TRUE AGE Part 2 – neither ‘New Age’ nor ‘Old Science’ #trueage

TRUE AGE Part 2 – neither ‘New Age’ nor ‘Old Science’ 

INTRODUCTION to part 2

There’s no need to micro-manage the natural unfolding of knowledge, data or information. Words are just labels and put things into boxes but there are more emotions than there are words to describe them and nothing has an independent nature.

However some people call any spiritual information New Age information but other people know that ‘New Age’ originally referred to a precise lineage of information from very particular and limited original sources (some of whom had questionable intentions and/or morals).

Some people are aware that quantum physics has blurred the line between science and spirituality however it does not, in my humble opinion, it does not prove that there is what the Abrahamic monotheistic religions would call a God.

Students and writers who are interested in spirituality and/or quantum physics who are not restricted by New Age dogma, nor the dogma of Newtonian physics, who are interested in facts and/or personal experience, may want to distance themselves from the term “New Age”. I have not yet decided if I would rather use the term True Age. These essays are not entirely an exercise in my ego trying to help define a new area of research, these essays are an exercise in working out whether or not that is a good idea.

See part 1 here -> PART 1

xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx

TRUE AGE

Truth

Revealing

Universal

Energy

And

Genius

Expressions

I feel that the spiritual movement needs a new objective and open-minded focus as it has been quietly guided Theosophical dogma, Zechariah Sitchin, and channelled information (which could be true in some exceptional circumstances but in other circumstances ‘channelling’ could sometimes just be a way of egotistical people getting gullible people to listen to everything they say) all of which has been accused of being false to one degree or another with compelling evidence to support those allegations.

I have no problem with Theosophy in general and I have little issue with channelled information in general but to assume that they are always correct may be, and I am aware that my wording here is strong, assuming they are always correct may be foolish.

Zechariah Sitchin’s ‘translations’ of Sumerian texts are responsible for such things as the widespread beliefs that humans were genetically created by aliens to mine gold for the Annunaki and the belief that ‘Nibiru is coming to get us’. Those beliefs create an inferiority complex in people and create fear, both vibrations which serve no one but the power-elite who also believe that most of humanity is subordinate and use fear to control us. Unfortunately the fact that Sitchin has been accused by another scholar of at least mistranslating and quite possibly deliberately misleading people is still not yet common knowledge. More fervent conspiracy theorists have accused Sitchin of being a member of being a member of the ‘I’ word to maintain my credibility I won’t go into that – and just in case they’re real – to maintain my safety for now – I won’t go into that.

Suffice to say the New Age has had its positive manifestations in my eyes, a resurgence in Goddess worship, a resurgence in ancient wisdom and a re-prioritising of spiritual ideals. Indeed all of this is beneficial in the long run because everything is beneficial in the long run. But I mentioned the term New age on a forum recently and somebody just labelled the whole thing ‘Luciferian’ (ie Satanic. It’s not. Well some of it is, but most people who use the term New Age do not mean the original usage of the word which some would define as Luciferian.) Although that was clearly the emotional response of an all-or-nothing mind stuck in the duality of ‘good or bad’ I can see why someone would say such a thing.

Labels, names, data. Perhaps by trying to create the title ‘True Age’ to define pragmatic investigation of spiritual sciences and/or scientific spirituality I am just creating a new label, a new name, more data to be redefined and tarnished at a later date? Almost certainly, but I do what feels right and now it feels right to try. Humans tend to like their labels, when I stop thinking and relax it doesn’t really matter what label people put on my work, my writings or my investigations or who my work, writings and investigations are associated with.

Therefore I ex-communicate myself from the New Age, establishing a TRUE AGE, where belief will not be stated as fact and opinion will not be stated as truth, where the scientific method will be respected as a method to find truth but not necessarily trusted dogmatically to have always or infallibly found truth because reality is evidently ever-changing variables. If Sitchin turns out to be correct – fine, I will adjust my belief and/or knowledge, you can believe everything Sitchin says and still be part of the True Age but acknowledge that it is belief and opinion and neither fact nor truth, and you can only call yourself True Age if you have also looked at the evidence to the contrary as well. If you live in fear of Nibiru and yet have not questioned where that belief comes from perhaps there is a way to stop living in fear. If you are content with fear that is fine, if you know nothing of Sitchin or Nibiru that is fine, “there is no need to control the natural unfolding of knowledge or information.” I am merely inspired to provide another flow and/or conduit of information from pragmatic researchers such as Mark Passio, Michael Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell, Daniel Tatman and (arguably) David Wilcock and provide a platform for the Divine Masculine to find himself and worship the Goddess.

Essentially True Age is just another label, just more data in the stream. That’s fine, but the Tao that can be described in words is not the true tao. So maybe this is an exercise in pointlessness but it felt good to write it and maybe it will inspire some much needed dialogue.

Advertisements

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…)