How would science be different if it went post-rational and post-materialist ?

[Jack River]

@Serotoninluv cool. I’ll check it out. Thanks 

[Robert]

32 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Your views on post-rational being seem high Green to me. Perhaps transitioning to low Yellow.

A Yellow/Turqoise being would have direct experience and understanding of post-rational self-inquiry and contemplation. Perhaps consider exploring this area. Leo made a great video on it.

Notice how our conversation on post-rationalism is different than my conversation on post-rationalism with Jack River. It’s not “better” or “worse” - just in a different space.

My contemplations are very deep. Believe me, I already integrated post-rationalism a long time ago. I know exactly what you and other Green/Yellow/Turquoise people are talking about. I've experienced all of that stuff. But at the end of the day science will always be rational. There is no post-rational science!!!

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Robert said:

My contemplations are very deep. Believe me, I already integrated post-rationalism a long time ago. I know exactly what you and other Green/Yellow/Turquoise people are talking about. I've experienced all of that stuff. But at the end of the day science will always be rational. There is no post-rational science!!!

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 ? 

[Robert]

29 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

And I’m a post-rational scientist ? 

I never said you couldn't be one. I'm glad to see another post-rational scientist. Most scientists didn't integrate post-rationalism, which is one of the main reasons they're stuck at Orange. You're obviously passed that.

[Arthur]

In my opinion nothing wrong with science per say. Guys don't rant or give negative connotations to it. Any activity can be corrupted by Ego and used to create an identity and define what is reality. 
I see science as a form of cognitive art. Just like painting, martial arts and so forth. It's just a form of expression through models, like language. It should be done as a fun creative activity. 

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Arthur said:

In my opinion nothing wrong with science per say. Guys don't rant or give negative connotations to it. Any activity can be corrupted by Ego and used to create an identity and define what is reality. 
I see science as a form of cognitive art. Just like painting, martial arts and so forth. It's just a form of expression through models, like language. It should be done as a fun creative activity. 

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 ?

[Jack River]

39 minutes ago, Arthur said:

In my opinion nothing wrong with science per say. Guys don't rant or give negative connotations to it. Any activity can be corrupted by Ego and used to create an identity and define what is reality. 
I see science as a form of cognitive art. Just like painting, martial arts and so forth. It's just a form of expression through models, like language. It should be done as a fun creative activity. 

Of course. It’s taking advantage of the cultivation of memory. 

Although, Science or any activity cultivated by thought is inherently limited to invention. Nothing of thought is truly creative or original, if I can use that word. But I know what you meant dude. Well said. 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Jack River

[Arthur]

@Serotoninluv @Jack River Yea I agree with you guys.

I still view science mostly as an abstract activity. I don't think its designed to show you the truth or explain reality. 
IMO science as a form of language cannot go to the core of what's real. If science to assimilate spirituality it will stop to exist as we know it, it won't be the cognitive activity that it is. It will become spirituality/metaphysics.

I don't know, maybe science and spirituality will merge, or maybe they will continue to exist as separate domains. 

Science will still be good for building creative gadgets, making external life easier, using the world's resources efficiently. 
Spirituality will be there for understanding what reality is and who we are. They both sort of handling different aspects. 

The problem I see nowadays is that science got assigned with the task of spirituality.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Arthur said:

@Serotoninluv @Jack River Yea I agree with you guys.

I still view science mostly as an abstract activity. I don't think its designed to show you the truth or explain reality. 
IMO science as a form of language cannot go to the core of what's real. If science to assimilate spirituality it will stop to exist as we know it, it won't be the cognitive activity that it is. It will become spirituality/metaphysics.

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. 

[Robert]

25 minutes ago, Arthur said:

@Serotoninluv @Jack River Yea I agree with you guys.

I still view science mostly as an abstract activity. I don't think its designed to show you the truth or explain reality. 
IMO science as a form of language cannot go to the core of what's real. If science to assimilate spirituality it will stop to exist as we know it, it won't be the cognitive activity that it is. It will become spirituality/metaphysics.

I don't know, maybe science and spirituality will merge, or maybe they will continue to exist as separate domains. 

Science will still be good for building creative gadgets, making external life easier, using the world's resources efficiently. 
Spirituality will be there for understanding what reality is and who we are. They both sort of handling different aspects. 

The problem I see nowadays is that science got assigned with the task of spirituality.

Science is science, so it can't become spirituality or anything else. It's very concrete, not abstract. And it proves things in order to help us understand the universe.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Robert said:

Science is science, so it can't become spirituality or anything else. It's very concrete, not abstract. 

There is a more expansive view available.

[Arthur]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

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. 

That's true, now that I think about it, metaphysics is a scientific way of doing spirituality.

But the understanding/experience you get from using this method is not conceptual, I that sense, I would say it is not really related to science.

[Robert]

25 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

There is a more expansive view available.

What is the more expansive view?

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Robert said:

What is the more expansive view?

It is an integrated view

[Robert]

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It is an integrated view

Can you describe it?

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

Can you describe it?

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. 

[Robert]

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

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. 

So you can't back up your claim.

I think what I gave is the best view; Science is concrete and uses rationality to prove things about the universe to give us a better understanding of life.

I don't know what can be more accurate and expansive as that.

[Jack River]

1 hour ago, Arthur said:

I don't think its designed to show you the truth or explain reality. 

Yep. Thought in its nature denies truth. It is implicit in its own structure that it enters a investigation with assumption or a bias of some sort. Thought is limited by its contents of explanation.  

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

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. 

I think we are not using insight and intuition to mean the same thing. It is said that Einsteins intuition was still limited to desire/thought. Not sure about the other dude. This insight I speak of for example sees the whole of the nature of thought. That seeing is totally void of thought itself. In order for this holistic insight to act there has to be a total ending of thought as a movement. 

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Robert said:

So you can't back up your claim.

I think what I gave is the best view; Science is concrete and uses rationality to prove things about the universe to give us a better understanding of life.

I don't know what can be more accurate and expansive as that.

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

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

 

I think we are not using insight and intuition to mean the same thing. It is said that Einsteins intuition was still limited to desire/thought. Not sure about the other dude. This insight I speak of for example sees the whole of the nature of thought. That seeing is totally void of thought itself. In order for this holistic insight to act there has to be a total ending of thought as a movement. 

And where did their genuis of symbols arise from?