Was there a time in your life, in which you questioned your loyalty to those around you or even to yourself? Although it is bound to occur sooner or later, it happens far too early and far too frequently for some. The reason for this is not the devolution of society, community or the family unit, but rather the concept of “knowing” itself.
In order to know anything, we must adhere to the same principles as the observer effect, which it turn means that knowing shares some of the same implications.
In the realm of physics, everything has a cause and yields an effect. Ergo, everything happens for a reason, even if the reason does not seem all that apparent. In probablistic algorithms, this includes the act of learning that ultimately leads to the attainment of further knowledge in the future. Consider this process in slow motion:
- Introduction – the place and time we encounter the subject or object in question, incl. surrounding events leading up to that very moment.|
- Development of Interest – the instant our curiosity is peaked.
- Assimilation of Information – the more interested we are, the more we begin to learn about the subject or object.
- Interpretation Through Perception – After much information gathering, we draw a conclusion based on what we know.
- Repeat Process
When perceive knowing from this standpoint, how we trust becomes a consequence of a long-winded thought process, starting at the beginning of our individual consciousness.
Without the fundamental knowledge about an object or subject, we are only able to draw a finite number of conclusions. So, at times, we are lulled into complacency and trust on faith….However, instead of an assent of the mind to the truth, our blind reliance on others can carry a steep price, if we are not careful.
In any case, the tendency to trust too easily as well as the inability to trust are a symptom of a larger problem. These opposite ends of the “trust spectrum” also happen to address a rather relevant philosophical conundrum that may bridge the gap between the two extremes: the absolute aspects of “knowingness” in relative space-time.
On this note, we arrive at the question what is knowing? The term dates back to the 14th century, when the adjective was defined as “with knowledge of truth”, which leads us to ask, what is truth? Now, truth exists in two forms in a dualistic universe or universe with a circular spectrum: (1) relative and (2) absolute. In both forms, truth is often equivalated with proper awareness. Conversely, what we define as proper is determined by social standards. Our oldest understanding of proper means to be adapted to some purpose. In ideal world, the purpose would be honourable, filled with noble intentions to shape a world free from suffering. Yet, in any society, the purpose is swayed by mainstream information. Ultimately, this purpose can eiher bring us toward or further away from expanding our consciousness. Even when we are in a state of apparent stagnation, there is still movement in the form of tempero-spatial progression. In simple terms, our consciousness still perceives what is happening as sequence of events within the space time continuum from our individual perspective. This often comes with an involuntary confirmation bias, in which we interpret reality in a way that confirms our personal as well as collective preconceptions. Hence, we draw conclusions in the absence of experiential evidence prior to the self. Far too often, we do not even attempt to verify what we think to be true.
In addition, at higher levels of consciousness, all-time occurs simultaneously while all-space converges. All that was, is or could ever be happens all at once as a seemingly singular, interconnected movement known as our universe. In essence, our universe is the result of a chain-reaction, from which gazillions of possibilities unfold, but onle one can manifest.
When we stand further back to perceive our universe as just one possible form of existence, we are simply one string interweaved in a myriad of others. We could argue, all of which are circular and explore the implications. We could envision a cascade of never-ending existences, trying to imagine what they would be like. However, we can only know by being…through that long-winded battle of striving to attain a state of infinite existence and succeeding…
To clarify, our universe is merely a tiny ripple in a vast cosmic sea of possible realities, just as we are a tiny ripple in the bottomless ocean of society. So, all we know seems circumstantially relative, but becomes much more definitive when we translate knowledge into action. For example, we can think the Earth is flat but when we hop into a spaceship to check, it’ll be an oblate spheroid. Push come to shove, what we know is only as true as our ability to prove the fact. Put in context with our societal hierarchy, this implies that our knowlege is only as good as how we present our case. Whether we are speaking the truth sadly doesn’t matter as much as it should. Though we can change that through nurture, we can’t change nature. For instance, we can create an environment, in which we foster open-mindedness and curiosity, but we can’t force everyone to be tolerant to each other around the clock every day. When ideas collide in the search for the absolute truth, there is going to be fallout and the ego will be the first casualty. So, the most important rule in our search is to leave our ego behind. In doing so, we don’t argue as much as we try to understand where the other person is coming from.
Who The Fuck is Right?
Your truth, my truth, who the fuck is actually right at the end? Honestly, both but no one. We may understand the manner, in which a person perceives anything, yet we can never be certain that they aren’t lying to themselves. We might believe we know another inside out, just to realise eventually that we never truly knew them at all. Everything is relative, capable of being interpreted in the exact opposite way. It is a simple matter of subjective experience, giving rise to relative truths.
For example, in the case of eyewitness statements, this becomes deadly apparent. Although everyone involved witnessed the same incident, the descriptions wildly differ. While our recollections are only as reliable as our memory, how and what we remember depends greatly on our thought processes. In fact, our thoughts shape our memory not only through neuronal connections, but through the reason why we interpret things the way we do.
To be who we are means constant effort for our body and mind. From birth onward, we develop and maintain an identity, dependent on conditional factors. People, events and the world helps mould what we have already become. So, without the occurrence of certain defining moments, we cease to be the current version of ourselves.
Our mind is endlessly processing what has, is and may happen. Content continuously rises to the surface and falls underneath the line of conscious or voluntary recollection. We never stop forgetting and remembering, unless we still the mind completely. Moreover, it takes persistent practice to be present in the now. We must be consistent in our effort to care more for the truth than our personal interpretation.
For what it’s worth, we rarely notice how our own personal perception of reality creates bias in our judgement of what we believe to be the truth. We forget to consider sides to a subject, for instance, because we associate negatively with them. We overestimate the importance of specific factors due to positive experiences in the past. From a primal standpoint, our physical, emotional and social survival relies on remembering some things but forgetting others. Through the evolution of our consciousness, however, we can choose to do neither. We can position ourselves on the fine line in between. We can be vigilant without judging ourselves or those around us. We can just be in the moment, observing…contemplating the absolute truth from within the confines of relative existence…But it wouldn’t be enough.
To discern something as complex as the absolute truth from a version of the relative is not a simple task. To know the absolute truth about ourselves, we need to remove the influence of all relative aspects that make up our personality. This is also a rather painful key to lasting happiness in yogic non-attachment practices. To discover the absolute truth about the many worlds, we must delve into the origin, nature and purpose of existence prior to the relative. If all is mind, then truth is a multi-faceted, collective construct. It contains ego-destroying layers of personal perspectives from every possible angle inside a vast consciousness, whose probability of ending is zero…So, are you ready?
QuantumMediocrity 