Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[JustLikeYou]

JLY was looking really promising but after a few posts it all broke down into "I can believe what I want and that includes making stuff up and being inconsistent" no offense intended but he did literally make stuff up (ad hoc explanations allowed by a cosmic philosophy that does not discriminate fact from fiction, he had the honesty to admit it though and did say that the theory would be consistent with what's displayed in the Ra Material, though doesn't stop it being made up) and was inconsistent (regarding Larson in relation to the Ra Material).

We all make stuff up. Where do you think any good idea comes from? How do you think scientific theories happen? Somebody "makes stuff up" and then checks to see if it works.

Maybe I need to say this a different way. Maybe I'm being too indirect, too sloppy, too brief, or all three.

First: I take issue with your terms. "Fact," "fiction," and "truth" all need definition.

My definitions:

"Fact" -- There are two kinds of facts: personal and inter-subjective.
- Personal facts -- The raw phenomena you experience
- Inter-subjective facts -- The raw phenomena whose description people agree to within an acceptable (i.e. high) tolerance
-> There are, in fact, no "raw phenomena," so this term refers to phenomena removed of their cultural and personal biases as far as can be consciously done.
-> Facts therefore vary in their reliability, but inter-subjective sensory facts are the most reliable, due to their vividness, our tendency to pay attention to them, and the number of data points involved.
-> Subjective facts (like mystical experiences) have every bit as much weight to the subject as inter-subjective facts. What must be interrogated is not their reality but their interpretation.

"Truth" -- A thought or thought system which adheres to accepted standards that define truth. Those standards:
- Accuracy (facts and model must correspond)
- Coherence (internal consistency of thought or system and external consistency with greater system in which the thought or system is embedded)
- Simplicity (that which asserts fewer variables is preferred)
- Comprehensiveness (that system which explains more of the phenomena is preferred)
-> You'll recognize these as roughly similar to Kuhn's standards for a scientific theory. They work for anything that can be said to be "true".
-> This model of truth has no attachment to any absolute measure. Truth is that which emerges from human consciousness as a consequence of what it is (and it is subjective at its core). These standards for truth are merely the baseline biases (call them archetypes if you want) that we have in our thought patterns. This is what Wittgenstein was describing when he said that we shared a "form of life".
-> When we say that something is "true" we are saying "I prefer this because I am this." But it is quite possible to be wrong about an assertion that takes this form (which is what your hippies sometimes do).
-> You'll notice that falsifiability is not on this list. That's because it's a standard for a natural law, not for truth.

"Fiction" -- A model of reality which falls short of truth in some way. A good fiction only falls short in the accidental details and a select few of the systematic elements (as in the case of science fiction and fantasy). A bad fiction has no bearing on the human experience whatsoever.

"Belief" -- A thought system that I accept as true, but am prepared to accept as fiction if new evidence suggests this.

On whether I believe the Ra Material:

The Ra Material is either true or a very good fiction. It is not a fact, though. It merely describes facts.

The Ra Material is a framework. It is not a completed philosophy. This means that there are plenty of elements that must still be fleshed out, or "made up" as you call it.

Because the systematic elements that I have personally studied adhere to all standards of truth, I accept this framework as true.

Because I have not studied all of the peripheral details (such as Ra's endorsement of Larson), I cannot endorse the history as true, but I cannot either assert that it is fiction.

Because I have come to trust Ra as a source of true thoughts and because I have come to trust Jim and Carla as a source of honesty and integrity, I am prepared to go out on a limb and say that I will probably endorse most of Larson's ideas when I read them, though I doubt I will feel satisfied.