r0ckyreed

That’s the problem I am arguing against. Leo and others here critique science as if science is one certain way. Science is simply the method you use to derive knowledge. There are so many forms of science out there that you can’t just lump them all together. You don’t need assumptions to do science. In fact, the assumptions take the “science” out of the science. Science isn’t based on belief. If it is, then it isn’t science by default. Science is about investigating reality and deriving knowledge and truth, not belief. Belief is what religion is for. As long as you have beliefs and assumptions, you aren’t going to be able to do any science. You have to be objective and unbiased to do science. Otherwise, you are just doing confirmation biases, etc. Spirituality, psychedelics and meditation is a form of science. Leo even mentioned this in part 3 that spirituality is a science and we need to be the scientists of our own lives. Academia/materialistic science is only one brick of the house. But that brick sure does seem like it is a house because our culture is biased to only seeing science in a narrow way, and then we critique science from that narrow perception of society/culture. All the arguments Leo made about science were really about the problems of how science is affected by human socialization and the biases humans have that prevent them from understanding reality.

Also, how does one explain that if science is imaginary, then that means that psychedelics, meditation, trip reports, and awakenings are also imaginary since they are part of everything? What makes one part of reality more effective at raising consciousness to realizing everything is imagination? Seems like there is nothing beyond imagination.

This makes more sense. What I still don’t get is if everything, even my own hand right now, is imagination or my own mind, then why say that science or Einstein is imaginary? To say that everything is imaginary seems futile because that also means everything is real. What is the difference between real and imagination? Just because it is imagination doesn’t mean it isn’t real. It is true right now that I am imagining Einstein’s life and my past and future. But if we say that everything is imagination, then that means that reality is just as real as my thoughts of unicorns and science, which Leo explained in Deconstructing Science part 3. If everything is imaginary, then science will have to be imaginary because it is part of everything. But wouldn’t it also be real since my mind is imagining it? I don’t get the point in saying that X, Y, or Z is imaginary when you state that the whole alphabet is imaginary. Maybe it is to help me realize that the whole alphabet and reality are imaginary?

It’s been a bit since I last watched the series. I will watch them again and contemplate. Sometimes, it takes me a little longer for things to click. I can see how I am imagining Albert Einstein and his life right now in my direct experience. What I don’t realize is how I am imagining direct experience or actuality. If everything is imaginary, then why say ______ is imaginary? Are you saying that _____ is imaginary within my imagination of direct existence/actuality? Because that is how is how I am interpreting it. Like a dream within the Dream. Thanks for your patience and time. Sorry for the confusion and being slow. Just trying to understand what you mean.

That is so cool man! I am still not sure what that means lol. Sounds like Esse Este Percipi to me — To be is to be perceived.

So is true/false. Some forms science within reality are more aligned with reaching truth, whereas others keep the scientists fiddling around in reality. How do you think Morpheus got those psychedelic pills? Science! I think I am getting you now. You are trying to help us deconstruct conventional science with that series so that we can partake in higher-conscious science (i.e., spirituality) to help us access God, Truth, and Love?

What about psychedelic science? Don’t you consider what you do to be a science? I don’t know what type of science will grasp Infinity because I have not grasped it. I don’t see how you could grasp Infinity unless you are dead. As long as we are still alive, we will have ego, and we will have biases that limits the minds ability to grasp Truth. I don’t even know what it even means to grasp Infinity because by definition, it cannot be grasped?

Agreed. I am going to change the title to The Problem is Materialism/Ideology NOT Science because science is all about investigating reality and materialistic ideologies have effected the quality of science in the mainstream as well as individual/collective worldviews. A true scientist is a truth-seeker who examines and deeply questions their methods of science. A truth-seeker is a rare breed.

What are the “rules of science?” The only rule is find out what is true and investigate for yourself. Now, academia, business, and other humans can place rules or change rules on how to do certain science, such as having “good science is able to be replicated by other scientists.” There are issues when we combine minds through socialization because then we create limits, customs, and biases. But the basic idea behind science is deriving knowledge through observation and experimentation and contemplation. The issue is that like you said, society places rules on how to do science that limit the knowledge we can derive. For example, science done in a sober-state is deemed more scientific than science conducted in a drug-state. But that assumption isn’t scientific because how can we do real science on the first person effects of drug-altered states if we never go into a drug-altered state to study it? Just observing people isn’t enough. But then again, there are many forms of science. Some forms of science such as Anthropology accept ethnographies and first-person accounts of the researchers and subjects. The issue is that when Leo or anyone talks about the “issues of science,” they are mainly critiquing academia/materialistic science because it is mainstream and what society thinks of as “real science.” But why do we have to accept societies view of science? Why not just call it materialistic science and call spirituality, spirituality science. After all, spirituality is a science of consciousness that isn’t accepted across the board in the mainstream.

What are we using to “deconstruct science?” Isn’t the “deconstruction of science” also a form of science? How do we know if we have deconstructed it? What tests and measures have we conducted? How do we know our method is valid? Can we really “go beyond science?” Or is there nothing beyond science but our lack of understanding?

Agreed. Science is your own mind. Science is a way to use your mind to derive knowledge. The key is how can we elevate the quality of science in society. For that, scientists need to shift their paradigms that currently limit their thinking and investigations. The science of spiritually and paranormal is difficult for academia to accept and take seriously. The assumptions people make about “proper science” limits their science. But science itself isn’t limited assuming your mind isn’t limited. The quality of mind determines quality of science, life, etc.

Consciousness. The mind. You. You can investigate consciousness or you can fall into beliefs and theories about parts of consciousness. The former is what I call science, the latter is religion or ideology. But yet, many people who say they are doing science are really in a religion/ideology because they parrot ideas and theories without investigating them for themselves. The way many people do science isn’t “true science.”

Science is a mental construction and is not separate from the mind. Science is using the mind to explore and derive knowledge about the mind. But I would also suggest that high quality science is getting in touch with actuality not being lost in imagination. I could ponder right now: “Does science exist in my mind or out in the world? If it exists out in the world, then where is it? Can science be found on a tree? Or wait! I am doing science right now by investigating actuality/direct experience. My ideas and models of science and scientific method is just a construction of my mind. But true science is using the mind to get in touch with actuality. Where is the line between the world and my mind? What is it made out of? Isn’t this science that I am doing —investigating consciousness? Psychedelics, meditation, and imagination are tools to do science — To get more in touch with actuality of how reality is rather than getting lost in beliefs. True science isn’t about beliefs and theories, it is getting in touch with what is true independent of what I think or feel about it. Aren’t you doing science when you take psychedelics, meditate, and contemplate? Isn’t that what is meant by science? to explore and investigate Truth? Spirituality is the highest form of science that I am aware of.

This is what Leo is arguing against. He is really arguing against unscientific nature of scientism. A true scientist, one who is a truth-seeker, and wants to derive knowledge and understanding doesn’t ask how truth benefits. That is one of the contradictions of so-called scientifically-minded people is that at the end of the day, it is about how science can benefit you rather than how science can help you realize what is true. The issue is the scientist, not the science. The scientist is in the way of producing quality science.

Science means “to know” to derive knowledge. The issue is the methods for which humans attempt to derive knowledge. Materialistic science may be good for its practical application, but those methods may not work the same for spiritual aspects. That method is limited because the scientists mind is limited. The issue isn’t the field of science, it is the scientist assuming that science should be done a certain way than other way, which is bias.

What good is having a certain set of clothes if they are not objective/universal? What good is eating your favorite ice cream if it is not objective? What good is creating art if beauty isn’t objective? Relativity is Absolute Good. It is what allows you to be infinitely creative and good. If there was an absolute objective in life, then you would be limited in creating “The Good Life.” Where do these limits come from? You create them. Focus on building your character. Morality and life is a game but that doesn’t mean you can’t play it artfully.

https://positivepsychology.com/visualization-meditation/#meditation

Creation needs no creator. There is no ground. There is no first cause. There is no god. Creation is God. Why else do we say “Oh my God!!” when we look up at the stars? That is our natural reaction of our recognition of Divinity.

Precisely. Look around you. That is God. God isn’t a being that created your experience. God is your experience. What else is there but the present moment? What is your post here about then? You clearly affirm “present moment is all there is” in your post here. This makes me question whether you know what you are talking about or are just playing games. Do you really know or are you pretending to know? The present moment is here and now always. It is Absolute. There is nothing behind it to explain it. Being is prior to knowing and explanations. You can’t conceptualize Being, which is a problem you are falling into. All conceptualizations occur within Being but can never explain Being. It seems like you just want to model reality and create stories to sustain your dream rather than deconstruct it. The last thing you want is for your bubble to pop, so you spend time creating your bubble using spiritual concepts to trick yourself into thinking you have popped it. But really you are preserving it. See how tricky the mind is? The biggest deception is thinking you have awakened or figured stuff out when you really haven’t. But hey, that is the mass hypnosis that 99% of people are under. What you are really asking me in “how do you explain the present moment” is to create a narrative for you in how the Dream exists, which is just another way to dig yourself deeper into the dream. Whatever you think is the cause of your Dream is a dream within your Dream. As you can see, all of this is the opposite of awakening. What we are doing here is finding ways to keep ourselves asleep. You are inside of a Dream, wake up!

This moment is an infinite amount of time. This moment is never out of reach. Christians can use that same logic right? Q: If something can’t come from nothingness, who created God? A: An earlier uncaused divine being, known as the first cause. There problem solved. Or is it? See this first cause stuff is foolish. This moment right now is absolute and uncaused. We don’t need to create gods, big bangs, and first causes or infinite regresses to explain it. If we try to explain this moment, then it is an infinite search because this moment is infinite. Whatever you think is The Cause of this Moment is a dream inside of This Moment.

I am not saying that. I am saying that the present moment is uncaused. Past and future are dependent on the present moment not the other way around. The past and What you call “causes” is a collection of stories happening now to explain the Now. The way you framed the whole thing seems like you are implying the past is where the present moment “comes from,” suggesting that the present moment originated from somewhere in the past. Past doesn’t exist but as an idea in the Now. The Now is eternal, which means it is uncaused, not a first cause and not a second cause, just uncaused. Remember, cause and effect implies time (past and future) which doesn’t exist but in the Now As such, if the present moment is eternal and uncaused, and if you are trying to find the “first cause” of the Now, then naturally you will be searching forever for a causes that never existed. That infinite search is what I call infinite “regress” because that’s basically what it is - an endless search for an origin that doesn’t exist.

You make it more complex. The simplest explanation is that consciousness does not have a cause. There is no first cause because consciousness exists absolutely. If you try to find the origin of consciousness, you will be looking forever (like an infinite regress, except there is no regress). Our mind is creating “causes” and stories to construct the dream reality. Notice this. All of that is a story to construct reality. You aren’t a contingent being, you are absolute. God is absolute Being. There is no first God creating 2nd God and 3rd God creating a first being, necessary being A and contingent being. God is too powerful, infinite, and one to create all of these “causes.” God just is. God isn’t a being. God is Pure Being.

You got the last part right. Your mind is constructing the notion of "change" as well as "past" and "future." Change is a dream within the Now. Notice that the mind is constructing that story and many countless stories in order to construct "reality." The illusions of change and time go together. Without the construction of time (a past and future), change ceases to exist. It goes so deep that you imagine change. You imagine turning on the computer, going to website, and writing about throwing a stone in the water. The notion of change is but a deeper illusion of time. It is easier to deconstruct time in your "internal world." It is a much harder feat to deconstruct time in what you may call the "external world." Time in the "external world" is what you call change. Time in the "internal world" is what you call past and future, memories and imagination. It is difficult to deconstruct change or time in external world in part because we deem the "external world" to be more "real" than the internal world, but that is just another dream. There is no internal/external world nor a hierarchy of more or less real. So it goes full-circle. There is only world, consciousness, dream.

"Everyone is completely full of shit. Who needs quotes? Think for yourself or you will never live your own life." - r0ckyreed Hope that helps.

You are imagining a Big Bang in an external physical universe (whatever the hell that is lol). God is eternal, here and now. If you try to locate the "origin" of God, you are left with an infinite regress not a first cause. God is infinity. Cause and effect is a dream within the mind of God in the same way that the notion of a past is but a dream within your own mind. Reality is so infinite and so ONE that it cannot have a cause. All causation models assume duality to be true. God imagines atheism as one of many possible dreams. God has to include the possibility of rejecting itself in order to dream. Think about it.