Truth/Epistemology and LOO

[Poet]

Hi to all,

I thought a lot about epistemology during the last months. I asked myself: What is reality? What is truth? What can one know? I personally came to the conclusion that truth exists. If it would not exist, we could not wander. But our human mind is not capable of discovering it. Like Sokrates said: "I know that I don't know."

I would be very happy to hear your thoughts on this issue. I especially read into Immanuel Kant, Ludwig von Mises and Karl Popper. I read the Law of One material years ago but I forgot most things. So it would be very interesting for me to learn from you and also share some thoughts of mine on this issue...

Poet

[AnthroHeart]

I too agree that truth exists, but I believe that humans can discover portions of it at least here in this incarnation. Every spiritual advancement is moving closer to truth. And truth is the One Original Thought. It is the purest of Love. This Love we cannot understand. 6th Density has a better understanding of Love, and their love is not the same as 3D love. I believe Love/Light is what we're here to discover, or at least touch on. We might not truly discover it while here, as the limitations of the veil prevent us from really understanding. As Ra says, this is not the density of understanding. We begin to understand in 4D.

[Marc]

Let me start with this very simple profound quote by my favorite teacher:

Jesus said, “Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed.”

Focus on what we can know and then what we don't know will become availible to know.

Also another quote from my fav book, the gospel of Thomas:

“Jesus said, “Let one who seeks not stop seeking until one finds. When one finds, one will be troubled. When one is troubled, one will marvel and will reign over all.”

The first thing we know is that we don't know anything, but once we know that we then know something. This is where the fun begins. We can't just stop at knowing that we don't know, because once we know that, it renders the whole previous knowledge of ignorance, inapplicable.

Another quote from Doreal:

"Man’s search for understanding of the laws which regulate his life has been unending, yet always just beyond the veil which shields the higher planes from material man’s vision the truth has existed, ready to be assimilated by those who enlarge their vision by turning inward, not outward, in their search.

In the silence of material senses lies the key to the unveiling of wisdom. He who talks does not know; he who knows does not talk. The highest knowledge is unutterable, for it exists as an entity in lanes which transcend all material words or symbols.

All symbols are but keys to doors leading to truths, and many times the door is not opened because the key seems so great that the things which are beyond it are not visible. If we can understand that all keys, all material symbols are manifestations, are but extensions of a great law and truth, we will begin to develop the vision which will enable us to penetrate beyond the veil.

All things in all universes move according to law, and the law which regulates the movement of the planets is no more immutable than the law which regulates the material expressions of man."

As we can see here, the greatest truths cannot be explained or uttered plainly, they must hidden and only hinted at to be found by each individual seeker. I could explain absolute beauty to someone but unless they had discovered it for themselves, my words appear to be non-sense to them.

We can know absolute truth, and only when we create the limiting belief that we cannot, do we lock ourselves away from ourselves.

"Seek and you will find."

[zenmaster]

The fact is, Ra attempted to relate universal principles.
So why attempt that?

Another strangeness is why we need the mechanism of chanelling to teach?

[Marc]

Another strangeness is why we need the mechanism of chanelling to teach?

I'm sure the question is rhetorical, but I shall attempt an answer anyway. XD

I find for myself that a perspective different than my ego is very helpful. I know from experience I can find all the answers to all the questions deep within myself, but I wouldn't asked all the questions and waited for the answers in the same amount of time it took me to read most of the Ra material [yea I'm on book IV, still. I've got other things to read...]. Ultimately it is a product of my seeking and asking and I see it as coming from within myself, but if [note: I hate speaking in hypotheticals] I didn't have the Ra material, I would still find the truth that I need to find.

So do I need channeled material? No. Is it helpful? Yes.

As a rule these days I try to stay away from most [all but LOO] channelled material and use my inner guidance to find the answers. I think channelling takes some the fun out of seeking for me, but I sometimes enjoy it.

[Poet]

Thank you for the answers, really interesting. I understood zenmaster and Marc in the way that we as a collective cannot find metaphysical truth, just the individual on its own path if it takes a closer look inside and observes itself (=introspection). But through introspection, I cannot know if my truth is also the truth of others, i. e. an absolute truth, right? I therefore have to assume that I am actually identical with others ("otherselves"), that "I" is the same as "we". This was the core message of Ra if I remember correct: All is one and separation is an illusion.

My next question is then this: What is the exact explanation of Ra that there is no seperation between individuals, that all are one? Ra also said one time that its own knowledge of the Law of One is limited if I remember correct. Is there any explanation? And if not, how could you see yourself in others?

[Marc]

In regards to absolute truth:

When we stumble upon absolute truth, for instance the truth: "all is one", it is truth regardless of the opinions and beliefs of other/selves. They may not accept it as truth, but regardless of their acceptance of the truth it remains unchanged in its absolute quality.

Now remember the law of free will. Because of free will, people may believe whatever they wish and see the belief reflected back to them in their personal experience, thus creating a truth relative to them, but that is not absolute truth. I rather refer to those "relative truths" as opinions and beliefs, but not truth. I think it is imperative to set a distinction between opinions/beliefs and knowledge/truth.

The way we can prove whether or not a truth is absolute, is in the expanse and verifiability of the argument coupled with actual experience of said truth (ie: a priori and empirical evidence).

Deep within ourselves we can stand in the realm of the absolute and see everything in its absolute truth. We cannot share that with those who have not experienced it, but can only describe it. To those who have not experienced it, it will only be nonsense, but that doesn't take away the universal quality of the absolute truth. An example of my understanding can be more perfectly portrayed in plato's analogy of the cave. The realness is there regardless of the faulty perceptions of those bound in the cave.

Now to answer your question about the illusion of separation, it can be illustrated as one thing experiencing itself in infinite forms of consciousness. Such as a single organism with many different points of self-awareness.

[reeay]

In 3rd density tho we are learning to become individuals (independent, knowing self) who are individuated (integrated/balanced beings). We learn to have boundaries between self and others so we may take personal responsibility for our own self, while appreciating the role of other self who help us to reflect self as mirrors reflect our image. Boundaries are necessary to have some point of reference and grounding… something to work with.

[Poet]

This is very interesting what you write, Marc. I'm not sure if I grasped it all correct. I will think about it and come back to you. But I have a few questions:

When we stumble upon absolute truth, for instance the truth: "all is one", it is truth regardless of the opinions and beliefs of other/selves. They may not accept it as truth, but regardless of their acceptance of the truth it remains unchanged in its absolute quality.

Now remember the law of free will. Because of free will, people may believe whatever they wish and see the belief reflected back to them in their personal experience, thus creating a truth relative to them, but that is not absolute truth. I rather refer to those "relative truths" as opinions and beliefs, but not truth. I think it is imperative to set a distinction between opinions/beliefs and knowledge/truth.

The way we can prove whether or not a truth is absolute, is in the expanse and verifiability of the argument coupled with actual experience of said truth (ie: a priori and empirical evidence).

How can you then distinguish between absolute and relative truth? Don't you create in both cases a reflection of this truth? If I for instance believe that humans nature is good at heart I will start to see this truth in the outside world. But maybe I'm wrong with it and I just saw a relative truth.

Can you elaborate on this passage a bit more:

The way we can prove whether or not a truth is absolute, is in the expanse and verifiability of the argument coupled with actual experience of said truth (ie: a priori and empirical evidence).

[Bring4th_Austin]

Another strangeness is why we need the mechanism of chanelling to teach?

I'm guessing you are referring to interaction with higher density beings in general and not just channeling, since channeling is the main method only because of failure of other methods.

Maybe it's a type of correction mechanism, since the Logoi are experimenting in their designs and could possibly create an environment of stagnant evolution. Perhaps the best type of creation is one where entities progress through the density without a calling, with the calling mechanism in place in case the environment does not fulfill its purpose without outside help.

Also, there's no doubt that helping lower densities is a way for higher densities to evolve as well.

Interesting to note though, that communication between densities might not be a universal thing:

90.24 Questioner: Were there any other circumstances, biases, consequences, or plans set up by the Logos other than those we have discussed for the evolution of Its parts through the densities?
Ra: I am Ra. Yes.

90.25 Questioner: What were these?
Ra: I am Ra. One more; that is, the permeability of the densities so that there may be communication from density to density and from plane to plane or sub-density to sub-density.

Seems to imply that communication from density to density isn't a given attribute of all creations.

[AnthroHeart]

Austin, you bring up some good points.
I think I remember Ra saying in the Logoi experimentation some bodies were not viable.

I like what you say about higher densities evolving through helping lower densities. I sure could use help. I'm sure I'm getting bunches of help, just that I don't recognize it.

[xise]

In the purest sense, truth can only exist when discussing concepts.

Truth cannot be said to exist of any statements concerning the physical world in the sense that any statement concerning the physical is at best probabilistic in nature (even if the probability is 99.9999%, there is a chance it is not true, and therefore not truth). (As an aside, I believe the probabilistic nature of the physical world is where magic and manifestation come in and I believe also interrelated in some way to the quantum mechanical "observer has an effect on the observed" effect).

To put it another way: Truth exists in concepts, but not in facts.

[Marc]

Xise,

Well said and thanks for making that distinction. I've not made that distinction consciously before and I'm glad to see that very valid point made.

Poet,

What I mean by proving absolute by the "expanse and veritability of the argument" means that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions within the said 'truth'. If there are conceptual inconsistencies in the thesis it cannot be truth.

For example: "nothing does not exist" this is an absolute truth. By definition of the word nothing the thesis is proved correct and absolutely true. Now if I were to say "nothing does exist" I would either a) have to redefine the word nothing to mean something different than nothing or b) see the inconsistency of the thesis and see it as conceptually false.

Absolute truth must be able to have a perfect coherence within the thesis with no false or incomplete assumptions. If it does not meet these standards it can be said to be opinion, belief, or relative truth.

[Poet]

In the purest sense, truth can only exist when discussing concepts.

Truth cannot be said to exist of any statements concerning the physical world in the sense that any statement concerning the physical is at best probabilistic in nature (even if the probability is 99.9999%, there is a chance it is not true, and therefore not truth). (As an aside, I believe the probabilistic nature of the physical world is where magic and manifestation come in and I believe also interrelated in some way to the quantum mechanical "observer has an effect on the observed" effect).

To put it another way: Truth exists in concepts, but not in facts.

This is what I also thought about this subject. It is not possible to make a truthful statement about the real world (at least for the human mind truthful), only about a logical world in which all concepts are clearly defined (like for instance mathematics).

Absolute truth must be able to have a perfect coherence within the thesis with no false or incomplete assumptions. If it does not meet these standards it can be said to be opinion, belief, or relative truth.

I also thought about this issue. But the problem is here that you don't know if your logic is the logic of all other people. Maybe there are some super-human beings like Ra which have totally different categories of logic (or like Kant would say: Categories of reason).

But in general I asked myself how these philosophies can be related to the Law of One. Maybe all are one because all humans act according to the same logic?

[Marc]

The rules of logic/reason stay the same regardless of the issues presented, do they not?

Now the other side of the coin is intuition. Now that is something I cannot reasonably express very well.

[zenmaster]

With intuition you are relating "signposts" which only suggest a perception which is being informed by something. In order to reasonably express intuition all you need to do is to acknowledge and identify the supporting information. Acknowledging what supports intuitive suggestion is often avoided because it inevitably entails 1) awareness of something still unconscious (not integrated nor accepted) and 2) evaluation and acceptance of that condition, which requires effort.
Conyeying intuitive info while failing to acknowledge the supporting info (I.e. experience or notion) is sort of epitomized in the material from coy chanels (most channels). There tends to be compensation in the form of exaggerated authority because the archetype of experience is being suppressed.

[Marc]

Well said, zenmaster. So in other words intuition is the unconscious coming to a thesis and then for it to have weight in the conscious mind we must find out how to get to and integrate that signpost?

[zenmaster]

Well said, zenmaster. So in other words intuition is the unconscious coming to a thesis and then for it to have weight in the conscious mind we must find out how to get to and integrate that signpost?

yes, integration and experience doesnt happen without conscious choice. Intuition informs new experience and the intuition also must draw from whatever experience is available. So one must be conscious of that which intuition draws from in order to maximize learning potential offered by the intuition. The less consciousness present, the more vague the intuitively related perception.