Fact Theory - Part I ( Yes, there will be Part II)

Fact Theory:

In the thriving norms of our coherent human civilization, everything is taken under the liability of subjective and objective claims and postulates. What’s being missed out is a lot more than just those 2 sides of a coin. An exploration into things such as the existentially of an observation is basic, but relative, or subject to the observer at the time or point of observation. Outside of its boundaries, the only things that remain true are the recordings of that observation. But, in any case, the observation was from one subject, and the claim regarding it remains in subject to the thoughts, motive and mindset of the observer at the time of observation. 

I decided to start reading Eckhart Tolle's book called "A New Earth Awakening", and by all means, I'm again reminded of everything that I've delved into so far. I'll admit that I try to find more of Krishnamurti ' s perspective within all things , but then again I consider everyone else's side as well without bias.

When they go back to the whole idea of not seeking anyone else's way , it just becomes a paradox as much as to our oblivious mind. An awakening doesn't come simply , it's a long process. A process that'll unwrap the mind from norms, limitations, archaic values and traditions. Some think that's really wrong and some think that's the right way. I, of course , have no control over anyone else's thoughts , ideas, mindsets or ideologies. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and that element is being slowly integrated into our society, but not so as much. It's still in a gradual process.In all seriousness , the process of going through an awakening and enabling a completely open mind can be quite complex. It can be just as hard as trying to re-learn how to walk again after one has come out of their recovery from a terrible road accident. It's mostly because the mental cognition can be quite hard to deal with when it comes in contact with alien like thoughts, or ideas. It's like trying to rewire all the nerves and their functionality. As per described by most philosophers with associations to Eastern Philosophy , stillness and silence has always been the best practice of open-mindedness. It just brings you back in place with non-existentiality and existentiality all in the same room at once- as one might profess.

The purpose is detached, the thoughts become silent waves and the meaning is nowhere. But, for once you are no longer conformed to anything at all- maybe, ironically, your consciousness. Why's it peace , though ?

It's not peace , it's just a feeling of now and eternal which is described as 'peaceful'. It's neither peaceful nor hellish. It's just nothing at all.

Opposing ideas will always come into action, of course. Mindfulness, and mindlessness. There have been cases where meditation had been deemed useless because it doesn't let you dig up on an ideology or rationalize a scenario. 

Again, whatever one does or thinks, it's just a postulate based scenario based on a being ' s observation and subjective reasoning. The whole process requires so and so , and therefore , it can continue without hindrance , unless implied to do so under condition by another being due to their attitude or mindset. One doesn't have to necessarily have to follow a pattern unless they feel satisfied by the pattern itself. Diverging may have a differing , yet equivalent result at the deeper level.

What could make it false, though ? 

Many things, in fact, there’d be ways to rationalize things based on ideological norms or perceptions of it. One could use a video camera or sound recorder to record the observation or scenario to further enhance the evidence(s) of the observation. But, is there any flaw in any of this ? There could be, but it’s not within norms , or typically accepted ideologies and methodologies. For one, the observation was made based on the perception of a human, and the recording was done as per the preceding as well. When seen or heard from a video, or sound recording , respectively, the results are still seen and heard based on the senses of a human’s perception. The question goes from ‘Why does this occur?’ To ‘Why does my mind think that it occurs this way, and not any other way? What’s the chance that my mind could be just seeing a tiny bit of what’s there?’ all the way to ‘Is this really occurring, or is this what our human minds have created as a reflection of how reality occurs?’. The questions never stop extending, it can keep going on forever and ever. However, that’s not how ‘facts’ are treated, but that’s the way it should be. Also, what most people don’t realize is that observations and recordings of observations are mostly based on emotional and subjective claims- despite the claim that ‘logic’ doesn’t come with emotions. As long as one’s a human being, it comes packaged with emotions of some form or sort. 

This is not to bash anyone else, but this is a fundamental element that must and should be addressed in any sort of scenario: the way most academic person would treat something like ‘facts’, ‘logic’ or ‘science’ can be very controversial and sometimes, it’s noticeable that they’re more concerned over political and societal norms and influences rather than exploring something without hindrances. To be more so clear, people who deeply study any sort of topic, whether it’d be ‘science’, ‘mathematics’, ‘history’, ‘English’ or ‘philosophy’ will always have concern more over their attitudes of a certain subject rather than to approach it with an open mind- some are an exception, but it’s a rarity. The conditions for an open mind are very clear, but not so easy as per the typical or archetypal human being. It may sound to the Western man like some inane sort of philosophy, but to the Eastern person, a form of peace from all sorts of worldly affairs. Stillness, meditation, non-conformity: they are what makes up the foundation of an open-minded being. Having any form of disruptive or scorny attitude otherwise eliminates ‘open-mindedness’ and that could potentially go for this statement as well- ironically. This might trigger a lot of modern day scholars, but I have my own say in any case, unless of course someone tries to take unfair actions against such a case- which would be totally inane and illogical: Religion is the base level of ignorance, it condones to nonsensical progression of closed-mindedness. Science on the other hand is but its cousin, and the condition for that is only if the scientists weren’t as ignorant.