The final frontier to which "They" will bring us cognitively is "solipsism". They disguise the meaning but, in short, it's the idea that there is no objective reality. (Satanists discourage this among their adherents, but sell it to everyone else.) To the extent this is accomplished in our minds, all things become possible. For in such a state, how would anyone begin to show something was impossible?
To counter it, one need only posit that there is indeed an objective reality. We then use our imperfect senses and imperfect reasoning, and realize that our understanding will simply fall short of perfect. Big deal.
Final note: everyone should clearly understand that no one can "prove" anything to you, and thus can never have a duty to do so. Rather, it is the duty of each of us to understand the world as well as is practical. Without such understanding, moral action becomes uncertain and even--in principle--impossible.
There's a compounding problem that I neglected to mention. Yes, it's a huge task that few accept as their duty, but the reason most people don't do it is not because of laziness of neglect. Rather, it's because it is simply not the way their minds work.
Many people assume that other people's minds work like theirs, maybe better or worse or in a slightly different style or with different biases. Upon careful study, you will find this is not true. Most people's thought processes generally work in reverse, beginning with conclusions and ending with "facts".
I mention this because it's a crucial factor to integrate into any coherent worldview. Otherwise, you'll spend a lot of time banging your head against a wall trying to incorporate "what a lot of other people think". To really prepare to find the truth, you have to be ready to break with what everyone else "knows".
The final frontier to which "They" will bring us cognitively is "solipsism". They disguise the meaning but, in short, it's the idea that there is no objective reality.
They call it "building new reality". However, seems it is they who fall to their crap and build their "new reality" in their small things between ears.
I already wrote about that in other topics here - we wondering about their actions sanity supposing that they percieve same reality as we do, but that's seems to be wrong. They percieve their own reality they build pushing their narratives to us, but eventually fall to it themselves.
And things could be worse - may be it is already next generation, who, unlike the first, never percieved reality at all. It is a generation that was idoctrinated to percieve their "new reality" instead of reality since early childhood.
This leads us to one important conclusion - there is no way to somehow argue or dispute with them at all. As we percieve our reality via experience with real objects around us, they percieve their "new reality" via "expert opinions" and "influencer feelings" as they teached. So, "climate change" or "coronahoax" is as "real" for them, as a cup of coffee in our hands is real for us. They just not able to use normal way of reality perception because they was not even teached to do that as our parents and we by ourselves teach us in childhood interacting with real objects and phenomenons.
Look at the insane level of fake "care" they push to us to apply to our children - that is "dangerous", this is "painful", hide all scissors and cover all sharp edges with that silicon covers for $10 per dozen. "Do not eat" on bags with silica gel and list of warnings longer than user manual for some woodworking tool. And if you are not comply with that insanity, here they have that "juvenile justice" to take a child from you.
Safety trolling is also a part of their "new reality creation". Even on some housekeeping forum you will get dozens of safety trolls comments with arguments why you should not do that per normal one in the thread about replacing broken wall socket.
Then, they buy Teslas along with protesting against electric power plants. And that is perfectly logical in their "new reality".
I thought that there should be permanent huge cognitive dissonsnce in their heads, but such things could not last through whole life, either they have to resolve it, either become a patient in a enforced mental facility. But seems they don't have any cognitive dissonance at all. They just live their lives in a fictional "new reality" where electricity arise in a wall socket and food is produced by supermarkets. The problem is that they completely seize the political power. And no representation is possible for anybody who do not live in their "new reality". They will never understand you, and no arguments or proofs from reality could change that. They are unable to understand them at all.
Practical consequences are a great educator. When money is free everything can be fake and gay. When circumstances are scarce, everything needs to be practical and productive.
I'm afraid that its for normal people who live in real world. Some could be lazy, but they will adapt as you say.
Those I talk about will just extinct and that's all. They will not be able to do something practical and productive, they are not only unaware that food could be grown cooked by themselves and not only bought in McDonalds, but they also unaware that it is possible to learn how to grow and cook food. There is no such thing as learning something by test and trial in their "new reality". And that could be unsafe and dirty.
Really the worst thing with that modern progressive education is that it completely exterminated learning to learn, not even talking about thinking, research and all that things. It produces people with fixed perception of their "new reality" and that's all.
One can realize that all mental 'knowing' is arbitrary because it is nothing other recognition of symbols which is constrained by memory.
Suppose you have a table in front of you. You say "I know this is a table". But this is misleading, because the "this" you are referring to is only sense data: light vibration translated by the eye, physical vibration by the skin etc. Therefore, whether there is a table there or not, you can never know because you are perpetually one step removed from the supposed object itself by the medium of the body, of the brain, etc. Moreover, you are a removed yet another step by the prequesite of attaching a symbol - the Thought-word "table" and it's meaning - to the sensation. Without the memory of this symbol or the creation of a new symbol, there is nothing to recognize and therefore nothing to 'know'.
The only actual facts are ones that evoke the mechanics of subjectivity. "I recognize this sensation as a table" is genuine fact. "This appears to me to as a table" is genuine fact. To say "I know this is a table" is not a fact but an assertion (of "isness"): a belief within your perceived reality. How much more absurd is it to say "I know this is a table" when you have only just a read another's recording of that table (ie. history)?
In this way, it's trivial to demonstrate that so-called "objective reality" is a fabrication of the mind. If one supposes that "objectivity" is real then it can only be established by the shared experience of other minds. For example, if you were the only the mind in existance, how would you go about establishing what is "objective"? You would require separate minds to relate their experiences to you to establish a consistant reference: an "objective source". And, as explained, these minds would be bounded by subjective sensation, recognition, etc. just as yours is. Therefore, any notion of "objectivity" is completely dependent on "subjectivity" before it can even be realized. But if this is the case, how can you say that it meets the definition of being "objective"? The fact is, the only apparatus at your disposal for establishing the "objective" is the "subjective".
Then one can take this to its ultimate conclusion: if "objective" is merely an idea - a Thought - then where is there room to establish a "subjective" reality? Subjective compared to what? Such a "reality" must exist with its opposite ("objective"), just as a one-sided coin is illogical. But the latter idea becomes "real" only by belief. Therefore, the same must be true of the former.
Then are subjective and objective "real"? The answer: is both and neither. The "real" is defined by one's conditions of conciousness - the qualifying and correcting of appearances in the mind - not the thoughts or sensations themselves. Once you see that 'knowing' is arbitrary, conditional, and unrelated to any "objective" reality, you will throw all belief, opinion, assertion, conjecture, trust, "seeking to know", "being sure", etc in the trash and never touch them again. Having seen the truth, you comprehend all of these to be nothing other than self-delusion.
It is your disatisfaction with "not knowing" that compels you to try and "assess what's real". It is the habitual attempt to correct this feeling and find answers that bring relief from it. Every time you correct the mind like this, you further condition your consciousness which responds by creating further craving for a "real" that will bring satisfaction. Perpetual seeking, assessing, comparing. This is the "neuroticity", as you say, that does not end. However, it does end when the avoidance of disatisfaction ends.
When you no longer correct or escape from the arising of disatisfaction or craving, you will see what happens. You will look back at the OP and see it was written by a different person. "I need to know what is real" is a genuine fact. Suppose that by not interfering with this "need" - by neither participating in it, distracting from it, suppressing it, and without expectation or waiting - that this fact can vanish. You would discover for yourself a fact of conciousness that makes the apparent "facts" of history appear silly.
To find what is "truly real", bring to end all intentionality which has been giving continuity to your present "real" and see what is left.
Each link has been reviewed and found worthy by another 10 experts, because of a general consensus based on a sheet of paper by yet another expert.
Tautological reification- happens all the time. Detect it by looking for cycles in references.
Going back, what can we 'know' to be sure of? history, science, how to assess what's real independently?
Epistemology needs to be internally consistent and rationally coherent or else it is solipsistic (at best) or delusional. I also prefer to be grounded in repeatable personal observations. The theory can be built on too of this but if it's not at the core it gets silly quickly.
The final frontier to which "They" will bring us cognitively is "solipsism". They disguise the meaning but, in short, it's the idea that there is no objective reality. (Satanists discourage this among their adherents, but sell it to everyone else.) To the extent this is accomplished in our minds, all things become possible. For in such a state, how would anyone begin to show something was impossible?
To counter it, one need only posit that there is indeed an objective reality. We then use our imperfect senses and imperfect reasoning, and realize that our understanding will simply fall short of perfect. Big deal.
Final note: everyone should clearly understand that no one can "prove" anything to you, and thus can never have a duty to do so. Rather, it is the duty of each of us to understand the world as well as is practical. Without such understanding, moral action becomes uncertain and even--in principle--impossible.
There's a compounding problem that I neglected to mention. Yes, it's a huge task that few accept as their duty, but the reason most people don't do it is not because of laziness of neglect. Rather, it's because it is simply not the way their minds work.
Many people assume that other people's minds work like theirs, maybe better or worse or in a slightly different style or with different biases. Upon careful study, you will find this is not true. Most people's thought processes generally work in reverse, beginning with conclusions and ending with "facts".
I mention this because it's a crucial factor to integrate into any coherent worldview. Otherwise, you'll spend a lot of time banging your head against a wall trying to incorporate "what a lot of other people think". To really prepare to find the truth, you have to be ready to break with what everyone else "knows".
They call it "building new reality". However, seems it is they who fall to their crap and build their "new reality" in their small things between ears.
I already wrote about that in other topics here - we wondering about their actions sanity supposing that they percieve same reality as we do, but that's seems to be wrong. They percieve their own reality they build pushing their narratives to us, but eventually fall to it themselves.
And things could be worse - may be it is already next generation, who, unlike the first, never percieved reality at all. It is a generation that was idoctrinated to percieve their "new reality" instead of reality since early childhood.
This leads us to one important conclusion - there is no way to somehow argue or dispute with them at all. As we percieve our reality via experience with real objects around us, they percieve their "new reality" via "expert opinions" and "influencer feelings" as they teached. So, "climate change" or "coronahoax" is as "real" for them, as a cup of coffee in our hands is real for us. They just not able to use normal way of reality perception because they was not even teached to do that as our parents and we by ourselves teach us in childhood interacting with real objects and phenomenons.
Look at the insane level of fake "care" they push to us to apply to our children - that is "dangerous", this is "painful", hide all scissors and cover all sharp edges with that silicon covers for $10 per dozen. "Do not eat" on bags with silica gel and list of warnings longer than user manual for some woodworking tool. And if you are not comply with that insanity, here they have that "juvenile justice" to take a child from you.
Safety trolling is also a part of their "new reality creation". Even on some housekeeping forum you will get dozens of safety trolls comments with arguments why you should not do that per normal one in the thread about replacing broken wall socket.
Then, they buy Teslas along with protesting against electric power plants. And that is perfectly logical in their "new reality".
I thought that there should be permanent huge cognitive dissonsnce in their heads, but such things could not last through whole life, either they have to resolve it, either become a patient in a enforced mental facility. But seems they don't have any cognitive dissonance at all. They just live their lives in a fictional "new reality" where electricity arise in a wall socket and food is produced by supermarkets. The problem is that they completely seize the political power. And no representation is possible for anybody who do not live in their "new reality". They will never understand you, and no arguments or proofs from reality could change that. They are unable to understand them at all.
Practical consequences are a great educator. When money is free everything can be fake and gay. When circumstances are scarce, everything needs to be practical and productive.
I'm afraid that its for normal people who live in real world. Some could be lazy, but they will adapt as you say.
Those I talk about will just extinct and that's all. They will not be able to do something practical and productive, they are not only unaware that food could be grown cooked by themselves and not only bought in McDonalds, but they also unaware that it is possible to learn how to grow and cook food. There is no such thing as learning something by test and trial in their "new reality". And that could be unsafe and dirty.
Really the worst thing with that modern progressive education is that it completely exterminated learning to learn, not even talking about thinking, research and all that things. It produces people with fixed perception of their "new reality" and that's all.
Check out "nonlinear warfare" this shit has been masterfully weaponized for a hot minute
One can realize that all mental 'knowing' is arbitrary because it is nothing other recognition of symbols which is constrained by memory.
Suppose you have a table in front of you. You say "I know this is a table". But this is misleading, because the "this" you are referring to is only sense data: light vibration translated by the eye, physical vibration by the skin etc. Therefore, whether there is a table there or not, you can never know because you are perpetually one step removed from the supposed object itself by the medium of the body, of the brain, etc. Moreover, you are a removed yet another step by the prequesite of attaching a symbol - the Thought-word "table" and it's meaning - to the sensation. Without the memory of this symbol or the creation of a new symbol, there is nothing to recognize and therefore nothing to 'know'.
The only actual facts are ones that evoke the mechanics of subjectivity. "I recognize this sensation as a table" is genuine fact. "This appears to me to as a table" is genuine fact. To say "I know this is a table" is not a fact but an assertion (of "isness"): a belief within your perceived reality. How much more absurd is it to say "I know this is a table" when you have only just a read another's recording of that table (ie. history)?
In this way, it's trivial to demonstrate that so-called "objective reality" is a fabrication of the mind. If one supposes that "objectivity" is real then it can only be established by the shared experience of other minds. For example, if you were the only the mind in existance, how would you go about establishing what is "objective"? You would require separate minds to relate their experiences to you to establish a consistant reference: an "objective source". And, as explained, these minds would be bounded by subjective sensation, recognition, etc. just as yours is. Therefore, any notion of "objectivity" is completely dependent on "subjectivity" before it can even be realized. But if this is the case, how can you say that it meets the definition of being "objective"? The fact is, the only apparatus at your disposal for establishing the "objective" is the "subjective".
Then one can take this to its ultimate conclusion: if "objective" is merely an idea - a Thought - then where is there room to establish a "subjective" reality? Subjective compared to what? Such a "reality" must exist with its opposite ("objective"), just as a one-sided coin is illogical. But the latter idea becomes "real" only by belief. Therefore, the same must be true of the former.
Then are subjective and objective "real"? The answer: is both and neither. The "real" is defined by one's conditions of conciousness - the qualifying and correcting of appearances in the mind - not the thoughts or sensations themselves. Once you see that 'knowing' is arbitrary, conditional, and unrelated to any "objective" reality, you will throw all belief, opinion, assertion, conjecture, trust, "seeking to know", "being sure", etc in the trash and never touch them again. Having seen the truth, you comprehend all of these to be nothing other than self-delusion.
It is your disatisfaction with "not knowing" that compels you to try and "assess what's real". It is the habitual attempt to correct this feeling and find answers that bring relief from it. Every time you correct the mind like this, you further condition your consciousness which responds by creating further craving for a "real" that will bring satisfaction. Perpetual seeking, assessing, comparing. This is the "neuroticity", as you say, that does not end. However, it does end when the avoidance of disatisfaction ends.
When you no longer correct or escape from the arising of disatisfaction or craving, you will see what happens. You will look back at the OP and see it was written by a different person. "I need to know what is real" is a genuine fact. Suppose that by not interfering with this "need" - by neither participating in it, distracting from it, suppressing it, and without expectation or waiting - that this fact can vanish. You would discover for yourself a fact of conciousness that makes the apparent "facts" of history appear silly.
To find what is "truly real", bring to end all intentionality which has been giving continuity to your present "real" and see what is left.
Tautological reification- happens all the time. Detect it by looking for cycles in references.
Epistemology needs to be internally consistent and rationally coherent or else it is solipsistic (at best) or delusional. I also prefer to be grounded in repeatable personal observations. The theory can be built on too of this but if it's not at the core it gets silly quickly.