The situation presented in the article highlights a painful truth: that even the anti-vaccinists who dispute the existence of so-called viruses still have beliefs based on the words of so-called scientists with credentials from the System… not at all on direct, uninterpretable and repeatable evidence.
#1
The conundrum that you sketch extends to words and meanings, So my assertion is the need for a grounded reference point from which to correctly identify illusions. or to put it another way, to discern what is from what we make or made of it and run with as if truth INSTEAD of true. For in a sense I see a mind is phished by its own image and imaginations to be-live' a life that is 'made up' and given social boosting by conspiring to unconsciousness of the source, the nature and the life that moves us - whether we accept it or see it through a glass darkly.
My sense of a reintegrative healing from conflicted illusion to truth that unifies is of bringing what we made to the reference point of an 'uncarved block' of stillness and awareness of which all motion springs. Then it is not up to me to judge or determine true and false but it is up to me to recognise and accept what I am shown or what reveals itself directly. My experience of accepting truth is of stepping stones of willingness that allow a maximal alignment to truth within the current consciousness, so as to transform an masking unconsciousness to a vehicle of conscious participance - ie to know and share joy in being without getting in my own way by a mind of grasping or control..
Ultimately I see that our physical senses are mapped in symbol.
The atom as various models posit may not exist. But its original idea is of an infinitesimal and indivisible particle.. We now have a sense of particle as interactive energy field effect, not so different from a disturbance in the Ether, that has been usurped by 'space' and 'time' as the Matrix of an external Universe.- that is not God-Creation, but our modelling or thinking set as Gatekeeper.
#2
The mind is an interpretive action. The only evidence that is prior to interpretation is awareness of existence without qualification.
Seeing or perception is always a selective interpretation, that always judges between and gives weight or discards accordingly. the basis for the selection is set by purpose. What you want to see or do NOT want to accept, will set the rules and filters for your result, such that what you want to believe or have the experience of, is a self-reinforcing decision or will. That our will is done is cast in shadows by the wish to NOT know the hatred in our heart, and below that, the love that we are– that would undo what we hold dear as a 'special love' or protected and exclusive sense of self-creation.
#3
George to Nike
This is an interesting observation you have. If I understand your point correctly you are saying that accepting the credentials from an institution that promotes lies in order to substantiate a truth is somewhat questionable. Do I understand you correctly on this? You are quite right to question the existence of things that cannot be seen but I don’t know what you would accept as proof that they do exist. I would like to touch upon one other point, which concerns what I would call an ideological concept, and that has to do with the idea of a corporation. Do you believe that corporations are real? If so why do you believe they’re real and what evidence can you present that proves their existence. I would also like to point out that colleges to some extent are corporate bodies, just like a business. They are corporations concerned mainly with providing the service of education. So I think my question would also extend to them. In addition, is it possible for an institution to erase someone’s credentials? You know how some individuals are given new identities when they testify against criminals. These individuals are provided with credentials which are just as real as those provided to the people who actually acquired their credentials in a real manner.
To George:
I appreciate the care in your comment.
The split mind of a human being is in our capacity to align in mutually agreed beliefs and definitions as our chosen or defended 'reality-experience' or distortion.
This is another way of saying we are the extension of free willing Creator - with the caveat that a will set in Self-contradiction cannot know its own nature or freedom, but will protect a falsely split sense of self, life and world, set in defiance to war under the belief that the split must be kept hidden. Hence the intensity of the oath by which to evade Disclosure against Living truth feared as total loss of face, of control and of a world and life set thereby.
The opening quote of an emailed article today is a great example:
"To be SoulBOUND is to have your soul bound with others with a blood contract, drawing on each other's essence to protect against the servants of Nagash, the God of Death." -- WARHAMMER
https://khmezek.substack.com/p/soulbound
(I've yet to properly read it but it looks to describe a manmade basis for 'legitimacy' that claims authority by 'resisting evil' (evil is at root an outcome of miscreating or mis-thinking - hence Jesus warned against identifying in its frame by resistance!).
For myself the 'virus' projection is part of a breadcrumb trail to the 'foundations' of self and world - which is to say to the exposure of that which lacks true foundation so as to be undone as a source or basis for living and being.
The nature of a reversal by projection or casting out of a split as IF the get rid of it, sets the pattern for the evolution of problems to ever more complex and unworkable 'solutions' that only repackage conflict to seem workable, buy time and contract by recoil from an Infinity at Rest as a timelessness within all that is - as it is.
if I wasn't sharing in the agreements by which a world subjugates and denies life even to death as its reset, I couldn't post this contribution. The key is a shift of purpose, A world made to hide in, becomes a world gifted for awakening at the heart. By a shift of perspective already given to a willingness to receive that rests on freewilling, not on terms & conditions set externally.
#4
Sebastien Cormier
I notice that a lot of the comments are about the concept of credentials being equal with authority. There’s the “appeal to authority” falicy which is the argument that “ABC must be true because such and such a source says so”. Appeal to authority is a falicy because supreme authority lies in reason, observation and experimental results. A credentialed person still has to provide citations for anything he or she writes if he or she wishes to publish what is written anywhere that is reputable. Credentials do not permit someone to appeal to one’s own authority. What credentials do accomplish though is proof of having studied what has been written on a be topic in great depth. This does count for something. You can argue that studying is not the same as knowing but you can’t get to knowing without the step of study.
I agree with this but with the proviso that what started out as
curiosity and imagination subjected to rigorous and often intense
scrutiny and contested interpretations or conclusions, becomes a body of
presumed authority with its own institutional ego of self-protective
bias against re-visiting what it now regards as its sacred canon or
foundations – and which are then managed and airbrushed to bolster such
‘authority’. Just look at Koch and Pasteur.
So what constitutes study or research?
The willingness to question fundamental assumptions is NOT part of any academic or corporate training for qualification.
The entrainment of a mind by perceived authorities as entitlement or
elite membership is to some degree inherent to any complex
specialisation.
The nature of an Establishment is not merely money or power but the
investment in a personal and collective sense of control set over fear
or pain of loss which, as a result is not truly acknowledged, faced,
addressed or healed – such as to effectively run as ‘dark or hidden’
agenda in Others – while internalised conditioning or trained bias in
our self.
Without languages of reference to specific facets of our experience of reality, we cannot share its unfolding as our personal and collective development of conscious significance and appreciation. My sense is the theory and the terrain or territory interact. No amount of study can substitute for experience, and no amount of experience in itself can constitute wisdom – which is the application of knowledge that includes recognising we cannot definitively know. Else we drop into story as an active ignorance running blind convict-ion.
#5
After the last 31 months, what ever little trust I had for just about anything has vanished. There are now so many people in positions of some kind of power and influence that have ulterior motives so as to make themselves exempt from any truth or trust. I is difficult to live without trust, but these times are becoming more difficult to stomach and survive in by the day.
Perceived self interest operates from strategies of
perception-response that can and does usurp our right mind when
triggered. The true meanings are corrupted by our accepted currencies of
thinking’ so the word ‘trust’ is itself no longer trustworthy unless
you stand in truth as its extension.
Replacement of trust with contracts or bargains is a long running corruption.
The result of which is to have everything backwards.
How can you expect trust if you don’t extend it? BUT how can you give what you don’t accept for yourself?
Which is not to say you don’t trust yourself, so much as running a shifting sense of reality that cannot be trusted.
When the ‘world’ fails us, we are thrown back on our own resources –
which we may not have awareness of because we’ve been running on a
‘world’ that set us in sleepwalking dependency?
#6
George:
This is an interesting article with an important question.
Is it ever ok to lie?
“Is it ever morally permissible to tell a lie? On one end of the spectrum we find the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argues that it is never, under any circumstance, permissible to lie. To lie, according to Kant, would be to act in a way that is less than rational (hence, less than human) and to treat others as a means instead of an end. On the other end of the spectrum, the situational ethicist, the relativist, and the ethical egoist, may argue that lying is morally permissible at anytime and in any situation, given the desired outcome.
Add God into the mix, and it would seem that we ought to side with Kant on this, albeit for different reasons. In the gospel of John we learn that Jesus is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14) and that lies come from the pit of hell: Satan himself is described as the Father of lies (John 8:44).
The Christian then, it would seem, should not lie.
The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer disagrees. . .”
http://www.paul-gould.com/2013/10/16/is-it-every-ok-to-lie-bonhoeffer-on-truth-telling-and-deception/
The idea of moral permission is externally derived. For sure, we find agreement that align with integrity as we are able and willing to abide and extend it. So moral and ethical thinking can reflect qualities of integrative being. But once authority is idolised or institutionalised there will be conflicts in which for example family, social and spiritual rules, mores or identities will not align. If protecting loved ones from thuggery should you tell thugs where you are hiding them (is absurd). But from the Law? May set a conflict of interests.
However social masking in institutionalised lies are initiating a 'waking up' to an integrity of spirit or unified conscious purpose in place of a split mind between Caesar and God (as living or truly shared worth).
True with-ness and worth-ship (worded to redeem their likeness) is not defined in or by image and form, but allows them to follow or reflect to eyes that see. For the projecting of a private unshared 'reality as the 'apple of the tree of judgement' may operate as peer review of lockstepped 'self' interest as a collective unconsciousness that literally knows not what it does, while thinking to re-enact a past of separation trauma set in multilayered complex of deceits and defences... against truth.
I may have previously linked this clip - but its goes to the heart of our capacity to join (sic) in unconscious entanglements under mutually reinforcing agreements or narrative cover stories that always set the 'good' in the reaction or framing to the evil. (Which drives narrative tension).
https://twitter.com/onemindinmany/status/1528364482828898306?s=20&t=gHIUjx6eJ_5Xv3T8KxHUcg
A quality of coherence, resonance and wholeness of being can be referenced by many sketches, symbols or teachings but is a quality of peace without conflict. Self-honesty to our being - and not just to an inherited or acquired ruleset is the test of peace or dissonance - wherever each may perceive this to manifest - ie in our gut feeling or literal body tensions or emotional reactivity.
As for the use of lies to protect lies set in a complex of identity in fear of disclosure; it runs as a survival mechanism. It also runs in an indifference or callous disregard for the lives of others - but then the survival complex is also a collective unfolding of themes through generations in which we participate.
I value Jesus' teaching on the paying of tax to a perceived oppressor (Caesar).
The ongoing discernment of dues is a process of leaning into freedom.
The most pernicious and destructive acts are committed under moral convictions or certainties, so I keep morality to each our own consistency of thought word and deed and never a stick by which to make truth a weapon or terror over others. Who lives by lies, dies by lies.
