Z0009: Measuring Truth


It’s about 4 in the morning, I woke up 30 minutes ago from a dream that seemed to last days. But that was only in terms of “experience”. I was able to maintain consciousness both in the dream world and the waking (well, I was still asleep, so I guess I should say “the real”) world. My body just lied there on my back and I could feel some of the parts and was aware of the outside lights through my closed eyelids. In the dream world, the scenes kept changing so fast I had that experience of several days. The dream mostly took place in this big city I go back to over and over. It’s like San Francisco, only bigger. I was interacting with the rich, mostly white and some Asian, their “benefacted” which were mostly Buddhist monks, male and female, that would teach them chants and practices as an idle curiousity, the waitstaff, the behind-the-scenes-workers, and then random people on the street. The days were spent wandering about town and I eventually found an apartment near “the Golden Gate bridge”. I went on a few tours, one by boat, met lots of people, but the nights were spent at that downtown resort which catered to the ultrarich.

Although I wasn’t fully lucid (that state I can usually only maintain for a second, but there is another type of lucidity where I’m fully lucid there but as a trade-off forget I have a life here), it was enough. It’s time for me to find a dream journal and start recording.

I’m going to listen to this channel,with you all via ttsreader, then edit the channel & comment again, if need be.

Channel Z0009

{How do I, or anyone, open to channel? How can we tell when its bullshit? Ego? Lies? Wishful thinking? Deception, manipulation? How can we tell when we have so contaminated the channel that we’ve created something hateful? I’m afraid of being a Joseph Smith and channeling a Book of Mormon and creating a religion. How can I get free of judgments, like around the BOM and write what The Voice dictates? Is there a “me” and a “you” that are different? How do we know what we write is meaningful or useful?}

There is no way to determine the difference between “propriety” and “the appearance of propriety” except in one regard. The truth will be found out. The lack of propriety is not the same as the lack of the appearance of propriety. One is internally true, one is externally true. If either is in conflict, then an imbalance is created, equally egregious. Let us explain. The unsophisticated view might be that “Propriety with the non-appearance of propriety” is the better compared to its opposite, namely no propriety but it appears there is propriety. One causes an internal flow to the exterior, the other an exterior to the interior. The external appearance of propriety actually creates positive pressure on the interior, across the boundary to change. There is a positive outward energy that can exert as positive changing on the interior energy. The first view is that this is negative, but by creating an external appearance, the internal will match. This is from a certain perspective, of course. There is an energy transfer from good to fill the energy deficiency of the bad, using relative and judgmental terms. Now the converse: internal good, but external bad, still requires an energy flow. In a sense, the internal good is lessened to compensate for the external bad. In both these situations an energy flow from “where is” to “where is NOT” occurs. Now, the lack of propriety is just that, a null value. Think now only in positive terms and zero, and apply no negative statement or judgment to zero. Zero is merely the absence, a place of relative less. It is not an opposite, but rather a mere absence. Now an imbalance in “good” merely equalizes the good. One can “appear” too good. Or, one can “be” too good … If one’s insides do not match one’s outsides, the two will equalize, in an entropic sense, so that balance is achieved.

The main concept here is the idea that there is only good … and one can tell when there is an imbalance … Too much good, can be bad.

Now let us try to explain this to the questions that were asked by ourself in a different form and an apparent different perspective. There is truth … but lies are not the opposite of truth, they are the absence of a truth. A lie, in a sense, is not real because it is merely the absence of what is real. Judging a statement from us as “real” or “fake” is inaccurate. A better judgment would be “real” or “null reality”. Zero times something is zero. If something were ultimately unreal, that is to say has a null reality or NO reality or ZERO real then its effect would be NULL. It would merely nullify the reality of a statement it multiplies, it would neither subtract from nor add to a statement, and if the divisor by which a statement is compared to (reality divided or compared to non-reality) any result or statement could be true.

Therefore, one way to measure the reality of a statement is to use it as a basis from which to compare other statements: Relative to “this statement of belief” we conclude the following… Now, dividing by zero produces unexpectedly large variations. That is, now assume there is a small, but insignificant grain of truth in the statement. That is, no statement is perfectly unreal. The statement itself exists as a statement. It has the reality of a statement. … Bloggeldy gooper goggle is a statement … it is the symbols, it is the phonemes, it is the word associations (today is Thanksgiving, gobble gobble as a blogger would say t’day). Let’s suppose that the tiniest of interpretations of the tiniest grains of reality come up with nearly identical interpretations … such as “take this all of you, and eat VS Take this all, of you and eat” … A pause pronunciation difference. One is Take this … all of you guys … the other Take this all … for you guys. Suppose one has one millionth of truth and the other one billionth. In terms of the relative truth difference, there is none … Namely an insignificant percentage. But now, measure the statement of other statements relative to these truths. In one case you get a million, in the other a billion and a billion is significantly larger than a million, whereas a billionth is not significantly smaller than a millionth. A millionth of a penny is no less or no more useless than a billionth of a penny. Both are equally useless. A very insignificant change, when used as the comparer or mathematically as the divisor, can produce hugely variant results. That is to say … very similar “null” realities will produce widely differing comparisons. If two people can take a “truth” and come up with wildly different interpretations, then the “truth” was relatively close to a null truth … or essentially is non-real.

This should be apparent as to how to measure truth then. The “measurement” of our words, or your words, or my words, or their words, is by the conclusions reached when these words are used as the basis for analyzing other words… if you can agree that there is relative convergence of truth, then the word starting truths, are somewhere unified. If the convergence is geometrical, then there is “more than unified truths”. Some truths are greater than the subtruths that make them up. Someday you will learn how to measure a truth, as in X is Y times truer than Z.

Take the abortion debate. Pro-life or pro-choice? Which is true? Now compare to the statement “pro-love” … is pro-choice pro-love? Yes, it shows a loving respect for the mother carrying a child and her deep agreement to bring a child into the world. There is more to a child’s existence then physical existence. The child also has an emotional, a mental, a volitional, a characterial, but most deeply a spiritual existence. Certainly, respect or more importantly “LOVE” demand that the baby be loved. The mother should bring her embryo through the gestational process with not only physical love (good food, good blood, good placental juice, no smoking, no drugs, fruit ferment level alcohol)… but as importantly, good emotional chemicals. The chemicals of love are physical. A baby that has no emotional love will be denied the physical chemicals of love. It is impossible for an unloving, hateful mother, to create the molecules of love and conversely not create chemicals of hate. The baby, will know it is “unloved” if the mother is not filled with love. There are millions of mothers among us that will tell of the love they felt for their baby. The baby was loved into existence. Imagine forcing a hateful mother to carry to term her hated baby. Sure, the baby will be shot out of her womb with the release of a cannonball from the cannon and the hateful mother will be glad to have the hated baby gone. BUT a baby stewed in the molecules of hate, resentment, fear, pain, prejudice – and there all and there are all such molecules … every emotional state has not one but many molecules expressing subtle difference in the emotional state – and the baby will be brewed in this sparse, but very real environment. It is impossible to bring a baby into the world with a healthy spirit, unless the mother CHOOSES to love, respect, and joyously and harmonically vibrate her baby’s molecules and cellular states into existence itself. If we are pro-love then we are pro-choice. Pro-choice is an equivalent unit of pro-love.

But now, pro-life. Who could not be pro-life? With so many loving and barren couples out there; a father with love in his heart but lifeless sperm in his loins … his love yearning to be transmitted to a baby? Oh, my, if only we could get him such a baby. His fertile wife, bursting with cellular love, ready to create embryonic joy … cannot meld to her lovin loving husband’s loins? Then sperm from such a loving other man, who has no fertile wife, could be given. Or vice versa, loving sperm could be given to a fertile unloved woman whose ovaries will so happily send an egg down … and this woman in no way ready to bring up a baby completes the first equation of love – those first nine months. What joy? And, in the worst case, if a lonely pregnant woman, with no means to raise her own, but no money, but no will, but no source, but no potential. Yet through her deeply loving choice brings to full term this baby. The baby goes without want. For the first nine months, the joy of a biological mother … For the next nine years, the joy of an emotional mother. Forever and ever, the joy of a spiritual mother. Mother earth who loves us all. Even us “spirits beyond the living”. Who could not want to see the choice, the wonderful joyous choice of life given? Who could not be pro-life? We love life. Pro-love is to be pro-life.

But pro-life and pro-choice seem to cancel each other out. The two come to vastly opposite conclusions. One says to choose, is to support the mother. The other says, to choose is to kill the baby. One says to be pro-life is to support the baby. The other says to be anti-pro-choice (pro-life) is to deny the mother. A pro-lifer may say yes when a pro-choicer may say no. But a pro-love will say yes or no, or yes and no, or yes and yes, or no and no … The pro-love will have a greater truth. While being equivalent to both, it is greater than either. Pro-love is a “truth” of two, whereas pro-life and pro-choice have only values of one. That is why pro-love minus pro-choice, equals pro-life and pro-love minus pro- … pro-love – pro-either = pro either. Pro-love = 2*pro-either.

This is to help you understand how to start measuring the truth values of statements that have emotional impacts. You must learn to differentiate the many layers of truth … physical truth, emotional truth, mental truth, volitional truth, spiritual truth … you can compare.

Therefore, the answer to the questions is found in the answers to the questions. This is not meant to be an overly clever play on words, but a deep truth. The truth will make itself known if you allow it. Use the statement to compare to as many possible statements as you believe are true, and see how widely varying the results are. The less the variance, the greater the truth.

Take spiritual values and compare to ethical values. A spiritual value will be greater than an ethical value. You will be able to determine if “truth” or “honesty” is spiritual or ethical or vice versa, respectively. You will find that spiritual is greater than ethical. Emotional is greater than physical. Physical greater than mental (surprise)… Yet you will start to discover that the comparison itself will determine the outcome. For instance, you will see that mental, which can be so easily true or untrue, can be so easily honest or dishonest, can in fact create a larger effect on physical reality, then say a physical reality on a physical reality. All these layers of reality intersect, communicate, affect, grow, communicate, interlock, transmute, transfigure, and transcend each other. You will find at its deepest level that physical truth is greater than emotional truth, but that emotional honesty is a physical truth … When you can find the physical equivalents of emotional states … first at the molecular (hormones) and then at the cellular (cellular states) then at the organ, system, and finally at the highest level of electrical consciousness (brain state). Then relate all this to mind, and from mind to spirit. You will find a series of views of the world that neatly fit together.

Thus, if something is true, such as this statement, you will first learn to discover if the statement is honest. Honesty is “less than” truth, but honesty is easier to measure than truth. Only by becoming honest, can one discover the truth. Therefore, we speak truth always, but because of the channel process, the honesty may be lost through the transmutation process. This is just the odd nature of the transformation. Yet, as you or Larz or me or not-Larz channels, you will learn to recognize honesty before you recognize truth. From honesty comes truth. And through truth, honesty.

The questions themselves start with a false perception. There is no “bullshit”. There are no “lies”. There is truth and there is null-truth. There is honesty and there is null-honesty. You can relate honesty to truth and truth to honesty.

There are, in summary, many ways of determining the value of a statement.


Honesty, Truth, Propriety…

What started out as a simple question turned into quite the answer. A simple comment or two won’t suffice, at least for me. I’ll post this for now & come back later…


Post PS

I’m at Friend Steve’s house and he has a picture of me in a provocative XXX photo with a former using buddy and another gay couple. I’ve relapsed. OMG. But, I don’t remember relapsing. Is this picture real? Is this picture true? I pick it up and look at it. I don’t remember the event. And I recall what I had just learned from my channel to compare truths. Steve would not leave such a picture out, that is so unlike him. I look around and know what I’m seeing must not be true. I’m dreaming, I decide.

Sure enough, seconds later I wake up. I feel happy that as dorky as the idea seemed, we can somehow deduce the truth value by comparing truths. Ironically, I’m still dreaming but don’t realize it. I wake up again.

2 Replies to “Z0009: Measuring Truth”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s