"We are each born as an inquisitive animal.
We each have some senses which we use to detect what happens in the world around us and within ourselves.
We have a brain which is taught and learns to comprehend the meaning of the data presented to us by our senses.
We have the benefit of parents, teachers, peers, and experts who have already tried to understand that which has already been perceived.
Some information has been generally accepted as facts.

For questions arising to which no agreed experience, or general acceptance has been established, various theories are claimed or propounded by some people. Theories become facts when they become established by proof or experience and generally accepted by everybody.

With regard to theories, each of us has to choose to align with one or more or none of them, or come up with our own.

Now some people are not able, or don't want to do any of these things. They choose to accept just what they are taught and live with it. There is nothing wrong with that, if you can accept that someone else is dictating your thoughts or beliefs. Many people do just this when they vote for a political party or go to their Church. They copy their parents or their best friend.

No political party tells its voters to try all the parties before choosing one that is right for the person. Each Party wants to be the biggest, because it is the 'right one' for the people.
No Religious organisation tells its followers to try all the other religions before self-choosing the one for the person. Each Religion wants to be the biggest one because it is the 'right one'.

If you are able, make sure you choose the 'right one' or none of them, or you may feel like a right one when the truth becomes known.

The very least you can do is read what 'followers' write and see if their proclamations fit in with your own experience or needs at the time."

Does anyone have any comments about this short essay?

Don't limit the experiences or beliefs to a single timeline or lifetime.
Life is multidimensional. The paradigms that are clung to in thought do not make the multiverse what it is, but the universe is a created paradigm associated to beliefs and thoughts.
When you are willing to step out of any box and are capable of letting go of attachments the world automaticaly changes.
Nothing in creation is new, so if you are looking to be unique and find a reality where no man has gone before there will always follow some dissapointment.
The trick is not to feel pessimistic or fatalistic in the doubts that the experiences are real.
Once you free yourself from the boundaries of the minds boxes then the mind is nothing less than a reciever or translator of energy that is manipulated by desire.
Once free from doubt and ego the will of Consciousness is not limited to any paradigm or dimensional reality.
Insanity is not a disease, it's only misunderstood.

"Don't limit the experiences or beliefs to a single timeline or lifetime."

This is a good point. It is silly to ignore an experience or belief because of its age. It is sensible, however, to remain rational when considering proclamations.


"Life is multidimensional".
For me it is three dimensional.

"The paradigms that are clung to in thought do not make the multiverse what it is"
I agree.

"the universe is a created paradigm associated to beliefs and thoughts.
I believe that the Universe existed before human beings, and that we create paradigms of it. I also believe the Universe will exist when humans no longer walk this planet. [using the def. of paradigm - The generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time].

"When you are willing to step out of any box and are capable of letting go of attachments the world automaticaly changes."
I believe the world exists. Mans thoughts about the world can change. In that sense the world does not change. {man does make trivial changes to it}.

"Nothing in creation is new, so if you are looking to be unique and find a reality where no man has gone before there will always follow some dissapointment".
I presume you mean no-one creates water or soil or pottasium. What we can create is more realistic models wihin our brains, to explain aspects of ourselves and the world in which we live, thereby improving our comprehension of these things.

"The trick is not to feel pessimistic or fatalistic in the doubts that the experiences are real".
I'm an optipest; I try to make the best of apparently bad situations.
Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them. I am not a fatalist. For each experience I witness, I decide whether it is was an internal event, eg., seeing a ghost or hallucination, or an external event which really happened in the outside world. I realise that my perception of it may be distorted by the restricted view available from my senses and my interpration capabilities.

"Once you free yourself from the boundaries of the minds boxes then the mind is nothing less than a reciever or translator of energy that is manipulated by desire".
It is dangerous [if you wish to remain realistic] to allow those boundaries which preclude fantasies, to free yourself from such boundaries. I do agree, however, that unnecssary boundaries will produce unnecessarily missed opportunities.

"Once free from doubt and ego the will of Consciousness is not limited to any paradigm or dimensional reality".
If you remove realistic doubts you are in the realms of fantasy and limit yourself only to internal concepts, which would have no place in civilised societies.

"Insanity is not a disease, it's only misunderstood".
Insanity is the absence of understanding.
Some people with 'vision' are classed as insane until others realise the Truth of the 'vision' [there are very small numbers of such people, I believe]. Because these few people are initially classed as insane does not mean that all people who think they have 'vision' are sane!

Yours is a very liberal view rhymer?

Philosophers tend not to be normally, there seems to be always a distintion between true and false.

Reading your words has given me a new insight, the right path is as valid as the wrong one for the populace, I may personally dismiss a path, but even if it does not work for me I can still acknowledge its worth to others.

This is actually further enhancing my views that the truth is personal and not global.

So much for Unity

Unity! How does that fit?

Laz,
"This is actually further enhancing my views that the truth is personal and not global".

I think that there is only one TRUTH [about any specific 'thing'].
We each try to determine that TRUTH and succeed or fail with varying degrees of success or failure.
Each person, therefore, I agree, has a different model of the TRUTH until models [gradually converging with tweaking, or dying by the wayside] are the same. So, our models of as yet unconfirmed truths may be different, but there is still only one [global] truth. I do consider that some people [possibly myself included] are happy to live with 'bent' models of the truth, because for 'internal' reasons life becomes more bearable. The reason we each have different models is I think due to differences in our experiences, our capabilities to think experimentally, to design and conceive ideas, to test ideas, our mix of 'strong areas of knowledge, visual thinking versus word thinking etc.

Come on Rhymer, get out of your box

What is the rule of science so far as proving a theory! It only takes one case where the theory is proven wrong for it be wrong, every test case must be true for it to be so.

So is truth global/universal/singular?

Does 2+2 = 4, yes.
Is the world round, yes.
Does God exist ???

Can you answer that in all truthfullness and say that everyone will confirm it for you?

Hi Laz,

I purposely stated in my last post "I think........"

I also think that most people by now realise that it is not presently possible to prove that a God does or does not exist in reality. [I presume to realise that Gods do exist within human brains as concepts].

Since I said "I think..." you may safely presume that I do not expect a single other person to agree with me, since I cannot prove what I have declared as my thoughts. I read other peoples thoughts or beliefs or claims and discard or accept their probability of being close to the truth, based on my own experiences, thoughts, intuition and gut feeling. That is as close as I can get to the real truth of anything.
I accept the existence of other peoples beliefs of truths as long as there is no intention to shove it down my throat whether or not I want to accept it. I read them intently and modify my own thoughts [or not] depending on my analysis of those beliefs.
This is one of the reasons that I have, in the past, asked for word or sentence definitions [to clarify a statement]. [eg., you use the word "world" in your post. The world to me is "everything that exists". I do not believe that everything thast exists is round, but, another usage is "our planet", which I easily presume you refer to since you say it is round. I won't argue about mountains and valleys!]. Sometimes it is not easy to identify such ambiguities, and I use word ambiguously too, of that I have no doubt.

I certainly don't want to ram my ideas down anyones throat with my words. I am particularly concerned not to turn anyone away from their beliefs, if that meant that they could cope less with their lives.
Neither do I have the slightest intention of deceiving anyone in a playful manner by treating this most important topic as a game where one tries to wind up others.

What I said was "I think that there is only one TRUTH [about any specific 'thing']".

You appear to misunderstand my meaning, because I do not mean to imply that I think there is only one truth; there are many, each about a different specific thing in the real world [or maybe earth].

For example, consider the statement "each person has a soul".
This may be true or false really. Let us presume that it is true.

A following statement may say the soul is in the left foot, another that is in the heart, another that it is in the brain. Each of these statements may be true or false. Let us assume that the truth is 'in the left foot'.
Here we have two Truths, not one [even though they could be combined into one truthful statement].
So there is not one truth, there are many.

I seek expansion and unification when they are appropriate to the data not when they are appropriate to a 'pet' theory I may have.

I prefer to continue judging my words for the benefit of others with the sole intention of preventing blind alleys, roundabouts, and insults. I may fail sometimes but at least I will have tried to avoid pitfalls. It makes the whole exercise more enjoyable anyway.
How would you feel if it were reported in your local paper tomorrow that a teenager has died by falling over a cliff, because as a religious convert, he believed there was solid ground beneath his feet? I could presume your answer based on your responsive words above, but I know that you would be devastated, based on reading all your works.
Each of those truths apply anywhere on Earth, but not necessarily on other planets, so they are not universal truths. [the universe to me is everything that exists anywhere].

Consciousness doesn't move these truths out anywhere in manifestations. [I admit it can be passed on from one to another]. These truths exist even when man is not aware that there exists a soul in his left foot. The truth exists before man can think of it [even if only in a potential sense]. [this would not apply for a sequence of events which have not yet happened, by the way].
Neither do I think there exists a Universal consciousness [at least not very generally]. We are all isolated but may well have similar thoughts at similar times, but not because there is any sense of tapping into a common consciousness.

And, why do you presume it is the ego which determines truths? I don't.

Isaid "I also think that most people by now realise that it is not presently possible to prove that a God does or does not exist in reality. [I presume to realise that Gods do exist within human brains as concepts]." You say this is a bent perspective. Please point me to the proof of either.
I further think that there is no need for a god to exist since claiming that one exists has exactly the same effect, even though it cannot be proved that a god exists.

An intelligence living on another planet where water has only ever existed in liquid form would be wrong to assume that it was true that water could only exist in liquid form, though it is true for his planet.

I understood you completely Bill.
Since you think that these personal truths are real, then you will think some more and your experiences will change and you will again think some more.
What truths you believed as a five, fifteen and thirty year old are not the same truths that you believe now, and when you evolve some more and your truths change again you may find that Truths that are personal are only thoughts not truths of permanence, only illusions of interpretation.

You also might be projecting a bit when you think that someone who might read my posts would jump off of a cliff, and further projecting what my feelings would be if someone were to blindly do so without knowing The Truth.
I would not feel sorry for anyones actions or choices, nor could I feel responsible for the thoughts that people choose to call truth. I would suffer greatly in this world if I were attached to all of the pain that people choose to bring into their experience of life by their illusions of truth.

From your response I don't think you appreciate what I am saying at all.

My thoughts are not my 'truths'.
My thoughts are my current models [ie. they change] of the truths of the world. When I know I have a truth my thought becomes a true model of that truth. The thought itself is not a truth; it either truly exists as a thought or doesn't exist. My thoughts are only symbolic of the truth [when I have the truth].
There may well be a stage where I will say I believe, ie., short of knowing something or other. This is when my model of a situation or concept seems to hold up very well but is short of being a proveable truth. I realise there are difficulties with some concepts which may be true but which do not seem proveable by scientific methods, and may well have to rely on intuition, introspection etc. They will remain unproveable, and therefore, beliefs unless a new branch of science becomes available.
I accept that I projected a lot about the effects of your words on levitation.
You are responsible for the words you write [nobody else]. And yet you say if somebody else believes your words [not stated to be just a belief and not stated to be illusory] then that somebody is illusory, and you would not feel sorry for them!

Hi Joesus,
I am going to my doctor tomorrow [unless something prevents me].
I think he will stop me from driving. It is a suspicion only because I do not KNOW what he will say.
It is not a truth that he will stop me from driving! Therefore my thought is not a truth for me!
A truth is something that has truly happened, does truly exist or truly will exist or happen. It is true that I have had the thought, but the thought itself is not the truth.

I will let you know tomorrow whether my thought turns out to be a truth or not.
I obviously hope I am wrong with this particular thought, even though it happens to be what I would say if I was the doctor!

Clear thinking opens up the way to clear vision.

Clear projection clears the way for probable realities even if they are clearly bent.
You might find that you get what you would expect. Your thoughts have a powerful direction in creating your experiences.

With respect to your last post when you asked if