Knowing more about knowledge helps to get more knowledge, and understand what knowledge is.
Before we try to understand what is in fact happening to us we need to know more about what understanding and knowledge really is and how it works. In philosophy this discipline is called “epistemology” and is a very fundamental one researching the basic principles of knowledge. Science and its methods have used these principles in any kind of scientific discipline and therefore science was so successful in understanding the world, discovering physics, understanding biology and developing advanced technology. So if we want to be successful in understanding what is going on, those principles also can be for us very useful. This may seem difficult but explained brief and clear its easy to understand and makes thinking about anything much easier.
The general principles and stages of evolution of knowledge are pretty similar for one individual, a team of scientists, or the evolution of knowledge for the entire humanity. This is why they apply to all knowledge in general.
Understanding a situation is nothing but trying to connect facts a way we get a picture that makes sense. We can compare this with a detective who investigates a murder and tries to find out who did it by putting all information he has together, eliminate suspects and reason about all different possible answers until he finds the best one, or the right one.
Unexpected facts and surprising new events is a special case of knowledge.
For us the most specifically interesting part of this is when knowledge concerns facts that are “unexpected”, facts that don’t fit into the mainstream worldview. This is precisely the situation we are confronted with being totally surprised by suddenly some technology targeting us that most of us never even thought about before that, and most people don’t even know it exists.
There is something very specific on unexpected facts and surprising events in history. A science philosopher who described this very accurate is Thomas Kuhn who described this situation of unexpected facts for the evolution of science, but because the same applies to individuals, it can be very helpful to us as well.
Thomas Kuhn focussed on science not being just as logical process, but a historical and social one too, and just because of that the evolution of it has very specific characteristics when new unexpected facts show up.
He introduced the term “paradigm” another word for the mainstream accepted worldview or scientific consensus of a specific time or moment, and described his theory in a world-famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Thomas Kuhn, stages of knowledge and paradigm shifts.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called "paradigm shifts" , in which the nature of scientific inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed.
In general, science is broken up into three distinct stages.
1 Prescience, which lacks a central paradigm, comes first.
2 This is followed by "normal science", when scientists attempt to enlarge the central paradigm by "puzzle-solving". Thus, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher.
3 As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.
The theory of stages of knowledge of Thomas Khun applied to our situation.
Position of the world and its central current paradigm.
Our world and the people who don’t know about mind control and its victims, are in the stage of normal science with a central paradigm that considers hearing voices as mental illness, and things like mind control, alien abductions or channelling and clairvoyance impossible to take seriously as scientific fact. .
That those things are increasing so fast that one would expect scientist to ask themselves questions about it, does not happen because as Khun says “, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher” This explains perfectly why our complaints on mind control not considered any reason to question the current paradigm, but as something impossible or unimportant, because they do not fit into the mainstream current worldview.
Our position of prescience knowing some facts are real but not yet having a definitive new paradigm to explain them and trying to fill the gaps on different ways.
Our position as targets is different than the one of outsiders, and can be considered as the stage of prescience that lacks a central paradigm when it concerns the targeting. to us it was a surprise too becoming aware of these facts that contradicted the things we knew and believed before we were targeted, and the only information we have is what we experience, what other targets tell, and what we get as public knowledge about all kind of technology from media and books.
Most of us are trying to connect all this to an explanation that makes sense, but in fact we still lack essential information because of the secrecy of this, and on top we are being actively deceived and manipulated by the technology to believe all different things and deceptive half truths, and this results in many different stories and debates but without a mutual conclusion that we can be sure of and all agree on.
Distinguishing facts and gap filling opinions is not easy.
I do agree on one single thing with Eleanor white and that is with her statement that we should make a difference between our opinions and facts. But at the same time she does not apply this principle correctly herself …..(I won’t explain this now because it would lead us too far) This only shows that distinguishing facts from subjective opinions and impressions is not so easy as it seems. We must really avoid jumping to conclusions and being aware very well of what are the facts we can be sure of and start from there.
The objective increase will lead to a paradigm shift after a while automatically
And the number of targets keeps growing, not only because each year there is a group added to the list, but on top each year this group of new targets becomes bigger. This is a fact that we can be sure of because it is visible in the patterns of all surveys no matter from were they come. This evolution seems to continue and a certain moment there will be so many of us that the world will reach stage 3 of Kuhn’s stages in knowledge were “anomalous results build up” and science of mainstream knowledge will reach a crisis and the huge mountain of not understood facts will be connected with each other and with the old paradigm to a totally new world view or as Thomas Kuhn calls it, a paradigm shift. The technology tries to make this happen as late as possible, using all kind of deception and camouflage, in order to keep the secrecy as long as possible,.
Does PUBLIC KNOWLEGDE OF THE TECHNOLOGY justifies the PRIVACY VIOLATION?
A question of ethics and priorities.
Due to the consistent exponent ional increase of numbers of targets we can suppose that the purpose is on longer term to make the existence of this technology public and this may give us some hope towards the future because the public knowledge of this technology is the best way to prevent abuse in the future, even if the violation of our privacy is a side effect of knowing about the technology to every individual not just in theory but in practice,
Personally I consider the public knowledge and debate on these emerging technologies considered the dangers as the possible benefits for all, even maybe the possibility to create a better world, more important than anything else, and privacy seems of a secondary order just as our cell phone provider knows each moment were we are but we don’t worry about it anymore as long it is not used against us we don’t care. Lets hope that my optimism is justified.
For who is interested in the puzzle solving philosophical part feedback demanded.
In case we want to be as successful as possible in understanding what is happening to us and to know what to think of it ourselves, and speed up this process the technology will become public, we need to uncover the deception and be extremely logical in drawing conclusions principles of knowledge can be very helpful to us, as they were to scientist in history. I will try to bring up one subject from time to time as clear as possible and step by step so that we can discuss on one specific part of it to get more answers to our questions. For who finds this a useful idea, I need to know from all of you as much as possible if I explain things clear enough, or if some of you don’t see connections in what I say or don’t understand why I say certain things or what I precisely mean. This can help me to learn to explain clearly what I want to say and understand better what others think and why as well
So questions or remarks or any kind of feedback is more than welcome, this is finally what has been done by philosopher’s throughout history to get wiser about the world. The next 2 subject I will touch is unexpected events in history and the principles of deception. More suggestions welcome too.