I would like an article that discusses the lack of direct evidence (the non-existence of that evidence that cannot be interpreted) regarding the so-called material structures in the sub-microscopic realm that so-called scientists claim exist beyond all doubt.
Direct evidence is to BE the event or experience.
Anything then said about the experience is a selective act of defining interpretations that was not present in the quality of knowing prior to subject & object division or judgements.
Real or honest scientists would never claim 'beyond all doubt', but within the bubble of their collective thinking they will share the experience of 'knowledge' as serving a gain of functions to their personal sense of identity as continuous and protected or boosted. This is by the applications of such 'science' for invested agenda seeking to profit or progress their own current sense of self and world.
the Nature of Everything All At Once is so far beyond computation in terms of the linear thinking of human concepts (made form blocks to communication) that the only Rest is in That Existence Is. or in terms of a Self-Awareness; I Am.
Anything added to this is what we give, and determines what we then receive.
Giving and receiving as one is 'knowing' but where receiving is generated with a bias, we perceive an experience that finds reinforcement in mutual or socially agreed masking - as in learning how to see the Emperor's new clothes.
So my sense is to focus in what truly serves who we now accept ourselves to be, so as to release what doesn't, instead of engaging in war on the unreal, as if its proponents must concede, confess and stand as damned by.
I have no direct evidence of a world outside and separate from me.
But in our bubble of group identity, I share in the wonder and drama, as well as experiences of dissociated subjection.
So your question resonates to me desire for a psycho-physical honesty, regarding information usually masked or hidden - for reasons of saving face, maintaining credibility or social inclusion -relative to the Old Paradigm.
Into the theme of the main article:
https://viroliegy.com/2023/04/16/challenging-influenza/
Any belief that is used to serve a purpose will come with its own built in self-reinforcing reflections, interpreted evidences, and justifications.
The influenza phenomena has a body of its own evidences apart from the modern gain of funding and control running via enemy germ-cum pathological code fragment theory..
The opening chapter of I haven’t read it all but obtained a copy of “The Transmission of Epidemic Influenza”. by R. Edgar Hope-Simpson (1994) documents some
of the controversy that ran as open dispute until the ‘electroscopy’ was
accepted a decisive argument in terms of open critiques – though there
are innumerable anomalies that call the official belief/science of infection into
ongoing question, if not the virus itself.
He brings out the Solar/seasonal shaping of its cycle and has a lot of
interesting information – regardless the virus constraint.
A subsequent 2008 article in orthodox literature raises many incongruities in standard model, but does not question the fundamental premises of existence – not just of a virus but of a detached observer to events and evidences framed to pathological theory. But its not long and you’d find it interesting.
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29
For myself, I align with Seth's (among others) psycho-physical appreciation of existence as a whole in a different framing of belief systems as identity complexes, as interactive communications or energetic states that are at root symbiotic or ultimately aligned purpose – regardless the generating of conflicts and conflicted beliefs as a tool to use and be used by.
In simple terms I ‘catch’ my own version of whatever is available and
of service to who I am currently accepting to be by acting as the
expression of.
Because this is very complex, it cannot be generalised to rules without
becoming divorced from the individual or specific occurrences.
My sense is that a masking ‘reality’ operates as a valid tool for exploration as experience, for the development of consciousness. We could call that mythic beliefs or symbolic values running as augment or override to Natural Function – ie life of its own unfolding gift. This usurping function is where our own imaginations phish our identity, such as to perceive only as its continuity development dictates.
Some of what we call sickness is in fact adaptive resilience and
evolutionary development – in terms of value-fulfilment, that translates
in physical terms as growth – personal and cultural. Some of what we call death is as much a function of life as an exhalation within a 'greater whole' that is masked over by the focus in the physical sense.
