Beyond science...

Science is based on the belief (not the truth) that consensus proves truth. Quite honestly, it is not that different than religion in this regard.

I respect it, but it is limited; one's personal existence goes on, regardless of what science discovers, and one has to deal with one's personal reality.

To go beyond science (and religion, too) is to transcend consensus reality; to transcend consensus reality is to transcend its converse, individuality.

It's been called "ego death", and it is beyond description.

Let's resort to science for a moment; "my reality" is in my brain. "Your reality" is in your brain.

I have never contacted an "other brain", an "other consciousness". Even to read someone's mind directly would have those thoughts arise in my own.

If "ultimate reality" (not able to get past it because it is occurring in my brain) is subjective, then objective reality is ultimately subjective, as is objectivity itself.

At this point, where objectivity vanishes, subjectivity dies too; both objectivity and subjectivity fall on their faces; they are transcended.

What remains is unspeakable, has never been spoken, and never will be. From such a perspective, one reads "livescience.com" and sees bits, pieces, fragments and specks being declared as truth, until the next fragment is declared as truth tomorrow, then the next, then the next. And understands, and is not critical, and reads with interest, observing the broken, fragmented collective consciousness and its endless efforts to make wholeness of fragmentation, its inability to understand and its staunch refusal to die as a scattered collection of pieces and be one.

***

Hope springs eternal; perhaps tomorrow's scientific discover(ies) won't ever be disproved or superceded; this is the truth!

The eternal hope that a single piece, a fragment, could ever be the truth, despite the Church's history and the fragment "God" presented as "objective truth".

The inability or refusal to recognize that Truth is always-already-the-case, here and now, was always true, is true now and always will be true -- for us all.

Peace (and 42/God)...

 

A reply to the identical message, posted elsewhere....

Science does not aim at producing truth, it aims at producing the best possible approximation to the truth of a given thing based on the available evidence

Agreed, although much of the public seems to perceive scientific discoveries as "the truth" (we talked about this in chat)... yet, not many scientists do, or they couldn't remain scientists -- it's a method of discovery.

Any discovery is limited, being subject to new findings.

The need to discover, itself, is limited, being based on a sense of lack and incompleteness, unwholeness, something missing.

There is a reality beyond this that I feel comfortable capitalizing and calling "Reality", fwiw, because it is unconditional.

Scientists change what they believe in order to accord with evidence

Religion denies the evidence in order to maintain faith in what is believed

Religion denies science, but science also denies religion (being fixed, static, not a method of discovery).

The two are representative, from here, of the dualistic mind. Science and religion are, in a real way, opposites; one ever-updating and in movement, the other never changing and fixed.

Both remain within the boundaries of the mind, which is unwholeness, one-sidedness, fragmentation. "Pick a side"... who cares? Or recognize what contains both sides, and go beyond sides.

I can't really think how anything could be more different or opposed than this. Science is not limited- every question you could ask about 'personal experience' is, in principle, answerable by science.

The presence of searching questions, the doubt of "in principle" and the need for something to answer them, is the human mind, the human psyche. Science is as much a psychological search, as the search for love and companionship from others.

Furthermore, you may think that you can answer it in reference to some sort of phenomenological philosophy, but this is to assume that we have some sort of privileged access to the true nature of our minds. You assume that the consciousness we are presented with is in fact what consciousness is. In fact it is science which gets to the true nature of things, both in the case of the external world AND our internal minds.

We encounter our thoughts as they arise, when they do. The only 'priviledged' aspect is that no one else does. From that perspective, most thought is a sheer waste of energy; no one will ever encounter them.

These are your thoughts, my friend. There is no encountering another mind.

It's a paradox called "life", and the paradox resolves when one stops trying to know, looks at what's right in front of one's eyes and recognizes oneself.

Peace...

 

awesome..

fear of thoughts denies them.

Agreed 100%.

and most likely those thoughts, have been thought, so the braid continues..

The continuity of thought (i.e. self) is an illusion; it is not there, no matter how obviously it may seem to be there.

Tell me a thought you've thought in the past. "I'm sleepy?"

Congratulations on the brand new thought you just had, accompanied by a brand new sense as if you've thought that in the past.

Peace...