I want to show people the limitations of science, but there is a problem

[Scholar]

14 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar 

 

I am aware of that statement and that you are aware of what I speak of in terms of how things are. Our disagreement is in the framing, the usage of language to communicate this understanding.

I don't subscribe to the idea that all frameworks are equally valid or useful for us, especially in terms of our existential investigations. In my eyes the materialist paradigms and their resulting "non-materialist"-paradigms (which stand in opposition to the materialist paradigm and are essentially a spawn of it, and therefore attached to it like a tick) are very unnecessarily vague, confusing and conflating because all of them stemmed from a deeper unconsciousness.

Once the consciousness increase these frameworks have been kind of made to work from within that consciousness level. I would prefer for us to actually construct a cleaner framework that is specifically detached from the limited materialistic framework and does not require to stand in opposition of it, but rather is it's own evolutionary pathway of frameworks.

 

Whether we like it or not but these frameworks have an impact on our consciousness and how we view the things we are talking about. Instead of having a framework that works against the essential nature of Oneness, Non-duality and so forth we can construct them in ways so they streamline these aspects.

Things like "Perception, Mind, Relativity" always stand in contrast to the Materialistic Framework. They are essentially part of it, and in my eyes it is obvious that the usages of these concepts will keep as trapped, to a certain degree, in that paradigm.

 

 

Basically what I am trying to say is that due to our unconsciousness in the past we have created entire languages and concepts based on that level of consciousness. When we are using that same language on a different level of consciousness we will naturally come to the limitations of that language and these concepts, which is happening all the time.

And this is not mere surface level, this goes really, really deep. I don't see a lot of people adressing this problem while to me it seems like it has helped me increase my consciousness quite significantly.

Think of if a high consciousness alien was to construct a language, what words would it never even come up with that we keep using all day. How would it refer to different kind of objects when objects themselves are part of the language framework and therefore more of conceptual clumps than anything else? There are a lot of things that would look completely differently.

To me Leo and a lot of people when using language and attempting to communicate non-dual Truth are banging their heads against the wall. While of course this is obviously inevitable to a certain degree, I do think we could make it far more comprehensive if we were to adjust our language significantly.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

@Scholar Creating new constructs that provide grounding to those evolving is a practical contribution. Maps can be fun to create and useful to oneself and others. If you can create improved maps, that is a worthy pursuit. Your maps may resonate well with others. As well, the map is not the territory and it’s helpful to be aware of the tendency to become mesmerized by maps and miss actual territory.

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar Creating new constructs that provide grounding to those evolving is a practical contribution. Maps can be fun to create and useful to oneself and others. If you can create improved maps, that is a worthy pursuit. Your maps may resonate well with others. As well, the map is not the territory and it’s helpful to be aware of the tendency to become mesmerized by maps and miss actual territory.

I agree, but because all of us are using maps all day, as we are thinking creatures, we will inevitably be using tools that either increase our consciousness or halt our progress. For example seeing how concepts like Perception, Relativity, Imagination, Mind, Map vs Territory and so forth are actually part of the Materialistic Paradigm and ironically contribute to it's limited Framework is to me essential. This is not merely about using different words and concepts, this is about Seeing in what kind of relationships these concepts stand and therefore how the "Meta-framework" has a substantial influence of how we a look and perceive reality.

By replacing the Pre-Consciousness concepts with Post-Consciousness concepts we actually get to observe the Pre-Consciousness concepts from a distance, we see their limitations by not being immersed in them. The Post-Consciousness concepts will, by having clearly constructed them ourselves, be obviously constructions to us. The danger of the Pre-consciousness concepts is that they go so deep we do not recognize them as constructions anymore. We are so familiar with them we do not even consider alternatives.

In other words we are unconscious that the Pre-Consciousness concepts are even concepts. We don't actually see them for what they are. Like watching a Movie for the first time and being utterly immersed in it. That will not happen if you have created a Movie yourself. If you have created the Movie yourself every scene will be a reminder of how you have created it.

 

Think of how people viewed the world thousands of years ago. When Spirits were fundamentally part of their Reality. Their worlds were different, their languages we different, the conclusions they formed from Non-dual experiences were different.

To me it is very clear that Leo has framed his entire Philosophy within the Materialist Paradigm, precisely because he has put it in opposition of it. This is, to me, unnecessarily limiting and does not celebrate the full spectrum of expression that is possible.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

@Scholar I see value in creating post-conscious frameworks to transcend pre-consciousness concepts. I also see value in creating post-post-conscious frameworks to transcend post- conscious concept frameworks. And I see value in exploring other realms as well. For me, theorizing can be like painting a painting. I like going deeper and deeper into the painting, I just need to be mindful of becoming mesmerized and captivated by my painting. There are many other realms to explore and directly experience.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar I see value in creating post-conscious frameworks to transcend pre-consciousness concepts. I also see value in creating post-post-conscious frameworks to transcend post- conscious concept frameworks. And I see value in exploring other realms as well. For me, theorizing can be like painting a painting. I just need to be mindful of becoming mesmerized, then captivated by my painting. If so, I ca no longer hear the wisdom of bird song.

Yes, one does good not to be attached to their own creation. In Art-school we learn this by having our drawings be torn apart by our teacher until we no longer care for them but instead for the process of creation itself. This will also give us confidence in ourselves so that we can rely on the process of creation instead of on what we have created.

This makes us better Creators.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yes, one does good not to be attached to their own creation. In Art-school we learn this by having our drawings be torn apart by our teacher until we no longer care for them but instead for the process of creation itself. This will also give us confidence in ourselves so that we can rely on the process of creation instead of on what we have created.

This makes us better Creators.

That’s beautiful  ❤️ ? 

[Nivsch]

The thing is - how can i explain that getting beyond language is also important to threat problems in life (that 99% of them are interior)?

But - i have to say that i am not sure that transcend language is necessary to self develop and threat mental issues, because you can still do inquiry about your past (using thoughts and... language) and reprogram your subconsious mind and cure emotional problems.

So in one hand i want to show the limitation of language (at least in the gross version - science, "proofs" etc that cannot solve our internal issues) but in the other hand im not convinced that language as a whole (english, hebrew...) is not enough to cure your issues because maybe it IS enough.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Nivsch

[Forestluv]

@Nivsch There is sooo much more than language. Observe and notice. . . It’s all around us. . . A new    relationship with reality is revealed. 
 

[Nivsch]

15 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Nivsch There is sooo much more than language. Observe and notice. . . It’s all around us. . . A new    relationship with reality is revealed. 
 

Yes, but in a sense of finding the root of your emotional problem - maybe transcending language is not at all a must do to achive this.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Nivsch

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Yes, but in a sense of finding the root of your emotional problem - maybe transcending language is not at all a must do to achive this.

Why force a decision between language vs. non-language. This just creates limitation and conflict. . . For example, I know someone that worked through her mental issues through horse therapy. She spent a lot of solitary time with her horse. Most of this was no language. She couldn’t speak a language with the horse and she wasn’t trying to figure things out in her head through language. There were non-language aspects. Was language part of it? Sure, I suppose she had to speak with her parents and the rancher. And perhaps she had a human guide. Now she is starting her own center of horse therapy. . . To say that language is sufficient and that’s all we need seems silly to me. Likewise, to say language is unnecessary and should be avoided seems silly to me. It’s all inter-related and integrated.

It’s like traveling to a foreign country and saying “all we need is the rental car. No other modes of transportation”. That’s fine, yet there is also bicycling, kayaking, hand gliding, mopeds, boating, zip lining etc. A rental car is great, yet if we restrict ourselves to that, we limit our range of experience and understanding.

[WaveInTheOcean]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's a classic example from philosophy of mind / phenomenology. Unfortunately even when you give that example, people still ignore it. Materialism simply discounts all phenomena as "subjective" and therefore insignificant.

A materialist scientist will simply not understand how seeing the color red has any importance to science. "Okay, so even if I miss the color red, so what? Doesn't change a thing."

Well, if a scientist truly knew EVERYTHING about the brain and eyes and sophisticated AI nano-technology, he could without a sweat make a neurological operation on himself that would allow him to see colours again and thus experience the existential nature of red.

[Consilience]

20 hours ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

Well, if a scientist truly knew EVERYTHING about the brain and eyes and sophisticated AI nano-technology, he could without a sweat make a neurological operation on himself that would allow him to see colours again and thus experience the existential nature of red.

You’re missing the point. The point is the lack of experiential insight despite the vast amount of intellectual knowledge.