Forestluv

A child exploring a creek is doing science, art, music, yoga and performance. He hasn’t yet learned that these are supposed to be separate things. Adults need to deconstruct as they evolve.

Leonardo Da Vinci had thoughts. Yet he didn’t think this as Biology and that as engineering and this as painting and that as philosophy.

Ok. ?? I wish you the best along your path.

The words point to that which cannot be explained. Don’t get caught up on words. They are just a pointer. The reason I’m hammering this point is because it’s one of the biggest traps.

I don’t see a “their”. It’s a space that transcends science, music, art, philosophy, poetry, nature etc. Leonardo Da Vinci was the greatest mind ever. Not because he did many diverse things well, but because he did one thing well. When I converse with my colleagues in art, we aren’t talking art or science.

It’s not about Einstein. You can pick any scientific genuis.

How is e=mc2 like The Magic Flute?

And where did their genuis of symbols arise from?

You are asking me to explain it in rational terms. I’m trying to bring you into post-rational space.

My personality, life history and intention is irrelevant. Don’t get distacted by that. Focusing on that is part of the trap. It is prior to all that.

IME, the awakening I speak of is more valuable than my 20+ years of buddhist study and meditation. It lies prior to the words. Let go of the words.

Dang, I thought you got it. ? When you have the realization you will no longer need your words.

I don’t know how in rational terms. I would say Leonardo Da Vinci is an example. Also, consider how Mozart and Einstein are similar.

It is an integrated view

Indeed ?

There is a more expansive view available.

This makes a distinction between “real knowledge” and “a person”. Try to go prior to these concepts.

We often use the scientific method in metaphysics (and vice-versa). They are highly related. I think we are conditioned to believe they are mutually exclusive.

I don’t have an argument. I’m asking for clarity on this point: “This is what is referred to as knowing without the ability to act on knowledge. If one knows but is unable to act on that knowledge, it is the same as not knowing” Does this assume personal agency? As well: “The quote you referenced is illustrative of how people who spontaneously recognize real knowledge, dismiss it out of hand due to there being nothing for the personality to cling to” This also seems to suggest personal agency. I.e. That there is a distinction between “real knowledge” and a “personality” that has agency to dismiss it out of hand.

@Soulbass Leo’s recent video on Love is really good

For sure. Science is a great tool. IMO it would be even better if we incorporated more post-rational being and metaphysics into conducting science. Imagine integrating lessons from 5-meo into science ?

This seems to assume personal agency and free will,

One exercise I do: I go to the place of emptiness and a word arises such as “Genuine”. I sit in the stillness with genuine. No rational thought. And I’m a post-rational scientist ?

So true!

2015. It’s based on a brilliant mathematician with post-rational abilities. His rational collegues saw him as a threat and ostracized him. I haven’t seen it, yet I want to