The independent investigation of truth is a principle that I value very highly. I remember scrutinizing a slightly older couple, when I was about 23 years old, who were testifying to me on a street corner, while vehicular traffic was blocked off for some event. They were trying to convince me to give my heart to Jesus. Hadn’t I already done that? Don’t they know? Do they worship the same Jesus I do? If so, couldn’t they tell I already belong to him? If not, who or what has trapped them in a veil of presumption and  unawareness?

There are a few things about fundamentalist Christianity that I balk at. One of them is taking on a posture of submission on a street corner. Didn’t Jesus himself say, it is hypocritical to do your penance in public? 

I knew then about the independent investigation of truth, even though I may not yet have heard the words spoken, nor seen them in writing. This brings me to a very important point. Your own intuition is a very important part of your investigation of, and understanding of reality. But don’t just take my word for it, What do you think? Can you understand your life, your purpose, and the world around you, with nothing more than eyesight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch?

In order to understand life, I need, smell, hearing, sight, touch, taste, intuition, thinking, someone to explain it, or the right book? Check all that apply. I found that I checked all the above, although somewhat reluctantly when I got to the last two, because I really want to avoid adopting someone else’s explanation. I want to develop my own. However, sometimes I can read or listen to someone else’s ideas and be inspired by them. 

Of course that doesn’t always happen. Sometimes I can listen to someone, thank them for their time, turn and walk away, then blog, decades later, about how presumptuous and unaware they were.

Here’s another quiz: Which of the following people are (or were) sincere good-hearted human beings? No, nevermind, I can’t do that. I was going to name some prominent politicians and media stars. A better question is, who do you admire and why? Do you seamlessly adopt whatever that person says into your own thought process? And conversely, is there anyone for whom you categorically refute everything the person says?

A human tendency is to pick a side, as if life were a football game, cheer one team and boo the other. True independence requires more than that. But maybe not everyone wants independence. Perhaps others value the camaraderie of belonging to a political party, even though their allegiance to one segment of the population alienates the rest of us. My purpose in writing this essay is to troubleshoot independent thought, exploring what sets it apart from dogma. 

Dogma is a set of ideas that are accepted unchallenged on the merits of the perceived station of its source. If I am to accept someone’s ideas unchallenged, I must first recognize the station of the person or entity promulgating the teaching. To recognize the station of the issuing agency requires investigation. If they are so high and holy that I can just take their word for it, they practically have to be God. For anyone else, every point they make has to be logical, proven, and stand up to scrutiny. And yes, I will also use my intuition. I will separate myself, go into meditation, and let the spirit lead me. 

It has been an interesting ride for the past couple of years. What is truth? I have asked that question perhaps even more than usual. I looked up death statistics and was unable to find any change in the rate when factoring in population density. I noticed a lot of media repetition of what I was beginning to suspect was a false narrative. It began to appear that all the media had been co-opted by monied interests. In place of news, I heard a carefully scripted advertisement for pharmaceuticals, using words like, “safe,” and, “effective,” with no proof whatsoever, other than, “because I said so.” What? I’m supposed to trust you after you tried to kill us with opiates?

I noticed that politicians who are funded, in their campaigns, by the weapons industry, agree with me on this. However, on other issues, like peace and democracy, these same people definitely do not agree with me! I noticed that politicians, who pay lip service to issues of human rights and human welfare, disagree with me on this issue, even though, in the past, I had felt more drawn to them on issues relating to the environment and education. I formulated the theory that perhaps those particular politicians are kept in their places by the pharmaceutical and food industries. I began to see the world run by the petroleum industry, divided into two competing camps: petroleum-based weapons, versus petroleum-based farming and pharmacy. I began to suspect that both industry and government leaders are a consortium of psychopaths and psychopath enablers. 

Some of them pretend to be sympathetic with desperate people from the south whose ancestral lands have been appropriated by big ag, and others don’t even pretend. But none of them do anything to address the cause of the problem. God help us find a way to fix this!

Thanks for reading!