You said: "Ayinde, what is it that I am missing when trying to extract truth out of Cosby's comments and Rastas responses? It seems that the concensus is that truth can be determined or affirmed by the messenger."

* Truths (and falsehoods) do not appear out of nowhere. Both are attached to the REAL motives of people.

If the messenger was not important then white supremacy could thrive unchecked. Truths coming from Blacks can be repeated by whites (also unwittingly by blacks) with their underlying motivation being to support white supremacy. White messengers also promote the idea of white saviours. Where possible, it is ALWAYS good to get to know who is saying what so that what is being said can be measured by the history of who is saying it.

For example:

Supposing George Bush said, "Black people need to wake up and become useful."

Supposing I (Ayinde) said, "Black people need to wake up and become useful."

The statement on its own is correct but if applied from the point of view of the different speakers the meanings are very different.

From the Bush point of view it means joining the Army, becoming a willing servant in some White corporation and/or any number of other avenues put in place to serve white supremacy.

From my point of view it means to become knowledgeable, challenge the system, work to develop your self and others.

You can see the difference because you have an idea of Bush's history and views, and you also have an idea of my history and views.

Knowing the messenger helps to understand the motive behind the message and to ensure that you apply the truth to serve YOUR self interest. Knowing the messenger also helps to show the hidden and/or dangerous agendas behind a message.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You asked: "As I see it, Truth cannot be altered, it is fixed, so why would it matter who presented it?"

* A person can also tell a truth with the intention being to do harm. Let's say Peter was trying to develop and work out these issues here and someone who is envious of Peter suddenly said, "Hey, I know Peter. He is a car thief." That might be the truth, but the motive could be to embarrass Peter and/or to influence us to not deal with him.

Another example on a larger scale could be a "western supported" Black Leader "supporting" the "west" including "arrangements" with Western leaders. The Black Leader realizes that the "west" is not good and changes his policies. The "west" suddenly starts telling us, "You know that Black Leader wasted your money and he is a dictator." That may be the truth. The same truth we were seeing all along, but the motivation of the "west" is to cause us to help them overthrow the leader to be replaced with another "western friendly puppet".

Different people can voice similar truths but have quite different motives. The effect is always different depending on who says it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You said: "One thing I have learned is that without a Unified overstanding, progress and solutions are impossible."

* This is not necessarily true. You could be receptive to certain truths, while others are not. You could progress becoming part of progress on a larger scale, while others cannot. The solutions are quite possible and progress continues even if with you alone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You asked: "Is it really that difficult to separate self perceptions and biases when seeking facts and accuracy?"

* Yes. However there is no need to try to separate anything. People will usually speak with all of their biases and various self perceptions. When and as they learn all of that should improve.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You said: "Two things I have noticed in some depictions are scales of balance and a blindfold. Does that not prove that our "sights" are mere perceptions and that balance and truth are amongst Higher energies/forces?"

* There are different levels of balance that are engaged at various crossroads in development. For the purpose of analyzing ourselves we usually go out of balance initially. When we are reconstructing ourselves we are supposed to reach a point in balance.

Let I say that many people disagreeing with you does not indicate you are wrong or right. Parts of the "Cosby" reasoning are coming over like the Colorism Reasoning where you are trying to show one point, but it is not being entertained by some in favour of condemning Cosby for making the statements.

Your point is quite simple and clear (although a bit naive based on what I previously explained about the messenger), but those who are opposed to Cosby making the statements that were reported to have come from him, have so far not shown how he was out of place for making the statements.

I gather that some are saying because Bill Cosby is wealthy and not living the ghetto life he is unable to relate to those experiences. Where is the reasonable proof of that? Some are claiming that he does not offer solutions. How does not offering solutions make the statements wrong? Even the idea that he is offering no solutions is not really true because he sponsors many projects that he THINKS are part of the solution. So they will have to show how what he does is not helping. Some called him a hypocrite, but so far after reading the posts I have not seen any evidence presented showing he is advocating one thing while doing another.

The context of the statements is also missing. He would be wrong and out of place if he was speaking to all Blacks in a national setting or if he was speaking to whites about Blacks. If he was in a Black Community setting speaking to Black youths for the purpose of trying to motivate them to develop in the system that he felt worked for him, then he could be well intended although a bit misguided. I did not trust how the media reported his comments. They could have reported it out of context. In my view, those who are against Cosby on this board have not convincingly shown how Cosby was wrong or out of place although they have added other aspects of the problem to the debate.