To describe The Way is not an elementary task. I do not think that there is anything more simple than the philosophy of The Way, yet in its simplicity more complicated. The Way started when reason was born in the mind of Adam Edam, as it says in the writings, “When Adam Edam stood upright, walked upon the earth and gained reason, hence was the beginning of the first man.”

The Way is reason and about reason. Through the use of reason coupled with logic, man learns and gains knowledge. Through knowledge, together with reason and logic, fueled by his inquiring mind, man accesses the most fundamental requisite of all that exists, which is factual truth.

Truth varies from person to person according to what each individual either knows or thinks he knows. It cannot be reached from a standpoint of ignorance, but only from a standpoint of knowledge. Therefore your truth is different from someone else’s truth, because either you know something that he doesn’t, or he knows something that you don’t; or perhaps you both know nothing, and profess only that which you believe, therefore coming to your different, and surely wrongful idea of what is truth, because you come to your conclusion from a standpoint of not knowing enough to enable you to make a logical and knowledgeable assessment of fact, with fact being that which is absent due to lack of knowledge, and being the crucial element required to reach a factual truth.

In The Way we accept that we know little as far the great canvas is concerned, but unlike others we admit it, and we are not upset if we are proved to be wrong. If you show me that I am wrong, you also show me what is right; and so do me a favour. This requires factual, provable proof and nothing less. We do not give plausible explanation, and then tell you what we believe in order to convince, as belief is not necessarily fact. When something is provable fact, then it is a fact, not a belief.

We never fight over truth, because if what we fight over is true, then we are fighting for the sake of fighting or to protect the ego, pride or whatever. The truth protects itself, and fighting about it will alter nothing. The truth remains true.

Positive discussion will often take you from one truth to another truth, by expanding your horizons, but the truth remains the truths, if it is factually true.

In truth there is no room for interpretation. Interpretation is a boot with many laces for the evil amongst us to tie many confusing knots in. However, when some people do not like the truth that they face, for some reason or other, or for no reason at all, or perhaps the truth does not suit their purpose, then they will usually use half of it, to make the other half which is untruth, look like truth; and so try to convince you that black is not black nor is it white; its grey or grey-ish, or maybe blackish. When someone wants to destroy something, which happens to us in The Way regularly, half truth is usually used; and truth taken out of context, so that it no longer makes sense, and does not even vaguely represent what we are saying. Nonetheless, sadly it often works, and people’s minds are taken away for what we are saying, away from that which is true, and replacing it with that which is only believed, no matter how unbelievable. It’s another way of trying to change the truth.

If someone says that you are a liar because you gave him the wrong time, then he is technically correct, if you told him the wrong time. But taken in the context of the real truth, which was due to the fact that your dodgy watch was wrong, you are not a liar, just someone with a dodgy watch doing his or her best and trying to be obliging to some ignorant moron who jumped to the wrong conclusion from a standpoint of a false sense of self importance, and certainty in his wrongful belief and lack of the understanding of truth.

And why did he jump to the wrong conclusion? Simply because he judges, as we all do, by the workings of his own mind. In context, you told the truth as far as you knew it. You are not a liar, but you watch stands condemned, which is a lot different than you being a liar. Nevertheless the hurt remains, and the stigma that you are a liar remains, because there are those of such mind that believe that there is no smoke without fire. Again, it’s another half truth.

In The Way we search for truth and maintain that which we know to be true as far as we can. We are gatherers, storers, collectors, and protectors of knowledge. That’s why the Brotherhoods were formed.

There are those who believe that some knowledge is bad and should be destroyed , because it doesn’t suit them. Yet again, they are wrong. There is no such a thing as bad or evil knowledge. There is, however, good and evil in the way that it is used. The good or the evil comes from the mind of the user.

We all seem very “righteous” don’t we, as we follow truth? Well we are not. We are human, thankfully, which adds a little colour to us; and to the philosophy we adhere to. We recognize no gods or demons, except the human kind of demon. We have no system of worship, nor do we recognized dogmas of any kind; therefore we are neither a cult or a religion; as this is the exact explanation of both i.e. a number of people with a system of worship, and a recognised deity and a dogma.

The philosophy of The Way is simple. Logic and applied reason equals knowledge, which equals acquisition of otherwise unknown facts. Provable facts equal factual truths; and to live your life by anything less is the ultimate in stupidity.

The Way has been around since the dawn of time; since Adam Edam (first man) stood upright and walked upon the earth. Then did man later invent theories in order to explain that which he could not understand. He then believed his theories simply because he could not think of anything else, because of his lack of knowledge. So did theories become dogmatic beliefs He found the value of belief, and used it to confuse his fellow man, so that he could tell them anything, and so rule them; and so did he also confuse himself. Then he started to do the most stupid thing of all: he started to destroy any knowledge, if it did not suit his purpose. He didn’t want to look foolish. He then went to extremes to support his beliefs and theories. He started burning people alive who didn’t agree with him or his church or cult, both being the same thing. Whatever that purpose, belief or theory might be, he had to enforce it in order to stay in power and control. He did and still does so, in order to maintain confusion over his fellows, and so protect his power and station over them. The big slide had started and, because it was expedient, power over the hearts of people, through fear and reward, had its evil way.

The earth now stands in great danger. Anyone who is not completely stupid can see that for his or her self. That danger is caused by lack of reason. Men tell you what they believe, but few if any can tell you what they really know, because they either don’t know, or they don’t want to tell you because they don’t want you to know; and around and around we go, so it ends up that nobody knows anything for sure, especially where spirituality is concerned.

Men live and die by what they believe. They go to war because of that which they believe. By the changing of that which they so believe, they excuse that which is really inexcusable. They believe one thing when it suits, and another when it is no longer profitable for them to believe it anymore. Suddenly Limbo does not really exist. Usury is no longer a mortal sin, because we now believe that it is a necessity in our modern society and above all, it’s profitable. Belief is very useful, but only to men without reason or indeed conscience, for it is a fluid thing and it’s nice as well. You can believe anything that makes you feel better about yourself. Like the rapist who said that the girl he raped had on a short skirt and was “asking for it”. It wasn’t him you see, it was all her fault. And if that pig of a policeman had have been minding his own business and had have been out catching real criminals, he wouldn’t be in jail anyway. And so did his lack of reason and his unreasonable belief allow him to remain innocent in his own mind; and he became the victim, but only of his own method of thinking. He learned nothing.

Belief is the biggest cop-out imaginable. It acts as a salve to your troubled minds. It gives you a reason for whatever you do, however false that excuse might be; it becomes misconstrued as reason. You put up with your poverty or your problems because you believe that you will get your reward in paradise, after you’re dead, provided that you are a good boy or girl. And by what criteria do you judge whether you are good or bad based only on what you believe? How do others so judge and set the standards for you, and by what right? So belief keeps you quiet, and you go on doing the right thing according to what you believe or by what you are led to believe.

But are the leaders and so called pillars of our societies upon whom we rely to keep our sense of morality, following the same morals as they place on us? Are they being as good as you are, and living by the same moral beliefs as you? Are they waiting for their reward in paradise after they are dead, as you are required to do?

Let’s look at the Roman Catholic priests. They can’t really believe that there is a God, or they wouldn’t sexually abuse children. The Pope wouldn’t be trying to hide it and he certainly wouldn’t be hiding priests and nuns who had a hand in the slaughter of all those women and children in Rwanda. I suppose it was OK though, they weren’t Roman Catholics, and this all loving God only loves them. The Pope of the time made that clear regarding Croatia during the war there.

The Christian bible says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, which is believed to be paradise. You believe it; and they profess to believe it, but I don’t see them throwing any money away to let them pass through. Do you? Getting rid of the ballast to keep them floating upwards? Again, could it possibly be that they don’t really believe it themselves?

In The Way we recognize that at times it is necessary to lie in this world of untruth that men have created, in order to stay afloat. I am going to pay for that statement in future if I am ever required to tell “the truth” if that truth proves contrary to what is believed, or doesn’t suit. The fault lies with those who try to drown you in untruth, or try to take the truth and alter it to suit their purpose.

We ask that you are as good as you can be, for we know that that is all that you can hope to aspire to. And it might not be half bad. We are not born in “Original Sin”, as some wish us to believe. We are just born the same way more or less, but our genetics make a difference. Our life experience dictates what we know; and what we know dictates what we may become. We ask people to reason and do the best they can with the knowledge that is available to them, that’s all, to gain knowledge, to be all that you can be, to the best of your individual ability. To realize that you are more than nothing, and you can make a difference.

The Ozone Layer is disappearing. The Atlantic Conveyor is stopping. There are tons of radioactive waste buried in the ice at the poles, waiting to enter the sea with the melting glaciers. There are millions of people dying from AIDS and other sexually generated and transmitted diseases. Many diseases are becoming immune to antibiotics. The world is teetering on the very brim of disaster. Watch your Discovery and National Geographic programmes. Read and it is all there. Church leaders and politicians know what is going to happen, and yet ask you to believe that all will be well. It won’t be.

The Ending of Days, as prophesied by religious men from the distant past, is now being warned of by the scientists of today. You may say “What can one person do?” and you are right. Alone, all you can do is die; but if enough people gather together, then the result will be different. This is The Way. This is what The Way has always been about: reason, knowledge, logic, and provable truth and the gathering together of reasoning minds for strength and protection of that which we will need to stay alive, and against the horrors to come.

Recognise theory to be what it is, and accept it as only that, until it is proved and is fact. Live in the light of reality no matter how harsh these things can be. Knowledge, logic, reason, and fact, are all that you have to save you, the earth, and future generations, from ruin, and most probably from extinction, the ultimate destruction. At this time in men’s history, let not stupidity be his final mark, nor empty silence be all that is left of him.

Bob Crosbie

The Son of the Widow

15.4.2010


 

5 Responses to The Way

  1. Owen Wourms says:

    “There is only ever one truth, and it does not change to suit our beliefs, perceptions, cultural biases, or ignorances”

    It’s amusing to hear anyone say that “you should only follow factual truth”, given as little as we know about the natural world and the factual truths that dictate it’s genesis, evolution, present movements, and future (and how much less do we have factual truth about the spiritual world). You’re really not left with a lot of of knowledge if you choose only to follow proven truth. What are you to do with that which you cannot explain? After all, not believing is just as much a “belief” as believing. Therefore, you are obligated to accept theories, which are generated as explanations of observed phenomenon. These theories are then either strengthened, revised and refined, or outright rejected by the evidence of experience or experiments and their repeatability.
    All along, the truth remains intact, even as we muddle around trying to figure it out. And that gives us all a reason for hope. I’m not amused by how little the human race knows. I think that its thrilling-every day there are new discoveries about the world around us, and each one of them unfolds the fact that there is so much more to be learned. That is what they call a mystery. Not that it can’t be figured out. Just that the deeper you get into it, the deeper you realize it goes. What I am amused by are the people who think we know enough that we can follow only factual truth, which I felt this writer below was suggesting; to avoid belief, because belief is a “cop-out”.
    There isn’t a lot of knowledge about the universe – humans know little. However, if I look at my capacity for learning, there’s far more knowledge that’s been uncovered and continues to be discovered than I can learn in my lifetime. Can I accept that I don’t know some things? Sure. I have to. But to choose neutrality is rarely an available choice. I have to put my trust in experts on the subjects I don’t know. For example: What makes an iPod work? I don’t know. Frankly, I trust the experts at Apple to put it together so I can use it, and then I marvel at the technology. Does Apple make faulty iPods? Yes, but that doesn’t mean the technology is unsound or worth rejecting altogether. But you’ll find people that focus on those faulty iPods, and they will put the theory out that you’re better off avoiding Apple products altogether.
    Great debates will last forever, and the debate over whether the Catholic church is truth or falsehood will also rage on forever. It was raging before we were born, it’ll rage on long after we’re gone. And the writings on both sides will continue to grow and develop and provide ever stronger arguments to both sides. It doesn’t matter to absolute truth.

  2. pentacular says:

    Thanks for taking the time to respond to the original post. My response is set out below in a Q &A format, as the overall text is quite long.

    “There is only ever one truth, and it does not change to suit our beliefs, perceptions, cultural biases, or ignorances”
    It’s amusing to hear anyone say that “you should only follow factual truth”, given as little as we know about the natural world and the factual truths that dictate it’s genesis, evolution, present movements, and future (and how much less do we have factual truth about the spiritual world).

    Reply: Factual truth is simply truth that is known for a fact. It is the verified and understood versus the unknown, the imagined, believed or theorised, and factual truth is truth that is therefore beyond doubt. How else can we establish further facts unless we start with currently known and established facts? On what do we build our house unless we are sure of our underlying foundations?
    We have learned quite a lot about our world, the Universe, and a myriad of other subjects in the course of history. Further truths, ones that are as yet beyond our current understanding, can only be reached by using currently available information and, where there is deficiency of fact, we can use reason, the capacity to apply questions such as “What if?” or “Supposing that…?”, to stretch our thinking to the next foothold.
    Truth pertains to all that is real, actual, past and all that will be future-existent, and it cannot be said to belong to anyone, though it can be reached by minds that have the capacity to understand it. That capacity depends on how your mind works and according to what you either know or don’t yet know. For example, before we were born, 2+2 = 4 was a fact, even in the absence of our understanding of it, would you not agree? It was at one point a fact outside our perception, but when we were taught the fact that 2+2 = 4, and could see and test it, and found that it gave a consistent measurement/value time and time again, there was no doubt that it was in fact a factual truth, no? We can now consider it to be a factual truth i.e. one that is known for certain, and not unknown.

    You’re really not left with a lot of of knowledge if you choose only to follow proven truth.

    Reply: You are not left with much unless you have learned as much as you need, hence the need to learn as much as is possible, or at least use a methodology that will lead you to better understanding if required. Is accurate knowledge not proven truth? You can use reason coupled with logic and currently known fact to work towards further, as yet possibly unknown, truths.

    What are you to do with that which you cannot explain?

    Reply: You work on what you know to date, and/or you consult with others who may know more than you do at that point in time. You then either understand further, or realise that you cannot advance your understanding at that time. Many will form an opinion at his point, and either think that they know all that remains to be known, or give up looking any further. Surely, giving an explanation that is backed up with fact is better than one purely based on imagination only, which is what total belief is.
    Only further knowledge and/or reasoning can advance our better understanding, therefore reaching forward to what may be further, and possibly currently unknown truth(s). It’s like joining up the dots in the right order to see the bigger picture, presuming that’s what we want to do in the first place. That’s why it is essential that we know our own minds and the pitfalls that we tend to fall into because of our own limited experience. Knowing yourself is the first thing anyone must do before they can objectively look at and evaluate something with a clear mind.

    After all, not believing is just as much a “belief” as believing.

    Reply: Correct, as both belief and disbelief are ideas/opinions held within the mind or expressed in the absence of correct understanding of the facts. I can choose to believe that you are living in China, or I can choose to not believe that you are a human. Either way, I would be operating on lack of factual information that lies outside my current understanding. So I choose to work with what I know, and respond accordingly, which is reasonable.

    Therefore, you are obligated to accept theories, which are generated as explanations of observed phenomenon.

    Reply: It depends on how much facts are involved in arriving at the theory so far. It’s not necessary to feel obliged to accept anything that is a theory in the general sense, as distinct from a proven scientific theory. There is a burden of proof on the proposer of the idea. Even then, this does not prevent further testing of the scientifically proven theory if it fails to sufficiently provide accurate explanations for new situations that were previously not taken into account when the theory was deemed to be factually correct in all instances.

    These theories are then either strengthened, revised and refined, or outright rejected by the evidence of experience or experiments and their repeatability.

    Reply: Agreed, as they must be able to withstand the test of provability, and only factual proven truth can be taken into account, or at least objective observation of phenomena that are not/may not be as yet fully understood.

    All along, the truth remains intact, even as we muddle around trying to figure it out. And that gives us all a reason for hope.

    Reply: Yes, truth is king over the children of pride. As for hope, it all depends on what the hope is based on. There are realistic hopes, which are somewhat aspirational but tempered with facts, and there are unrealistic/false hopes, which are based mainly on ideas that may not be evidenced or based on facts. Hoping to pick apples from a pear tree is a nice idea, but is factually unrealistic. The hope can only be justified if it is based on reality, regardless of the wish contained in the hope.

    I’m not amused by how little the human race knows.

    Reply: It’s certainly not amusing, but mankind decides to set limits on what he knows by believing things and deciding to look no further.

    I think that its thrilling-every day there are new discoveries about the world around us, and each one of them unfolds the fact that there is so much more to be learned.

    Reply: I couldn’t agree more. What sort of library would you have if it only contained a single book with a single chapter? Ideas beget ideas, but only reasoned ideas can lead to further discovery of factual (known for fact) truth.

    That is what they call a mystery. Not that it can’t be figured out. Just that the deeper you get into it, the deeper you realize it goes.

    Reply: We don’t accept ‘mysteries’ in The Way, and will only accept that there are things that are either known or unknown. In the main, mysteries are simply any situation, event, thing, or person that presents aspects or qualities so obscure as to arouse curiosity or speculation. In the case of belief systems, mysteries are used as barricades against inquiry and correct understanding of what is in fact either going on or not going on. Most such things usually prove quite simple when you loosen up the ideas surrounding them, and that can only be done by logic and reason, coupled with fact.

    What I am amused by are the people who think we know enough that we can follow only factual truth, which I felt this writer below was suggesting; to avoid belief, because belief is a “cop-out”.

    Reply: In reality it has nothing to do with what anyone feels or is amused by, either the writer or the reader, as it is either a right or wrong methodology. Using emotions to bolster ideas is a sure-fire way to miss the point of the exercise, which is supposed to be knowing more than we currently do. It’s not supposed to be a game where people sit on the fence and decide to take up a position of scepticism or wry amusement, so as to make them feel better about their personal opinions, as this has no real benefit to anyone, as far as we can see. It may indeed make someone feel better, but it doesn’t make them know any better. Does the person want to feel they know things or actually know things that might be of benefit in a much wider context? Is the argument about them rather than about finding out the facts?
    A belief always has doubt or lack of fact involved in it, and the more emotion and unfounded opinion is present, the further it strays from finding the actual and factual truth of the thing, which is what the search for knowledge is supposed to be about. Some people choose to claim to want to find the truth of something, but use beliefs to try to convince either themselves or others that they know something, while all the time not realising that they are lacking in the correct method to reach the necessary result.

    The article is not in fact saying or even suggesting that we do

      know enough so that we can follow only factual truth, but that we
        need to do so

    if we are to arrive at a correct understanding of those truthful things, which provides further knowledge, which is the only thing that can bring improvement in anything. This is simply a method, a way of thinking, not an already predetermined solution to things that may not yet be understood. First we need to find the picture, and then get the frame, and not the other way around.
    Belief is very often referred to as being blind. Why? And if the blind lead the blind…what happens? A person can choose to follow beliefs, or they can choose to use factual truths and reason, coupled with logic, to obtain further knowledge. That latter methodology is simply called the way/The Way. It doesn’t really need a name, but some designation is needed to let people understand the basis upon which one who chooses that particular path forms their thinking.

    There isn’t a lot of knowledge about the universe – humans know little. However, if I look at my capacity for learning, there’s far more knowledge that’s been uncovered and continues to be discovered than I can learn in my lifetime.

    Reply: The quantity or lack of knowledge is determined by access or restriction to information, time, and to a willingness to either accept factual truths or follow blind beliefs.
    As regards personal knowledge, it’s true to say that the amount any one person can know in a lifetime is somewhat limited, but it certainly won’t make things any better by following ideas that operate on lack of logic, truth and reason. You contribute your share whichever way you look at it, by either adding to what can be known, or by deciding not to pass on what you do and could learn in the time available to you.
    As regards humans knowing little, I would ask…who actually knows more?

    Can I accept that I don’t know some things? Sure. I have to.

    Reply: Fair enough. That goes for all of us, or at least it should do. Many choose not to accept that they don’t actually know things that they in fact do not know.

    But to choose neutrality is rarely an available choice. I have to put my trust in experts on the subjects I don’t know. For example: What makes an iPod work? I don’t know. Frankly, I trust the experts at Apple to put it together so I can use it, and then I marvel at the technology.

    Reply: So, therefore the factual truth of the matter is that Apple make iPods, some of which work, and some of which become faulty for some reason. There will be a factual reality behind the ones that do work, and also a factual reality behind the ones that don’t. The aim is to have as many working ones as possible, whilst being aware that some may/will turn out to have faults, despite the rigorous testing at the factory. Either way, the truth of each unit remains constant i.e. it either works or does not work correctly.

    Does Apple make faulty iPods? Yes, but that doesn’t mean the technology is unsound or worth rejecting altogether. But you’ll find people that focus on those faulty iPods, and they will put the theory out that you’re better off avoiding Apple products altogether.

    Reply: Agreed, as Apple is not in the business of making faulty products. It uses good quality materials and well developed software so as to minimise the number of faulty ones, as there is a cost factor of getting things wrong, both on a technical and a reputational level. Life is the same: get it right as far as is possible, or get it wrong by following the wrong methodology of thinking. No one gets it right all the time, but the general idea is to do the best you can, and there is only one way to do that as far as I know so far i.e. work with what you and others know, and then extend your thinking to find out what you don’t yet know by using reason and logic.
    You can’t realistically expect to do any of this by closing your mind and following blindly and ignoring the facts, which is what belief systems promote.

    But you’ll find people that focus on those faulty iPods, and they will put the theory out that you’re better off avoiding Apple products altogether.

    Reply: That’s true too, but the reason they may choose to do so is that it’s often easier to find fault than look at the facts. That selective, fault-finding mentality is a sign of lack of understanding of what is important i.e. the facts of the case. That’s typical of the nit-picking and mean spirited sorts who want to feel better rather than know better. Such feelings come from the ego, the false sense of self, which is completely incapable of understanding actual and factual truth. Again, that’s a personal choice, but it has a cost attached to it, even if they remain blind to that fact.

    Great debates will last forever, and the debate over whether the Catholic church is truth or falsehood will also rage on forever. It was raging before we were born, it’ll rage on long after we’re gone.

    Reply: No one individual or thing can legitimately claim to be truth, but individuals can choose to know truth as far as is possible, but you can’t reach truth via belief. What makes it possible or impossible is attitude, and attitudes are shaped by ideas. That which is based on blind belief cannot legitimately claim to be following truth, as they are like oil and water, no matter what they might want people to think. Religions, and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, claims to be the “one true faith”, thereby demoting all other ideas as being subordinate to it. If something is true, then there is no need to claim anything, as truth simply is.

    And the writings on both sides will continue to grow and develop and provide ever stronger arguments to both sides. It doesn’t matter to absolute truth.

    Reply: That may well be, but does stronger or more mean right/correct? There is nothing stronger than truth, as it rules over everything. That which does not bend to truth will eventually break. The Church of Rome has only been around for 1600 years, and has spawned somewhere in the region of 38,000 sub-religions. Claiming that the amount of time something has existed is not a valid basis for something being beneficial, and even then 1600 years is a drop in the ocean compared to how long truth has existed, which is for all time. Is that not absolute truth?

  3. Great blog.Thanks Again. Want more.

  4. Ana says:

    Do you use the Bible as reference and research toward knowldge?

  5. pentacular says:

    Hi Ana,

    Thanks for your message. As part of our teachings, we use The Book of Man, which is the knowledge that later became generally known as the Bible (bible, means “books”).
    You can find it here in ebook format. It is not for the faint hearted or those who place their trust in blind belief, as it presents the texts and teachings as they were before being altered and interpreted. Link However, we do appreciate that people have different views, we leave the choice to know more (or not) to themselves. If you need to ask anything, feel free to reply.
    Regards,
    D

Leave a Reply