The truth will set you slave
The word "slave" may be considered dehumanizing. Still, in my opinion, this painful word is the most appropriate to refute the biblical verse: "The truth will set you free."
My impression is that "the truth makes us slaves," incarcerating us in a tight cage from which it is challenging to get out. This slavery is more concrete when our idea of truth is fused and confused with our identity.
From this point of view, we need neither masters to follow nor religions to practice. We only need to reunify our Consciousness and listen to it day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute.
Each so-called "life master" has had their own life experience, which is precisely theirs, not ours. We should never try to conform our Consciousness to that of a group or a master, nor should we replace our Consciousness with that of someone else.
Masters of different cultures and eras describe experiences that are often universal. They tell what each of us has already experienced, or will experience, because all roads lead to Rome.
See also: "We slaves of truth (Plato's allegory of the cave, revisited)."
.jpg)
(January 27, 2022, go to my art gallery)
Asymptomatic intelligence
We know that something exists because it shows us concrete evidence of its existence.
To admit that something can exist without any obvious sign is an act of faith or an ideology.
From this point of view, we can admit that anything exists.
E.g., if it is sunny outside and the sky is clear, we can say that there is an asymptomatic thunderstorm.
If a person is underweight, we can say that they are asymptomatically obese.
If a person is needy, we can say they are an asymptomatic billionaire.
And so on.
What can we say about our intelligence? Is it symptomatic or asymptomatic?
(January 9, 2022)
We slaves of truth (Plato's allegory of the cave, revisited)
.jpg)
(We slaves of truth, January 3, 2022, go to my art gallery)
Truth is iridescent, elusive. At the exact moment we believe we possess it, it owns us. We become its slaves and are even willing to die for it: all the martyrs of the world know something about it.
We all create a reality for ourselves because we need it to live. When we don't like it anymore, we make another one. More or less, it's like when a person abjures their religion and converts to another one. But all this does not change the primary problem: reality is personal, subjective, temporary, and arbitrary. Above all, we are slaves to it.
To make a comparison, it's like a mathematical problem. If we replace one variable with another in an expression, we get another expression utterly equivalent to the original one. So, in life, if we replace one religion with another or one reality with another, the starting problem remains the same: we are slaves to our imaginary creations.
Reality creations are rarely exclusively the work of the individual. They are usually creations within a group.
All this could make us rethink Plato's cave allegory from a new point of view: the person who comes out of the cave is as deluded as the people who remain inside the cave.
The person who comes out of the cave feels the need to create a new reality: for that reason, they search and find it. But the new truth is not more accurate than the previous one was: both realities (inside and outside the cave) coexist and are equally valid. The only thing that has changed is the person's level of awareness because an effort has produced a change.
The journey of awareness and research could continue until we discover that the reality outside the cave is another illusion. There is another reality to find. And so on.
All this leads to a new question: what changes from being a slave to one reality rather than another?
As Thomas' Theorem says: «If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.»
(January 3, 2022)
Don't ever think of a goal. If you're devoted to the process, something will come out, something more beautiful than you imagined
Two videos on how to realize our potential, with Italian subtitles
.jpg)
.jpg)
Quid est veritas?
(Plato's Allegory of the Cave)
"Est enim verum index sui et falsi," Baruch de Spinoza wrote. It means: "Since the truth is the touchstone of itself and of the untruth." Furthermore: "Sane sicut lux se ipsam et tenebras manifestat, sic veritas norma sui et falsi est", that is: "Indeed as light reveals itself and darkness, so the truth is the norm of itself and of untruth." (source)
Truth stands on its own, while lies can stand if they find accomplices.
Lying means betraying both others and ourselves. Telling the truth frees us, helps us to live together and learn from our mistakes. No one is infallible, and everyone has the right to make mistakes: the important thing is to admit them, accept our responsibilities, without alibis or excuses that first seem to make us feel better, but in the long run wear us down. Lies may seem like easy and straight paths, but that inevitably leads to a dead end.
The truth stands on its own, the lie needs the constant support of lie upon lie, but it's only a matter of time before it ends up collapsing under its weight. Behind a lie, there is always something unresolved that drags on for a long time, losing pieces along the way and making us lose the right direction.
Political communication is a continuous lie. The lie needs violence and blackmail (even psychological) to impose a false truth. Is our communication better than political communication?
Whoever tells the truth does not need to repeat themselves, justify themselves, or impose their vision of things. The truth is enough for itself and does not need to proselytize since it is evident to anyone who wants to see it.
Lies, on the contrary, need continuous repetitions, justifications, suggestions, influencing, and impositions: this is the policy of the state, of religion, of scientism, of social networks, of school, and also that of many of us. Socrates would never have thought of setting up fake news commissions.
The truth I've talked about so far corresponds to what the ancient Greeks called "ἀλήθεια" (the state of not being hidden, the state of being evident). This word is reminiscent of Plato's allegory of the cave. In this sense, truth exists and is apparent only to those who want to see it.
However, the truth is never absolute. What is true is so because our awareness makes it so here and now, into the fleeting moment. Wanting to grasp the truth is like wishing to catch the water of a river with our own hands.
(December 24, 2021)
Karma or randomness or both?
.jpg)
(Ego Illusions, December 23, 2021, go to the art gallery)
The concept of karma is not very dissimilar to divine justice. Thanks to karma or God, a good or bad reward follows our actions.
Karma contrasts with randomness, which is the idea that things happen for no particular reason. But are we sure there is any opposition?
Pure determinism (karma) believes that existing causes entirely determine all events. Pure randomness is the opposite idea. Both these are two equally not provable ways to make sense of the mystery of life.
What is wrong with the concept of karma? It can justify our claims that the facts of life are as we like them because we have been good; or that our life is as we do not want it because we have been evil. For example, we can perform seemingly good actions not because we are good but because we expect a reward. Same with divine justice.
What's wrong with the concept of randomness? Essentially, it tends to deny that the entire universe is intelligent and has a purpose; thus, it tends to take away meaning from our existence. On the other hand, pure randomness does not exist in our daily experiences. We instead notice causes and effects. Randomness is philosophically closely related to materialism, and both can justify every human aberration.
A third way can be to get out of this opposition. Each of us is not a single person opposed to an external reality. The universe is a fractal, and we are within this fractal. Geometrically, each part of a fractal is equal to the whole fractal. So each of us is the entire universe, and we create a reality that corresponds to our awareness.
Then it's no longer a matter of karma or randomness; it's just a matter of recognizing one's ego as an illusion.
(December 23, 2021)
Teoria di Darwin e dogmi scientifici: cosa c'è che non va? Interviste a Valentino Bellucci
Le interviste sotto riportate sono state fatte nel 2019 da Massimo Mazzucco a Valentino Bellucci (fonte), morto nel dicembre 2021. E' stato filosofo e scrittore, esperto di storia e spiritualità orientali, autore del libro "La chiesa di Darwin".
Nel 2015, nelle conclusioni dell'articolo «L'evoluzione della specie: riflessione concettuale su che cos'è il "caso"», scrissi:
Riflessione personale... ma che cos'è il "caso"?!! Esiste realmente o è un artificio concettuale per dare ragione di tutto ciò che non è prevedibile dalla mente umana?! Postulare l'esistenza del caso non è forse un modo per spiegare ciò che altrimenti non è spiegabile? Se le cose stanno così, allora postulare il caso non è tanto diverso dal postulare un'essere trascendente... perché in entrambi i casi il risultato è sempre lo stesso: ricorrere ad un espediente per spiegare quello che non può essere spiegato.
Good news and bad news
Bad news almost always comes from the human heart and its actions. In other words, this world is hell because human beings make it so. And, perhaps, each of us chose to be born into this hell to experience it.
Good news almost always comes from nature. When I look at the sun, the sky, the hills, the sea, the rainbows, they are full of good news. Nature itself is positive if we fine-tune our hearts to it.
Good news and bad news all come from our hearts. In this dream that we call life, we have built the entire universe through duality, that is, through the division into two of what was one: everything has its reverse (female and male, good and bad, high and low, day and night, hot and cold, etc.). In the same way, we built our hearts. All opposites cohabit within us.
The key to all suffering is division. Reuniting what we have separated brings peace and prosperity; separating what was united brings war and destruction. This way is also how diseases work.
For every good news, there is a bad one: this is called pessimism.
For every bad news, there is a good one: this is called optimism.
Pessimism and optimism both reside within our hearts. Each of us tends to polarize toward one of the two extremes.
Being aware of this helps us know ourselves and live in peace. The integration of opposites is the starting point for living in harmony.
(December 1, 2021, photo taken on this magical early morning)
Ars Vivendi
Non ho conoscenza delle cose,
talvolta ho l’impressione che siano più loro a conoscere me...
Alessandro Pacenti, dal “Diario di un iniziato”.
26/11/2021
Perché, dopo due anni, fonti ufficiali ci dicono che i morti per covid sono minori di quelli per influenza?
Un articolo de "Il Tempo" di due giorni fa, intitolato "Gran pasticcio nel rapporto sui decessi. Per l'Iss gran parte dei morti non li ha causati il Covid (21 ottobre 2021)", inizia così:
«Secondo il nuovo rapporto (che non veniva aggiornato da luglio) dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità sulla mortalità per Covid, il virus che ha messo in ginocchio il mondo avrebbe ucciso assai meno di una comune influenza. [...]»
Orbene, "Il Tempo" rientra nel cosidetto "main stream", e l'ISS (Istituto Superiore di Sanità) rientra tra le fonti ufficiali. Nel caso in cui l'articolo in questione dovesse essere rimosso, per futura memoria resterà comunque in copia a questo link.
Perché, dopo due anni, fonti ufficiali ci dicono che i morti per covid sono minori di quelli per influenza, visto che fino a ieri è stato affermato l'esatto contrario dalle stesse fonti? Anzi, per essere più precisi, fino a ieri è stata collettivamente costruita una realtà divisa in due, una realtà duale, che (estremizzando e semplificando) è stata (da noi) costruita in due modi specularmente opposti: da una parte l'assoluta fede nella mortalità e pericolosità del covid, dall'altra l'assoluta fede nella mortalità e pericolosità delle scelte governative per imporre misure di contrasto al covid (che, in questo tipo di costruzione di realtà, di per sé non è considerato pericoloso).
So di aver semplificato, ma a volte le semplificazioni aiutano a mettere in evidenza l'essenziale. Ad es., è duale la modalità di porsi del cosiddetto "movimento no-vax" e del governo? Probabilmente no, perché sebbene le pretese siano diverse, e ben diversi siano anche i rapporti di forza, a volte l'arroganza e la separatività sono le stesse. Quindi non è una realtà duale, da questo punto di vista almeno.
E' duale la realtà di chi teme fortemente di venire in contatto con il covid (magari portando tre mascherine contemporaneamente mentre cammina da solo in mezzo a un prato) e la realtà di chi ha una risposta emotiva e intellettuale completamente diversa al problema covid? Forse no, perché questi due individui immaginari, che esemplificano i due principali modelli di comportamento antitetici di fronte alla dichiarata pandemia, comunque devono confrontarsi entrambi con il problema dell'inevitabile morte. Quindi non abbiamo due realtà, ma una sola, quella dell'ineluttabilità della morte, quindi non è duale.
Da un altro punto di vista, però, poiché viviamo in un ologramma frattalico (vedi il mio precedente articolo) in cui tempo e spazio sono sostanzialmente due illusioni, ne segue che in questo universo nessuno nasce e nessuno muore.
Qui non muore nessuno.
Quindi, sì, c'è una grande illusione, ma non è il covid, al massimo quello è solo un diversivo per legittimare l'imposizione di un mondo infelice.
(23 ottobre 2021)
Pages
Recent content
