The Truth Sense, Permanence, Temporariness, Density, and Intensity

The Truth Sense has been blunted, in these times, by pervasive influences in both public and private life. A blunted truth sense leaves people disempowered, vulnerable to being  abused and manipulated into empowering human predators.

This entry will lead you to the restoration of your own Truth-Sense, which is based in the intuition of the unknown-Unknown -- the ultimate sense of truth because it is not a form of knowledge that can be contradicted. The entry is only secondarily about the meanings conveyed, here. More primarily, it's about the effect it has on personal consciousness, when read or heard.

If you listen to the recording, read along with it.

The intuition of the unknown-Unknown is the truth-sense against which all else may be "measured", realized (real-nature experienced) and known.

The "unknown-Unknown" is -- as the name clearly states -- generally unknown among people, and when "known" (real-nature experienced) intuited as a unique, paradoxical "perception". So this section promises something likely to be unique to your experience.


Preliminary (Pre-luminary)

Truth is that which need not be reinforced, to be true. Truth is self-validating, self-authenticating, not validated or defined by external references, knowledge or particular qualities of any kind -- and which may undermine (but not contradict) established knowledge. It is non-mental, entirely a matter of intuition of a unique kind.

Permanence, Temporariness, Density and Intensity

People confuse truth with the ability to remember something.

The characteristic of memory is persistence; no persistence, no memory.

People confuse truth with persistence.

This is a product of their "education", which prizes memory and awards, to memory, the status of truth. Memory is the coin-of-the-realm of conventional education.

Intensity is the capacity to penetrate and to change density.

Density is the capacity to resist penetration, to resist change.

Density is the characteristic of all purported knowledge.

Intensity is the characteristic of all insight.

Insight penetrates knowledge.

All knowledge is temporary; it is of limited duration. It arises at some point in time and then is transformed, in time, and ultimately, disappears.

Truth is "that" from which all knowledge emerges, in which all knowledge exists, and to which all knowledge "returns".

Because truth need not be reinforced to exist, it is self-existing and perpetual -- but it is not a "thing"; it is "that" to which all conditional knowledge returns.

It is empty of quality, empty of form, empty of density, empty of intensity.

It is that on which all knowledge depends.

It is non-conditional.

It is beyond conceptual mind.

Conceptual mind perpetually seeks something it "can sink its teeth into" -- called, "knowledge" or "understanding". It seeks density.

People confuse conceptual mind with intelligence.

Intelligence is the process of emerging insight. It is the process of emergence that distinguishes insight from knowledge.

Emerging insight penetrates the perpetuation, the density of knowledge. It may seem to emerge from knowledge, but it is only associated with knowledge by its penetration of knowledge. Emerging insight is always new, not the perpetuation of the "old".

Only unconditional truth is permanent. All conditional "truth" is temporary.

But the bias of education is to give what is conditional, what has "density", what has "substance", the status of knowledge, of truth.

What is conditional, what has "density", what has "substance", endures. Everything that endures has a duration; it is temporary.

Nothing is permanent.

That's the truth.

But the tendency to resort to knowledge, to what has duration, to what has density, to what has substance, as truth, overlooks the ultimate ground of truth.

The confusion between knowledge and truth comes from the bias of "life and living" toward self-perpetuation.  Self-perpetuation is the urge to permanence, to survival.

But permanence is mis-attributed to "density", to "substance" by the resistance of what is dense to change, by the tendency of what is dense to withstand intensity.

But is is NOT permanence; it is duration, durability -- temporary existence over time. Durability and endurance are the prized characteristic of knowledge.

Most people consider that "good enough".

But it is not truth or truthfulness. It merely durability.

Durability is a temporary contrivance. It is not permanent truth.

"Seeming to be true" is a characteristic "conferred" upon knowledge of durable conditions by the existence of "perpetual, formless, unconditional truth". Perpetual, formless, unconditional truth is the underpinning of temporary, conditional, formed, knowledge and experience. People intuit perpetual, formless, unconditional truth as the sense of "now", but confuse the sense of "now" with the sense of the moment, the sense of momentary conditions.

The sense of "now", of momentary conditions, is a product of memory. It is not "the eternal Now", which exists before conditions-in-this-moment "fade in" to perception and recognition. It is the time before our "reaction time" passes.

Memory is the perpetuation of experience. Memory consists of durable impressions of experience. Memory has duration. The perpetuation of memory is its density; the vividness of memory is its intensity.

The density of memory is why people's minds are hard to change.

Vividness of experience reveals "more of it" and may make a memory more dense -- or change people's minds.

Intensity of insight is what's necessary to change people's minds. Intensity of insight penetrates the density of memory.

However, it also causes new memory to form, memory with density, with durability commensurate with the intensity that led to the new memory's formation.

Memory has less density in the young and innocent; that is why they are more easily impressionable than those older, who have more memories of experience (density).

What knowledge and truth have in common is persistence. Their difference is that while knowledge may be durable and may persist over time, truth is perpetual and eternal.

It is by means of the attribute of "eternality" that truth "confers" upon or shares with knowledge the status of truth -- but knowledge is of limited duration. The "durability" of knowledge is the conditional version of the eternality of truth.

It is the density of knowledge, the intensity of experience, that makes it seem like it is the truth, that it will last forever (or that it seems like it is lasting forever -- as in "in love, forever"). Intense experiences seem like they will last forever, whereas they (or their effects) only last longer -- but they seem like they will last forever. When you're in pain, it seems like the pain will last forever.

Density and intensity obscure and substitute for truth.

That is how knowledge gets confused, conflated with truth.

Awakening the Truth Sense

People naively base their sense of truth upon the density of their memory of something.

They are naive because memory is only one of four faculties of intelligence.

In basing their sense of truth on the density of memory, only, they lack part of their intelligence and are gullible and manipulable by anyone who can cause them to form memories of sufficient density to endure (and so influence) situations and conditions. Such is the strategy of deception and of propaganda.

The counterparts to memory, the other three counterparts that, combined, generate penetrating insight of sufficient intensity to penetrate the density of memory, are attention, intention, and imagination.

They generate that penetrating insight not by generating a substitute memory, but by combining to form a sense of equilibrium independent from the fixity, the density of memory. It is the equilibrium of truth, which is unbiased by memory, unbiased by density, unbiased by the perpetuation of conditions.

It stands free -- but not as "counter-knowledge". It stands free as the perpetual "ground of being" that confers the status of "permanence" on temporary knowledge.

This cannot be understood by mental analysis or reason. It can be "understood" only by direct, self-validating, self-authenticating experience. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of direct testing that anyone with the inclination to do so, can do.


There exists a procedure or sequence of subjective actions that resurrects the truth-sense. It uses the four faculties of intelligence, each of which consists of two parts: a personal part and an impersonal part -- that, when activated and combined, lead to a transpersonal experience.

Both parts -- personal and impersonal -- are accessible with a bit of practice. However, because of the density of human beings conditioned to regard density of memory as the indicator of truth, the other three faculties -- attention, intention, and imagination -- must be resurrected and made vivid by sufficient practice to generate sufficient intensity to penetrate the density.

To do that, we use words whose meanings invoke those faculties as feeling-intuitions -- intuition being the common means by which words have meaning, the common experience of language.

To the point, here is the sequence.


To use the sequence, you read each step in the sequence and then repeat it to yourself, either in your mind or aloud without reading it.

As you will see, the steps involve words that are unbiased, empty-in-themselves, but that, when combined, generate the experience underlying all experiences (the unknown-Unknown) that makes them all seem to be true or actual.
























You cycle through the steps, repeatedly, until their intensity builds to a sufficient level to generate an intuitive experience. It's that simple.

The sense of truth (as well as the sense of "factuality") is a matter of intuition, only. It is entirely subjective, not objective. The idea of "objective truth", the idea that something is "evidence", the sense of "proof", is entirely subjective, something we accept when we deem "evidence" to be "sufficient".

When you have done the sequence sufficiently, you will find your familiar sense of knowledge becoming "amorphous" and you will intuitively experience the unknown-Unknown.

A word in advance. You will pass through The Zone of Incomprehensibility on your way to that intuition. That Zone is the experience you have as you depart from your familiar experience but have yet to land at your "destination". You may feel that you don't know what you're doing, that maybe you're doing it wrongly. It's just a product of your addiction to the familiarity of knowledge, your discomfort with "not-knowing". You must tolerate that feeling and persist.

Don't attempt to reason it out. That kind of reasoning is subject to biased opinion. Do the procedure until you get the experience I have described -- passing from the feeling of familiarity (knowing), through The Zone of Incomprehensibility, to the intuition of the unknown-Unknown (which is the truth-sense, the conscious ground-of-being that underlies all sense of permanence, temporariness, density, and intensity).

Do that procedure to a good result before you read the next section.

Opinion and Factuality

What distinguishes "factuality" from "opinion" is a matter of integrity -- the integrity of the memories we have of how things relate to and fit with each other. That sense of integrity is the intuitive sense we have of how things fit with each other.

Without a sense of fit, we have only an intensity of opinion and the density of that opinion.

The difference between factuality and opinion can be known only by having experiences of factuality and opinion that contrast with each other (by comparing things that are other-than each other).

Only direct experience avails. Only direct experience self-validates. Only direct experience self-authenticates.  It is beyond conceptual knowledge. It is direct.

A Teachable Moment

The Gold Key Release -- a way to dissolve the density of an experience and free intelligence to function

Using Trump's Strategy Against Him: A More Powerful, "Not Just Me. Us."

This piece outlines a way of using Trump's own strategy against him.

First, I outline Trump's strategy. Then, I outline how Bernie Sanders (or anyone else with enough personal substance) can use Trump's stategy against Trump -- and "one-up" him.


I start with the central observation about the underpinnings of Trump's strategy:  All perception requires contrast.

This fact may seem to be a dry and mental abstraction -- but it pertains to politics and to political advertising.

You can't see a black cat in a coal bin at midnight; you can't easily see a polar bear against the white of snow. the lack of contrast makes them hard to see in those environments.

Contrast makes things distinct. It makes the differences between candidates distinct. It makes the differences between "before and after" distinct. It makes people wake up and feel possibilities that, before, were not so distinct.


Trump, in his years as a failure in business and bullshitter (i.e., "con man" and "crook"), learned to employ contrasts to his advantage.

  • his vilification (vile and false criticism) of those whom he opposes or those who oppose his interests
  • his hyperbolic (excessive) praise ("hype") of his own self-proclaimed accomplishments and of those whom he has appointed

His hyperbolic praise of himself and of his appointees gives his supporters a "feel-good" boost -- a boost that comes not by because his praise is truthful, but because hearing praise (true or untrue) makes people feel good.

To those two, false vilification and hyperbolic self-praise ("hype"), he adds misdirection:  displacing blame for the plight of his supporters (and blame for the trouble into which he as gotten himself) onto others (Obama, Democrats, Progressives); and using invalidation: "fake news" and "witch-hunt" accusations.

Here's why Trump was able to parlay his bullshit and incompetence into the Presidency:

His supporters are feel-good junkies because of their feelings of despair, of being oppressed, at a disadvantage (and "it's someone else's fault"). They're desperate to feel good, again, and that is why they responded to his vilification of the political establishment, vilification of false "enemies" such as Muslims and immigrant refugees (scapegoats), vilification of political Progressives, and vilification of those who tried to get him out of office through impeachment -- and why his supporters responded to his meaningless, unfulfilled promise of, "Make America Great, Again" (i.e., "Feel Good, Again") and why they accept his support of a system of abusive Capitalism (e.g., tax cuts for the wealthy, subsidies to big businesses (oil companies) at taxpayer expense, and attempts to undermine public-benefit programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, NPR, Planned Parenthood, and institutions (E.P.A.) -- to their own disadvantage.

The "chickens" support "Colonel Sanders" because he makes them feel good by telling them what will make them feel good -- regardless of his plans for them.

Trump's supporters are emotionally driven, but of low integrity, regardless of academic or professional credentials; they don't "fact check" his claims or they emotionally (but not intellectually) invalidate what such fact-checks reveal, so desperate are they to believe his "stable genius", "everything's under control" image, so they can continue to believe him and to feel good, again (based upon what he says, not upon what he does). They don't want to know the truth because it throws them back into their despair. That's their lack of integrity.

So, Trump uses false vilification, hyperbolic praise of himself and of his appointees, misdirection and scapegoating.

The contrast between vilification and praise (whether true or false, it doesn't matter) makes the praise seem brighter and the vilification seem worse. His use of misdirection and scapegoating blunts his hearer's Truth Sense, so they become more willing and able to believe what they want to believe, so they can feel better.

That is how Trump campaigns, how he conducts the Presidency.

He developed these strategies because he had nothing substantial to offer, because he was unwise and incompetent, so he had to learn to control how others perceived him. Ring true?

Now, it's not so much a matter of intelligence, as of habit.


Bernie Sanders campaigns on the merits of his policies and program proposals; on the merits of filling actual, desperate needs.

However, he hasn't effectively employed both praise and vilification to exploit the contrast between them, for the emotional power that that the contrast between them can generate.

Nor does he call out Trump's strategies of misdirection and scapegoating and so he misses an opportunity to expose and disarm them.

Bernie's been good at vilifying Trump and his administration and highlighting the crises their actions have worsened, but he hasn't used praise, enough (elsewhere), to use the emotional power of contrast. Even his acknowledgements of Joe Biden as a decent man and of the virtues of others in politics fail to match the intensity of his (justifiable) vilifications; the occasions of praise have been too brief, and so the emotional contrast between vilification and praise has been relatively weak.

Therefore, his position has been relatively monotonous, and what is monotonous fades from people's attention. What's monotonous is uninspiring.

Whom might he praise? He might praise both his public supporters' higher integrity and his campaign volunteers' inspiration, diligence and results. He has gone as far as to laud their results: record numbers of grassroots contributors; he might lavish much more praise -- both to inspire them and to give the unconvinced more "feel-good" lifts from hearing that praise.

Voters are looking to feel better. They will vote for the candidates who make them feel better, the most, who make them feel inspired. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an example of such a candidate.

The difference between his taking this approach (praise and vilification, which, in certain ways, mirrors that of Trump) is that, in Bernie's case, the praise would be TRUTHFUL. Truthfulness would be "the something extra" that Trump lacks. Truthfulness is Bernie's "strong suit"; truthfulness gives traction.


The term, "Fireside Chat" came from the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (as did the term, "New Deal").

Roosevelt used Fireside Chats not just to highlight the challenges and necessities of the times, but also to /reassure/ the public in a time of crisis. Roosevelt used Fireside Chat's to make people feel better.

Bernie missed the opportunity in his first Fireside Chat to /make people feel better/. His interviewer didn't help any, lacking the understanding that the purpose of a Fireside Chat is to reassure people. This Fireside Chat was a Fireside Chat only because he did it next to a wood-burning stove, not because it reassured people. It was mostly a re-statement of urgencies.



Future Fireside Chats would well consist of both statements of the urgencies of the times and their solutions -- and LIBERAL PRAISE WHERE PRAISE IS DUE.

Make Fireside Chats UPLIFTING.

Use criticism and praise, both, in close balance (or even "heavy on the praise") for the emotional leverage their contrast generates -- and also call out, expose, and neutralize the effects of misdirection and scapegoating.

Give people the opportunity to feel better by hearing praise (as well as reason for hope). Give people the opportunity to be attracted to Bernie as the candidate who gives them a lift based upon truthfulness (rather than based upon deception, as by Trump).

Rather than "bumming people out" (making people feel worse and merely repulsed by candidates in competition with Bernie), give them a candidate who makes them feel better, immediately, by their hearing praise that is deserved; praise people for supporting what he stands for, for supporting what is in their own best interest, for their integrity.

That's a further form of, "Not just me. Us."

The Inoculation Communication | Exposing and Inoculating Against the Entire Authoritarian Strategy

NOTES used in creation of this video:

The strategy of lies, disinformation, and dirty tricks exposed and a direct way to disarm them. Think trolls, reactionaries, authoritarians, and con-men. NOTES used in this video's creation: One side wants communication. The other side wants dominance, not communication. One side doesn't want to listen, to be influenced. Wants only to influence. You may have come across individuals with opinions that seem impenetrable, who hold onto them irrationally, meaning nothing you say that makes sense or that is based upon accepted fact seems to make a difference, to them.
  • memory-based, believes in memory-based safety
  • emotionally-based, irrational
  • afraid of change, non-adaptive
  • doesn't listen, except to approved authorities; authoritarian
  • dominance-hierarchy based
  • denial (fear, too big)
  • to blunt the intelligence of the other side
  • to blunt the will of the other side
  • to show the American citizenry "who's boss"
  • to make people aware of the difference of power between themselves and those in power
  • to create discord in the population
  • to misdirect the attention of the other side
  • to undermine the memory of the other side
  • to induce fear by invoking negative imaginationary scenarios
  • to dull the truth-sense of the other side
  • to break up the integrity of the other side
  • to base their own lesser (smaller) integrity upon conformity and control
  • lying
  • mischaracterization/smears
  • disinformation
  • reference to others' authority
  • name-calling
  • baseless claims
  • by instilling conflicting beliefs and commiting offensive actions
  • "fake news" claims
  • anything goes without regard for truthfulness
  • illicit quid-pro-quo
  • power grabs
"Don't believe everything you think you know." "Act on creative (not fearful) imagination." This isn't a political phenomenon; it's a species phenomenon, hijacked by the species-suicide impulse.
They want a despot because they're afraid and want someone more powerful than they, to keep control. They believe -- or pretend to believe -- that others have got it wrong. Believing, or pretending to believe, that they are right, they want to dominate others, to win, serving self-interest.


Multiplicity, the Garb of Maya and the Movement of Samsara

As to, "multiciplicity", it's the apparent result of the relation of space-time to memory:

Humans (and in fact, all features of manifestation) are vortexes of memory (persistence), vortexes that consist of living memory impressions (points of view). A point of view may be defined as a vortex of experience centralized in its unique place by its characteristic tendencies, dynamically centralizing at every "hereness" memory location (1st-person point-of-view) throughout space-time, in all possible worlds, gross or subtle -- and transcendentally, as pure "hereness" -- consciousness without a sense of something being "here" or "there".

Said, again, every viewpoint in space-time is made of different memory impressions and is changing as experience emerges.

The difference between any pair of viewpoints (e.g., persons' points of view), introduces a time lag into communion between them. The differences of any pair of viewpoints creates a new, third: resonance (relationship) "between" (made of) the apparent two-ness. The third resonance is a resonant one-ness (unity) of the two points-of-view.


Existence is made of "astronomically-large" relationships made-up of smaller relationship-constellations, made up of yet smaller units of relationship, ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Those relationships, made up of "memory vortexes" powered by intention (tendency), located by placing attention, are centers of emergence (imagination) -- ongoing origination of newness from the Unknown Unknown ..... making and leaving impressions on memory and endlessly updating (modifying) memory vortices.

  • Memories within each vortex highlight (bring attention to) what emerges from the Unknown Unknown and that is similar to something remembered

  • leave less noticed or unnoticed what has a more tenuous association with memories in memory.

Multiplicity is thus a product of memory*space*time.

However, all of those are grounded in consciousness by the modifications of "the four".

The Cuckoo Effect

 What has happened to our Congress? to the Presidency? to the Supreme Court? and Elsewhere?  The Cuckoo Effect

The Intuitive Structure That "Bridges" the Formless Consciousness with Conditional Reality

Don't take my word for it:


"Between" the acausal Divine Radiance field and conditional manifestation there exists a "bridge" consisting of four functions -- of which body, feeling, breath and mind are secondary derivatives. Those functions are: * attention * memory * intention * imagination Each of those four functions is universal and irreducible among living beings; each is complementary to the others; each exists as a dimension of subjectivity and each has two other dependent functions that exist as dimensions of objectivity. Thus: * SUBJECIVITY:OBJECTIVITY:OBJECTIVITY * attention:placing:location (or hereness) * memory:integrity:persisting * intention:tendency:existing * imagination:originating:unknown (or mystery) In their unmodified state, these four are formless and entirely transcendental. In their modified state, these four appear as all conditionality, subjective and objective. Without all four, no conditionality is possible. The four triads integrate into four singularities: * CONSCIOUSNESS * RELATEDNESS * ENERGY * DIFFERENCE


As an integrated pair, these constitute the "substance" of conditional existence.


As an integrated pair, these constitute the differentiated modification of conditional existence.


No difference, no relatedness. No light (or energy), no experience of consciousness. Persistence is the function of memory. Persistence is the essence of the sense of dilemma. No persistence, no dilemma. Thus, "Transparent (or merely apparent), Non-Binding, Unnecessary". These concepts have the curious quality that, when contemplated and integrated, they disappear, leaving undefined (unqualified) consciousness, or "ungraspability".

Thus, the immanent is one with the transcendent; the transcendent is the immanent. However, one must go beyond mere conceptual (superficial) ideation to FEELING them -- something that habitual modification of attention prevents. There are forms of contemplation that overtime this difficulty. #TetraSeedAwakening Be well, eat your vegetables -- and never argue with a mime.