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

[DrewNows]

3 hours ago, Jack River said:

That’s what I’m wondering about. Was this intuition born of this holistic seeing/truth, or was it the product of cultivated thought. From what he is known for like prediction, forcast I tend to be inclined to say it was the product of thought. But I’m not sure either. That’s why I’m wondering if it was intuition based or holistic perception/insight based. A seeing  totlay empty of thought. The mysterious SEEING without the veil of the intellect/the past. 

Yo Jack! This seems to be the same curiosity one might have on whether a guru is "fully enlightened"  or not. A question only speculated and never known with certainty  
Why can't creative discovery/intuition/breakthrough in science preexist thought/rationalization? When this product is cultivated it is then necessary for one to rationalize it. This may be why you are inclined to assume thought could be responsible.                                                                                                                The seeing totally empty of thought is a part of all human consciousness. Not one human doesn't utilize this holistic intuition whether they are aware of it or not. It is quite beautiful to see it ill admit                                                                                                                                                                              EX. There's this scientist and he has a problem unable to be solved. It has him stumped no matter how much time and energy he puts into working it out. Eventually he lets go of this control or attachment and out of nowhere while he's doing some random activity away, the answer becomes clear. The only way this discovery could have come about is if this scientist used enough practical thought to understand the basics for this problem. Does this scientist have or need headlessness? No probably not, but maybe this discovery will change science as we know it.                        
 

[Jack River]

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

A question only speculated and never known with certainty  

Definitely so. 

 

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

Why can't creative discovery/intuition/breakthrough in science preexist thought/rationalization?

Yep. This insight does flash and that flash does put the necessary order in thought to deliver which ever product as a result of that. That’s how I see that for sure. 

 

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

When this product is cultivated it is then necessary for one to rationalize it. This may be why you are inclined to assume thought could be responsible.   

The insight itself seems to come when cultivated movement comes to a complete stop.  The rationalizing, as in explaining is thought coming in to communicate or make it a reality. I was very aware of that too. Good call dude. The question is, does time come full stop for this creative/mysteriousness to allow for that holistic insight? It’s hard to say. 

 

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

The seeing totally empty of thought is a part of all human consciousness. Not one human doesn't utilize this holistic intuition whether they are aware of it or not. It is quite beautiful to see it ill admit                                                      

Yah dude, from what I see this seeing or healdessness is implicit in consciousness, yet only without that veil of time/things. 

 

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

There's this scientist and he has a problem unable to be solved. It has him stumped no matter how much time and energy he puts into working it out. Eventually he lets go of this control or attachment and out of nowhere while he's doing some random activity away, the answer becomes clear. The only way this discovery could have come about is if this scientist used enough practical thought to understand the basics for this problem. Does this scientist have or need headlessness? No probably not, but maybe this discovery will change science as we know it.                        
 

Fosho. From what I see this seeing or healdlessness changes the whole field of reality itself. The question is can this psychological striving lie dormant for this to happen. Because we both know that psychologically movement is the breeder of thought itself. That’s why I wonder about it. It seems to me that from the place of where a head is not necessary I question if expression, as in scientific curiosity, or simply the complulsion to express ourselves would even be acted upon. This Creative expression of truth seems to me to move more towards the direction of nonexpression. It’s like I am free from even needing to express. It’s hella weird man. That is the last place the faceless dude and I left off on this topic. In this creative movement of headlessness does one even feel compelled to express? I say no, but it’s still fresh for me so I guess we will see dude.

Anyway, most excellent post to me @DrewNows. I appreciate the your input on this. I see that you are actually understanding what I was getting at in the post. Always a pleasure man. We can keep it going if you like? Maybe start a thread on it. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jack River

[Robert]

10 hours ago, Outer said:

Fair enough. Can I have a tl;dr of the discussion of the last few pages? Would be interesting to know.

Basically, I was saying there is no post-rational science and he was saying there is. 

[sarapr]

9 hours ago, Robert said:

Basically, I was saying there is no post-rational science and he was saying there is. 

From my understanding here's how it goes:

When you are thinking you are inevitably turning away from post- rational. The only way to go post-rational is to realize the limits of language and therefore thought and step into the stillness of mind without any thinking at all. Now the investigation of your experience with a mind without thoughts is also by definition science ( investigation into nature of things with an objective point of view)

So basically doing science can be done in two ways : 1.through thinking 2. Through direct experience.

Now the results of the insights from your stilled mind can contribute a lot to the results of your science done with rationality.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, sarapr said:

From my understanding here's how it goes:

When you are thinking you are inevitably turning away from post- rational. The only way to go post-rational is to realize the limits of language and therefore thought and step into the stillness of mind without any thinking at all. Now the investigation of your experience with a mind without thoughts is also by definition science ( investigation into nature of things with an objective point of view)

So basically doing science can be done in two ways : 1.through thinking 2. Through direct experience.

Now the results of the insights from your stilled mind can contribute a lot to the results of your science done with rationality.

Very nice ? ? ♥️ 

[Jack River]

Getting to a place of no thought means thought is not exceeding its own limits. Insight puts order in the whole field of thought, which means thought isn’t limited to its own capacity. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

17 minutes ago, sarapr said:

So basically doing science can be done in two ways : 1.through thinking 2. Through direct experience.

Thought also imitates itself as being “direct experience” too. This is tricky. To be able to identify this can be difficult. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Jack River

[DrewNows]

17 hours ago, Jack River said:

he question is, does time come full stop for this creative/mysteriousness to allow for that holistic insight? It’s hard to say. 

I would say it is apparently so...but does one realize what is actually taking place, or not taking place? 

17 hours ago, Jack River said:

It seems to me that from the place of where a head is not necessary I question if expression, as in scientific curiosity, or simply the complulsion to express ourselves would even be acted upon. This Creative expression of truth seems to me to move more towards the direction of nonexpression. It’s like I am free from even needing to express.

creative expression has no need or compulsion about it. Sort of like love right?

17 hours ago, Jack River said:

The question is can this psychological striving lie dormant for this to happen. Because we both know that psychologically movement is the breeder of thought itself.

For sure! I believe it can be triggered to a degree as it is an oh too familiar liberated place we've all seen. It is always there behind all the accumulated layers of self. 

But no this seems to be an interesting gap to bridge and we could start another thread on it. I would like to see if there's a fine line between creativity and psychological time 
@Jack River

[Jack River]

14 hours ago, DrewNows said:

but does one realize what is actually taking place, or not taking place? 

It would take a holistic understanding to do that. Which means staying with “the problem”. 

 

14 hours ago, DrewNows said:

creative expression has no need or compulsion about it. Sort of like love right?

As I see no. The essence of the creation is not interested In moving in any particular direction. It’s not fixed in nature so it has no destination. Yeah love the same. I actually recently just saw that love/the creative are actually the same. 

[Jack River]

14 hours ago, DrewNows said:

would like to see if there's a fine line between creativity and psychological time 

What you mean dude? By fine line?

Edited October 22, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

17 hours ago, sarapr said:

So basically doing science can be done in two ways : 1.through thinking 2. Through direct experience.

To push it further into the post-rational zone. . . 

1. Can thinking and direct experience be integrated?

2. How is an intuitive impulse the same/different than a rational thought impulse?

Imagine you are a scientist that has conducted a few experiments on fundamental aspects of cancer cells. You have spent weeks observing cancer cells and collecting data. How would an intuitive impulse to do a future experiment be similar/different than a rational thought to do a future experiment? 

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

How is an intuitive impulse the same/different than a rational thought impulse?

I would lean towards if there is an impulse then they are the same. 

[Jack River]

To me intelligent action seems to be total action itself. Impulse seems to be a conditioned movement that influences action. 

Good question though for sure. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Jack River

[DrewNows]

1 hour ago, Jack River said:

What you mean dude? By fine line?

Can one be creative while still seeing through the veil of thought or must one lose themself temporarily. What ive notice personally is whenever psychological time is active my movements become mechanical/limited and it is no longer creative

@Serotoninluvrational thought impulse, to me, would arise from thought resulting from memory/knowledge and intuitive impulse wouldn't really be an impulse but an act of intelligence as Jack says....haha oops i just noticed jack basically said the same 

In your example, As a scientist, the practical thinking is the rational thoughts, but an intuitive action does not have to be rational but comes from a complete understanding of the whole

Edited October 22, 2018 by DrewNows

[Jack River]

6 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

Can one be creative while still seeing through the veil of thought or must one lose themself temporarily.

Gotcha. To me that is the only way thought can end. And it’s in the actual ending of psychological moment that the creative comes about. The creative itself seems to be total action that is needed to end psychological time/thought. Has nothing to do with temporary to me though. This creative is the ground. The thought is the temporary. If that makes sense brah. 

Most excellent questions dude. ?

[Jack River]

This CREATIVE is moment to moment, but so is Now @DrewNows lol 

[sarapr]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

To push it further into the post-rational zone. . . 

1. Can thinking and direct experience be integrated?

2. How is an intuitive impulse the same/different than a rational thought impulse?

Imagine you are a scientist that has conducted a few experiments on fundamental aspects of cancer cells. You have spent weeks observing cancer cells and collecting data. How would an intuitive impulse to do a future experiment be similar/different than a rational thought to do a future experiment? 

It's interesting to think about .

What I've noticed is that when completely present in the moment everything tends to deconstruct and fade away right before your eyes but when thinking it's the exact opposite so you have to constantly feed into your conceptual constructions so I don't see how they can be integrated in a convential manner but perhaps the insights coming from those two sources can be put together after the fact but then again the putting together of insights will happen through only one medium so again it wouldn't really be integrated. Now that I'm thinking about this whole thing a bit deeper, it seems a way trickier question than it seems.

About intuition, I suppose it can happen in various ways like for example when you're totally conscious with no thoughts and also when you're thinking about a diverse set of ideas simultaneously and then a connection pops out of nowhere. 

But generally it's more complicated than that cause for example when you're doing math you're supposedly doing sth rational but in the very process of coming up with a smart way to solve it, you're not really gonna be having any clear line of thoughts, are you? So even the essence of rationality is based on sth not so clear.

This whole thing is very mysterious isn't it?

(The conclusion I came to at this point is: I don't know shit )

What's your understanding on this? Now I'm really curious to know

This brings me to what Sadghuru once said: if you pay enough attention to anything you will realize you don't really know it. So true 

Edited October 22, 2018 by sarapr

[DrewNows]

 

7 minutes ago, Jack River said:

The creative itself seems to be total action that is needed to end psychological time/thought.

Yes i see this, youre saying creative = freedom right? 

@Jack RiverWhat i mean is it can be temporary from the perspective of self as creativity ends after an activity 

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

What i mean is it can be temporary from the perspective of self as creativity ends after an activity 

Yep. I gotcha. Time momentum might have little gaps of this non reactive response of self. self in its nature resist that though. It’s tacit in its structure to self preserve that time momentum. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Jack River

[Robert]

On 10/21/2018 at 4:11 PM, sarapr said:

From my understanding here's how it goes:

When you are thinking you are inevitably turning away from post- rational. The only way to go post-rational is to realize the limits of language and therefore thought and step into the stillness of mind without any thinking at all. Now the investigation of your experience with a mind without thoughts is also by definition science ( investigation into nature of things with an objective point of view)

So basically doing science can be done in two ways : 1.through thinking 2. Through direct experience.

Now the results of the insights from your stilled mind can contribute a lot to the results of your science done with rationality.

You make some great points. I think I agree with most of what you said here. I was also agreeing a lot with @Serotoninluv throughout this whole discussion. We disagreed on minor things even though it may not have seemed like it.

Thank you for starting this thread!