TRUE AGE Part 1 – neither ‘New Age’ nor ‘Old Science’ #trueage

a meme is growing in the universal consciousness that cannot be co-opted. I am temporarily calling it the TRUE AGE and I came up with an acronym for it but it is a temporary autonomous thought-form and to shackle it with the definitions would limit it’s power for the sake of my ego.

There is a gap between the dogma of ‘old science’ and the dogma of ‘new age’, no, Theosophy isn’t quite there, Anthroposophy isn’t quite there either.

There is a gap between the dogma of ‘old science’ and the dogma of ‘new age’ which is a scientific evaluation of essentially ‘spiritual’ ideas that does not leap to conclusions as unrealistically reaching as ‘quantum science proves God’, it may prove there’s more to life than meets the old scientific eye but it does not prove that a bearded man, specifically a man, will punish me for not doing what I was told to do by books written by other men in his name. It may, MAY, prove that we’ll be punished if we think we’ll be punished though, but that is something different. It may prove that an energy binds us all together though, but that energy may not be sentient enough to have a gender or separate enough to be capable of jealousy, vanity or giving orders. But now my ego is getting involved in description.

What is he trying to say? The ‘New Age’ is not what it once was, weighed down by dogmas and followers. There are thinkers, writers and researchers that are not yet mainstream but may be in a decade. They are alternative, they are concerned with matters that may be considered spiritual but they would not call themselves New Age for various reasons, reasons I may discuss at a later date when I have discussed this idea with some of them. I expect few or none of them would want their area of research to be defined by title anyway.
True Age is a paradox, because the wise one knows that they know nothing, and the objective existence of truth is a philosophical debate. The scientific method is quite likely the most effective method to get to truth but it is not fool proof, the nature of reality is ever changing variables and the more we zoom in on the quantum or zoom out on the cosmic the more supposed laws and rules get disproven or re-written. Science, like religion and the new age is crawling out of the holes dug by it’s own dogmas and assumptions.
Some researchers take nothing for granted, assume that neither science is correct, nor accepted history are correct, however neither are the new dogmas of the new age necessarily true.
There is no need to filter the information, it’s just information, it’s all constantly being updated on both a personal level and a universal level.

All I am saying essentially is that alot of us who are more pragmatic than dogmatic would rather not be associated with the label ‘New Age’ or the dogmatic assumptions often associated with the term.

I can give one personal example. I do not believe that quantum physics proves that there is a God, not in the sense that it proves there is one sentient being that makes sentient decisions. That does not mean that I do not believe in God, it means that I do not see proof of God in my limited understanding of quantum physics. However I am not with the old-school scientists there either, I do definitely believe that quantu physics and numerous experiments in the power of intention (not just the double slit experiment but numerous tests with random number generators and such like) do appear to prove that there is more to reality than physical mechanics. This is one of the gaps between old school scientific dogma and new age dogma. And the truth is that it is inconclusive. Arrogance on either side would like to tell you how it is but from my perception all you have are concepts with no independent nature arguing over concepts with no independent nature over what to label various concepts with no independent nature and where to draw imaginary lines between objects with no independent nature like borders between countries which only exist as lines on a map enforced by check points only if and when humans believe in them. The same power of belief that allows people to live and die fighting over pieces of paper.

Scholars and students of the True Age, not the New Age, want truth, not dogma. Facts, not assumptions. And it’s a fact that truth is elusive, and facts are only truth until a new fact disproves it.

There is a gap between the dogma of ‘old science’ and the dogma of ‘new age’, from my perspective – the scientists at Hearthmath would know where I’m coming from, Lynne Mctaggart would get it. Thee are others but unless I can be bothered to list the scientific credentials with references there’s no point naming the names of the more ‘out there’ researchers who are not bogged down by dogma from either side.

The truth is we don’t know squat and I could give a long list of evidence that we know less than science thinks and even less than new age wafflers pretend to. And if it feels like enough people want to wade through the waters of the truth of the unknown I may elaborate further. Another day, essentialluy none of this matters. It’s floating about the universal consciousness, somebody else somewhere maybe thinking up another better name for the paradox between the scientific study of spirit rather than the dogmatic assumtions of the new age or the old science.

Until then I say merely this, I am not a New Age writer, researcher nor practitioner. I am a True Age researcher and writer, I practice nothing but self experimentation and I don’t know anything.

(To be continued…)

2 thoughts on “TRUE AGE Part 1 – neither ‘New Age’ nor ‘Old Science’ #trueage

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: