ll question stems from seven basic interrogatives.
They are who, what, when, where, how, why and which. They in turn form the
basis for our inquiry into the nature of truth.
As the less noble side of fate would have it, common place answers to
basic questions vary considerably. This is because variations in experience
establish priority within everyone differently. This has resulted in
a human history riddled with confusion and controversy.
Until Einstein popularized relative
thinking, the world was divided into two
main camps of though regarding the 'certainty' of truth. Plato is best know for framing one, Aristotle the other.
To paraphrase: Plato believed that all answers to foundational
questions were logically constrained by an overarching principle that
manifested itself in the form of unity. This allegiance to
singularity caused him to be known as an
idealist. Conversely, Aristotle believed that
the evidence surrounding the search itself provided a
closer approximation of truth. This affinity for multiplicity caused
him to be known as a realist. To this day, the
value of these two approaches remains in contention.
The reason for this enduring confusion is because every
idea, except for
'certainty,' is naturally duplicitous. This means that it depends upon an
opposing idea for its qualification. Hence good only assumes to meaning
for us because
there is evil, just as up only has meaning for us because there is a
down, etc.
We call this interdependency upon opposites dichotomy.
Since both ideas
are inseparable from one another, determining their priority initially fell to specific
case and situation. However, this left a lot of latitude by which to qualify
anything and wound up yielding a complexity that is currently obscuring the nature
of everything.
Enter 'certainty.' By
establishing the structure within
thought by
which opposing ideas achieve relevance, it provides a way to circumvent
the controversy over priority within dichotomy -- and hence, the resultant
complexity it has spawned. This also establishes 'certainty' as the ideal (standard) by which to understand everything
else -- including who and what we are and how we've come to be.
Additionally, it logically fixes the undeniable responsibility that each person has to
the potential that we mutually share with one another and life
itself.
Why is all this important?
It's important, because nothing less than the realization of a
common origin and attendant purpose can ever bring resolution to
otherwise irresolvable conflict. Anything less compelling can
only be temporary, self serving, and overtly contentious.
However, in spite of its long recognized importance, the form of ‘certainty‘
has continued to elude discovery. As
confounding as all this might seem, the reason is actually quite simple.
It is because the nature of ‘certainty’ appears to run counter to the language by which we assume to meaning for ourselves.
Language is temporally constrained while
'certainty' by definition
is not. Hence, we are
predisposed to discard its possibility in favor of retaining continuity
within the language by which
we confirm our own existence. Missing from this equation has been the
understanding of how to respectfully combine the two. Fortunately, this is now possible.
In the following material you will
be introduced to what many feel is the most important logical construct ever isolated from
the field of human knowing. Why would anyone pay such homage to an
idea? Because, by yielding the nature of truth, ‘certainty'
establishes the terms by which we can justifiably judge and thereafter
expect to be judged by whatever intellect has cause to do
so. Hence, it introduces undeniable responsibility into the
human equation.
It does this, even as it confirms the necessity for acceptance of an all
encompassing intellect which cannot be denied without invoking self
denial. In other words, with the delineation of 'certainty' comes the
world's first logical proof for what mankind generally refers to as Deity/God. It is these understandings that
touch the human soul at its very foundation, thus making them essential to the
construction of a successful global peace initiative.
Given the enormous effort that has gone into authenticating
the form of 'certainty' which you will consider later in this work, it is fair to say that a stronger case has
never been made for any idea throughout the history of mankind. (see reviewers)
Due to the absence of 'certainty,' mankind has collected into competing power
structures intent upon preserving delusional ideas about the importance of
one's self. Entwined with political, religious,
economic and ideological divisions, this has allowed the threat from
‘critical issues’ to continue to grow
unabated. With bad science and
technology providing the wherewithal, we now have a situation where societies can escalate
localized conflict to global proportion. This in turn puts all sentient life on Earth
at direct risk. Without a self imposing vision capable of overcoming the
importance of existing division, it is now obvious that mankind has no viable future on this planet.