Hanna

Leo, I noticed that you usually argued with materialist point, and you concluded that their aspect can't explain many things, therefore there should be a paradigm shift. I also against the mechanical materialist view, but I also noticed that it doesn't mean that it should followed by the concept of the priority of the consciousness. I totally agree with you, that we can't explain the emotions, the consciousness, the motivations, or the ego from the atoms, because there are many steps, what we don't understand. I can try to write down the biochemical formula of emotions, I can try to explain my feelings with formal logic, but I will be really far from to grab them. But that doesn't mean they are independent from the matter. It means, for me, that I'm also part of a system, and I always changing with it. I can't go outside of the box, because every thoughts of mine connects with a previous thought, experience, and what am I now is always in an interaction with environment. I don't know how, I can only examine the other kids, people, events around me. My most important critic against what are you telling us, is that: You use your experiences, and your logic to find out something. Before of your awakening, what did you think? What was your concept about the life, about the world? What happened in that crucial point with you? What was that effect that changed everything in you? If there were no effect like this what would happened with you? How can you be so sure about your concept? I also watched your video about the consciousness. You are telling that because mechanical materialism can't explain many things, and I'm agree with this, there should be the consciousness the "atom" whereof the universe built. It can be a theory, but why are you so sure? There can be many other concepts. What if the universe is infinity in time? In dialectical materialist view there are levels. Physical, chemical, biological, psychological etc levels, and if you go up, there will be a change form quantitative to quality. At the point when the life appears, we start to lose scientific frame, because we don't know what life actually is. We only see the behavior of the things, but we can't look behind. We can't see the finer interactions. We can only make conclusions. And what I noticed, the human thinking is really limited. First we try to use formal logic, than dialectical logic, but in the end, we can't describe what emotions really are, because every new factor, what doesn't fit to our momentary worldview will change it, or we try to defend us from this new factors, because, as you also said, it's really hard to change our approach. But why should we stop where you stopped? Every new experience, new concept can change something. I think, that every theory, including mine as well, are hanging in a vacuum, and we always trying to figure out with our mind and emotions, how the things works, but there is no end. If you can me tell only one thing that is not depends on the past, the environments, not depends on our species, or formal or dialectical logic, that means you found stable point. But what if it is an illusion as well, and it is just desire, and we only see what we want to see from the world? Sorry for my English, it's not my native language.

These little bit look like template answer. I appreciate your lifework though. However where do these facts come from? Direct experience? Than why our experiences differentiate? If everything is flexible whom of us have the stable point?

Hey, is there an mp3 version about the 4+ video? Because I don't find it.