r0ckyreed

I think I get it at a conceptual level now. My “point of view” even if it is imaginary/mentally constructed is absolute. There is nothing more true than direct experience. I can imagine and believe in things that are far removed from reality or in other words direct experience. For instance, I can believe and imagine that I have 6 fingers, but I will always be confronted with the reality that I am imagining or constructed 5 fingers. But I guess if I didn’t care about truth, I could easily warp myself deeper into the illusion until I start caring about what is actually true. If all conspiracy theorists cared about truth, their theories would eventually collapse because nothing is more truer than direct experience.

But isn’t my own POV also a fiction as well? You mentioned that even my own hand is imaginary. By this standard, all previous awakenings and trips are imaginary and fiction unless you are awake right now. Why say everything is imagination when you could also say everything is real? I could say everything is destruction or everything is creation, but we view God as a Creator not a Destroyer. In the same way, we could say that reality/God is real and imagination is part of reality.

From my perspective, this is not always necessarily the case. Not all gurus know God, and we can’t assume there isn’t a therapist that doesn’t know God. The difference to me is that gurus are more like spiritual teachers, whereas therapists are more like mental health guides to help people improve their mental well-being. Therapists are basically like a mirror and mostly listen, ask reflective questions, and encourage/challenge the clients on ways they can get through their suffering. A guru is not as capable or “qualified” to help people process traumas and other concerns in a therapeutic way. Teaching someone isn’t the same as therapy becomes therapy requires the processing and uncovering of emotional pain.

I just started today! Here are my pictures! I am open to any feedback on how I can improve. Thank you! Copyrighted r0ckyreed (2022).

I have already watched Deconstructing The Myth of Science Parts 1, 2, & 3. Short point: I think Leo is really arguing against materialism ideologies (the assumptions/flaws of the scientist) and NOT science itself. We need to deconstruct materialism and other assumptions because it is effecting the quality of science. The problem is with the scientists’ biases/ignorance NOT science. Here is my view on the matter: What is science? Science is a method(s) of deriving knowledge based off of observations, hypotheses, testing, and reviewing. Science comes from the latin word scientia, which simply means "To Know, experience, and understand." Science is broad in nature and Leo is really criticizes materialistic science. We need to deconstruct materialism because that is a epistemological/metaphysical assumption. How do we deconstruct something? We contemplate. What is contemplation? Contemplation is science in action. It is deeply questioning something to derive the true nature of a thing, which is a form of science to me. The stereotypical notion of science is looking through a microscope. But if all you do is looking through a microscope, you miss out on the rest of the world. True science is a broad domain in which a microscope is but one tool used (just like contemplation is but one tool) to explore reality. Even psychedelics and meditation I would consider to be tools and forms of science because you are using that tool to explore consciousness itself. It is important to consider the tradeoffs of the methods and tools you use to examine reality. The ultimate form of science is spirituality, which is the science of self/spirit/consciousness. There are many different forms of science. The science of spirituality will be conducted differently than the science of psychology of mental health or of nature, anthropology, forensic science, physics, shamanism, etc. What makes something "part of science" is a method of deriving knowledge. A conspiracy theorist isn't doing science because they are filling their minds with beliefs that confirm their worldview. They do not care about knowing but more about being right. Scientists in academia could fall into the same trap of only conducting studies that confirms their worldview and interpreting the results to confirm their worldview. But this isn't to say that science is flawed, but that the scientist is flawed. I can make errors when I contemplate but that doesn't mean that I should stop contemplating. It just means that I need to increase self-awareness and contemplate why I make errors, but to do that, I need to think outside my own box, which is precisely the point of science and contemplation. The issue is that humans can use science -- a way of knowing and understanding -- in flawed ways. There is nothing beyond science. Anything you state that is beyond science, whether that is spirituality, psychedelics, meditation, enlightenment, paranormal, or supernatural is all part of science. The issue is the methods of which to investigate phenomenon will vary depending on what is being investigated. Studying the paranormal will require a different method of science than the method imposed upon us by academia. The same way, studying consciousness (i.e., enlightenment) is requires also a different method than academia science. A problem arises when we try to dogmatically use one method for everything. There is nothing beyond science but our lack of understanding. Science is the pursuit of understanding. Anything else in regards to business, utilitarianism, biases, etc. are all the limits of humanity not of science. When Leo criticizes science, I think he is really criticizing the scientist doing the science but not the spirit of science. The spirit of science is to understand. Life is all about understanding and becoming less ignorant. Like I said, contemplation, psychedelics, meditation, observation, experimentation, double-blinds, peer-reviews, chakras, forensic science, psychology, biology, physics, shamanism, witch-craft, etc. are all different tools and forms of science because they all aim at understanding life. Remember, science is all about understanding and truth. Teachers even tell us this, but the average scientist has not introspected enough to uncover biases, ignorance, and how their survival effects their science. So for some scientists, science is a means to pay the bills and help society in a practical manner. The flaws aren't with the spirit of science but with the spirit of the scientist and of the society/culture. EDIT: I also want to add that the method of which a scientist is using can be deeply flawed depending on the study. Now I think this is what Leo was really getting at. We want to deconstruct "The Scientific Method" as it is taught in academia and challenge other assumptions so that we can learn about other methods of conducting high conscious science. Sorry this is a long one. Let me know what you think.

A person may say they are doing science in the same way that a person may say they are doing spirituality. There are deep and shallow forms of both. I will have to do more reading of these topics. Recommend any good books on philosophy of science? I think the distinction is knowledge vs. belief, True vs. false. I agree here. Except I would rephrase it to state that humans are filled with beliefs, and as long as humans do not work to deconstruct beliefs and get at true knowledge, their science will be limited by their biases. Hence, their science will be corrupted, which I think I am starting to get now what you mean. The whole argument is based on the limits of modern science, the way science is conducted in the mainstream. I gotcha. But science as a whole is much bigger than mainstream and academic science, which is where I am coming from. Revolutions in modern science need to take place to deepen how modern scientists investigate reality. Me doing meditation and contemplation is a form of science that isn't viewed as so by the mainstream. Given that we are critiquing modern, mainstream, academic science, I would agree. Students have not questioned what science is and have never validated the scientific method as taught in academia as a "valid" method. Real science or A.K.A. spirituality is about deconstructing beliefs to derive true knowledge about reality. But who gets to decide what real or false science is? Science and pseudoscience are one you could say. You could also say the same thing about spirituality vs. pseudo-spirituality. But to navigate through this world, to investigate it, and to do good science, we have to create helpful distinctions to help us jailbreak the mind or we will get lost within the default of natural programming. Gotcha. Yeah when I think of "The Field of Science," I imagine myself sitting alone in my room contemplating and investigating my own mind. I also imagine Sherlock Holmes in his study looking through a microscope. All of that is science. The bullshit of science is writing papers and formatting all of that within the system of academia. I have been there lol. Thanks for helping me think this through.

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!