We see what we want to see

[Ali Quadir]

Hear hear... Very important to realize for every one of us operating on the fringes of human culture and beliefs.

I think it's important to simply understand what to relate or what action to take when we are being pressed for info that is not part of our world-view.

I'm certain that it's (at least) possible to always be aware of the current limit of our own knowledge (weltanschauung). If one is capable of accepting oneself, it does not call upon much honesty at all. It does oneself and others a disservice to make personally unsupportable claims. How is it possible to really learn in such an environment?

I do agree. And I hear the message between the lines. But like to add that learning at a deep level of self, not just the facts from the science teacher requires an environment of safety. Where in people are allowed to state their truth, their reality. Without having the book of fallacies pulled out on them.

Part of knowing truth is feeling what clicks deep within. Making the logical connection, the rational steps to the knowledge is something that comes next. And sometimes that's something we have to help each other with.

Or you end up with a bunch of ego's who just want to be right all the time.

But that's a lesson here - the "truth" is that you can't be "right", or to put it another way, "everyone is right". Once that is learned, whatever the consequences of ignorance might be vanish into irrelevancy. Also, being truly "right" has nothing to do with learning here - sharing what one has uniquely and actually come to know does.

We agree.

You *can* know the limits of your knowledge.

I don't think you can. You can define the limits of the validity of your knowledge. By stating that all I know and accept as true comes through these and these sources, or everything that is repeated in three different sources, or everything that can be proven by the scientific method.

But you cannot know in many cases if something you suspect or feel is true is really true. So I must conclude that in most cases I don't know where my knowledge ends. I might know but I don't know that I know. What you speak of means you can state that some knowledge is true and be almost always right. But that is different.

Like most I use convenient cut off points for myself. When talking in this forum, I accept the Ra material pretty much as an absolute authority. Because everyone else does and I personally don't see a problem with it. It works for me like it works for them. However, suppose I go talk on an atheist forum about this. If I'd do the same there I'd get my bum handed to me. And they'd be right. This demonstrates that communication is context sensitive, and the context contains the listener..

In the end even scientific knowledge is only true because we made agreements on our cut off point. In many cases we know much more but we just do not consider it reliable.

What is the virtue in making something safe? After a certain point, you become an adult, somewhat individuated, and don't require such hand holding. (Excluding of course such things as damage recovery related to therapy.) What's with the coddling and over indulgence?

It is quite simply a choice based on the rules in this forum. (The purpose of our forum is to provide you and many seekers like you a safe meeting place conducive to conversation regarding the fascinating and inexhaustible field of spiritual evolution) This is therefore by definition also a safe place for people to share their ideas. It is clearly not defined to be a discussion forum dedicated to finding out the absolute truth. Like a scientific forum might be. It is a forum designed to allow seekers to explore their own insights and come to terms with their own position in all of this.

This requires a degree of safety. Yep, you could call this forum a form of therapy. It has been for me in a few instances. And I have seen cases where it was clearly therapy for someone other than me.

Also... on this forum there are people to whom communicating means different things. Some of us come here for the stimulating dialogs, some of us come here because it gives us support. Some of us came here because they feel they are wanderers. Some came to learn more about the Law of One.

Remember that the rule "Might is right" also applies to speech. Some people are mighty with words. Meaning they have a firm understanding of the rules of discourse and logic. Others are mighty with words meaning they have a firm understanding of a different level. For example the emotional. Some people are not mighty with words.

I believe in calibrating my vocabulary to those who I speak to. When in france I speak french. (I try to at least) And I reject the notion that there is a right way (or language) to communicate in. I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful. I personally am also comfortable on forums where the tone is downright hostile. I have fun there, sometimes I actually laugh at the names I'm called, they're an art form, I don't take it personal, and I enjoy the verbal jousts.

This is however not such a forum.

With regards to "ego": we are all subject to its defenses, in different situations. However, who's ego is really more jeopardized or more fragile in this case? Remember there are those that need protection from only themselves (taking ownership of their apprehensions) in order to be in a position to simply ask an honest question (and of an impersonal nature). I ask, not rhetorically, how can such behavior not be considered "pathological", for example?

The threat to an ego is not the issue here..

The man with the fragile ego is arguably in the best position to improve his world views. A fragile ego will not be a strong one. And thus there will be a less focused tunnel vision. Allowing that individual to see a greater picture. Whereas a strong ego can quickly develop tunnel vision.

Seeing what we want to see is an ego function. Seeing only the issue at hand from one singular perspective is tunnel vision. Not understanding that there is another underlying reality which would fit the same sense data but disagrees with the ego's expectations is a version of tunnel vision.

Being right is tunnel vision when it restricts our ability to see alternatives. I agree that in some cases there really are no alternatives... You cannot argue with someone who holds the position that water is 30 degrees, he's either right or wrong. But often there are alternative positions. You can argue with someone who holds the position that that same water is cold. Especially when the subject is the spirit are an enormous amount of valid positions. You just cannot use the same rules.


The assumption that there is a right way to communicate, is basically a suggestion that everyone should communicate the same way. Others who cannot handle that level, or refuse to follow protocol are considered the problem. This is the ego projecting it's own responsibility outside of itself. The ego reality tunnel actually marks those people outside the tunnel as wrong.

I basically attribute that insight to my time on bring4th. Honest to God I did that all the time. And I probably still do.

Note that it's always guys just like us who get stuck in this particular reality tunnel.. Women are remarkably absent in that tunnel. (Different tunnels sure but not this one) It's always intelligent males intellectually leaning toward the harder sciences. But guys like us should realize our style of communication is only right for us, and even then only in our field of expertise.