The Parasitic Elites Need Us to Reject Self-Knowledge in Order to Feed Upon Us, Part 1
Or: Humanity's Potential for Self-Induced Extinction vs. The Power of a Small but Dedicated Group of People to Manifest Heaven on Earth
I wish to propose a concept that I feel is fundamental for anyone who wishes to survive the next decade: that self-knowledge is prerequisite for developing genuine knowledge regarding anything approximating a scientific understanding of our world in general as well as ones particular niche within it. Please allow me to explain what I mean here, because I am getting at something very specific when I use the phrase self-knowledge.
Who Are We?
While one hears many "spiritual gurus" discuss "knowing thy self" or "accessing your higher self" or similar concepts, the proposition is very strange if you think about it, for it implies not only that there indeed exists an authentic and singular Self within each one of us, but it also implies that this very Self is somehow hidden from view for many of us. Indeed, there is a huge market for spiritual teachings that claim to help people achieve some form of self-knowledge or another, which tells us that there exists a sizable demographic of people who feel in some way or another disconnected from their Self.
This begs several questions: how is it even possible that anyone could ever feel like they are a stranger to themselves? How do we begin to understand such a phenomenon? Is this a form of amnesia? Are there aspects of humanity's biology/neurology that lead to the experience of disassociation from Self? Does this not teach us something valuable - a deeply important and challenging lesson for us all - about the connection between body, mind, and spirit?
Interestingly, though we go through life adopting different ideas and beliefs throughout the years - though our tastes change and our friends may change as well from time to time - our Self is something beyond all of these things. Somehow, the Self is a constant factor despite it's many outward "guises"; it is something entirely distinct from our beliefs and experiences and ideas.
(Even if we wish to outrightly say that the Self "can be plural" in the sense that one is "a different person from day to day", or something similar, it still does not settle the question of what is the Self. In fact, such an idea is really nothing more than a distraction, as it kicks the can down the road regarding the immediate importance of finding a way of defining Self. So what if there are many Selves? The question still remains: who are they? And what, in actuality, distinguishes one Self from another?)
Who is the one that looks through your eyes? Can you distinguish those thoughts which are truly your own thoughts vs. those thoughts which have entered your mind from an outside influence? And why are you alive here on Earth reading this rather than in some other part of this dream we call the Universe? Why were you born at this particular moment in history and not at some other point in time? Is it possible that your Spirit incarnated with intention? Or does Spirit not exist, as mainstream psychology and biology tend to assert? Does consciousness arise only from the chemical interaction of neurotransmitters?
There is nothing intrinsically "scientific" about atheism or materialism
If we believe that mainstream "science" is correct in its assertion that consciousness arises solely from matter and has no transcendent origin, then to be consistent with such a belief we would have to say that our "Self" therefore comprises of a sort of aggregate of physical evolutionary processes. Our identity would be nothing more than an expression of whatever physical laws may be at work in the universe that sculpted our bodies, and our true origin would have to go all the way back to the Big Bang itself.
The Big Bang theory cannot be accurate with regard to explaining the phenomena of material existence unless one presupposes that the entire string of events from the moment of the Big Bang to the "heat death" (or some similar concept) of the Universe had been completely pre-determined at the moment reality "exploded" into existence - destined to unfold in a mathematically certain chain of events. Without such an idea in place, then one has to suppose that the information horizon at the Big Bang correspondingly and retroactively expands based on how events unfold in space and time after the Big Bang has already happened.
But... if events after the occurrence of the Big Bang are causing the expansion of the event horizon at the moment of the Big Bang, then the Big Bang itself would have to in turn cause the formation of completely different futures, which would utterly erase the entire chain of events from the get go. Thus, in a mechanically deterministic universe, causality can only work in one direction. (If, however, the universe arises from an interplay of consciousness-in-motion [Free Will] and a minimum set of rules necessary to ensure existence [Natural Law] then we can begin to form a scientific basis for postulating the trans-temporal dimensional influence upon time. We will expound much upon this point later.)
If events are not determined at the moment of the Big Bang, and if we are still working from the assumption that there exists no spiritual influence guiding matter and evolution from "beyond" time and space, then we would have to accept the absurd notion that the universe is truly and completely random - that somehow existence can sustain any sort of form using no guiding principles or rules whatsoever! In short, the entire alphabet of creation - it's immutable laws and fundamental components - would have to be erased if the Universe be pure randomness and nothing more.
Thus, if one denies the existence of Spirit, then one is forced to conclude that the universe is completely deterministic according to immutable laws which never change, and that all events in the Universe are somehow contained at the moment of the Big Bang in "germ" form. But is this a reasonable cosmology to hold? At what point do we begin asking ourselves how exactly did the Big Bang happen?
Major Holes in the Big Bang Theory
The idea that the universe emerged in a single instant at random clearly doesn't make sense; and yet, to say that the universe emerged in a single instant according to immutable laws of physics doesn't make much sense either. Because if something - any idea, or principle, or event - were to precede the Big Bang in any way, then we would have to place the Big Bang within a chain of causality not fully explored yet by our modern models of science and physics. In order for the Big Bang cosmology to be correct in its assertion that the Universe came into being in a single instant, it would necessarily mean that all laws of physics also came into being instantaneously at the exact moment of creation - not before, or after. If this were not the case, then the Big Bang could not be regarded as the true origin of material existence as we know it.
Of course, we can make certain predictions using the Big Bang theory regarding the facts of our universe, and if these predictions come true (which must occasionally happen in order for the "scientific community" to still adhere to it to any degree) then we can say that the theory has some genuine merit to it, however it cannot encompass genuine truth if even a single data point or idea can undermine it's foundation. I would suggest that the self-evident necessity for a pre-existent set of universal relationships and rules before the occurrence of the Big Bang completely nullifies the idea that the Big Bang is our true point of origin. At best, the Big Bang would have to be a decisive moment in the formation of our Universe - one with measurable ramifications in the present day - but it cannot be regarded as the "first thing the Universe did"...
At worst, the Big Bang theory may be a impediment towards developing a coherent cosmology that harmoniously explains the laws of physics and the phenomena of unique self-awareness at the level of individual human beings.
We all of the above in mind, we can now say conclusively that:
1) if there is no Spirit influencing the unfolding of events in spacetime, then the only other explanation for reality is absolute determinism, as a completely unguided and random universe cannot possibly exist; and
2) though the Big Bang theory may explain certain features of existence as we can measure it, it nonetheless is inadequate to describe the whole of reality, as it cannot describe the true origin of existence; and
3) if there be no Spirit, and if the Big Bang is not the true origin of existence, then it becomes impossible to define the Self using any mainstream "scientific" rationale; and
4) therefore, all modern psychology is pseudoscience at some level, as it cannot claim a coherent model of any sort as its basis.
Why Does it Matter?
Many at this point would probably throw their hands in the air and say "well perhaps we'll never know the Self, or the origin of existence! Why does it matter? Can't we just watch TV and drink beer and get good grades and eventually die and be done with it?"...
The truth is that people are literally dying for lack of Self Knowledge. People trust the TV only because they do not trust themselves. Remember, if the achievement of Conscious Selfhood were common amongst human beings then all "self-discovery" based industries - such as psychology and many "spiritual" movements and schools - would be out of business. Indeed, politics would operate in a completely different manner if the average human being possessed anything approaching thorough Self Knowledge, as modern politicians (I'm currently in America as I write this) are, generally speaking, nothing more than confidence salesmen who can only "sell" peace of mind to their audience to the extent that their audience has abdicated personal responsibility for understanding themselves and the world.
And what has been accomplished by modern politics? Nothing less than the calculated and deliberate enslavement of an ignorant humanity. If we do not raise ourselves out of this collective condition of mass ignorance, apathy, and cowardice, then truly there is no future for humanity and we can only hope that the extinction process will be as quick and painless as possible.
The seriousness of all of this cannot be understated - if we are to survive the next decade or so, then it is essential that more and more individual men and women stand up and take ownership of who and what they are! And how can I be so sure? Because you cannot trust something you cannot label nor describe, and if we are to trust our Selves then we must first possess genuine knowledge of the Self...
If we possessed genuine trust in ourselves, then it would become next to impossible to sell us counterfeit trust in the form of mainstream political promises...
Stay Tuned for part 2!
Until next time, Thank You for reading :)
In part 2 we'll propose an alternative model of creation that reconciles mechanistic science with boundless ideas of Spirit, and we will explore the idea that the Self has its origin in Divinity. And, of course, everything is said with the following caveat: the ideas discussed herein are not meant to be taken on "faith" but instead contemplated deeply. In truth, you do not need an intermediary to encounter your own Self and everything said on this blog is meant as nothing more than a "prompt" to make your Mind aware of certain ideas you might or might not have considered previously.
Much love everyone!
Posted by Paul Conant at 10:52 AM
Thanks to: http://atreeoflight.blogspot.com