Read It Or Leave It Be

[Psychonaut]

I'm opening this topic because like everywhere in the world I see that people are judging other perspectives. There is always some word or some definition of value that people use to make other perspectives worse. Just stop doing that. On here it is consciousness. "Higher and lower consciousness". As if you had a scale for that.

There is not a single perspective that can explain everything. Don't judge other perspectives.

Science is a perspective. It can't explain everything.

Philosophy is a perspective.

Religion is a perspective.

Self actualization is also just another perspective.

Almost every perspective is here to explain something and I haven't found a single perspective that is perfect. The all have flaws, because they are made up by humans. Humans are flawed that is why all the perspectives are flawed as well.

When you get obsessed with one single perspective, you will see that it creates conflict. Most conflicts are just because of differing perspectives. 

Drop the perspectives and try to enjoy everything. Even if it is a "lower consciousness" activity with your friends. 

[asgard94]

You can't say science is a 'perspective'. Because it is based on facts and only facts. The facts that we know for sure are real. Science is the activity of making the extended careful examination that is needed to properly understand aspects of the world that do not show themselves in a directly obvious manner. 
 What you seem to be saying is "If science does not explain everything, it is a perspective". Well, it doesn't have to be a perspective. It is not a 'perspective' to things it already does explain. For example, we know that 2x2=4 and this is the universal truth that can not be denied by any thing or any one in the universe. This is called an absolute truth. The whole purpose of science is to operate and make assumptions based only on facts and absolute truth. So in essence, you can't call science a 'perspective', unless you know nothing about science at all. . . 

[vizual]

13 minutes ago, asgard94 said:

You can't say science is a 'perspective'. Because it is based on facts and only facts. The facts that we know for sure are real. Science is the activity of making the extended careful examination that is needed to properly understand aspects of the world that do not show themselves in a directly obvious manner. 
 What you seem to be saying is "If science does not explain everything, it is a perspective". Well, it doesn't have to be a perspective. It is not a 'perspective' to things it already does explain. For example, we know that 2x2=4 and this is the universal truth that can not be denied by any thing or any one in the universe. This is called an absolute truth. The whole purpose of science is to operate and make assumptions based only on facts and absolute truth. So in essence, you can't call science a 'perspective', unless you know nothing about science at all. . . 

 

"2x2=4" is not  an absolute truth at all. It's an intersubjective observation, big difference.

[Psychonaut]

@asgard94 Thanks you so much  for making me think about what you said.

You will probably never realise how many assumptions you made by saying 2x2=4 and I will not even try to explain it, because I would be wasting my time.

Btw I think 2x2=0 is the correct answer

[FindingPeace]

1 hour ago, asgard94 said:

You can't say science is a 'perspective'. Because it is based on facts and only facts. The facts that we know for sure are real.

Actually, science is based on models. So many things in science can't be seen or observed for real and as such we develop conceptual models to explain them. Science isn't fact or truth per se but more a collection of models that describe the workings of reality as we perceive them. In fact we can only do science from within our own human perspective. Afterall, nothing we experience is true reality or true fact because our very experience of all that, is through the fog of the neural nets within our brains. It's all just an interpretation of the senses.

Therefore science is just a model to describe our unique interpretation of reality.

[asgard94]

4 minutes ago, FindingPeace said:

 In fact we can only do science from within our own human perspective. 

Do we have any better alternative to our human senses and perception? I mean.. We just don't have any other options here. Besides, just because science is based on the observations with the limited human perception, does not necessarily mean its not valuable. In fact, its the only way we, humans can find out the truth and examine reality. If you have better options, I am totally open to listen. Unless its the 'third eye' thing and some extra sensory tales...

[Jay Brown]

@A Lone Wanderer Your missing the point,

 

The idea of self actualization is that to become a creator to live life to the fullest, sure you can live in mediocrity for the rest of your life its your call.

 

And for all other prospectives you stated, they all have the same idea, to develop their kind to the fullest to get better and better sorta like the cycle of life. 

[Psychonaut]

@Jay Brown I'm definetely not living in mediocrity XD. There are a few areas in which I am very success orientated. When you have success you are happy when not you are not happy. I believe happyness should be there all the time. I have found that after removing the attachment to the success I can be happy more often not just when I accomplished something. I have stopped beating myself up mentally if things don't work out.

Edited February 26, 2016 by A Lone Wanderer

[Jay Brown]

@A Lone Wanderer Noted brother  and thanks for the tip 

 

[Amplituda]

@A Lone Wanderer you have 50% probability to be correct there from PC perspective. Everything is stored as either 1 or 0, for sure it's not 4. :). For myself I just know 1 thing and that's enough for me.

[Anna]

That's why being open-minded is important.

[abrakamowse]

Let it be!

[David1]

4 hours ago, asgard94 said:

You can't say science is a 'perspective'. Because it is based on facts and only facts.

 

 

[Jesper]

Rupert Sheldrake is not a scientist, he is a pseudo-scientist.

[Psychonaut]

42 minutes ago, Anna said:

That's why being open-minded is important.

I guess that's what I kinda wanted to say. If you get to attached to one thing you make it more difficult for the next thing. There might be a time in the future where people obsessed with self actualization realize that there is a next thing. Hopefully they dont beat themselves up for being so obsessed with something.

47 minutes ago, Amplituda said:

@A Lone Wanderer you have 50% probability to be correct there from PC perspective. Everything is stored as either 1 or 0, for sure it's not 4. :). For myself I just know 1 thing and that's enough for me.

What is that what you know? Nothing or something?

[David1]

1 minute ago, Jesper said:

Rupert Sheldrake is not a scientist, he is a pseudo-scientist.

DR RUPERT SHELDRAKE, Ph.D. (born 28 June 1942) is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize. He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology. As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.

While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots.

From 1968 to 1969, based in the Botany Department of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, he studied rain forest plants. From 1974 to 1985 he was Principal Plant Physiologist and Consultant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India, where he helped develop new cropping systems now widely used by farmers. While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life.

From 2005-2010 he was the Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project funded from Trinity College,Cambridge. He is a Fellow of Schumacher College , in Dartington, Devon, a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences near San Francisco, and a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute in Connecticut.
 

Sounds like a scientist to me...

[Amplituda]

1 minute ago, A Lone Wanderer said:

What is that what you know? Nothing or something?

My mind knows a lot, but I know absolutely nothing. I just am.

 

[Gapawa]

I'd say that until you can get outside of your own mind, everything will be a matter of personal perspective, including "facts".  Part of the goal of meditation and self actualization is to come to see the mind as a tool rather than the director.  When this starts to happen, whole new worlds open to you, from within to without.

[Jesper]

1 hour ago, David1 said:

Sounds like a scientist to me...

Maybe he has a scientific education, but he has some seriously crazy, unscientific theories. Not everybody who has a scientific eduction is automatically a real scientist. See for example Rupert Sheldrake on RationalWiki:

Quote

His latest book, "The Science Delusion" is an anti-scientific rant, in which he applies postmodernist hyperscepticism to science, accusing scientists of adhering to "scientific dogmata", such as the constancy of the speed of light. Ironically, Sheldrake fails to apply any sort of scepticism to his own ideas, which he promotes uncritically, despite there being no evidence for them.

 

[Nathalie]

funny.. It seems that in spite of our spiritual work and all our mind openess, we can't help but always know better and have something to add