Forestluv

I’ve pondered this at times. It would seem very easy to test: just get some Zenner Cards and see if someone’s predictions are statistically significant. Yet, there are complications and unconscious biases. Scientists want to play by their rational, objective terms. They want to control the setting and can be closed-minded to what qualifies as a positive result. A few things to consider: 1. Paranormal abilities like hyper-intuition and clairvoyance could be poorly evolved and developed. Consider that millions of years ago, our eyesight was poorly developed. We could only process light vs dark and poorly formed objects as shadows. Would it have been fair test for the ability to see by today’s standards of eye charts and color tests? Similarly, intuition, clairvoyance etc. may be poorly developed. Rather than being able to predict lottery numbers, clairvoyance may look more like having a “hunch” you are going to run into an old friend you haven’t seen in years. 2. Setting. Scientists love controlled, cold settings that remove all the subjective squeezy stuff. Yet, can this bias the results? A few of my students think they may have some paranormal abilities. We’ve tried Zenner Cards. There are five cards, each with a different shape. I’ve found students that think they might have paranormal abilities do far worse with Zenner Cards when working with a skeptical scientist. They do far better when working with someone open-minded that wants to connect with them. They do even better when working with someone supportive whom they already have a connection with. 3. Setting the standard for empirical positive results. One time I picked the card with squiggly lines - which looked like running water to me. I sat stone-faced and imagined myself relaxing by a river in peace. I made sure to have neutral body position with no facial expressions. The student said, “I sense you laying down in nature by water gazing at the stars”. She guessed the star card. This gets scored as a “wrong” guess in the quantification. Yet, is it truly “wrong”? Yes, by one perspective - No by another perspective. 4. I think most scientists are too closed-minded about experimental design and what we are testing for. Years from now, we will look back and laugh at the silly beliefs of scientists in this area - just like we laugh at how years ago scientists believed a fully-formed tiny human was in sperm and the woman’s egg merely provided nourishment for the tiny human to grow. 5. When a person’s spiritual pursuits go deep enough, they often begin to have direct experience in paranormal gray areas and their perspective changes.

You as well. I hadn’t thought of distinctions between holistic perception and intuition. Perhaps they are integrated? I need to contemplate some more.

???

I don’t know. He was off the chart on curiosity about everything. He would suddenly get curious about random things like how a bird’s tongue works. He lived in the magical world Leo has been describing lately.

A child exploring a creek is doing science, art, music, yoga and performance. He hasn’t yet learned that these are supposed to be separate things. Adults need to deconstruct as they evolve.

Leonardo Da Vinci had thoughts. Yet he didn’t think this as Biology and that as engineering and this as painting and that as philosophy.

Ok. ?? I wish you the best along your path.

The words point to that which cannot be explained. Don’t get caught up on words. They are just a pointer. The reason I’m hammering this point is because it’s one of the biggest traps.

I don’t see a “their”. It’s a space that transcends science, music, art, philosophy, poetry, nature etc. Leonardo Da Vinci was the greatest mind ever. Not because he did many diverse things well, but because he did one thing well. When I converse with my colleagues in art, we aren’t talking art or science.

It’s not about Einstein. You can pick any scientific genuis.

How is e=mc2 like The Magic Flute?

And where did their genuis of symbols arise from?

You are asking me to explain it in rational terms. I’m trying to bring you into post-rational space.

My personality, life history and intention is irrelevant. Don’t get distacted by that. Focusing on that is part of the trap. It is prior to all that.

IME, the awakening I speak of is more valuable than my 20+ years of buddhist study and meditation. It lies prior to the words. Let go of the words.

Dang, I thought you got it. ? When you have the realization you will no longer need your words.

I don’t know how in rational terms. I would say Leonardo Da Vinci is an example. Also, consider how Mozart and Einstein are similar.

It is an integrated view

Indeed ?

There is a more expansive view available.

This makes a distinction between “real knowledge” and “a person”. Try to go prior to these concepts.

We often use the scientific method in metaphysics (and vice-versa). They are highly related. I think we are conditioned to believe they are mutually exclusive.

I don’t have an argument. I’m asking for clarity on this point: “This is what is referred to as knowing without the ability to act on knowledge. If one knows but is unable to act on that knowledge, it is the same as not knowing” Does this assume personal agency? As well: “The quote you referenced is illustrative of how people who spontaneously recognize real knowledge, dismiss it out of hand due to there being nothing for the personality to cling to” This also seems to suggest personal agency. I.e. That there is a distinction between “real knowledge” and a “personality” that has agency to dismiss it out of hand.

@Soulbass Leo’s recent video on Love is really good

For sure. Science is a great tool. IMO it would be even better if we incorporated more post-rational being and metaphysics into conducting science. Imagine integrating lessons from 5-meo into science ?