Western science, particularly the history of medical science and research has innumerable examples of fraud , unproven "scientific" conclusions , faked lab experiments and the deliberate destruction of discoveries of true scientists and their honest reputations; that was the exact paradigm that has been followed since the inception of allopathic medicine for almost the last 200 years; we have failed not only to acknowledge that very problematic past but have done everything possible to hide the truth through continuing lies and deception; a very glaring example of this fraudulence can be found in the person of Louis Pasteur who not only faked the results of many of his experiments but plagiarized the best of discoveries that should have been attributed to his contemporary, the true genius, Antoine Bechamp; medical history has countless other examples, all of which formed the foundations for the development of today's charlatans and promoters of fake science and much more for the ideological and philosophical divisions that keep humanity divided and at war with itself.

Expand full comment

I would add this statement or thought by the Chinese mystic Lao-Tzu (or Lao-Tze) - who was quoted with the saying, if I'm not mistaken... In your thoughts of doing, being, creating, studying a subject matter, etc., etc. - ask the question "from what," "to what," and "why."

I've pondered this question or statement for years: "Knowing vs Believing." I've always tended to lean towards 'Knowing.' This article has offered up some new insights.

There is an excellent statement from a book I read by Osho in the book called 'The Joy of Living Dangerously' on page 125. "Whatever you do, Life is a mystery"

Some things will be a mystery no matter the amount of knowledge/understanding we consume

My four pillars of existence 'Logic' 'Wisdom' 'Balance' and 'Mindfulness'

Ma'at - Hotep


Expand full comment

Excellent review of various approaches to the eternal issue of “Where am I? I am so scared of not knowing anything that I must invent any theory to at least pretend that I know something.”

How complex is the self-extinguishing mindgaming? For experimental purposes, let’s take the last sentence of the article:

“Everything I'm saying, I can demonstrate with reason if challenged. I expect that from others as well.”

1. The underlying condition appears to be “challenge” - as if expecting others to have different opinions and being willing to discuss them. What does it mean when a supposed challenge will be opened? That neither of the involved parties “know” anything. In other words, one party lives in the delusion of knowing and in the hope of being challenged - or being given the opportunity to “prove” to the other party its “rightness”. This very assumption assumes the other party to NOT know, otherwise a challenge is pointless. Or to NOT know what the first party knows. Kind of, offensive and non-scientific, given that no baseline conditions are set out clearly and unanimously by BOTH parties.

2. “Demonstrating with reason” is a false approach from the first letter on. Reasoning is based on some assumptions - not defined here - which are always false just because they are assumptions. Like “white is a color” or “effect follows cause”. Except that under different circumstances these assumptions may be easily made false - for example effect causing a cause is very easy to “demonstrate”.

Reasoning is a power game of who is more conversant within a certain realm of arguments, not necessary logical or rational. Rig the thinking game, and you will always win. The whole history of philosophy is a big illustration of this take.

We need to define what “demonstrate” means, otherwise minds will waste time and nobody will “convince” anybody about anything. This is what we are observing with the “existence” of an alleged being called “virus” - an unresolvable eternal game just because no common ground has been defined. Which is a nice trick because both parties will reap great benefits at the expense of wasting life energy (congratulations).

3. Expecting anything from the other party cancels the whole challenge. It assumes that the challenge will be played on the terms of one party, which is not a challenge at all, but a trap to force the other party into a covered ground. What if the other party can counter the challenge within 2 seconds, but using different terminology, terms of reference or baseline definitions?

4. And the most false of all assumptions: reasoning is not an explanation of anything. It is just a mental game of self-worship. Everyone knows this: you catch a glimpse of a certain person, and you lose your mind right away, “falling” into love, becoming “attracted” or in any other way “extracted” from daily rational existence. Why did it happen? “I don’t know, it came like a thunder, a split second, and my mind was gone.” A similar experience takes place when we face terminal events: the mind ceases to exist, rationality disappears, unexplainable inner powers wake up in an instant, and nobody can say or explain what is happening in that unique existential state. Those who experience these states have no need of explaining them. No need, this is happening, why would you want to rationalize something existential and experiential?

Expand full comment

So Dan, Just to be clear, are you telling me that you've never let go of a wrong opinion when faced with new facts and new explanations that demanded you discover something that you hadn't believed earlier? That never happened to you?

Expand full comment

I am saying that, throughout the history, we (the “Western” mind) seem to circle around providing explanations to both the phenomena we witness and to various conceptual questions (“philosophical”, concerning regularities, trends, patterns). We do this through the mind, or mental faculties (how else), which in itself is a conditional and limited process. Conditional because it depends on the skills and knowledge first taught to the mind, and limited because the whole mental process can only develop within the known limits (biases).

In other words, the mind exists “locally”, as if tethered to or rooted in pre-learned (known, explainable) realms. Non-local phenomena are baffling to the mind because we don’t have habits or training related to them. Intuition is one example of a non-local (non-mind) experience. Déjà vu could be another. People with “paranormal” faculties are yet another.

As I see it, local (mental, knowable through the mind) and non-local (“unexplainable” in terms of pre-existing mental training and practice) realms are complementary and both create our experience of Life. To some extent, we see the two as the ongoing battle between the science (the mind) and the arts (the heart).

Plus, we occasionally find ourselves in non-continuous events which can remodel both our physical reality and our mental interpretations. Falling in love or spontaneous insights into own life vs. Life background some into this category.

And, obviously, there is the fourth realm where we are internally driven to do things beyond our constitution despite having no background. This is the least prominent one AD 2024 because we have pretty much everything that we need for cozy existence. Finding out how to make fire could be such a breakthrough back in time. Or learning to swim without help of any other person. Or (actual, physical) healing through the sense of touch, which is we all know and apply, although we never stop and conceptualize about it.

I’d say, it’s an amazing reality we are in and we are part of it.

To add a bit of spice to all this, we never wonder about how really animals communicate - from ants or bees literally creating extremely complex and faultless worlds to birds, “singing” in various languages of which we have completely no idea and flying unimaginable distances within their extremely short life span. The harmonious existence of the plant kingdom escapes us completely. And, obviously enough, we have no mental access to the pre-existing conditions of our own Life: we have no idea why we grow two hands in their pre-defined places while other biological organisms grow more or less or replaceable limbs. Or senses, or mobility capacity, or forms of interaction with the external (“non-me”) world. What our mind has come up with (“genetics”) is no answer at all and is only an attempt at a hypothesis, and far from even an approximation.

Expand full comment

You have a funny way of using language which implies that you have some core assumptions about reality that are very different from mine. For example when you begin by saying "western mind" as if to imply implicitly that it is some different sort of thing than "eastern mind". I have never found any evidence that there is anything other than human mind which can either be rendered dysfunctional or healthy. I have no problem referring to tendencies of thinking that can be found within certain cultures, or dysfunctions, or positive uses of mind in various cultures, but I wouldn't say 'eastern mind' or 'western mind'. Would you agree or disagree with my statement?

Expand full comment

A great point. Of course, there is one mind in general, if we assume that it implies certain ways of perceiving reality and manipulating the perceived data. “Certain”, but not all.

On the other hand, can we classify all human minds on the Earth as “one” mind? Doubt it. The very existence of local habits, customs, forms of expression shows that the minds differ from place to place. Not being aware of it may cause problems, even within one culture where sub-cultures clearly cultivate different mind ways.

Even at this abstract universal level, we see differences in handling tangible reality. Language shows such things: in various languages objects are counted as single, double, bulk or mass, and singular and plural are not universal categories. Even within one language: we don’t use a trouser/pant but trousers/pants, money “is”, data is or are, and so on. Also, some languages require capitalization of specific concepts (geographical names, brand names), others don’t or openly require small case. So, the language we use shows that our mind flexibly perceives reality.

“Western” mind is a weird concept in itself. It happen to be used as the opposition to “folk” or “natural” or “non-industrialized” ways of thinking, aside from obvious cultural differences between the “western” hand shaking and “eastern” bowing - which in itself is a fundamental difference in respecting the presence of another person, which is a reflection of the perception of reality. These differences are multiplied through customs, but these cannot be really isolated from linguistic (communication) principles - which does not make the things easier.

As for the differences in the assumptions about reality, we have within our own one, single “culture”, a very strange habit of using “I” or “we” interchangeably to some extent and how we see fit in the relevant context. Authors of scientific publications tend to say “we” while they are always “one I” - isn’t it strange, unnecessary and confusing? While even within their own fold there are authors who will say “I refer there to…” or “what I have found”. Now this is a huge difference in the perception of the reality of communication, to some extent rooted in pseudo-sophistication and efforts to impose an inflated view of oneself, but is that all? The mind has already created a category of communication in which it multiplies itself - a very peculiar phenomenon.

Expand full comment

When you say you don't believe in a single mind for all humanity, I tend to agree but need to ask you a question to appreciate your thinking about this: While I agree with you that there is no single homogeneous Mind, since we are all unique, Do you believe that everyone can use their reason in order to construct a hexagon or pentagon (the latter requiring the discovery of the golden section)? to clarify my question: do you believe that this power of using reason to move from states of ignorance of such things (like how to construct a hexagon or pentagon) into knowledge of such things is a common power which we all have access to, or do you believe that some people just don't have access to use reason for such things? Also do you believe that knowledge of these examples can occur without the use of reasoning skills? I know that there were a number of examples of discoverable qualities of the universe I could have selected here, but I thought that the simple examples of the qualities of the hexagram and pentagon are useful to keep our inquiry focused instead of falling into the trap of broad generalizations. Hope you don't mind

Expand full comment

Matthew, thank you for this conversation, it is highly inspiring and a good one, at least in my view.

To clarify, whatever I am writing is not about “believing” this or that way. Linguistic (manifested) or societal (created) constructs are here, existing in real life, so it’s not about believing in their impact or not.

Still… do I believe that “power of using reason to move from states of ignorance into knowledge… is a common power which we all have access to”?

This presupposes that we “all have access”. Do we? If your true education ends at the age of 9 or 10 and then you slide into the smartphone abyss, you don’t have access on equal terms with an academic of 30 years of experience. Also, the said academic is far more disadvantaged in comparison with a fresh new PhD whose mind operates in a completely different mind-space simply because it was grown and educated at a higher level of abstraction. Also, academic people of similar age and experience never have equal access to anything - some spend more time on family issues, other dedicate 20 hours a day on self-education. The difference is tremendous.

But… Major breakthroughs in life usually come from outside the field, from people who are not active stakeholders. For one, they do not need to protect vested interests, or even care about them (the access issue). More importantly, you can’t change a defective system from within this system, theoretically speaking. The cult of managers emphasize thinking “out of the box” - which exactly means having a different access to the particular issue.

Another issue is age. A person of 20 years is immortal, with all future open. When this person reaches 35 and has a house, a mortgage, three kids and family obligations, the perception of reality and the willingness to venture into new fields changes, and rightfully so. The same person at 60 should be removed from positions of decision making because the mindframe at this age is not aligned with forward-looking developments. This is sanctioned by the law - we call it pension age. The state will pay you money if you agree to withdraw from having impact on social life. These changes over age are not strongly related to the body, it’s the mind and its functioning which is the key. Even if you have equal access, your mind will not be able to process information on equal terms with minds of different ages.

Except when you have spent your lifetime in one field and you have become “a natural”. An airline pilot at 60 has practical experience (and other cognitive skills) beyond imagination of a 25-year-old new pilot. Their minds will differ no matter how we would like them to be “equal”. They will never be equal. There are simply too many factors in play. Fortunately - otherwise, you will be replaceable at any age…

As regards the example of hexagon or pentagon or anything science-related. This is only a narrow, minute part of the whole life experience. Why would we need to make it a test ground? 99% of people don’t even need to know the name “pentagon” and their life experience will not be lesser or diminished.

But there is a common field of life which is universal and common to everybody in daily life which is unbelievably underdeveloped and neglected. I mean social interactions, communication and self-awareness. Pick any Nobel prize winner and I bet you will find a person with insufficient understanding of these three aspects of life. Pick the top top scientists, and I bet you will have people who cannot handle these issues. Pick any public figure, and you will find a goldmine of emotional problems and unresolved inner conflicts. Divorce rates and the number of family-related court cases are the proof that we as a society are immature for coexistence. I’d say that this realm is far more important than all science. Yet, we never teach these three fields to kids at schools or even to university students. What a shame. What a loss for the whole humanity.

All in all, the mind is not the most important issue in our life. It may be of equal importance to other aspects, but we first need to recognize the importance of such other areas of our experience over this short period which we call “lifetime”.

Expand full comment

Talk about self-worship.

Expand full comment

Matt, have you looked at Tychos, a recent revised model of our Solar system? The numbers actually prove and match the observational data and also make up for the faults/errors in the current model of the Mars movement and many other.

It postulates that we are in geoaxial binary system where Sun and Mars are dancing together. SInce most of the systems out there are binary then it makes sense.


Short overview by Diamond form Magnetic Reversal News here:


Expand full comment

> I can study Kepler's original writings…

Are they really “original”?

Maybe here is the answer why we cannot understand our reality.

Across the history, (probably) all scientists (in the European meaning, i.e. those who measure and experiment) were occultists, which we call “alchemists”. Including Einstein. Some were persecuted, some were not. Some were acclaimed, some were misunderstood. But the essence of their studies was to overlay their “true” findings with cover-up stories easily digestible by the authorities and the public. The Galileo affair is an example of how this could have happened.

Why would the Church allow “bad” Galileo to write or print his books - after he was sentenced guilty of heresy and forced to remain in house arrest (until his death)? This could be possible only if the contents of the books did not cross certain limits. The author knew it and he would deliberately self-censor his book(s) to appear “acceptable” to the authorities. This were the versions which we know and can find in libraries.

Is this all? Extremely improbable. Here is a man who has a certain set of beliefs based on a book similarly forced to be approved by the authorities (De revolutionibus…). (Which is another occultist manual, but that’s a different story.) Copernicus’ book was printed in 1543. Galileo’s trial started in 1616 - 73 years later. The authorities had SEVENTY THREE years to make up their mind what to do with the new version of beliefs about the universe. First they denied it (before Copernicus), then they accepted it (Copernicus), and now they fell back to their denial. How could it be possible? (That’s another story.)

The printing of books of a sentenced enemy of the highest ruling oligarchy of that time could only be possible if Galileo’s books were not “offensive”. But you cannot believe that Galileo, who resisted pressure for half his lifetime, simply forgot all his original ideas. He must have written uncensored version(s) of his book(s), printed in a very limited number of copies (or handwritten) and circulated only among the insiders.

Once you come upon a book of this version, and compare against the “nice and behaving well” approved edition, you may have legitimate reasons to make conclusions about the related developments.

Until this time… we only have access to limited and incomplete versions of certain (not all) narratives which determine how we see, interpret and describe our “reality”. Producing any definitive “this is so because” is only a sign of how easily we commit ourselves to what we “know”, not even being suspicious of “what if…”

In short, whatever we do based on “knowledge” is determined by a number of conditions, some of which remain hidden to us. Some could have even been lost - like the mechanical aspects of setting up giant structures like the pyramids or mediaeval castles. We are still in dark (ages?).

Expand full comment

We've heard of studies of 'Comparative Religion'. Now, thru Matt's meticulous analysis we can view 'Comparative Philosophies' (of life) to see which of them lead to desirable destinations.

Once again, I think Matt will find much of interest in the writings & lectures of Dr. Iain McGilchrist, as to the workings of the Human Mind (how it works, why it works (like that) & so on).

Expand full comment

So, would the prophets of the Bible qualify as cult leaders in your profile:

"One important theme of each and every Theosophist cult spinoff involves leaders who proclaim the powers to channel messages from various types of ascended masters, disembodied spirit entities, angels, etc… and who testify that they have achieved “gnosis” (ie: forms of knowledge devoid of the use of reason) through rites of initiation into ‘mysteries’, giving them powers to read Akashic records, astral project, read minds of their followers, and clairvoyantly “see” past and future lives."

Expand full comment

Nice article on the WORSHIP OF MAN instead of the WORSHIP OF GOD.


Expand full comment

Matt, have you ever read Jacob Bronowski? Apart from his book based on his famous TV series ‘The Ascent of Man’ in the 70’s he wrote many others. In all of them he seeks the common thread of the imagination as the unifying relationship between the arts and the sciences. In the process he demonstrates ways in which even while holding to the truth that the observers’ subjective life is part of the universe he is attempting to understand, the observer/participant can still discern objective truth from subjective desire. I think he actually describes Kepler’s intellectual journey somewhere in terms very similar to your own. He refers to himself as a natural philosopher rather than a scientist for this reason.

Expand full comment

I was wondering if you could comment on the field of psychology. psychologists say that stigma against mental health is global, and common to all cultures, and that is something i totally agree on.

Expand full comment

"Plato, Kepler, Leibniz and this study of universal history has taught me to trust my mind's powers of discernment using moral reason, such that IF I say something of import on any topic, I try my very best to state: 1) whether I am hypothesizing or whether 2) I have knowledge of that which I speak because I have really examined it in depth prior to making it spoken."

If only everyone could use this technique, or at the very least understand it, what a great step forward it would be for all of humanity.

Expand full comment