|
Post by sunshine on Aug 30, 2014 5:30:43 GMT -5
This is obviously a bit of self-indulgent TMT on my part but if you consider that picture in the context of what's referred to as the "fractal nature of the Universe" (which evidently has a limit) .. .. well, yeah .. like, wow. this proves it: god is a mouse!
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Aug 30, 2014 9:38:05 GMT -5
Science is a kind of game that keeps refining it's rules, but as with any game, there are strict boundaries and you can't move the pieces off the board. For the science game, that boundary is objectivity. If 'reality' is actually subjective, then it requires a different sort of game. My sense is that this new game will look a bit like a merging of science, philosophy, psychology and spirituality. If that were to happen, it might imply that mankind was on the verge of awakening. Another boundary of science is reproducibility: each individuation must be able to reproduce the experience. While this is also a subjective idea, reproducibility/science does point towards a more stable/established/long-running aspect of creation. If a spiritual discovery can be easily experienced by everybody, it becomes science. I like the idea of merging all those disciplines - and I would say it's inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 30, 2014 10:00:01 GMT -5
Everybody should read Candace Pert, Ph.D.'s book Molecules of Emotion, it's exactly that, Portto, the merging of all those 'specialty' areas -- also, it gives a mighty big glimpse into the reality of the politics (regular and sexual) and the money-grubbing that keeps 'science' marching in place. It is a fantastic read.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 30, 2014 10:20:36 GMT -5
Science is a kind of game that keeps refining it's rules, but as with any game, there are strict boundaries and you can't move the pieces off the board. For the science game, that boundary is objectivity. If 'reality' is actually subjective, then it requires a different sort of game. My sense is that this new game will look a bit like a merging of science, philosophy, psychology and spirituality. If that were to happen, it might imply that mankind was on the verge of awakening. Another boundary of science is reproducibility: each individuation must be able to reproduce the experience. While this is also a subjective idea, reproducibility/science does point towards a more stable/established/long-running aspect of creation. If a spiritual discovery can be easily experienced by everybody, it becomes science. I like the idea of merging all those disciplines - and I would say it's inevitable. Right, the reproducibility requirement is an attempt to remove the subjective aspect. That aspect is so strong when dealing directly with individuals that it has to be factored out systematically. (Placebo effect) Even those doing the testing can influence the result, which means the testing has to be double blind.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Aug 30, 2014 16:29:38 GMT -5
Another boundary of science is reproducibility: each individuation must be able to reproduce the experience. While this is also a subjective idea, reproducibility/science does point towards a more stable/established/long-running aspect of creation. If a spiritual discovery can be easily experienced by everybody, it becomes science. I like the idea of merging all those disciplines - and I would say it's inevitable. Right, the reproducibility requirement is an attempt to remove the subjective aspect. That aspect is so strong when dealing directly with individuals that it has to be factored out systematically. (Placebo effect) Even those doing the testing can influence the result, which means the testing has to be double blind. confiding the whirling universe to Chance actually demonstrates a greater power of belief than confiding it to a Consciousness:
The problem lies in the fact that generally speaking the western mind still has a childish idea of ´´GOD´´ it studies the different theorems of science but refuses to study the difficult approaches to ´´GOD´´. This is, howerever, understandable, for in this it has been misled and cheated so often S.A. and: ´´a theory of spiritual evolution is not identical with a scientific theory of evolution and physical life evolution;it must stand on its own inherent justification: it may accept the scientific account of physical evolution as a support or an element, but the support is not indispensable.The scientific theory is concerned only with the ourtward and visible machinery and process, with the detail of Nature´s execution, with the physical development of things in Matter and the law of development of Life and Mind in Matter; its account of the process may have to be considerably changed (as in the meantime it has on several occasions) or may be dropped altogether in the light of a new discovery, but that will not affect the self evident fact of a spiritual evolution, an evolution of Consciousness.´´ ´´awakening´´ may here well be seen as an evolutionary process, though we (Portto, E, me)may differ on its ultimate consequence--i prefer to take the logic further--eternal spirit merging with matter--resulting in an eternal ´´body´´
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 31, 2014 10:47:35 GMT -5
The willingness to be open-minded and to let go of beliefs begins with the experiencer's realization that they 'don't know' all that 'is', and that they don't know what will actually happen.. 'God' is a projected explanation of personal beliefs about existence..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2014 12:30:04 GMT -5
(** consults Akashic records of all past and future **) yup! says right here ... "humility serves a man well" ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 17:36:34 GMT -5
I'm still not getting what you mean by 'order.' Or 'intelligence' for that matter. Is an example of order like breathing? In, out, in, out. Is it a crystal or snowflake? Is it hydrogen bonding? a spiderweb? How teeth line up in a row? .... Yeah. Yeah, that one. I'd say something other than nothing is a pattern. No need to dub it intelligence though. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 1, 2014 7:17:02 GMT -5
The willingness to be open-minded and to let go of beliefs begins with the experiencer's realization that they 'don't know' all that 'is', and that they don't know what will actually happen.. 'God' is a projected explanation of personal beliefs about existence.. yeah tzu... we all know already that the earth is flat, and that its supposed roundness is due to the belief of some evil nitwits that probably never should have been born, for they dared to look further than their noses were long...why would they have done that? because they believed tzu, kiddo, belief is indispensible. there is a REAL world out there even if you dont believe it take air
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 1, 2014 8:25:57 GMT -5
The willingness to be open-minded and to let go of beliefs begins with the experiencer's realization that they 'don't know' all that 'is', and that they don't know what will actually happen.. 'God' is a projected explanation of personal beliefs about existence.. yeah tzu... we all know already that the earth is flat, and that its supposed roundness is due to the belief of some evil nitwits that probably never should have been born, for they dared to look further than their noses were long...why would they have done that? because they believed tzu, kiddo, belief is indispensible. there is a REAL world out there even if you dont believe it take air The difference between 'belief' and understanding, is that belief is an attachment to an understanding, and.. attachments are held onto even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.. beliefs are irrational attachments to the understandings preferred over actuality.. not only are beliefs dispensable, they are harmful, they are the signature of a closed mind..
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 1, 2014 9:14:21 GMT -5
This is obviously a bit of self-indulgent TMT on my part but if you consider that picture in the context of what's referred to as the "fractal nature of the Universe" (which evidently has a limit) .. .. well, yeah .. like, wow. Yeah, I have always been fascinated a bit of fractals, and see them as REMniscent of the patterns of Intelligence infused into Nature. Perhaps it is self-indulgent and/or TMT, but there's an awe in the activity that brings about the ability to see the dream for what it is. I likey dat sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 1, 2014 9:30:27 GMT -5
Another boundary of science is reproducibility: each individuation must be able to reproduce the experience. While this is also a subjective idea, reproducibility/science does point towards a more stable/established/long-running aspect of creation. If a spiritual discovery can be easily experienced by everybody, it becomes science. I like the idea of merging all those disciplines - and I would say it's inevitable. Right, the reproducibility requirement is an attempt to remove the subjective aspect. That aspect is so strong when dealing directly with individuals that it has to be factored out systematically. (Placebo effect) Even those doing the testing can influence the result, which means the testing has to be double blind. Yeah, it would seem to me that the reproducibility is what gives rise to the fractal nature of even thought. That is, if science is using previously held 'knowledge/proofs' to justify the validity of the present experiment, it would necessarily gives rise to a certain pattern or progress in some order. Every now and then, someone comes up with something radically 'new', but it still requires verification of other peers' imaginations. Yeah, to get into truer objectivity, that requires realized Subjectivity, we'z gonna need some sciphipsyspi!
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Sept 1, 2014 11:53:51 GMT -5
yeah tzu... we all know already that the earth is flat, and that its supposed roundness is due to the belief of some evil nitwits that probably never should have been born, for they dared to look further than their noses were long...why would they have done that? because they believed tzu, kiddo, belief is indispensible. there is a REAL world out there even if you dont believe it take air The difference between 'belief' and understanding, is that belief is an attachment to an understanding, and.. attachments are held onto even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.. beliefs are irrational attachments to the understandings preferred over actuality.. not only are beliefs dispensable, they are harmful, they are the signature of a closed mind.. okay, i can follow that to a certain point, but they are the signature of a closed mind..
is a gross generalisation i would not say that one can believe something passionately, (i have an ex girlfriend, friendly,´´openminded´´, kindest heart, very smart, portuguese, university degree in english, literate---interested in spirituality) i could not talk her out of the belief that the pope speaks 600 languages...( funny? she is dead serious about it, and she is not a blind follower of catholic doctrine either.) as far as understanding goes--your understanding of Akasha, may well be a belief in the eyes of others--after all it is rather hard to give irrefutable ´´evidence´´ of cosmic memory... i have a lot of understandings, which may seem beliefs to you, simply because you havent had the experience i have had.You had perhaps different experience,leading to a different understanding. ?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2014 12:59:43 GMT -5
A belief is very simply an idea taken to be true and to complicate the definition with the notion of attachment is a way of rationalizing away ones beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 1, 2014 13:34:11 GMT -5
Sciphipsyspi would probably be a fun class to teach/take, but hard to grade! The students would have to grade themselves. ...accepting the futility of their endeavors to understand until each all but dropped the class. Students in an empty classroom.
|
|