The epistemic problem of "deriving truth from scratch "

[Someone here]

I've been contemplating this recently and I wish to share this with you guys .

Anything I come to know from the external world is prone to error and falsehood . It can never be trusted as an absolute truth.. Because of the very fact that it is derived from the outside world ..which automatically means it has been known by others and now delivered to you..but if it is not derived by you personally..how can you trust it ? Even if Leo or your Guru tells you something.. you should never trust it but you should validate it in your own direct experience..including this very advice from me right now..and this just goes on in a circle and becomes obsessive and meaningless. Like "this statement is false".

 I think it's a very nasty epistemic problem. This entanglement of everything . just the fact that obviously everything everywhere across all places..and in all dimensions or times or whatever ..everything is interconnected. Like for example you cannot separate the observer from the observed..Or this moment from the next moment . Etc .

If you ask AI or Google about any question or information then you have to be skeptical ..because what the hell is the very origin of that information and how was it known at all ? Likewise you can't trust other people. Truth has to be derived personally. But aren't I creating a false duality here which is just circular and absurd?  Because there cannot be a personal experience without an other experience..and the two are tied Togther. And if you push this inquiry further to the ultimate end you arrive at the conclusion that since self =other or at least interrelated then it doesn't matter whether you go through the work of discovering truth or whether your Guru spoon-fed you it . It's tricky. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Someone here

[Carl-Richard]

Even contemplating for yourself is like buying a sandbox from Walmart and digging in it. You're probably not going to hit the motherload. Your words, your concepts, your semantic web, is just bland Walmart sand. Everybody basically has it, only varying quantities of it. And your starting assumption should be that any sandcastle you build, has by any reasonable certainty already been built, perhaps using slightly different sand (what is Walmart in India?).

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Even contemplating for yourself is like buying a sandbox from Walmart and digging in it.

Can there be contemplating for myself from scratch ? I think it is impossible and nonsensical. I have to use a certain language like English. Even the logic I go through is borrowed from other resources..like books I've read or videos I've listened to.  But also in the other side what's wrong with having presumptions while contemplating? 

[Sincerity]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

And if you push this inquiry further to the ultimate end you arrive at the conclusion that since self =other or at least interrelated then it doesn't matter whether you go through the work of discovering truth or whether your Guru spoon-fed you it . It's tricky. 

No. It absolutely does matter.

True knowledge is derived through walking the journey. It will never be the same as just hearing something.

34 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Can there be contemplating for myself from scratch ?

Of course you can.

When you observe attention itself, for example, you don’t need no language.

The greatest contemplation is simply observation. That plus wanting to understand - but not through language. Language is second-order, used for explaining what you understood on the first-order.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sincerity

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

True knowledge is derived through walking the journey. It will never be the same as just hearing something.

The true knowledge you come to know personally can never be 100% independent from everything that you've heard from others. 

6 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

When you observe attention itself, for example, you don’t need no language.

The greatest contemplation is simply observation.

I will think about this . Needs testing. 

[Sincerity]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The true knowledge you come to know personally can never be 100% independent from everything that you've heard from others. 

It can be. If we’re talking about the most fundamental knowledge, which is regarding Consciousness/God/etc..

In fact, TRUE knowledge MUST be recognized through consciousness on your own. That is its attribute. This knowledge is what you see, what you know, what you are. If you „know” it from hearsay, you don’t really know it. It’s just belief.

You cannot know God through belief. It’s impossible.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sincerity

[Someone here]

@Sincerity an example of that absolute independent knowledge you're speaking about is the raw qualia I'm experiencing now (stripped of all interpretation and conceptualization ) ?

 

[Sincerity]

15 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Sincerity an example of that absolute independent knowledge you're speaking about is the raw qualia I'm experiencing now (stripped of all interpretation and conceptualization ) ?

Yes, and awakening to the nature of this experience. Realizing that everything you see is God, for example. When you genuinely awaken to it (eg. on a psychedelic), it’s first order knowledge.

”Experience is God” is not necessarily an interpretation. You can know it. But until you don’t, it’s indeed a concept/belief.

Contemplate from scratch. For example, „What am I?”. Don’t settle for anything but deep shift in consciousness - ideas are not it. Psychedelics make the shift easier.

Edited 2 hours ago by Sincerity