"The truth will set you free."
Can We Agree?
1. Can we agree that there are
two factors or developments that underlie any or every thing
meaningful, and that these two aspects are the sustenance and
enhancement of life? That every issue needs to be looked at in
the context of these?
2. Can we agree that all are worthy of being treated humanely,
without imputing equality in any physical or
3. Can we agree that we have been born into a world of billions of homo
sapiens with a multiplicity of competing and mutually exclusive
belief systems, each claiming to be the way, or the truth? Can we
agree that not one of these ideologies, religions, denominations,
organizations, groups or individuals is in a majority, but that
every one of these is in a minority? Can we agree the inescapable
logic is that at least a majority of these are significantly flawed,
and a direct implication of what we see is that almost all, and
possibly ALL, are wrong or false to some degree. In this context
can we agree that we should be primarily CHALLENGING our belief
system rather than defending it?
4. Can we agree that the foundation/paradigm behind existing systems
b. Based on ancient myth and mysticism?
c. Inadequate, unsound, confused and muddled?
d. Dark, negative, and psychologically twisted?
e. Structurally and organizationally deficient?
5. Can we agree that the major conclusions of these systems usually are:
a. Irrational (non-factual), illogical, and unreasonable?
b. Unworthy of our idealism?
c. Hopelessly unworkable, unproductive in terms of resolving the human condition?
6. Can we agree that the prevailing belief systems are at best JUST
coping mechanisms for the "human condition?
7. Can we agree that we are all born into a dirty,
messy, pathogenic, dangerous, troubled, insane world under a sentence of death?
And that we did not ask for or design this for ourselves?
8. Can we agree that our belief system should deliver us,
"set us free" from the "human condition",
FROM A WORLD OF EVIL WE DID NOT DESIGN?
9. Can we agree that we will eschew dogmatism in our discussion?
10. Even though it may entail our utmost exertions, is it possible
by dint of excruciating effort for us to come into essential intellectual consonance so that
we eschew expositing and explaining our beliefs, dogmas, tenets, doctrines, and positions
with obscurant, mystical or obfuscating terminology?
11. Can we agree that truth or lack thereof in our belief is more important than
intensity of belief? Can we not see that many and various individuals have
been willing to be burned at the stake or willing to commit suicide
for their unsound and even barbaric beliefs?
12. Can we agree that "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the
blood of the martyr"?
13. Can we agree that when we verbally discuss we are always sharing
limited perspectives, concepts or feelings, not necessarily the last word of
truth on the issue?
we agree that knowledge and belief, though different, are
we agree that there is a culturally transcendent set of values that
we would call human or humane?
we agree that spiritual reality (intelligence, will, etc.) is primary, that the ground of being
for physical reality is the spiritual and not the other way around?
we agree that one necessary accomplishment of a spiritually mature
person is to internalize authority and take full personal
responsibility for what he may believe?
we agree that one must first have faith in oneself before one can
legitimately put faith in any external source?
we agree that the value of the individual is supreme and that
organizations acquire value only insofar as they serve and support the individuals,
and not the other way around?
we agree that the truth is not something that can be "spread" like
peanut butter or mayonnaise, nor is it something that can be
injected into another person, but that it can only be induced and inspired?
we agree that the “no-belief belief system”, the "no-concept
concept", and the "no-doctrine doctrine" are each oxymoronic, and that
it is NOT an option whether to have a belief system, concepts, and
"positions", but the best option is to be careful and
intellectually responsible in
what position we take, what we commit to as belief?
we agree that no sound person desires to die except because of
suffering, be it physical or psychological?
we agree that we should elevate substance over style in our
discussions and spiritual content evaluations?
we agree that one earmark of everything meaningful is organization?
we agree, given that the word "love" is so nebulous, used so widely
in range of meaning, that it is more meaningful for a person to say, "You know,
you make me feel well loved" than it is to say "I love you"?
we agree, given that rationality pertains to apprehending the facts, logic pertains to assembling the facts into structure and
conclusion, and that reason incorporates both of these and adds
purpose, that the truth never violates valid rationality, logic, nor
we agree that we will show up for our discussions primarily
listening to understand, more as intellectually responsible
sharers, not as indoctrinators?
we agree that leadership is always a temporary service, never should
be sought for itself, is legitimate only through inspiration rather
than through domination, and is ONLY valid as long as it is
serving the right purpose and values?
we agree that being a responsible human being firstly means being
responsible for what we believe and promulgate?
we agree that that which is moral is that which ultimately sustains
life and increases morale?
31. Can we agree that it is at least as noble to change one's
concept of the truth as it is to propose or hold a correct precept
we agree that it is more difficult to know that which is the right
thing to do, than it is to do that which we think is right?
we agree that healthy skepticism is quite appropriate and a lie fed to an
overly receptive mind can become a great
"truth" to that mind?
we agree to refrain from promoting defeatism in our discussion?
we agree that significant aspects of the phenomenological world,
i.e., ontology, cosmology, physical science, mythology, geology, history,
anthropology, psychology, biology, etc., should educate and condition our belief
we agree that mankind needs spiritual healing as a prerequisite to
full and complete emotional and physical healing?
we agree that what we ultimately desire is the complete ""
package , i.e., Imminent Fulfillment, Immortality, Safety, Equality,
Empowerment, Knowledge, Unity, and Society?
we agree that in our discussion we should maximize our unity by
focusing on and increasing our agreements rather than focusing on
and hammering out our differences?
39. Can we agree that the bottom-line end-result that we—and every other
conscious being including God—universally desire
is to feel good?
40. Can we agree to gather in good will to reason together toward unity rather than to
argue or triumph?
41. Can we agree that gurus, preachers, teachers, and lecturers—outside of any
tangible service they might perform—are assets or liabilities
SOLELY on the basis of whether their message content is true or false?
42. Can we agree that no substantive value is derived from gurus, preachers,
teachers, and lecturers because of their intensity, style, charisma,
charm, enthusiasm, formal authority, credentials, popularity or
Distinctions Between Intellectuals and
ISEEC Knowledge Types