Creating a Better World – Discernment of Truth that Leads Us Forward

In community, consciousness, effective governance, ethics, leadership, social responsibility by ZenLeave a Comment

Discernment – Vetting Information Necessary for Our Lives

This article explores concepts not necessarily found within any political arena, the processes discernment, yet are absolutely imperative for us to move forward with valid candidates that exhibit ethical and moral standards we espouse. The intention is to move beyond the nuances of politics and take a bigger picture view of how we assess and interpret information across the playing field. Although the approach is unorthodox, it is nonetheless valid for creating a better world.

“How do we qualify information as it enters our ‘field’ ?” The resonance of truth varies depending on our ability to be aware at deeper levels. We have a ‘field’ that surrounds us, a kind of ‘spidey sense’ that we often neglect. I’d venture to guess most people are completely unaware that it is even there, let alone pay attention to it.

There’s science behind the ‘field’ and studies in both consciousness and quantum physics are echoing the same information, that we are much more connected to everything around us than we have perceived in the past. It seems that mysticism might just be based in fact, that the ‘oneness’ that is spoken of throughout metaphysical texts is actually a reality. How can we test it, though? Dive in with me for a moment, suspend you belief system if necessary and let’s explore the resonance of truth together.

How do we ‘vet’ the information and people providing it so that the quality is there; so that discernment is made and sense is made common? We’ve heard about the notion of ‘questioning authority’ yet the authority we question often has bias in our questions. The solution is to ask better questions, those questions that arise naturally from our gut feelings.

It would seem that a consistent method for discerning or discovering truth, even if relative, would be available to the intentional seeker and even the average Jane or Joe. Of course there are varying degrees of the depth of the quest for truth, from cursory to quantum, yet consistency is key. If we accept that we have built-in bullshit meters, then we can at least begin to discover them within our awareness.

This consideration has been at the forefront of my professional life as well, facilitating people, places and things to achieve goals, and the drive to make sense common so that a ‘resonance’ of the prudent path can be felt and therefore acknowledged as being the best direction at the time for the team. A heightened awareness helps to expose and resolve hidden agendas without being adversarial or confrontational with project leaders and team.

What kind of tell-tale signs does ‘truth’ have in this, or any, environment?

Perhaps truth, vibrationally speaking, is like a covalent bond where electrons are shared in a kind of quantum entanglement. Discernment occurs naturally as a result. The resonance of truth occurs in the receiver as well as the transmitter whether person, place or thing. Our bodies are both, so it would make sense that the reciprocal resonance is at least felt if not understood. We aren’t accustomed to relying on feelings or sensations, though. That’s where things get a little messy for a time while we explore and practice honing our skills.

Here’s some considerations from the works of Brent Cunningham… makes sense common. We can begin a conversation to help make sense common for you.

POPULAR REASONS WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE
Before we take a look at what I think are the three essential tests for evaluating any truth-claims, let’s briefly look at some popular, but less than stellar reasons often used by people to test whether or not something is true—the claim and then a response:

1. Instinct — “It seems true to me.”
To this statement we must simply ask . . .
. . . Why?  What is guiding one’s instinctual ability to judge between competing truth-claims?
2. Feelings — “I like the feeling I get.” or “It feels right.”
. . . Can feelings be mistaken?
3. Wish fulfillment — “The God that I (want to) believe in would never send someone to hell.”
. . . Maybe not, but the God one wants to believe in may not be the God who actually exists.  We can never determine objective truth simply by what we want to be true.
4. Custom — “This is the way I / my family / my culture has always been.”
. . . Can they be mistaken?  What if one came from a Nazi background?
5. Popularity contest — “Well, ‘everyone’ believes it.”
. . . Again, can ‘everyone’ be wrong?  Counting noses is never a good means of determining truth.
6. Pragmatism — “It works for me, therefore it must be true.”
. . . However, almost anything can ‘work’ for a time.  Truth works overall.  For instance, a belief may ‘work’ at ridding oneself of guilt by denying it rather than absolving it.
7. Significance — “It gives my life meaning.”
. . . Is the meaning simply the result of wish-fulfillment or is it connected with reality?

Obviously, all of the above reasons for believing something to be true seem deficient and not the best tests to determine whether or not a truth-claim is really true (although, #s 6 & 7 do seem to be better candidates that #s 1-5).  Nevertheless, I think there are three criterion for testing truth-claims which, when used together, offer us the best chances of determining true beliefs.  Here they are.

internal coherence chart

1.  Internal Coherence — This is a test for rational consistency in ufology information.  This asks if a belief makes sense?  We need to determine whether beliefs are rationally consistent within themselves and in relation to others beliefs of one’s larger worldview.  Some beliefs are known to be self-referentially inconsistent, or self-defeating.  An example might be the belief that all “knowledge” is scientific knowledge.  This is obviously self-defeating because the belief itself is not a scientific statement.  Therefore, the belief dies by its own standard for knowledge.

Another way a belief can fail this test is when two beliefs are in contradiction with each other, meaning that at least one of the beliefs must be false.  So, we must ask if the beliefs hold together?  For example, if a person is a Naturalist (believing that human life is accidental, random, and without ultimate purpose), he cannot then introduce the belief that we have an objective moral obligation to treat another person justly or with kindness.

external vs internal correspondence

2.  External Correspondence — This test asks if a belief fits the facts of reality in ufology information.   Does it correspond to the real world?  Proposed truth-claims must have explanatory power, or the ability to give account for our experience of the world (whether it be history, science, psychology, human nature, etc.).  For instance, a worldview can be tested by its ability to explain cosmological questions like the origin of the universe; anthropological questions like the existence of minds and free will; moral questions like the existence of evil and our experience with guilt.

Further, the explanatory power of truth-claims should (a) be comprehensive in scope—able to explain more or better than alternative theories; (b) have predictive power—suggesting new evidence and problems; (c) have precision—accounting for more details; (d) be illuminating—integrating otherwise unrelated data; (e) avoid ad hoc hypotheses—functioning only to explain away counter-evidence; (f) be simple—not needlessly multiplying the basic concepts, assumptions, and principles of an explanation.

functional adequacy chart

3.  Functional Adequacy — This tests the livability of a truth-claim as a belief in ufology information.  Is it a viable belief “on the street”?  Does it work in real life?  Some views sound good on paper, but are proven false in the laboratory of life.  Consider an eastern guru who asserts that the physical world is an illusion, yet he still looks both ways before crossing the street.  A person cannot live out such an illusory belief of the world for very long (or he’ll be hit by a bus before long!).  Even more than that, a belief system must integrate one’s life.  It must incorporate and meet the deepest human needs.

SUMMARY
In evaluating the truth or falsity of  propositions/truth-claims/beliefs of ufology information, we must be sure to always look for three things: internal coherence (the logical), external correspondence (the factual), and functional adequacy (the livable).  For a belief to be true it must be meaningful, it must line up with the real world, and it must not only help us survive in daily life, but allow us to flourish.  Consequently, these are also the three areas in which our thinking can and does go wrong: logic, facts, and values.

DISCERNMENT AND APPLIED UNDERSTANDING – RESONANCE OF TRUTH

In the field of personal development and/or spiritual growth there is so much information that has no solid proof, no tangible substance to validate the resonance of truth, other than the ability sense the resonance or truth of any situation. We all wish this was different, yet beyond the little credible and tangible material we have, much is still in the subjective realms of experience, often bereft of the cognitive skills to manage, let alone interpret, ‘sensory’ events. 

Truth is discoverable, of course, yet we have to run it through all the tests for coherence, correspondence and adequacy. There is a resonance of truth that meets all the above standards, a measurable sensation within our array of receptors. Well-developed receptors have already been categorized and labeled as the ‘clair-alls’* of extra-sensory perception. We all have them but few actually use them, probably because of the ‘I want to believe’ factor within Ufology.

Consciousness, not just sentience, is the prevailing discovery of the time. Consciousness in the sense of a connected awareness and experience of a greater theme in our lives, an experiential reality that bridges quantum (discrete) with the gross (whole). The resonance of truth contains both cohesion and coherence and is what we can sense with the finer senses within our awareness. It is the challenge of accessing and practicing these senses that is our current challenge.

The constructs of reality also have significance, even if we don’t understand the laws or principles involved. For instance, the The Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm is a metaparadigmatic model developed equally by Drs. Vernon Neppe and Edward Close. In essence, it demonstrates that consciousness, space and time are tethered together.

It would seem there is a singular or individuated consciousness that is distributed across dimensions yet capable of observing each. The following video shares some important information relating to the topic of Ufology, one of my passions in life that certainly has left a lot of questions from my own experiences. The process of integrating experiences and the options for consideration prompted me to write a seminal book: Stubbing My T.O.E. on Purpose. 

The video, which no doubt will raise some eyebrows, is an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove on New Thinking Allowed. Whether you personally have an interest in the topic or not, the aspect of deepening our awareness brings perplexing as well as surprising results at times. The resonance of truth is perhaps the natural state of the electromagnetic spectrum we so often try to manipulate to suit our individual or group will.

*FOR RESONANCE OF TRUTH REFERENCE

Clair- Senses – (from: http://www.okinhealth.com/articles/10-clairsenses-intuition-emily-matweow)

Clair is a word describing types of clear sensitivity corresponding to our physical and intuitive senses. Clair begins words that name our intuitive abilities. Because of the finer senses, or at least a more deeply felt resonance of truth, these senses have been underdeveloped in the majority of people. The following are definitions of the various Clair Senses:

CLAIRCOGNIZANCE – INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE – Clear knowledge is when a person has psychic knowledge without any physical explanation or reason. Claircognizance includes precognition and retro cognition – knowledge of the future and knowledge of the past. There are no restrictions as to what may be known with clear knowledge.

CLAIRVOYANCE – INTUITIVE VISION – The ability to see objects, actions, or events distant from the present without the use of eyes is called clairvoyance. It transcends time and space and may be a result of what is seen through the third eye (sometimes referred to as our mind’s eye) or the fourth eye.

CLAIRAUDIENCE – INTUITIVE AUDIO or HEARING – This is the ability to perceive sounds or words and extrasensory noise from sources broadcasting from the spiritual or ethereal realm. These tones exist beyond the reach of rational human experience and beyond the limitations of ordinary space and time. For example:

    • – sounds made by a person’s body;
    • – sounds made by living things;
    • – sounds made by nature;
    • – sounds made by man-made things;
    • – sounds made by interactions of the above; and
    • – ethereal sounds like voices of the dead, specters, or mystic music.

CLAIRSENTIENCE – INTUITIVE KNOWING BY FEELING – This refers to a person’s ability to acquire knowledge by feeling. A person who feels the vibration of other people, animals, and places is clairsentient. There are many degrees of clairsentience, ranging from the perception of thoughts and emotions in others to their illnesses and injuries. This ability differs from clairvoyance because the knowledge comes only from feeling in the body.

Clairsentience includes an individual feeling the physical and emotional pain of land where atrocities have happened; jealousy, insecurity, fear, or displeasure in others; or others’ physical pain.

CLAIRSALIENCE – INTUITIVE SMELL = Clairsalience, also known as clairscent or clairscentency, involves smelling a fragrance or odor of a substance, person, place, or animal not in one’s surroundings. These odors are perceived without the use of the physical nose and beyond the limitations of ordinary time and space.

CLAIRTANGENCY INTUITIVE KNOWING by TOUCHING – Clairtangency is psychometry. The clairtangent handles an object or touches something and in doing so knows information about the object or its owner or its history that was not known beforehand. Clairtangency can also apply to touching a living being.

CLAIRTACTION – INTUITIVE TOUCH – I introduce this label for a “new” unnamed Clair. I chose taction because it is an archaic word defined as “the act of touching or making contact.”

Clairtaction is the ability to sense being touched by a spiritual being or entity and the knowing of information about that spirit. Further, it includes a telekinetic-like ability to extend a touch to both physical and etheric entities in such a way that both the recipient and the psychic have awareness of the feeling. This means that the clairtactient may touch a person who is present or remote without physically touching him or her and the person being touched will, if aware enough, be able to identify where he or she is being touched and the nature of the touch.  It also means that the clairtactient can touch something ethereal with both purpose and awareness.

CLAIRGUSTANCE – INTUITIVE TASTE – Clear tasting involves being able to taste something without actually putting it into your mouth. It’s the perfect diet plan. 😉 A person who has clairgustance experiences tastes associated with events or people, memories or sensations often accompanied with clairsalience.

CLAIREMPATHY – INTUITIVE FEELING of EMOTION – Clairempathy is the ability to know people and their energies. A person who has clairempathy psychically experiences the thoughts or attitudes of a person, place, or animal and then feels the associated mental, emotional, physical, and/or spiritual results. The result of this clear empathetic experience may be a very physical response for the psychic in proportion to the psychic’s empathic sensitivity.

CLAIRELOQUENCE – INTUITIVE COMMUNICATING – Claireloquence is a second new Clair. It is the requirement to use precisely the right word or combination of words in order to accomplish a specific objective. Claireloquence connotes that it is the exact meaning of a word that is the result when it may in fact be the performative nature of the word or the exact phonology, or sound system, of the word to encode meaning that is the desired result. I believe that it can be either and both.

CLAIRESSENCE – INTUITIVE EMBODIMENT – Clairessence is a third new Clair I have come to understand and validate. It is the fundamental “Clair of all Clairs.” It is both the easiest and the most difficult to explain, for it is the Clair of Ascension; by the time we fully understand this Clair it will no longer be significant because we will be “it”.

The origin of clairessence is the point of origin of our nature. It is the mathematical and vibrational perfection with which all life was created. It is the ideal we seek to attain in the successful embodiment and integration of all of our senses within our rational and non-rational selves. It is the state we seek to return to – a state without distortion that is more refined, by virtue of experience, than when it was created.

Perhaps this will generate further discussion.

Leave a Comment