|
The Topics are categorised into four sections:
- objective/speculation (Creation)
- experiential/participation (Involvement)
- operational/interaction (Manifestation)
- existential/subjective (Realisation)
Central stands the concept of CETS - Consciousness-Energy_Time-Space; and the fabric of creation.
As all our perception of the uniVerse around us is based on sensations of sensory cells in our own body, we can only infer what we seem to perceive around us. The sense perceptions lead to a mental construct: the world as we perceive it, in our mind.
As formulated by Plato: the world we see is actually the activity in the occipital cortex in our brain: at the rear side of your skull.
As formulated in India: the reality we know is Maya, a mental reflection of Samsara, the sense perceptions of our body.
Yet we can communicate our subjective sensory sensations, and thereby describe them as if objective. Their objectivity however is based only upon agreements of our code for communication. Objectivity is a misnomer for Consensus. The psychology of collective understanding is part of the study of the science of life.
Yet we can come to understand how we perceive, by applying our description of perception to our formulation of sensation. The study of the Cosmos is a perfect example. What we imagine to be the emergence of the uniVerse, is in fact a formulation of our more formal fundamental forms of thinking.
Science is an art. Our so-called objective formulations are based on subjective observations. We need to understand how we come to our subjective findings, and what in us determines the mind sets that lead to specific forms of observation.
Shamanic/Mystic training invests much time in the creation of awareness of the different forms of consciousness that we act from, and how we switch between them. Scientific training ignores this. In the study of the Science of Life this needs to be reintroduced into the formulations.
Art involves the operation of differences in perspective. Scientific models have been presented as if they are objective. They are not: all are extensions of our way of thinking, based on the way our body functions. The different modes of bodily functioning need to be understood in the way they relate to different modes of perception also.
The study of bodily functions needs to be extended beyond the objective interpretation. As formulated in the Eastern cultures: the organs (and their corresponding regulatory glands) represent dynamic functions and subjective sensations. Scientific expression is but one amongst many modes of using the mind and body. The relationship to the other modes of functioning needs to be made explicit.
Science is a collective activity. Socially (like religion) science serves for anxiety reduction. It is a means to get to know the unknown; or at least to be able to deal with our unknowing. It thereby is an interfacing activity, between the known (our body) and the unknown (our context).
Our experience of the uniVerse is by inference only. We each have our separate subjective sensations of the world around us. Together we combine different perceptions of such observations by which we can create a composite picture of the world between is.
We need to realise that the reality that we hold to be true between us, is a symbolic (semantic) reality only. Few people realise the way in which our perceptions are distorted by what is effectively no more than a collective hypnosis: the way we convince ourselves and each other how we regard the world around us.
We need to make explicit how we, individually and collectively, define the world around us. We also need to address and assess to which extent the beliefs and mind set of our observation has replaced the actual realisation. As most people forget: reality is but a realisation. We hold to be true what we behold, nit what truly is.
We are the basis of what we hold to be true. Humans are created as part of the ongoing universal creation. Humans are at no moment separate of this. All objective reality is based on subjective realisation. All personal experience is part of universal being. Humans are not creatures but creators.
Humans have started to tell each other to accept the views of others as (if) more real than their own realisation. This collective programming has a political basis: persons enslaving each other. This collective cultural bias has to a large extent started to affect science also. Many people no longer are aware how their views affect the outcome of science.
Science needs to study the role of personal involvement; and assume personal response-ability for the collective outcome of science. This in itself calls for a link between the humanities and so-called exact forms of science. What is needed is the understanding how science too functions as a living body: the scientists are the individual cells; science is their collective (mental) body.
The scientist is the creator of science. The scientists need to study how they relate to themselves and each other, and how this affects how they relate to their individual and collective context. By understanding their collective function and collective outcome, society as a whole can benefit from this also: it will clarify and resolve the relationship between the individual and the collective.
It thereby resolves the relationship between reality and realisation.
|
