After a brief introductory statement, the following response references each paragraph in your post sequentially in order to avoid excessive redundancy in restating them.
We can begin by enjoying a little humorous irony in your thought-provoking query. Here, the title of your post is contrasted by the absence of even one interrogative. Now, the binary intellect assumes that a "question" and an "answer" are two separate concepts. Yet, as stated throughout the work, every "question" contains the "answer" within it—albeit, such an answer might not satisfy the altered-ego's ulterior motives.
In most cases, that which is regarded as an obvious question is not a question at all. For example, "where did I put my keys?" is actually a manifest directive to summon a process of recall. Then there are the so-called "rhetorical questions" that are actually statements designed to elicit further examination of the obvious. Such a "question" implies that the obvious answer is insufficient or erroneous and requires further analysis and discernment.
Clearly, all questions are NOT created equal because most of them simply reflect one's current awareness-state. Here, a question is actually a declaration of some level of need. "What shall I have to eat?" In that regard, every cell of the body "questions" the nutrients it requires to survive.
Contemplate that the most potent revelatory questions are the ones generated by profound spiritual longing, rather than a primitive sensory needs. Therefore, only the multidimensional nature of one's being raises the bar, as it were, and asks the "big questions" about existential reality: "What is the nature of God?" How does Infinite Mind sustain the universe? What is my purpose in this creation? and so forth. Such questions can have no answers in terms the intellect can fully comprehend. However, they serve as great search lights by which the higher mind may discover new levels of reality nested within the infinite.
Intellectually, the question/answer pendulum is a binary equation, so it becomes trapped in its own self-cancelling polarization—right or wrong, etc. Thus, the intellect is compelled to "question:" is it possible to ask the wrong questions that will yield an answer that one may not desire? Indeed it can.
Contemplate the difference in asking "how do I get what I want?" versus "how will getting what I want affect my life?" or "why do I desire what I want in the first place?" or, "how will getting what I want affect those I love?"and, "how will getting it change me and in what way?" and so forth. Here, questioning is a process of Truth revelation, not a declaration of one's intent to control. It is for this reason that most entities ask the same questions over and over again, rejecting all forthcoming answers until they finally find the one they were looking for in the first place! Clearly, such a prophesy is both question and answer.
For example, you may recall reading an entire book and remembering only a few things of note, because one or two questions dominated your entire reading/seeking experience. Here one's "leading question" forms the blinders or filters of expectation used to screen for a preconceived answer. Now, the opening statement of your query properly and wisely recognizes the true nature of the "educational" factories designed to program the intellect to serve various occult agendas. Ironically, the simple question, "WHY?" inevitably exposes all nefarious intent to the recipient, who may then use it for other purposes. Here, the "programming" inevitably backfires, as it were, whereby unintended consequences manifest all manner of chaos, challenges, exposure, and guilt.
The comment on Google in P3 is quite poignant and insightful. It demonstrates that one's discernment, as a lens of truth, properly reveals the nature of that which is "assumed" to be fact. In other words, while many assume the monstrous entity in question to be an objective repository of answers to all questions, in reality, it is simply an intellectual landfill of relativity. That is not to say there is not a gem somewhere in every landfill, but the odds against finding one increase in direct proportion to the size of the counterfeit collective mind, otherwise known as AI. To proof this, simply rephrase the same question and take note of the different results. Even the interaction of human mind with a lifeless repository of data proves that all questions are not create equal.
As such, said enterprise, whose motto of hypocrisy is "don't be evil," masks the dictatorship of its counterfeit-collective mind by the use of corrupt algorithms to shape, direct, bias, or otherwise obfuscate the "answers" assumed by the questioner to be purely objective. And yet, if one contemplates that it is "just possible" that the "answers are within," how might one expect to locate it elsewhere? Here, such a colossal digital data archive gives the illusion of objective, personal power by appearing as a great oracle that serves its would-be gods; when, in reality,it is a great parasite of the human mind that demands submission of its unwitting hosts.
P2, 3, and 4 reference a relevant message in The Genius Frequency work, and the thought-forms of gratitude stated therein are much appreciated. Here, we come full circle to redefining the obvious—that is, the nature of the "question" as a verb, not a noun. Thus, a question references a "process of seeking truth" by which one opens the mind to witness/experience greater levels of reality. Here, a high-frequency question actually creates the space of mind in which the answer is already embedded, or encrypted, as it were, in the question itself. It is for this reason that the answers we receive may, in turn, be "leading-questions" to reveal a greater understanding. In other words, the "answer" cannot be a finality in an open-ended universe—it can allude to it, but cannot contain it. Analogous to one's journey home, both question and answer are like road signs to a destination, not the destination, itself.
Here, we can revisit the idea that a question is fractal in nature and is not independent of the answer. Thus, if an entity were to ask "how is it that water falls from the sky?" The question, itself, not only implies the presence of water in the air, but it also reveals the awareness level, or the lack thereof, to intellectually reference the current collective knowledge expressed through a given language-set. In other words, the resonant frequency of the question qualifies the questioner's intellect, not the innate intelligence in which it is embedded. Imagine an entity, who, desiring to be a pilot, projects the question, "what buttons do I push?" rather than, "what are the principles of flight?" and so forth. Here the resonance of the question seeks its own level, as it were.
The above stated principles are used by many newage proponents of so-called "positive thinking" to caution one from engaging in declarative questions, such as, "why am I not healthy?" rather than, "how shall I become healthier?" Or why am I not prosperous? Rather than, how shall I prosper? Clearly, such well-founded advice acknowledges that the answers to the questions are self-fulfilling, circular, feedback loops. In fact, they are not actually questions, but rhetorical declarations. However, such admonitions do not account for the infinite nature of an interconnected universe.
Therefore, the quote cited in P3 is instructive because, by qualifying, or framing one's query in the open-ended parameters of "just possible," one circumvents the polarized intellect's normal circular reasoning—"is the 'answer' true of false"— which is an entirely different intellectual exercise. In this regard, one should not judge oneself as "having a tendency to engage in polarized thinking," since the intellect, itself, is a binary operating system, and ALL matter is a binary manifestation of electrical bonding. Thus, since the intellect is our current language of social interaction, using it unavoidable on one level or another—but it is always relative to the collective-mind.
The essence of the above contemplation is brilliantly well-articulated in P5: indeed, there IS an "art" to questioning, because it IS an "active" engagement with the living universe, not a passive, one-way reception of an isolated need. Thus, just as it is said that one may "look for love in all the wrong places," it may also be said that one may look for answers in all the wrong questions! Such is the current state of sophistry which equivocates all degrees of awareness in a stagnant, toxic puddle of mediocrity, where everyone is deemed to be equally ignorant and ineffectual to improve life on any level. In such a world, all questions are equal to all others, as are the meaningless answers to pointless questions of relative disempowerment.
This leads to the excellent realization referenced in P6, alluding to the power of the Light of Truth to dissolve the shadows of preconceived limits of a collectivist "education." However, there is nothing to fear in any revelation of Truth. If stating one's questions is an art-form, then it is, perforce, an acquired skill, is it not? One would be foolish to fear not playing the piano well enough, if one only questions one's incompetency and never practices the instrument. And yet, if one questions how to express oneself through the instrument, the answer is practicing the instrument. Moreover, practicing it in the spirit of love is all that is needed to eventually produce pleasing results. Such results are the answers one seeks.
Here, discernment is the instrument to practice and acquiring higher skills in applying it results in articulating higher levels of questions to resonate with higher frequency thought-forms. And because no intellectual answer can represent a finality in an infinite universe, one's questions must also be dynamic and not static in their projected expectations of realizing truth. Thus, one should regard both the question and the answer it points to as a sign on the road of one's journey, not a destination in which to dwell. It is also useful to realize that it is the question that precedes every step one takes metaphorically as well as literally. In other words, our anticipation of an unfolding future time represents the perpetual question of our lives.
In conclusion: questioning the nature of questions is a profound realization and an indication of a new level of one's personal transcendence. In the process of expanding awareness, one's questions will naturally transcend the previous answers—when we cease to take the mundane for granted, and realize the miraculous, wondrous interconnections of all energy in the universe. In this way, the question/answer binary formula of the intellect becomes a tertiary interaction with the Divine Mind by which one receives inspiration to choose the higher road, rather than a polarized sensory reaction that cancels its movement through time. As stated many times in The Genius Frequency work, the great irony of life in this dimension is the need to use the limited intellect to transcend itself. Is not such a possibility the most important premise of all questions?
"Wisdom is the Art of Reading
Between the Lines of Life"
"Imagination IS Reality!
Reality IS Imagination...in slow motion."
Copyright © John J. Falone .:. All Rights Reserved