How would science be different if it went post-rational and post-materialist ?

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, sarapr said:

aren't there any institutions out there that you could do free research with?

Currently, I don’t feel a strong enough pull to pursue that. Yet, I sense I am evolving in that direction.

50 minutes ago, supremeyingyang said:

@sarapr @Serotoninluv @Outer @Joseph Maynor

We have to go way deeper into Epistemology and Ontology. Of course from a perspective of an ego, because everything beyond would be senseless.
1. Is there some reality to observe? (I would say yes)
2. Can we observe it as real as it is? (I would say no, but we can observe it to different degrees)

If you say No/No I would like to ask you about this:
How is it possible to write a sentence on a piece of paper, drop it and go away... AND someone you did not know find it and read what you wrote?
 

Well, this is a post-rational thread and you seem to be asking the questions within a rational framework (by assuming only yes/no answers and using a materialist paradigm).

If you reached a place of stillness and awakened to a post-rational answer, would you accept it? What if the answer that arose involved the integration of concepts such as purple and discipline? Would you rationalize that answer away as being irrational?

Your questions also assumes an observer and object. What if you became aware of a place in which there was no observer or object? Would you let go of the materialist paradigm and explore that area?

One can spend a lifetime in rationality. Don’t let spiritual rationality fool you. I estimate I spent over 100,000 hours in a rational thought trap before escaping. . . 

[supremeyingyang]

@Serotoninluv

You made some interesting points.

Do you have some literature or videos to go deeper (honestly)?

And... If you are enlighted... how can you know that you are not just insane? I mean you can achieve higher states of consciousness through meditation, psychedelics, and yoga. But can it be that we are as an ego just too limited to awake fully? And is that even necessary? If you are yellow with a little purpose you have already almost now one that can relate to you. What can you do to help others find the way? I see no way in the current society to live without a materialist mindset. At all. You can do what you want at home. But as soon as you go out - it's done. So even if you are right in everything.... why the fuck should be anyone impressed? 

I guess I have to find an enlightened master in real life...

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by supremeyingyang

[Forestluv]

I’ve had enlightened experiences, but I am not enlightened. The enlightened state is transient and not maintained. However, it has altered my perspective in my unenlightened state. 

One becomes skeptical to the point everything gets deconstructed and you die. 

I recommend watching Leo’s recent blog video on skepticism and Nonduality, He explains the process better than I can. 

To my self, the process is at times beautiful, terrifying, liberating, loving, sad, lonely, connected. 

There came a point of no return. I can no longer say “Ya know what, I tried this spiritual thing for a while now and it’s just not working for me. I think I’ll try something else”. There was a time I could have turned away, yet I no longer can. I’ve tried several times and can’t. I guess I have to take this to the end. It’s both exciting and scary. 

[supremeyingyang]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

I recommend watching Leo’s recent blog video on skepticism and Nonduality, He explains the process better than I can.

 

I did and didn't understand it more than what I showed. I think I need books and experience to go any further.

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

There came a point of no return. I can no longer say “Ya know what, I tried this spiritual thing for a while now and it’s just not working for me. I think I’ll try something else”. There was a time I could have turned away, yet I no longer can. I’ve tried several times and can’t. I guess I have to take this to the end. It’s both exciting and scary. 

 

 

Is this common in this journey? Because I think it is. I passed many lesser points of no return and it was just like you described it.

[Mu_]

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

It would be your science ‘in here’ rather than science as objectively understood ‘out there’.  I’ve written about this extensively in my Journals.

Here’s one example from my Journal Vol. 7: (Keep in mind that when I wrote this I was coming from a Stage Turquoise perspective.  My views on this today are a bit different.  For example, today I think you can know being through seeing, which is different than knowing being through Thinking.  So, "need to know being" isn't really a vice after all like I once thought it was.)

HOW CAN ENLIGHTENMENT HELP TIER-ONE SCIENCE? --LEMME REVIEW THE ‘FRAMEWORK OF TIER-TWO SCIENCE’

Tier-One Science goes like ham, eggs, and cheese with Tier-One Epistemology and Tier-One Metaphysics.  Enlightenment is hostile to Tier-One Philosophy because Tier-One Philosophy defines Truth in terms of [Conceptually] True, Justified, Beliefs about Reality.  Tier-One Metaphysics tells us about Reality by providing us with [Conceptually] True, Justified, Beliefs about Reality.  Tier-One Philosophy assumes the 'Paradigm of Paradigms or No paradigms'.  Enlightenment is about the transcendence of all Paradigms.  So, in that sense, Enlightenment is hostile to Tier-One Philosophy.  That's why I had to create and develop the Framework for Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding -- I needed a conceptual system in my Conceptual Understanding that Enlightenment is not hostile to.  Enlightenment is hostile to the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding: including Tier-One Science, Tier-One Philosophy, Tier-One Epistemology, Tier-One Metaphysics.

Tier-One Science is actually based in Pragmatism.  The problem is that Tier-One Science also wants to have a stranglehold on 'Knowledge' and to tell us what's 'True'.  Tier-One Science is a set of useful Frameworks masquerading as Conceptual Truths.  And I think Tier-One Science will always function this way, as a byproduct of business, university, and government money and as a career for researchers that are financed by that money.  Tier-One Science will always be an institution of pragmatic results masquerading as Truths.  So, I don't really think Enlightenment is gonna have much of an effect on Tier-One Science directly -- although it will indirectly because a new Framework will have to emerge that doesn't presuppose 'need to know BE-ing'.  I think eventually what will happen is that Tier-One Science will become much more interested in useful Frameworks rather than true Paradigms.  This will happen indirectly by Enlightenment -- because Enlightenment will prefer Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding -- and the Paradigm of Conceptual Truth will eventually be forced to be seen as unsustainable -- it will die on the vine.  This will drag down the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding as a whole in the long-term, as it's unsustainable because of it's implicit and explicit 'Need to know BE-ing'.  Basically, Tier-One Science will become more focused on what works than what's true -- and it won't lay claims to Conceptual Truth as much -- it will transition from true Paradigms to useful Frameworks.  

So, what's Tier-Two Science?  It's just a label I made up for Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding.  I think it's a useful label because it tracks Tier-One Science and lets us see the difference between the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding and the Framework of Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding.  Lemme lay out the Tier-Two Framework now:  Each Perspective has a Conceptual Understanding containing unique conceptual systems -- and those unique Conceptual Understandings corresponding to Perspectives are Complex Adaptive Systems with Egos of their own.  So, each Perspective has a unique Conceptual Understanding that has an Ego of its own.  And those Conceptual Understandings are each uniquely evolved systems.  No two Conceptual Understandings, taken as a whole, are equal -- that would be impossible.  So, while Tier-One Science is concerned with knowing BE-ing'out there', as well as pragmatic results -- Tier-Two Science is only focused on my more or less useful conceptual systems 'in here'.  Nothing means squat unless it means something to me at Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding.  This is because I'm no longer looking 'out there' for Truth.  I've become aware of my own unique Conceptual Understanding and the unique Conceptual Understanding of Other Perspectives.  I'm not looking for Conceptual Truth about BE-ing at Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding.  That's why I say, Tier-Two Science is me picking apples from the trees of Tier-One Science, but then baking them into my own Tier-Two Science pies.  Tier-Two Science is concerned 'in here' with my Science, my Knowledge, my Useful Conceptual Systems -- it's not concerned with finding [Conceptually True], Justified, Beliefs about 'Reality'.  That Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding dies on the vine when you hit Enlightened Stage Turquoise

This is really great, you point to some really interesting things that are similar in my own understanding in the past.  How would you say your view has change on this same subject.  You may find this interesting, it was my first post on this site, and while still usefull in its intention, is not totally in line with how I see and understand now, but I think you may find it interesting.  Then again maybe not.....   

 

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, supremeyingyang said:

I did and didn't understand it more than what I showed. I think I need books and experience to go any further.

Is this common in this journey? Because I think it is. I passed many lesser points of no return and it was just like you described it.

It’s a great sign that you watched the whole video and didn’t rationalize it away and that you want to learn more. That right there is half the battle. You are further along than 99% of people. 

I’ve heard several people describe the “can’t turn back” phenomena. It’s like once you get a glimpse of the truth a new energy arises. The truth is an acquired taste. Haha

[Jack River]

It goes a lot deeper than experiences. From what I see “enlightened action” doesn’t project experience. Thoughts tendency or pattern is to be fixed by nature. This really is a stoppage of experience projection. We like to resist change so we project images that are fixed in nature. Truth or enlightened action doesn’t resist change. So it is always changing. Thought doesn’t like that. Thought projects experience because it is familiar. It’s totlay gnarly dudes. For me starting with fear/psychological time really opened the door to the stoppage of this fixed projection. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

That’s why you don’t ever become enlightened. Only somthing fixed has been or will be but is limited to its own fixed content. Truth isn’t fixed, it is living and always changing. Nothingness doesn’t project “things” on top of WHAT IS. This truth has really unraveled itself over the last month. Its closer to non-being dudes. 

[Forestluv]

@supremeyingyang Another thought: you likely have some direct post-rational experience. Have you ever met a gal where the two of you had "chemistry"? It just came naturally. The two of you didn't have to figure out how to create the chemistry. You just hit it off. Do you get all logical / rational and analyze the chemistry? Do you try to quantify the chemistry? 

If one can let go of rational thinking, things get *really* interesting with chemistry on post-rational being.

[Jack River]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@supremeyingyang Another thought: you likely have some direct post-rational experience. Have you ever met a gal where the two of you had "chemistry"? It just came naturally. The two of you didn't have to figure out how to create the chemistry. You just hit it off. Do you get all logical / rational and analyze the chemistry? Do you try to quantify the chemistry? 

If one can let go of rational thinking, things get *really* interesting with chemistry on post-rational being.

Yeah can’t connect deeply when mind is in charge and projecting its images onto each other. 

[supremeyingyang]

@Serotoninluv

Yeah, I already had to acknowledge that no one is really that rational. And yes, I would say that I had many direct post-rational experiences. You go through streets you've seen a thousand times, but suddenly there is magic in everything.

You are right. I experienced that chemistry example quite often and I wrote on one experience in another thread. Maybe you gathered it from there?:) Being with her was like spiritual yoga... 2 hours were gone in the wink of an eye. I fucked it up, though. Everyone wanted to know how it is to be with her. This brought me out of the moment. It was not like I wanted her for myself (ok, a little), but it was that talking destroyed everything. Now, this is what you call post-rational, aren't you?

Edited October 17, 2018 by supremeyingyang

[Emanyalpsid]

14 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I wouldn’t want to do it alone. I would want to be at a Turquoise-level institution with awakened beings where we integrate science, metaphysics and nonduality. This area is just starting to emerge, yet is still considered fringe pseudo-science. 

If I evolve high enough, I may become a pioneer in this field - yet right now it looks unattainable and too risky to me. 

Personally, I would like to investigate if mutations are nonrandom and some paranormal phenomena. Yet, my institution wouldn’t be open to that.  Yet, if I develop more confidence, I might try to pull it off.

Yet stage Yelow stuff is lots of fun to and my institution is very supportive at that level. They just don’t like any whoo whoo stuff.  

@Serotoninluv love your posts, you wrote a clear explanation where the problem in science is.

One can use science to explain the dependent origin of reality though - meaning its non-dual existence. 

Einstein found that space is dependent upon time and that matter is dependent upon gravity. This means that the essence of all these concepts are empty, as they do not exist upon themselves but are of dependent origin. This is exactly what is meant in Buddhism with emptiness.

One can also show through empericial evidence that life is dependent upon it's environment, this means that they are both also empty of existence upon themselves. Take a read through page 7 till 12 on this website; http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com

It explains the emptiness of essence by looking at reality through science.

It depends upon how someone looks at the evidence brought forward by science, how useful science is. The separation between mind and body in science, made a long time ago, presents a problem for medicine and psychology though, as a human is a mind and body interaction. By doing this they separated psychology from medicine. After this separation medicine became specialized in all the different fields, forgetting the holistic whole a human body is. And psychology started to try and figure out the mind, based upon Descartes his duality (I think, therefore I am), which we all know is nothing more than the ego.

Dr. Bruker (German) saw this mistake (the separation) though and he found that about 80% of the most common diseases come from a false nutrition eaten over multiple decennia. In medicine they fail to see this as they became to specialized in symptomatic relieve, instead of looking at the human as a holistic whole - meaning mind body interaction, to find the root cause of a disease. Bruker also found the root cause of many psychological diseases. Not surprisingly, they mostly have to do with the will, or the ego. It was very thrilling to read that a doctor, who's focus was curing diseases, found that they mostly come from the will. He found the suffering from the ego from the other way around. He also found that every psychological disease will show physical symptons.

Sadly his research was not financed anywhere by a university as no company (food industry, farmacy etc.) wants to invest in a research which will result in them going down. His findings are based upon multiple researches before he came around though.

This is a crooked system, research being funded by companys, sadly it is everywhere.

It also would be very time consuming to research his subject as it would take a large group of people to eat a full nutrition over multiple decennia opposed to a group who will eat a non-full nutrition. For people who can read German I can strongly advice his books, they will change the way you look at nutrition, health and medicine. 

So in short, for science to be beneficial for health and psychological purposes, they have to merge the mind-body back into science. Which will probably not happen anytime soon, if ever.

For the rest, science suits it's endeavors.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Robert]

19 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

One method is self inquiry. Contemplate something like “what is a thought?”. Do not get rational like “A thought is an impulse in the brain stimulted by neurotransmitters at synapses”. Rather, relax the mind and enter an empty stillness. Observe what arises. Imagine you are observing cells divide under a microscope. Observe your own consciousness. Record “data”. Then allow for integration of data points to create a more holistic view. Be mindful if you start analyzing things rationally.

Once you get the hang of it, it’s hella fun,. Rational thought and linear logic bores the hell out of me these days.  

I already do plenty of self-inquiry and contemplation, but neither one of these practices are post-rational science. Anything we get from a self-inquiry or a contemplation is based on rationality. There is no post-rational science.

[Jack River]

15 minutes ago, Robert said:

Anything we get from a self-inquiry or a contemplation is based on rationality. There is no post-rational science.

You gone into the limits of self inquiry and rationality? Comprehending those limits brings about a more consistent line of thinking. The understanding of those limits prevents thoughts corrupt nature from corrupting the flow of investigation. David bohm is a good example of a dude who was a gnarly thinker but not limited by that field itself. Because he was aware holistically of thoughts limits. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Jack River

[Robert]

@Jack River All I'm saying is that the practices themselves are rational. What you take from them is a different story.

[Jack River]

9 minutes ago, Robert said:

@Jack River All I'm saying is that the practices themselves are rational. What you take from them is a different story.

I’m not sure if you get what I’m saying but..what did you mean by practices are rational? 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Jack River

[Joseph Maynor]

22 hours ago, supremeyingyang said:

@sarapr @Serotoninluv @Outer @Joseph Maynor

We have to go way deeper into Epistemology and Ontology. Of course from a perspective of an ego, because everything beyond would be senseless.
1. Is there some reality to observe? (I would say yes)
2. Can we observe it as real as it is? (I would say no, but we can observe it to different degrees)

If you say No/No I would like to ask you about this:
How is it possible to write a sentence on a piece of paper, drop it and go away... AND someone you did not know find it and read what you wrote?
 

Yeah, cool.  I like your provocation.  That's good.  We need people who really love the literal truth and that push the rest of us.

Ok.  So, first we have to address what metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology are.  Metaphysics is the subject label and category that deals with the issue of what is real.  Ontology is the subject label and category that deal with the set of things that are real.  Epistemology is the subject label and category that deals with the issue of what can be known and what is unknowable.  

Ego is taking the illusion of Thought and Experience for granted.  The Egoic self is just a small subset of Ego though, as Ego casts a much wider net than the Egoic self.

1. Is there some reality to observe? (I would say yes):

• Well, this is tricky.  You're presupposing some concept of reality,  What do you think reality is?  Gimme a paragraph.

2. Can we observe it as real as it is? (I would say no, but we can observe it to different degrees)

• This is an interesting question.  Good job.  The issue is what's the reality that we're looking at.  We have to have some foundation to stand on to say something is an illusion.  So, you gotta find that foundation; and it's there it's a foundation that  comes from seeing not through thinking though.

3.  If you say No/No I would like to ask you about this: How is it possible to write a sentence on a piece of paper, drop it and go away... AND someone you did not know find it and read what you wrote?

• Good insight.  What you're gonna find is that all that stuff is just different Experience "in here" as opposed to being qualitatively different things "out there".   If that happened for you, it would all be Experience.  And people don't always understand the same Thought as you do when they read your sentences.  This highlights the issue of interpretation, which the Post-Modernists like Gadamer dealt with.  The issue of, you and I read the same sentence, and we get two different meanings which depends on many more variables than the meaning of the words alone.  

Video on point to watch:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Georg_Gadamer

Edited October 17, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Jack River]

I personally see practices in the direction of psychological becoming as totally irrational. But from what people say that is realized as a result of applying them. As far as practices like applying thought/rational thinking to solve practical/functional/physical or outward problems that is rational and has its purpose. I would say that actual rational thinking, as in the product of holistic insight, is aware of what makes thought/rationality irrational. I’m not into science but I appreciate it. As long as we don’t think it leads to truth and is depended on to bring psychological satisfaction it’s all good dudes. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

I already do plenty of self-inquiry and contemplation, but neither one of these practices are post-rational science. Anything we get from a self-inquiry or a contemplation is based on rationality. There is no post-rational science.

Hmmm, my job is that of a post-rational scientist. How can that be?

[Robert]

On 10/17/2018 at 0:22 PM, Jack River said:

I’m not sure if you get what I’m saying but..what did you mean by practices are rational? 

I mean that self-inquiry and contemplation are based on rationality. You sitting there and asking questions like "what is consciousness" or "who am I" is you using rationality.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Robert