Sunday, 19 February 2012


It came to my attention lately, that we had got one of our fundamental tenets incorrect. We labelled the self as an untested assumption. This logically figured to me, once I had this insight, that is exactly how I saw it. However when viewed this way, it does not give us a full picture. It left out a key piece of the story, which I will outline here.

Of course, you never stopped to question your own existence, on face value it does seem absurd. However, when you actually look in to some of the claims you make about the self, then they become counter intuitive, and even contradictory to what your own experience tells you.

Lets try this another way and ask the question; do dogs explode?

Your first answer will likely be no, unless you can conceive of a spontaneous combustion event. Furthermore, you have never considered this before in your life. 
You already knew that this didn't happen, yet you did not have to conceive of this, in order to infer that this doesn't happen. We can assume that a generalisation has been made, in order to accurately predict the behaviour of other 'like' things.

Objects and animals don't really explode as a rule, except fizzy pop bottles, cans when dropped, and these are not really what we would term an explosion anyway. Firecrackers, fireworks and the like, aerosols in fires, these require a deliberate act, to make an explosion. We know that ordinary everyday objects will not explode when we touch them.  

We never have to think about every possible outcome. We predict with great success the behaviour of everyday things. We could map many other possibilities on to things, such as; soup cans don't sing, milk doesn't burn. If we had to assign properties to everything, we would end up wasting time and energy, so our brain makes generalisations, in order to enable us to survive.

We had to evolve this way, since analysis of the environment, would have proved too costly. What we really needed, was a fluid way of adapting to new things, and the ability to predict the behaviour of new people and new phenomena. This generalisation, may or may not be strictly correct, but it would likely give us the highest chance of survival, therefore, that is why we see it in its present form.

So, many facets of our behaviour are already predictable, since our genes made us ready for a variety of situations and challenges. We can refer to these acquired behavioural traits and cognitive patterns as 'dispositions'.

How then, does this relate to the self?

In simple terms, we can look at how a disposition to think in terms of a self, arises from when we are very young. Since we think predominantly in terms of words and visuals, we have an ongoing narrative, that weaves a story of our life. 
Perhaps, the first time, the brain attributed a single utterance or phoneme, such as “uh” to an object, or to signify a desire or want. This would likely appear some time before the time a child is able to chain phonemes together, in to a coherent word. We often hear young kids, trying to speak, but coming out with an incomprehensible mish mash of singular phonemes.

This would tell us that the brain is already perceiving external objects, and the learning of communication is starting. From the first word you spoke, this was as a result of the brain attributing a pattern match to an external object, that was repeatedly referenced to as “Mama”, or whatever phrase was repeated around the child.  

Since you were young, you already responded to your name. Even a dog with a brain the size of a walnut can make a pattern match to sounds. When your name is called, you are disposed to enquire what it is the person wanted. We see this disposition expressed by the meeting of eyes, and as we get older, maybe a corresponding thought of “what do they want?” arises.

As we grow up vocabulary is added, and before long, we are able to have a concept of people talking directly to us, and an understanding of the terms “I” and “you”, in simple conversations. We are able to assign traits to other people, in order to predict their behaviour. As we go along we recognise traits in our own behaviour, have a concept of things that we cannot do, find difficult and so forth. From this we lay the foundations for a disposition to think in terms of ourselves as the centre of gravity.

Since many actions are run through our awareness as a metaphor for that action, the brain simply uses a cause and effect model, which attributes this “I” to be the cause. When we look for the “I” in real life, we actually find nothing, it was a complex illusion. 
As our narrative starts to increase in complexity, it propagates the illusion of agency, or control over our actions. As our actions are cross referenced with past events, a thought will occur, relevant, to the course of action the brain is taking. As words form, you simply bought in to the illusion that these words referred to a person who was calling the shots and thinking the thoughts. It was simply your human agencies expressing themselves in thought.

As a decision to act arises, the consequence may be weighed up, this gives us the idea of free choice, when simply, it is a doing that we do not control. We simply get the feeling that we are controlling life from a young age, when really, life was always living itself. 
We think in words because we have to communicate with people. The ability to communicate, comes in part from our constructive experience, and analysis of the environment. We don't think in terms of dogs not exploding, our awareness is tuned to spot relevant things in our environment. This frees up our thinking as such. In order to communicate, we need to be able to think in terms of words, it is apparent that our thinking would reflect this.

So, the self was never an untested assumption, it was never assumed. Thinking in terms of an outer life in relation to this organism formed a disposition to think in these terms. The pattern matching faculty of the brain attributed meaning to words by extension from them.

If we look at an item “cup”, we can think about its properties, extensions, uses and so forth. You are disposed to think of a cup in these terms.
If we in turn think about the word “you”, what properties can we assign to it?
We often relate the word “you” to the person who controls the actions, this body etc...

Lets attribute it to a human being.
What properties can we assign to “you”? Are “you” a thinking being?

That would be undeniable.

If we take “you” to refer to the physical body that thinks, then we have something tangible. We can apply properties to you, predict the things you could do, and what it would be useful for.

Now, when we take “you” to refer to the person behind the body who makes the decisions and controls the actions, or to put it simply, the person you think you are, it is actually an illusion. We cannot assign any properties to this “you”. You don't really exist. 
“You” is a supposed objective reference, by a subjective thought. This “you” does not exist in objective reality. “You” is nothing more than a thought, “I” refers to nothing. If we take “you” to mean a physical thing then yes, the physical human exists, but the idea of an immaterial thinking thing, or soul is just plain nonsense.

It is simply a disposition to act in terms of being an agent, really, this agent who thinks the thoughts, does the actions, or as we say “the ghost in the machine”, is simply an illusion. There is no you. There is simply a human being living. Life lives itself, take a look.

Monday, 6 February 2012

Tomorrows world

Hey all, been busy of late with all kinds of things going on. Have not blogged, simply because I have been doing some researching in to fundamental principles, and trying to juggle other things. Here is an outline of the principles we are going to need to adhere to, and it just so happens, that philosophy has provided the answer for us to develop a useful framework, in which to view this whole thing through. 

I usually keep my blog reserved for articles based on helping people see the truth of no self, but on this occasion, those who are looking for some help, will not get anything much out of this post, so please browse the blog roll, or feel free to sign up at the forums of truth strike, or liberation unleashed.

What I am going to do is provide a brief outline of how we could introduce this project to people in the future, and map out some fundamental principles that we can use in constructing an operational framework, that is not only common sense for us to use, but aligns us with the scientific and philosophical community. 

It cannot escape any ones attention, that we have been engaged in a fire and brimstone effort to begin with, and that had caused not only RT to implode, but the no self realisation to be branded with hostility and negativity. 
The no self insight is actually a force for good in the world, and it should be that everyone is gravitating towards it. This is not the case, simply because it has been presented in an extremist light and the connotation of 'no you' is seen as threatening. 

This was discussed at length last post, so lets get on to the meat and potatoes of this thing. While I don't have all the answers and I am not claiming this will solve all our problems, it will certainly highlight our weak points, and I hope, get the creative juices flowing.

In no particular order, I am just highlighting some of the key issues that various people have raised with me, and things that I have seen we can take immediate steps to fix, besides mentioning some empirical operating protocols that we can align with. 
We can add more/ revise as we go along, and then finally, I want to achieve some in depth discussion of these things, in order that we can clarify some useful points. It is self explanatory for the most part but the ways in which we can implement them will, I think, be a useful exercise for us.

Cartesian Scepticism

Firstly, the principle of Cartesian scepticism may be of use to us. Cartesian anything has had a bad press from all of us, since we necessarily bring Mr Descartes in to the mix. Whilst he failed epically in his quest for certainty, his legacy bought out a revolution, and he single handedly began paving the way for modern philosophy and a new empiricism, that Francis Bacon had earlier conceived.

Whilst any man and his dog can debunk the cogito, we need to consider that the overwhelming majority of Western people, use this as a presupposition in these matters. Cartesian Dualism, is accepted by many, even by non-religious people. Many people will accept that they are a mental constituent of reality separate from their body. 
They just accept this as is without questioning it. Now the ways in which we can show this notion is false, are surprisingly vast. Any introduction therefore, must take this in to account wholesale.

The first step in this, is to align the cogito with religious belief. Not only does this discredit it immediately by aligning it with christians, it also highlights what it is; a belief. By accepting the logic of Dualism, essentially, you are saying that you believe in a soul. 
Now don't forget, Descartes' work amounts to a logical proof of god in many respects. His epistemological concerns were with certainty, yet he already had the unshakeable belief in god. Hence, his work was coloured, and a major portion of it, was in fact used to rationally infer the existence of metaphysical beliefs. 

We have no reason to prove any religion wrong and despite the anti religious stance I have often taken, (it is apparent that it is a subterfuge for the weak minded) there is no need for us to attack it.

Fortunately most intelligent people don't buy in to it anyway, it is withering away of its own accord, church attendances are down, and it has now become IRRELEVANT. 
Our society is now post-religious, the last vestiges are hanging on but most people are awake to the notion that it is a lie, at least in Britain anyway. The idea will likely not die soon, since weakness is currently endemic, but it should never gain precedence, as long as humanity can collectively face up to the truth (That being idealistic!).

After this, anyone can take a 9mm and shoot the cogito to pieces. However, the significant act of what Descartes did, was to use a new brand of scepticism and apply it. Stepvhen mentioned the term 'bracketing', of which is used in phenomenology. 
The term bracketing is used for suspending judgement of any phenomena, until some degree of certainty can be made about it. This is exactly what the degree of Cartesian Scepticism was all about.

You see, if Descartes had looked, he would have realised that “I” refers to nothing. We can literally map out his walk to the position, where he came up with the notion of 'certainty', and from there, we can draw a line to say that he was being honest until this point here. For Descartes to get to that point, he used honesty and this honesty amounts to bracketing, or our Cartesian scepticism.

This method of doubt, needs to be the prime focus in any introduction, and this is what we have been using for the most part in our interactions. In explaining this for the layman, it seems clear that they need to be schooled in this methodology of thinking before they undertake an investigation.

Of course, the natural consequence of Cartesian Scepticism is to doubt the scepticism itself, and ultimately undermine the notion that we can have any knowledge at all. However by forging it with honesty and balancing off this scepticism to a more reasonable and slightly less sceptical form, where we can acknowledge that there are some things we have to rely on, we create a potent tool that people could pick up and start using for themselves with confidence.

Superior Force

One thing struck me particularly, as a principle that RT was founded on. The whole thing was a negative connotation. Francis Bacon stated that the negative always has more force. If we look at why RT had so much momentum initially, it was because it was driven by this negative connotation. 
Try to envisage, we put up a desperate letter on a forum pleading with people to look. You get the innocuous comments and it has no force. Until the burden is switched on to them by the famous “there is no you”, then that is what gave it, it's impact.

Whilst this is merely a natural tendency, this could be a useful thing to bear in mind, for the purpose of keeping people on track in their search. As for the overall negative connotation, we have ditched that completely. I will bring this principle up again later.

Our Virtue

When we were on incursion, we developed a siege mentality, to everyone who came in to RT and every forum we appeared on. The use of the word 'faith' was banded around a bit. 
It did particularly work well, since we were able to get inside what people were saying and deliver stunning truths, that would smash their position to pieces and get in to the heart of their lie (for anyone who doesn't know what faith is, we used it not as religious term but as an axiom for relying on the truth of no self every time). 
This is a skill we have certainly developed to a fine degree, particularly those involved in the early days of RT and the vanguard.

Now however, we need to move beyond this paradigm of smashing peoples shit apart and go about it in a different way, when specifically, we are not in the liberating process. The purpose of 'faith', was to be able to take peoples criticism of our position and fling it back in their face. 
Since we have no further need to do this, what I am saying in a nutshell, is that we should actually embrace peoples criticisms, and have an open, transparent and honest discussion about them. There are points where we are weak and we don't have an answer but what we should do really, is reveal the weak points of the case. 

Not only does this show our willingness to be transparent, it encourages debate and will inspire solutions.

If I take one particular argument, Hume's 'argument against miracles', this applies directly to us. In this argument Hume criticises peoples testimonies as being inaccurate and what our proof amounts to, is us saying that so many people have experienced this, if you look, you will see what we see.

This is a particularly troubling objection, since we cannot realistically get round this, and our proof amounts to 'our word against yours', which is wholly insufficient to give it any credence. There are a few other arguments that I have in mind, but I need to formulate them coherently when I have the time. The only way we can get any leverage on this is to shift the burden of proof, which Ciaran mistakenly tried to do.

Let us be crystal clear about this; a shifting of the burden of proof amounts to a theologian stance.

Under no circumstances are we to try and shift the burden of proof on to our critics.

However, On home turf, I think it is wholly reasonable for us to say, that the burden of proof is incumbent on both us, and a third party in equal measure.

We do not have trouble evidencing our central claim, we never have once people started looking. We have never been shown to be wrong once, and I mean all it would have taken in the last eighteen months, was for someone to demonstrate that we were wrong, and the whole thing would have collapsed like a house of cards.

This has never happened.

Every time people try and show us a thing or two, they walk away with egg on their face, or they label us as a cult, as they walk away with their tail in between their legs. Not once did they ever manage to put a a convincing argument in favour of the self being a real entity.

Not once did they ever present a case for their argument at all, all they could do, was attempt to attack ours. Once they started to expose their own lie, that would cause them to retreat and then they project their own shortcomings on to us. 
The best they can offer is an argument based on any untested presumptions that they have. We have been able to consistently and easily smash their falsehoods to pieces.

Now, rather than use the old mentality, and invite people on to us to attack our argument, we need to use this in our favour, and try to get people to make a case, in order to encourage open discussion. 
Killing lie was easy in most people, its not hard to show people that their presuppositions are entirely false. The problem lies in their ability to rearrange the defences and offer stiff resistance to actually looking, which means most people fight tooth and nail against this.

If we can shift the balance on home turf and force objectors to make a case for a self, their own search for evidence in favour of their view, will not only help them to see it is false, we get to a stage where we can address every objection, find reasoning behind why their objections are false, that the layman can relate to and turn these in to armour plating, as we have been able to do so in the past. In essence we can make our critics produce positive outcomes and work for us.

Since we will soon start producing empirical evidence for this, and there is a wide array of philosophical and scientific evidence already available, we are at the stage where there is a sufficient force to our argument, that cannot be simply dismissed once it is put in a coherent format.

If we could collect every objection and place it on the scales vs. no self, I think we would reasonably see that our argument carries a lot more weight, simply because we are on the side of truth. Whilst this is insufficient in itself, to claim we have the truth, it is up to us to demonstrate this to the layman, seeker and objector.

Once we leave the realm of home turf, then we have to accept wholly, that the burden of proof, is incumbent on us.

The fields of personal identity in philosophy and neurology in science come to mind. We have been amassing our own evidence since the start, and once put in to a suitable format, then we can spark some debate in the relevant domains. Once we do this, we will have to focus on all accounts and by simply ignoring the negative force against our central claim, it will not serve us well. 
We will have to openly accept that there are arguments against us and the only way we will make ground, is by openly accepting them and encouraging transparent discourse on them.

Since we aim to make way in the personal development industry too, we can take a look at the angle that the LU crew have taken. I certainly think Ilona, Elena and all the crew are well ahead of us. They have really risen to the challenge and have developed a non-confrontational methodology. With us having an angle in the P.D industry, we are poised to make some good ground here, if we have the right approach to things.

We have made sufficient ground, we are in a transitional phase in shaking off the RT hangover, and by organising ourselves in to an effective unit, where our discourse is kept public, perhaps even in Nexus, we will avoid the problems that caused the collapse of the vanguard.

Popper On Scientific Knowledge

Whilst Karl Popper's philosophy of science has been questioned, some of his ideas have certainly gained credence. In his endeavours, he gave us a guide, on what he refers to the difference between science and pseudo-science. Of course, we are not involved in laboratory science, but we are definitely involved in psychological empirical techniques. Lets look now at his criteria and see where we fit in to it.

1) It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly ever theory – if we look for confirmations.

Here Popper is talking about how easy it is to provide evidence for a case. Nearly every case can be proved by looking for evidence. Even astrology can have empirical evidence. This is a general trait of all theories, if we look for confirmations. We have adopted a mentality of looking for falsehoods.

2) Confirmations should only count, if they are the result of risky predictions, that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory – an event which would have refuted the theory.

Here, we are talking about a risky prediction. If in the test undertaken, it could be refuted, then any confirmation becomes valid. I think we have achieved this for every liberation, so we are safely within the criteria here.

3) Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: It forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids the better it is.

We can certainly say that any endeavours that directly prove an abiding self are forbidden in our theory. Our theory forbids a large amount of things from happening.

4) A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non – scientific.

Well, if neurologists find evidence of an abiding self, then our theory can be falsified. That is the crux of the argument against, since all other arguments against, are actually from experience and thus, are actually unscientific.

5) Every genuine test of a theory, is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it. Testability is falsifiability.

Every liberation we have ever done, has actually taken the client, to falsify their own theories about their existence. The only confirmation is the actual five seconds of honest looking. A particular problem we have, is that once liberated, we are unable to falsify this to ourselves. It would be like trying to falsify that tomatoes are red. However, if it was ever demonstrated that there was a self, then we would have to face up to the fact that we had deluded ourselves, and in this sense, no self is entirely falsifiable.

6) Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.

We have no problem here

7) Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers – for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation.

I don't remember ever having to reinterpret the central tenet of the claim. Should it happen, then we of course weaken the credence of the theory. If no self was falsified and we would not be able to make an auxiliary assumption. It is pretty clear cut, we have our eggs in one basket, I think you'll agree that we are fortunately in the right basket though! :)

We are sure of no self, it is some of our auxiliary assumptions that we may need to watch. Whilst these have no bearing on the central tenet there are some additional claims that have been made besides no self. For instance, demon theory supports a duality paradigm and we also have insufficient evidence to debunk Cartesian dualism. 

I mean shit, I am certain that dualism is an incoherent account of reality, yet, we need to be able to demonstrate this with certainty. It is right in my mind, I can present reasons that duality is false, but someone can always insert some reasoning that we can't account for. We need to be careful when presenting other additional claims, that we are not being dogmatic, I have certainly been guilty of this in the past, I put my hands up.

I am particularly satisfied here though, that we pass these criteria for science with flying colours. Our empirical methodology is suitable for the purpose at hand, in actual fact, we have been subscribing to this framework from the word go, in a looser sense. 
We ditched the pseudo spiritual clap trap we started with, underneath it all we have a strong adherence to these principles. In any introduction, it is worth noting that our methodology is framed around these stringent principles.

Thomas Kuhn's Paradigms

Thomas Kuhn came up with the idea of paradigms of thought. He usurped Poppers notion of falsifiability, as the actual methodology of science. Whilst the insight that Popper had was important, Kuhn showed that Popper's notion only occurred in scientific revolutions. Their arguments were quite epic, with Popper labelling normal science that wasn't engaged in falsification as worthless dogmatism. 

To say that we had somewhat of a revolution, would be an understatement. The no self thing, has shaken our very notions, of reality and introduced us to a new paradigm of thinking. Trouble is, this paradigm has few adherents. Basically, the hoo har has calmed down now, and really it is incumbent on us to champion this new paradigm.

The work we do, is filling in the gaps of our knowledge. Blogging about all the gaps, pioneering new thoughts, getting creative. I think this is an exciting time now, since we are trying to solve the puzzle of showing this. 
Any method we use is valid, as long as we are sticking within the confines of what we are doing. I see us more engaged in Popper's methodology, where we were burning stuff that turned out to be false. I would say that Popper's argument had better logic, it was just that Kuhn's was historically accurate.

The greatest challenge I see is this: The sciences and philosophy are pushing towards no self with great rapidity. We have found a method of experientially validating no self. The task now is to bridge this gap between science and this realisation, and bring the western world on to this new paradigm of thinking. 
This paradigm has so much benefit for eliminating suffering, and creating a better world, we already know this. The problem that Kuhn highlighted, was that people (I think we can extend his argument beyond science) are not ready to jump on to a new paradigm, unless their old one is shown to be false.

This is really what we have to do, and in particular using the negative has more weight principle outlined earlier, this seems to be the most fitting way to approach this. In an ideal world, people would look at what we were saying, unfortunately we are playing by the old rules. 
Our effort with RT was to defy these rules but it failed. We are going to have to bring about the paradigm shift and when it gets to a certain point, then the old paradigm will implode by itself. We really have to do this, within the confines of the playing field we find ourselves in. That is the reality of this and what makes it so tricky.  

We blinded ourselves to this when we saddled up with RT. We wanted this to happen immediately and hence the 'blitzkrieg' that ensued. We were under the impression that this could be won by brute force but that was asking too much. 
We have to face the fact, that this is now going to be a long drawn out slog. I remember blogging about Galileo last year, but his ideas were not accepted overnight, it took time for the paradigm to change. We are going to have to dig deep, rationally oppose established lines of thinking and critically engage in philosophy that we may, or may not want to. Ciaran was keen to avoid this originally and rightly so.

The problem is though, the gargantuan task of doing so, was simply being avoided. It is plain that by freeing people on the net, we are pissing in the ocean. We are making a difference to some peoples lives, that is for sure and I certainly think we should continue to strengthen this aspect of our work. 

We are going to have to go up against the established lines of thinking at some point, hoping for a global exodus of seeing no self and changing the paradigm within, seems as though it may not happen at the present rate. Simply because no one gives a shit enough to pay this forward, once they are free. Putting this on the table in serious circles, this may start something.

It may be after we our dead before humanity finally clicks on to this paradigm but we are at the forefront of human understanding. Us, just us, we were normal every day people trying to make our way through the world, until we stumbled upon the key to unlocking the self imposed prison cage we had trapped ourselves in all our lives, by directing our agencies to service a detrimental illusion. 

With this understanding, the responsibility is still on our shoulders, but we can look towards the future now and simply do whatever we feel is accomplishing this goal, without a hard line militant attitude, that repelled any meaningful dialogue on the subject. 
If we talk of sacrifice, we have put a large portion of our time and energy in to this, because we do care. It is merely necessary that we try our best, to ask any more, is clearly absurd. You don't accomplish anything meaningful by sacrificing everything, to the point where you become ineffectual.


Since moving on from RT's doomed methodology, it has become apparent that new members have not been appearing to pay this forward. I don't see this as a problem particularly yet. Certain people want to help out, others want a quick fix and disappear. I don't think we could change this. 
I do however, think that the price of paying this forward is for them to start a blog and post their liberation script up online at the very least. This way, we still create a network of people who have been liberated and we have an extended presence online. 

This way, people who do not want to write a blog for any reason, can still get a presence online, and this will help to raise awareness globally over time. The old method of trying to get everyone to become a liberator is unsuitable for all, it is not necessary for us to recruit everyone but a blog network, perhaps on google plus or something like that, might be conducive to our cause.

What about the old RT crew? Since we aren't pushing this harshly any more, surely some people would be willing to help humanity again?

Web 2.0

Just a note, is there anyway we can use TS on the move, without the slow loading times on i-phones? How difficult is it to make the forum mobile compatible, so we can work more easily on the move?

I am clueless on this stuff lol! Also is there a way to make our blogs more compatible with mobile devices?


To be fair some of this stuff we already doing. I just hope we can get some discussion going about taking this forward and making some headway in to empirical proofs and the personal development industry. I have missed a few points related to methodology, courage was one I hoped to cover but this is turned in to an overview, rather than an individual tactical appraisal.

Popular Posts