This conversation is closed.

with news organizations becoming more biased, with dirtier tricks, how do you reconcile the conflict of opinions/facts

I'd love to know how each of you decides what side of an argument to be on. Do you simply turn to a news channel or read a paper that speaks in your favorite tone? or do you find other ways to objectively investigate a subject to its core, digging out actual facts, not digitized opinions made to look like facts?
in this day and age, how can a person living a normal 9-5 life decipher the truth or at least the facts of a situation from the deliberate, subjective, noise that's put out there...? the question of "which side are you on?" in the digital age is becoming harder and harder to answer. I'd love to hear what sources you think are objective and which are not, how (and if) you've ever been proven wrong or presented with new facts that made you change your mind on a certain subject or story...

the internet opens up a world of opinions that sometimes seem to drown the facts, even fabricate them sometimes - how do approach the task of making up your mind without spending dozens of hours researching a topic? is there another way? the old adage "don't believe everything you read" seems even more pertinent nowadays than ever before - but what's the alternative? what's the methodology or system you use?

I find this fascinating and would love to hear what people out there do in order to balance out media noise, subjective blog post and opinions from the truth and how they use it on a daily basis...

  • thumb
    Feb 17 2011: Gebser, Feuerstein, and more recently Wilber have deciphered what they refer to as structures of consciousness. The rough outline divides human consciousness into 10 fulcrums. Of these, the first three are pre-personal, the second three person, and the following three transpersonal. The 10th fulcrum is outside of the structure of the other 9.

    Wilber refers to a 6th fulcrum phenomena known as "aperspectival madness." This involves the realization that all perspectives are relative; madness results from a failure to differentiate between perspectives (to acknowledge that some perspectives are relatively better than others).

    Aperspectival madness plagues modern American life. Most of us have left behind the peace of a religion's narrow view of right and wrong, good and bad, and us vs them. We see so many different perspectives, and feel each has its own validity. Within this attitude we don't have the clarity to make moral judgments. Within all of the different perspectives we become "politically correct," and honor everyone's opinion.

    The way out of this is to transcend- to shift from the 6th fulcrum- the highest state of the personal- to the 7th fulcrum- the beginning of the transpersonal. Within the transpersonal, one realizes that there is a higher vision, a more true truth. Morality returns, yet not a prescribed one, rather a realized one. And, from that position, one need not be exposed to the media noise to know what is happening in the world. The greater story, the human drama, the play, the lila, becomes clear. Then there is no desire to tune into NPR's All Things Considered (aperspectival madness in its very name) or the similar.

    The attention then shifts within. The inner world becomes inherently of more interest. Living relationships become of greater importance than told dramas. The felt-sensed, or lived experience, becomes central. All identification radically changes. All concerns begin to melt away. A new way of life emerges.