrasing, in modern language, of the old idea in Belzebub.

One more comment: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy in a closed system is increasing, the chaos is increasing with time. That is how I read "Our Endlessness, Almighty God, once observed that the Sun-Absolute, itself, on which He existed was, owing to Time, diminishing gradually but perceptibly in volume..." The "volume" stands here, I think, for "order". But the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to an open system. On the other hand an open system is unpredictable. Which is a danger, but also a hope.

As far as I understand the above "Trogoautoegokrat" is an open system, that is one where it is impossible to "predict" anything - because it is open to "external" influences. But, because of this, there is a hope. we are the "organic machines" that can do something during the "two gaps" - whenever they happen in any cycle. Or, expressing it in somewhat different terms: we, the organic machines, have a "Free Will", which we can use to "fill the gaps", and to push the Universe this way or another way. Or, still in another way: if a hacker comes to your computer and deletes or corrupts an important system file to introduce chaos, you can restore the file and add something to the system that will create even more order than it was before. But in order to be able to do this - a good knowledge of the operating system is needed. That is why "Knowledge Protects" - not only "us", but also, and more importantly, the System we are functioning in. Whether my interpretation is correct or not - I do not know. But, knowing all what I know today, I am giving it a rather high probability of going into the right direction. In this way my idea of "debugging the universe" is a re-phrasing, in modern language, of the old idea in Belzebub. One more comment: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy in a closed system is increasing, the chaos is increasing with time. That is how I read "Our Endlessness, Almighty God, once observed that the Sun-Absolute, itself, on which He existed was, owing to Time, diminishing gradually but perceptibly in volume..." The "volume" stands here, I think, for "order". But the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to an open system. On the other hand an open system is unpredictable. Which is a danger, but also a hope.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the following David Deutsch quote via Tony Smith's website:

Marcus Chown, in the article Taming the Multiverse in New Scientist (14 July 2001, pages 27-30), says: "... David Deutsch ... thinks ... the multiverse ... could make real choice possible. In classical physics, he says, ... the future is determined absolutely by the past. So there can be no free will. In the multiverse, however, there are alternatives; the quantum possibilities really happen. Free will might have a sensible definition, Deutsch thinks, because the alternatives don't have to occur within equally large slices of the multiverse. "By making good choices, doing the right thing, we thicken the stack of universes in which versions of us live reasonable lives," he says. "When you succeed, all the copies of you who made the same decision succeed too. What you do for the better increases the portion of the multiverse where good things happen." ...". Wben you consider the consequences of what we do during our lives, bear in mind what Jon (Dr. Manhattan) said in Watchmen (by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, DC Comics 1986, 1987): "... Nothing EVER ends. ...". Each and every thing we do is a move in a vast never-ending Quantum Game.

Click to expand...

It seems like God Almighty adds information at the end of one Grand Cycle for use by the children Grand Cycles (who could also be ancestors) and within a Grand Cycle all possible realities have their own information reserve. Or something like that... and make that "big bang" cycle not Grand Cycle...

After reading the above inspiring posts about what truth is, I got a new perspective on the following well known bits from the transcripts:

Cassiopaean transcripts 020928 said:

A: Life is religion.
Q: (L) What does that mean?
A: Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the worlds will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the "past." People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the "Future."

Click to expand...

What used to confuse was the expression "right and left". But now I understand that objective reality is not necessarily fixed for all time. It is movable according to how much bugging and debugging takes place. An analogy, if nobody minds, could be when one crosses a street, one looks to the right and to the left to see that no car is coming to quick too fast. Also if on just one road without crossing anything still one has to look to the right and to the left to stay on the road.

I think this ties in with a quote from the Cassiopaean transcripts 941005

And, forevermore, the human race, will be poisoned by the very same problem which is reflected in several different ways: one is always seeking the truth through one pathway instead of seeking it through a myriad of pathways; and also believing in simplistic answers to very complex issues and questions.

Click to expand...

The quest for objectivity is very delicate, this I realised while working on some threads on this forum. One looks for objectivity and thinks for a moment one has found it. But the next day when looking more on a situation one realises there is more to know, that the objectivity already found was not as objective as previously thought, that more angles are needed to give all sides of an issue a fair presentation. Eventually so many threads gets woven into an issue that it gets expanded and reconnects to its source in the play of existence. It may be a big word but having gone through the process a few times now I can say it is a moving experience.

While reading Ark's interest in and considerations about truth, objectivity and debugging it brought to mind two more snips from the Cassiopaean transcripts:

970712
A: Arkadiusz is strong willed. Must be to be seeker of worlds. To paraphrase: "I am become ONE... Creator of worlds." And, on that contemplative note, good night.

950924
Q: (L) They said it was the Orions. Are the Orions these secondary creators? (RC) Well, I read that it was the Pleiadians. And the Hebrews were originally the Hoovids who came from Sirius...
A: Here comes a shocker for you... one day, in 4th density, it will be your descendants mission to carry on the tradition and assignment of seeding the 3rd density universe, once you have the adequate knowledge!!!

Click to expand...

Therefore in order to create worlds, the first prerequisite is adequate knowledge to transit to 4th density and second adequate knowledge for those who follow "to carry on the tradition and assignment of seeding the 3rd density universe".

One step in procuring adequate knowledge is to along with gathering new knowledge debug the knowledge already available. This continuous progressive process of balancing towards objectivity is one role this forum has. To Ark and all that work with him I wish good luck with the gathering and debugging of knowledge.

thorbiorn

Hello all,

I can not say I have anything particularly useful to add here, but I did want to express that I just read this at a perfect time as I have been contemplating my own "debugging" responsibility. The idea of what objective good might be has been on my mind of late, and my first serious guess was to seek and support truth. Then, I had to ask, "What is truth?" Soon thereafter, it came to my attention that this thread is here.

However, I am a human in the midst of a life on planet earth. How can I seek and support truth today? I think the direction on this forum and related venues is towards truth (almost certainly more in the direction of truth than I could find on my own), so any way I can support this forum and related venues is a step in this same direction. This gives me a foundation while I work on this self-debugging. It could be that such support is itself self-debugging but not always I think. My interaction with my daily life is also important.

For example, there are definite limits in how far I can take any future research I undertake and how well I can contribute to this forum depending on how well I can support myself. i.e. am I successful with respect to the concept of Gurdjieff's obvyatel? I do not think any of us are ever entirely self-sufficient, but I think we can be self-supporting emotionally, mentally, physically, financially, etc. Thus, anything one does to make oneself self-supporting in my day-to-day life is also important to this direction towards the truth because such a state of self-support is a pre-requisite to all this fancy stuff.

Patience said:

Thus, anything one does to make oneself self-supporting in my day-to-day life is also important to this direction towards the truth because such a state of self-support is a pre-requisite to all this fancy stuff.

Click to expand...

I think it may be good to remember that every psychopath on the planet may also be saying that he is only self-supporting himself.

Therefore, what counts are not declarations but the results.

Or so I think.

ark said:

Patience said:

Thus, anything one does to make oneself self-supporting in my day-to-day life is also important to this direction towards the truth because such a state of self-support is a pre-requisite to all this fancy stuff.

Click to expand...

I think it may be good to remember that every psychopath on the planet may also be saying that he is only self-supporting himself.

Therefore, what counts are not declarations but the results.

Or so I think.

Click to expand...

I reread my post right after I wrote it and was thinking that I could use the words you pointed out to justify anything, but I left it unchanged because I had a feeling I would come back and discuss it more or someone would notice it.

So... The results do count. Almost exclusively maybe... I guess a new question would be, "What results are we looking for?" And now I think I am recursing because it comes back to seeking objective truth and making it available to others... I had opportunities at a university where I got a degree to get an internship with Raytheon. They had a facility near the small town where my university was. In fact, they were the only internships in town for certain disciplines. I did not take the internship because of Raytheon's involvement in weapons development. It is the kind of internship that would make good CV padding and would help me find other kinds of jobs. Was I overly idealistic not taking the internship?

I think not considering that Raytheon is fully integrated in the military-industrial complex. There must be other ways to successfully support myself so that I can support financially and participate in directly seeking this "right direction" without contributing to the search for new ways to blow people up.

I think it happens to many that the results of their actions do not fit the expectations of their intentions. I can certainly say that I have taken actions with certain intentions, but the results were very different from the intentions. Clearly, there is a need for debugging in a case such as this. But what I am really getting at is to wonder if there is a way to more accurately judge what the results of a decision would be before making it. Waiting for the results to judge rather one's decisions were right or wrong seems to be a rather dangerous way of making decisions.

So we come back to having the right intention because we try to make decisions a priori that are going to benefit the objective good... And here I am recursing again... Any thoughts anyone? Are any necessary? I am in a loop!

Patience said:

I am in a loop!

Click to expand...

I don't know. I know very little. But one of the very few things that I do know is that I am always thirsty for new knowledge, so I am spending every free minute to learn more and more and more. And the more I learn, the more I realize how deep is my ignorance. And then I smile, I thank God for giving me this opportunity, and I continue .... Perhaps it is not such a bad method?

Patience said:

Clearly, there is a need for debugging in a case such as this. But what I am really getting at is to wonder if there is a way to more accurately judge what the results of a decision would be before making it.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be rather like having the answer key as you're taking a test? There is a lot to be learned in the time between making a decision and understanding the result of that decision - that's apparently sort of how 'it works' down here in 3D...

Patience said:

Waiting for the results to judge rather one's decisions were right or wrong seems to be a rather dangerous way of making decisions.

Click to expand...

Hard to disagree with that, but, again - this whole 'linear time' thing is sort of what we're stuck with (well, most of us). We can't know the outcome - that's part of the 'fun' in the learning - wait and see!

It seems to me (and of course I could be mistaken) that the best we can do is work to know ourselves well enough to understand why we are making decisions and where they might lead us - - that alone can take a lifetime - all the while we keep learning, making poor decisions, making better decisions, never knowing the outcome ahead of time, since that would be having the 'answer key' and it takes no Faith and no Will at all to make a decision when one knows the outcome.

Not an easy answer, but are there any? :/