As I/we always and already are infinite and unlimited spirit, freedom, consciousness and potential (among other things), there is always infinite knowledge and information, along with infinite ways in which to interpret, assess or/and comprehend everything.
In this article, I’ll be talking about three in particular, namely the religious or faith-based approach, the genuine scientific method (not “scientism”, which is just another religion) and then about what is beyond that (you’ll see what that is if you either read or skip through the article, because I’m a tease like that).
- The faith-based method of interpretation (religion; blind belief/disbelief)
It goes like this: have an idea –> believe or disregard it, based on faith -> dismiss everything different from that belief, or interpret everything in a way that fits the belief system -> repeat process.
Typically, the more firmly someone believes something, the less likely they are to question that belief. The interest in seeing whether or not the claim is accurate or actual, valid, pertinent or whatever else is rather low, or even inexistent (in case of the cultists or zealots).
That’s kinda it. In terms of the actual “methodology”, that’s pretty much the gist of faith-based assessments: assumptions based in ignorance or nescience, to which the “bearer” of that belief becomes attached, on account of “This is what I believe, fuck you!”
- The scientific method(s)
This encompasses a much wider array of variables and a plethora of different methods of assessment, but most or all of which rely on the same essential thing: evidence (which has its pros and cons).
Probably the most basic (and rudimentary) scientific method is the process of induction, which basically goes like this: witness something -> attempt to repeat the occurrence -> occurrence has been successfully reproduced a satisfactory amount of time -> assume the premise is valid; otherwise, assume it is invalid -> repeat.
This has many flaws, because it takes far too few variables into account, with the main one being witnessing that something is repeated consistently. While consistency does say something about whether or not something is a thing, there are plenty of deeper aspects to take into consideration. What about things that occur spontaneously? Things that are more vast than a lab environment would manage to reproduce? What about chaotic variables that exist in nature, but which the sterility of a “controlled” environment isn’t going to facilitate? Various natural and beyond natural things that, by design, won’t occur when you try to experiment with it in a precise fashion? I mean, unless some chaotic element, like an sneeze, blackout, explosion (or whatever else that’s either simpler or more complex) that wasn’t part of the experiment occurs.
Consistency or/and repetition alone just show that something is ostensibly occuring in a more or less constant fashion, but it doesn’t really delve much deeper than that. In and of itself, induction alone has many flaws, but it can be used as one among many other criteria for other, more advanced methods; at least, when it comes to time-space or/and linear assessments.
- Deduction, or the genuinely scientific method
By far, this is much more advanced than the former, because it takes chaotic elements into consideration and often uses at least some manner of imagination and creativity, to make unconventional tests and discernment. In other words, deduction is one of the mind’s ways of thinking outside the box.
It goes like this: have an idea ->explore, ponder and analyze the potential implications of that idea -> theorize -> test out the theories -> derive evidence ->…
… evidence shows theory is, or seems to be right -> use theory to advance comprehension -> conduct more advanced tests -> have more ideas…
… evidence shows theory is, or seems to be wrong -> reasses theory -> revolutionize -> have more ideas ->…
It’s more complex and intricate than this brief explanation or the article’s picture would imply. However, everything that has to do with science alone, or with any manner of purely evidence and evidence-based research methodologies, has a major error.
That error, which is ironically also science’s main strength, is its evidence. More specifically, its reliance on evidence. To get the gist of what I’m saying, we need to first look at what evidence actually is, as well as its shortcomings.
What is evidence?
Before I answer that, I want to point out that all evidence can be forged, misinterpreted, misconstrued and so on; especially in a society such as ours which relies mostly on deceit to carry out its agendas.
Aside from that, there are also other factors to take into consideration when looking at how evidence is interpreted. There is the individual’s biases that might influence the judgement or asessment, or even if something is taken into consideration as evidence for something in the first place.
Even if someone is completely unbiased, there is also such a thing as an individual’s manifested intuition, intelligence and ability to comprehend things; which, again, may vary and influence the quality of their assessment.
Evidence can also be incomplete, but erroneously assumed to be complete. Even if, contextually speaking, the evidence is complete, what is completion? Completion is totality. In other words, a defined beginning and end. Said differently, it’s a finite expression. There is always infinite and unlimited potential for everything, so anything that manifests as finite is gonna be “pfft”. (I’m not saying that dismissively, since I mean we’re all infinity, unlimitedness and veyond, as such and as manifesting ourselves in different forms, but you get the point.)
Besides that, the very idea of genuine science, which comes from sciere (meaning either “knowledge” or “to know”), naturally implies that there is always more to know than one might think or believe they already know.
Aside from all of that, what is evidence in actuality? Evidence is an interpretation of information. As such, to interpret anything as “evidence”, one would first need to observe that particular something. In the context of this topic, observation in turn relies on perception or any manner of awareness.
Therefore, all evidence is fundamentally derived from what is already perceived. Quite literally, evidence is limited to either the sensory, extra-sensory or any other level of awareness that one is already experiencing. Said differently, evidence only reveals more about the unknown knowns (things you don’t know you know), known knowns (things you know you know) or known unknowns (things you know that you don’t know).
What about the unknown unkowns (things you don’t know that you don’t know), then? What evidence does a man born blind have of what we call light? Literally none. Some people might say that “well, they can still feel the heat coming from the sun or from a nearby lamp” or whatever. Yes, they can; but to them that’s evidence of heat or a heat source; not of light.
Likewise, people who limit their awareness to the five (or, I suppose six senses, since memory is the pretty much a sixth sense) level of perceived reality, what evidence would they have of things like alternate realities, past-concurrent-and-future incarnations of themselves, different timelines and things beyond the realm of time, as well as beyond the very idea of “reality”? Literally none. That is, for as long as their approach is limited to either faith or purely evidence-based research.
Does light not exist, just because the blind man doesn’t see it, though? Fuck that. Light exists regardless of whether or not someone perceives it in whatever way.
Likewise, albeit on more complex levels, the notion that we are infinite dimensional and beyond-dimensional beings, as well as infinite consciousness and unlimited freedom, spirit, potential, etcetera…
Everything is as it is, and changes however it might change, by virtue of itself, not by however it might be believed or disbelieved. That’s part of why I tell people to not just believe or disbelieve what I (or anyone else) say, and instead to make their own assessments and interpretations.
Now, if the scientific method(s) are only useful for deriving a more refined and detailed picture about what is already known and perceived (but with varying levels of mental awareness, at various points in time), how does one expand beyond that veil?
That’s where spirit and genuine intuition come in, and thus genuine wisdom and intelligence.
By “intuition”, I’m not referring to stuff like emotions or thoughts, and I’m definitely not talking about reflexive, compulsion-based associations made through repeatedly going through particular experiences (which is kinda like a mechanical, instinctive induction mechanism if ya think about it).
Anyway, by intuition, I’m referring to the remembrance of who we are as infinite and unlimited consciusness and potential. Intuition, in this sense, is kinda like a character in a novel realizing that they’re both an expression of the writer and the writer manifesting in that form, as well as everything else.
Intuition is how we break “the fourth wall”, which is a rather funny phrase, since the hyper-cube is an occult or not-so-occult symbol for space-time (along with a bunch of other stuff), which is an illusory realm, and perhaps whoever came up with that phrase wasn’t just talking about the literal walls of a scene in a stage-play. Hm…
Anyway, through intuition we realize and remember that we are all unique, individuated aspects of ourselves as infinite and unlimited consciousness and potential, as well as infinity, unlimitedness and veyond, manifesting ourselves in form.
In other words, through intuition we access the infinity of potential and knowledge more consciously, and thus we expand our awareness from the known, into the unknown; or, more accurately said, we rise from forgetfulness, into remembrance of who we are.
Therefore, through intuition, we expand awareness and knowledge. You may have heard phrases like “always go with the heart, over the head”. Unfortunately, these kinds of proverbs and sayings have been heavily misinterpreted by people who aren’t particularly fond of critical thinking or analysis, while those who are more imbalanced towards the mental aspects, tend to use that premise as an excuse to not express their more chaotic or wild sides. Duality and diversity are good things, along with harmony, but polarity dialectics are fucked up.
Balance is a key to excellence (I say “a” and not “the”, because there are others). Balance and harmony are aspects of evolution and the more infinite and unlimited aspects of ourselves as consciousness.
Think and feel about it. The mind seeks to figure stuff out, because it doesn’t know.The heart does know.The mind is good at taking things apart, looking at things individually and seeing things in detail. The mind is order. However, without the heart, the mind tends to lose sight of the essence. Likewise, the heart – while generally more aware than the mind, because it is a gateway through which we express intuition and wisdom – it doesn’t see things in detail.
Order without chaos leads to rigidity and restraint. Chaos without order leads to aimlessness and sentimentality. Chaos (in the sense that I’m using the word here) is the sea of infinite potential, while order is the individual traversing it. They are different expressions of each other.
I love myself; and I love you, whoever you are. Live and let live. Do no harm, but take no shit. This balance, harmonizing the mind and the heart, in remembrance of who we are as soul and spirit, freedom, etcetera, is how we excell and become better in every moment, than we’ve been the moment before; and it’s a unique experience for each and every one of us.
In order to comprehend, one needs something to comprehend. That something is knowledge and awareness. Through intuition, we expand awareness; and through intelligence, we comprehend awareness.
The mind always grows in conjunction with heart, intelligence with intuition and soul with spirit.
“Always go with the heart, but take your mind with you.”
Question everything. The more we question, the more we know; and the more we know, the more we question… thus, through ourselves as spirit, intuition, intelligence, etcetera, we know and comprehend; among other things…
We are all and always free and freedom, imagination, will and intent… infinity, unlimitedness and veyond… among other things…
What we choose to manifest is always a choice; and the choice is always ours.