Skip to main content

Truth and Proof Under Humanity's Collective Karma (Part 1)

2008/7/8 8:43:12

This afternoon there are N properties to go see. A car is coming to pick me up right after the market closes, so I will not be able to write a post. The only option was to get up early and complete the task, also to honor a promise.

The reason for going to see properties is mainly that prices have shown significant loosening. More importantly, it seems the state has recently been ensnared by the banking system, so there is loosening on that front too. Whether these two loosening trends from different directions will create one last short-term dip in the property market needs observation. However, one thing requires no observation: if the latter loosening truly materializes on a large scale, then those speculators clinging to their last breath will have a lifeline. But this ID always feels that too few people have died this time—the lesson is not deep enough. If a few screams of pain are enough to make the regulators capitulate, that would truly be a tragedy. Some things, if not resolved at the root, can only lead to eternal cycles. If that is the case, 2008 and 1994 are the same story—still trapped by the same thing. If that is not a tragedy, what is?

Let us not discuss such tedious matters. The stock has developed its current pattern, and missing a day of commentary is no big deal. Just keep an eye on those price levels I mentioned before.

Also, regarding yesterday's singing post, I must reiterate one point: many people, when singing, lose their placement as soon as they shift registers significantly. This is mainly because the position that produces the firm fundamental tone is not locked in—for example, it drifts upward as the pitch rises. That is absolutely unacceptable. In fact, as long as you can maintain stable placement through register changes (note: there is a very wrong concept in the vocal world—the so-called stability of the larynx; what is stable is not the larynx but that position of "sounding without sounding"), the corresponding organs will naturally train their flexibility and adjustability. Everything happens without forcing it.

Correct execution is often achieved in the simplest way. Stocks are like this, and singing is the same. Enough about singing—let me discuss something seemingly profound. This issue is most intimately relevant to every single person. Due to time constraints, today I can only write the first part.

If truth were the kind of God-like thing as conceived by Christianity, then such a thing has never existed. Of course, you can treat "the Christianized, God-like truth has never existed" as a proposition. And of course you can vigorously oppose this proposition. To do so, you must at least find one example to refute it—that is, you must produce at least one instance of "Christianized, God-like truth." And in reality, no one in the world can produce such a thing.

Someone might counter: energy conservation—that is God-like truth. But in reality, the reason our world exhibits energy conservation is, at root, simply that our collective karma happens to place us in a world that once expressed, and continues to express, energy conservation. Someone might say: in mathematics, 1+1=2 is God-like truth. But in reality, this so-called God-like formula is merely a virtual convention of the natural number system as manifested by humanity's collective karma—it has nothing to do with God-like truth. Likewise, in a world whose collective karma means humans do not die and do not need to eat, the so-called axioms of this ID's economic theory—that humans must die and must eat—would collapse. These so-called axioms are not God-like truths either—they are merely collective karma.

So-called truth is, in essence, entirely collective karma. And collective karma is essentially nothing more than a temporary premise of the game of birth and death. Our so-called pursuit of truth is essentially nothing more than an interrogation of the premises of the birth-and-death game into which we happen to have been thrown. There is no truth, and certainly nothing God-like about it.

The above conclusion applies to every single one of humanity's games, including science, religion, economics, politics, art, culture, organized crime, rebellion, degeneration, sublimation, and so on, without exception. Someone might say: you need to prove your conclusion. To these waterlogged brains, this ID can only say: what do you need this ID to prove? If you want proof of the God-like status of this conclusion, that is nonsense, because what this conclusion opposes is precisely God-like truth. Beyond that, this conclusion requires no proof whatsoever, because this conclusion is precisely humanity's greatest collective karma. That is to say, all human games—including the game called "proof" itself—take this as their premise. It is rather those who oppose this conclusion who bear the burden: the most powerful opposition would be to find a single example proving that this conclusion is not humanity's collective karma. And that is not this ID's task—those with such a fetish can go look slowly.

Obviously, proof is likewise a game under humanity's collective karma. All proofs, without exception, operate under the assumption that the world within our collective karma possesses a uniform logical structure. Without this assumed premise, all proofs are nonsense, because no proof, once stripped of this premise, can prove its own validity under the premise of collective karma.

That last sentence is a bit convoluted. In plainer language, here is the simplest example: this ID has repeatedly emphasized that the premise of science is observability. And observability actually implies the assumption that there exists a most fundamental, logically isomorphic correspondence between the observer and the observed phenomenon. Otherwise, observation would be impossible to realize.

Actually, there is no need to speak in such lofty terms—a most everyday example suffices to illustrate the premises required for observability to function. We always say the sun rises as usual every day. Forget all of humanity—just take two people observing the same sun. Scientific observability requires that different people observing the same phenomenon at any given moment all arrive at the same result. Obviously, this implies N-many logical assumptions. Let us use the example of two people watching the sun.

First, the following type of situation must not exist: one person's visual system operates on the logic that when hit by an apple, the sun immediately appears, and when not hit, the sun is invisible even if it is right overhead. The other person's visual logic is: if and only if the first person is hit by an apple and sees the sun does the second person immediately perceive the sun; otherwise, even if the sun were sitting in their hand, it would be invisible. For these two people, their observations of the sun always agree—both see it or neither does at the same time. But can this observation be scientific? Therefore, one premise for this observation to be scientific is that these two people's visual systems must have the same—or at least isomorphic—logic. What holds for two people holds for all people in the world, for the same reason.

Second, the logic of the sun's appearance as a phenomenon must have an isomorphic correspondence with the logic of the human visual system. Otherwise, if the human visual system's logic happens to randomly display the sun regardless of whether it actually appears, then so-called observability would again be empty talk.

Finally, the logic of the sun's appearance as a phenomenon must possess at least temporal stability. Otherwise, if it changes from one day to the next, so-called observability would be meaningless because it could not be repeatedly verified. For example, when you excitedly announce to the world the conclusion that the sun is square, the next day all relevant personnel stare at the sky and find no square object at all—only a caterpillar. Then this game simply cannot be played.

Of course, in reality the logical premises for observability to hold are many more, but what we need to establish here is merely this: so-called scientificity rests upon numerous logical assumptions, and science is nothing more than a game played under these logical assumptions.

Collective karma is essentially a set of certain chosen logical assumptions. The reason we appear in a world of shared collective karma is that in this segment of our infinite cycle of samsara, through the manifestation of our individual karma, we chose a common set of logical assumptions.

And once chosen, one is "worlded." Same choice, same world. Everything is the result of your own choosing, as this ID's poem says: "Mind paints, heart sketches—one makes oneself both master and slave." Where is there an objective, God-like world? The world is nothing but the result of your selection. The world is nothing but a phantasmic manifestation of a chosen set of logical assumptions. As for your birth and death within this world—all is like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow.

The above language will of course make materialists—especially the Stalinist or Maoist dialectical variety—quite furious. Unfortunately, the physical and physiological basis for their fury is itself nothing more than a manifestation of a certain set of logical assumptions. Materialist fools, thinking they have seized so-called objective reality and thereby grasped a lifeline to the so-called paradise of truth—alas, besides increasing the grass content of their stomachs, this is merely self-gratification under the phantom of a certain set of logical assumptions.

The same language can be sent to so-called idealists: with your brains spinning aimlessly within consciousness, you differ from materialists by nothing more than fifty steps versus a hundred. The world has nothing whatsoever to do with the asinine materialism or idealism debate. If one insists there is some relationship, it is nothing more than babbling under the phantom-like game of logical assumptions.