Facts Do Not Grow On Trees.

The Nature Of Facts.

Facts do not grow on trees. Facts are quite different from natural laws which any observant person can deduce. Quite as importantly, natural laws are processes. These are not stationary, fixed-in-time facts.

Facts are specific to, and the result of a particular pattern of thinking. This is why it is possible to have two sets of quite genuine facts which are in complete opposition to each other. I don’t intend going down the rabbit hole of producing examples here, if only that my intention is to determine what a fact is – rather than the chaos and confusion they leave behind.

For a fact to come into existence a person must have done the following:

1) They must have noticed something (perception, the primary and most important expression of the thinking realm).

2) They must have reckoned that this was worth noting (value, one expression of the feeling realm).

3) They duly noted what they saw (deed, the realm of the will).

A fact is only a fact when all three of these items is true. For example, if the perception (item 1) is incorrect, the ‘fact’ is a fallacy based on an illusion. If the person didn’t think the issue worth bothering with (item 2), the fact then becomes irrelevant to them – and the danger here is that they will often claim these irrelevances as fraud when the people who DID VALUE their perceptions as worth recording. If nobody bothers recording their facts (item 3), then these facts go unrecorded. When discovered, these become the challenges brought by new areas of science and medicine.

What Then, Are Facts?

The point of this post is to indicate that facts are a human construct. If one makes a decision based ‘on the facts’ are these facts ones that one has thought through and accepted for oneself? Or is one at the mercy of someone else’s perceptions? If one does make a decision based on what one accepts as ‘valid’ facts, what about all the other facts that are deemed ‘invalid’? One must be VERY careful when saying that a fact is invalid, for this usually demonstrates an inability to perceive in this area. This is very different from the other person being wrong – or worse, an outright fraudster. Working with what one considers an ‘invalid’ fact can untangle more than that fact, but lead one to new areas of perception that one did not have before.

Beyond Facts.

There are no facts in the feeling realm, and cannot be. For in the feeling realm nothing ever happens twice. Just as in one’s heart, things are always in flux. Our hearts move rhythmically, but whilst its pulsation can be established as being reality, it cannot be established as a genuine fact. Because no two pulses are ever the same: our emotional state affects the way this organ behaves and the pulses vary accordingly. If one is to say that the pulsation of the heart is “a fact” then one has already contravened the scientists’ own rules that something must be consistently measurable. One could argue that an intellectual like a scientist is above feeling; I know from my father that a professor of science can get angry to the point where his heart races.

A scientist who says they are ‘above emotions’ is merely avoiding the issue. The point of this post is to say that one must come to terms with the fact that emotions cannot be established as facts – after all, it is difficult enough to describe them in words!

In the realm of feeling, one needs a manner of thinking that can handle this state of affairs, and the kind of thinking that is immersed in the stately realm of facts cannot.

Remember a fact from one’s last visit, it means nothing. Here on earth, the mineral world is steady enough for facts to have some meaning.

Remember this: when a scientist uses statistics, they are falling foul of item 1 above. That is to say, they have been able to notice something – a flower for example – but are now hampered by the fact that whilst the flower is genuinely the same flower as another, no two flowers are ever the same in material terms. That is to say, when it comes to measuring flowers, no two are ever the same. The problem for the scientist is that in their need for facts, they are happy to bend the rules when it comes to areas where facts cannot be established.

There is a manner by which one can ascertain the truth in a world where facts are meaningless, as in the above example of statistics. After all, statistics is where flowers that have iridescent blue petals have all been reduced to a page of numbers printed in black on a white piece of paper. The same can be said for scientists who believe that colours are only a wavelength – where are the qualities inherent in blue, red or yellow? Because in attempting to ‘factualize’ nature, science robs it of all its beauty. It is at this very point that the challenge stands to today’s science.

Finding answers to these issues does mean that people need to have first broadened their perceptions; in this instance, the scientist needs to understand that their assumption that statistical fact is a fact at all.

For only when the two sides of an argument have equal value is it possible to begin to perceive the qualities that drive both. It is an understanding of quality that leads to a genuine understanding of reality.