Here is a podcast link where I was able to share my thinking on truth sources today. … This is my wider perspective on things and I would love to get input, feedback or or pushback! Happy New Year! ~ Peace 
The basic question is “Who do we Trust?”
Well, the answer is actually very simple. No one.
Allow me to give two examples: the military and accounting.
In the military it is a basic premise to not leave things unlocked or as they say “unsecured”. So even in a very tight group of lets say less than 10 men who place their lives in each others’ hands - you still lock up your stuff. There is a lot of deep psychology in this. To this day I see it as irresponsible to leave things unlocked. As an example - a while back I had a neighbor who did not lock his bike up and when it was stolen he blamed a guest of mine and started asking questions about my guest. He was worried that his new unlocked bicycle would again be stolen. I found this really rude and unnecessary and told him “Just buy a lock and the problem will be solved.”
My second example is from the world of accounting. As a rule, never have the same person writing the checks for an organization also be responsible for checking all expenses. Always make everyone in the organization understand that all transactions will be checked by someone, and that person has no authority to make any transactions. Some people especially in family businesses ignore this and inevitably get into problems with spending. Even if you trust the person completely to not do something dishonest - they can still make an error of judgement. There is again deep psychology in the increased quality of decision making when we know there will be a witness to hold us accountable for those decisions.
So - back to politics and the CDC and all the rest. I do not “trust” the CDC, but who I trust even less are the individuals and groups who have gone “down the rabbit hole”.
It’s important to remember that every source of information has an agenda - there is no “truth”, except insofar as it is altered by the motives of the communicator.
I usually avoid sources of information where people say something is “truth” and this often means avoiding any sources of religion with strong elements of faith attached to it. Faith is a belief in something not proven, so when faith in a thing by definition twists that information out of “truth” - in the most transparent and obvious ways.
This is also why, while I absolutely do not trust Youtubers - I don’t even bother to go into areas such as rumble or “Truth” Social. The agenda behind their “truth” is so transparent as to be ludicrous and a complete waste of my time.
I don’t “go to” any particular news source for information - I’ve known since the 1990’s as a young adult that every source of information or news is tainted. Though when I receive FOX news, the taint is just overwhelmingly obvious moreso than other mainstream media. I listen to tone of voice and the largest part of FOX broadcasting has a loud, angry tone as if they are trying to bully their listeners into believing whatever gaslighting narrative they are playing that day. There is so little actual “news” or information from FOX beyond angry gaslighting.
Lately I’ve been listening to some Peter Zeihan - but not blindly. I understand he has a “faith” in Capitalism and so his messaging has to be filtered accordingly.
This week I’m also reading a Science Fiction Novel - which ironically allowed me to find some a deeply imbedded truths. It’s ironic that in an overtly false narrative that was created to entertain I decoded a universal secret to human happiness and achievement.
The Novel is “The Dark Forest” by Cixin Liu.
In it the protagonist along with 3 other men are given all the resources of the planet in order to prepare for an alien invasion in 400 years. The three others go off on very predictable paths - two focus on military solutions (which wil clearly fail against a technologically superior race) and the third goes for human enhancement. Only the protagonist first looks at what it means to be human, and WHY humanity is work saving. Without knowing WHY humanity should be saved and WHAT those qualities are, HOW is impossible to even start with.
The basic truths about humanity are still the same they have been since the beginning of time. A lot of it is ugly and some small part is incomprehensibly beautiful. Knowing the difference between one and the other requires knowing both, accepting both as inevitably truths - and then only after one is at some kind of internal peace balancing the two, only then take a course of action. Whether it’s saving humanity from an alien invasion or deciding to get a vaccination or not is basically the same decision: Am I reacting out of fear to stimulation from a source outside of myself, or am I acting as a “sovereign soul” from a place of crystal clarity within the very essence of who I am? Not an external God nor an ideology or philosophy or any other “head space” thinking but who I am.
1 Like
Well, the answer is actually very simple. No one.
I agree Ray! … I suggested in the Podcast that we be open to everything and/or skeptical of all. We need to get many and diverse perspectives to possibly shine light on truth.
There is a deep psychology in the increased quality of decision making when we know there will be a witness to hold us accountable for those decisions.
I suggested in the Podcast that we stop arguing “our points of view” and look to understand the contrasting views from other sources. I wish we all actually wanted to find truth, whatever that is!
So - back to politics and the CDC and all the rest. I do not “trust” the CDC, but who I trust even less are the individuals and groups who have gone “down the rabbit hole”.
I asked in the Podcast that in retrospect would we make the same decision regarding our own body’s? Are those who refused to get the jab, despite the pressure to comply, feeling better or worse about the decision, what about those who obediently complied?
It’s important to remember that every source of information has an agenda - there is no “truth”, except insofar as it is altered by the motives of the communicator.
I most certainly agree! I suggested in the Podcast that we stop promoting our own views and explore contrasting views strong manning them into our own perspective
I usually avoid sources of information where people say something is “truth”
I suggested in the Podcast that most people believe in truth and will answer an honest question with their personal truthful response. What if we could all stop the arguing and actually listen with curiosity and probe with insightful questions to find common ground?
Lately I’ve been listening to some Peter Zeihan - but not blindly. I understand he has a “faith” in Capitalism and so his messaging has to be filtered accordingly.
I am a fan of this man too, I shared a post here myself about him. He has a dimensional view that’s worthy of inclusion in a full perspective on global politics.
I’m reading a Science Fiction Novel - The Novel is “The Dark Forest” by Cixin Liu. … ironically allowed me to find some deeply imbedded truths in an overtly false narrative.
I’d love for us all to go down that rabbit hole of thought with you. Actually explore beyond the obvious. On the podcast I called it the spiritual perspective above and beyond the intense clashes on the ground of our current reality.
The basic truth … a lot of it is ugly and some small part is incomprehensibly beautiful. Knowing the difference between one and the other requires knowing both!
I most certainly agree. I wish more of our conversation and solutions were on the small beautiful pieces that few of us actually see. Accepting everything that exists as a piece of the truth, balancing them all into a positive course of action seems critical to our long term survival.
Am I reacting out of fear to stimulation from a source outside of myself, or am I acting as a “sovereign soul” from a place of crystal clarity within the very essence of who I am? Not an external God nor an ideology or philosophy or any other “head space” thinking but who I am.
Bingo! Yes, the ultimate answers are of a spiritual nature.
Thanks for your feed back @raybennett ~ Peace
1 Like
Thank You Sidra
I appreciate your contribution and your insightful contribution to my post.
Thanks for sharing the link @Sidra … I would say everything is a piece of truth if someone believes it. Meaning every point of view is valid and true because someone holds it as such. It’s a complex contemplation but rich with comprehension.
So the belief is an attachment to an experience defined by the individual as true?
Does that make the experience itself true? If two people assimilate opposing experiences from different sides which is true?
I understand there is a human desire to believe they understand more than they actually do - and that our system of logic is some kind of universal, when it is far from the case.
I only have to look to High School mathematics, when I learned of a thing called an “imaginary number”. I knew at that moment that humanity and science was just bsing it’s way through.
"Hey we made mathematics but it doesn’t actually work, so we just made up “imaginary numbers” when it doesn’t
The rules of Logic are not universally applicable to all the cosmos and humanity’s various languages are limited in what it is even capable of expressing.
So yes - there are no “truths” that humanity has yet uncovered or is able to understand. They all fall apart at some point.