The Problem Is Materialistic Ideologies NOT Science!

[r0ckyreed]

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.  

Edited September 13, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[Razard86]

11 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

I have already watched Deconstructing The Myth of Science Parts 1, 2, & 3.  

Short point: I think Leo is really arguing against materialism (the assumptions/flaws of the scientist) and NOT science.  We need to deconstruct materialism and other assumptions because it is effecting the quality of science.  The problem is 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.  

I wish I read the whole thing...but yeah Osho calls meditation science, and Sadhguru and other Yogi masters have called yoga science. The truth is everyone is a philospher and everyone is a scientist, because everyone believes their perspective is true. Our brain naturally does science, everyday, so a Scientist is usually given that terminology because they are studying nature. The problem with that is everything is nature.

There is human nature, their is psychological nature, so what is nature? Nature is just the inherent qualities of something. So as long as you are studying the inherent qualities of anything? You are a Scientist. 

But yeah I get you are talking about studying the fundamental building blocks of reality. In that sense he uses the word Science to refer to the Western World where we believe we hold the ultimate truth because of our technological gains. Our gains are so strong that we just assume Science is always right most times because the most powerful people in society and around the world give their same authority away to certain Scientists. So it becomes hard as a lay person who may not have engaged in such investigations to know what is true or not. 

So yeah you are right...but that was the thing Leo has said. There are lots of lesser known Scientists who were mystics but there are currently NO MAINSTREAM Scientists who are OPENLY Mystic. So this is basically the premise of all his attacks on Science its that its currently too biased. Science is a technology and the technology is a reflection of the users. 

[Leo Gura]

Science is imaginary. As long as you get that, then okay. But you don't get that yet.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Matthew85]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Science is imaginary. As long as you get that, then okay. But you don't get that yet.

How does realizing everything is imaginary benefit you, when according to you these levels of imagination are occurring at such deep levels you have no access to them? I don't see the point unless awakening to this will help you transcend it. 

[axiom]

@Matthew85 There is no benefit to the self - actually this is death to the self - because the self is also imaginary.

Transcendence is the end of "your world" forever. 

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

So this is basically the premise of all his attacks on Science its that its currently too biased. Science is a technology and the technology is a reflection of the users. 

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.

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Matthew85 said:

How does realizing everything is imaginary benefit you,

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. 

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, Matthew85 said:

How does realizing everything is imaginary benefit you, when according to you these levels of imagination are occurring at such deep levels you have no access to them? I don't see the point unless awakening to this will help you transcend it. 

Matthew85 what makes you think it won't? Let me ask you....how does someone create something? What do they need to cultivate? The man who invented the pencil had to do what first?

[Razard86]

9 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

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.

Rocky...who runs the field of science right now? That should be what you are focused on. Who or what is running the field of science?

Edited September 13, 2022 by Razard86

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Science is imaginary. As long as you get that, then okay. But you don't get that yet.

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. 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[r0ckyreed]

20 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Who or what is running the field of science?

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.”

Edited September 13, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[Razard86]

19 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

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.”

You aren't getting it. The invention and the creator are one.  Your argument is akin to there is nothing wrong with Guns but the ones who use the guns!

The user and the gun are one. There is no distinction. So if the user has a problem then the gun has a problem. So the user of the gun is going to use the gun to express their problem. 

A human's body is their tool, nature's technology is the human body. Do you make a distinction between the psyche of the human and their body? No!! But notice you do this with Science. Science can only exist as long as there are humans to do science, so they are inextricably linked because Science CAME from humans.  On a Meta level all came from God but we'll talk from a relative level here.

So until Humans use Science properly, Science won't be proper. I will say again you cannot distinguish Science and Human they are one and the same.

[r0ckyreed]

9 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

So until Humans use Science properly, Science won't be proper. I will say again you cannot distinguish Science and Human they are one and the same.

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.

[Razard86]

5 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

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.

Yes we are in agreement, Science is a mirror of humanity, as long as humanity is limited in their open-mindedness then Science will too. So if humanity has a problem....then so will Science. You aren't wrong in that Science itself doesn't have a problem...but since its connected to humanity who do in the sense they are closeminded, they wield science in a close-minded way. So in one sense you are correct, and in another you aren't it all depends on which perspective you are looking at it from. 

But on a metalevel they are ONE so they will mirror each other. 

With that said....check this video out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Nf3TcMiHo

Edited September 13, 2022 by Razard86

[r0ckyreed]

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?

[Razard86]

5 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

What are we using to “deconstruct science?” Isn’t the “deconstruction of science” also a form of science?

 

Yes.  It is a form of science. I believe to go beyond science.... is to stop doing science...and focus on pure imagination. The ultimate level humanity will eventually reach, is to be one with the creator so deeply, that they will eventually be able to bring things into existence through pure imagination. For Science to figure that out...they will have to drop a lot of things.

[Girzo]

@r0ckyreed The problem is, THE STATEMENT that a thing should serve such and such purpose in such and such way is no the same as its REALITY.

The rules of science are not strong enough to ensure their proper execution by real humans in the real world. So in fact, it is a problem with science itself, no scientists.

You can see that through using science on itself. If using the procedure again and again still fails by producing flawed research and biased scientists, then the problem is with the procedure. It's just not adjusted well-enough to the reality. It's arrogance to demand reality bend to some arbitrary philososphy spelled out by humans, which science is.

It's not a reasoning that proves the problem is with science, but it shows a strong possibility it is so.

[Vibroverse]

A Hegelian model of science can "save" us. 

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

@r0ckyreed The problem is, THE STATEMENT that a thing should serve such and such purpose in such and such way is no the same as its REALITY.

The rules of science are not strong enough to ensure their proper execution by real humans in the real world. So in fact, it is a problem with science itself, no scientists.

You can see that through using science on itself. If using the procedure again and again still fails by producing flawed research and biased scientists, then the problem is with the procedure. It's just not adjusted well-enough to the reality. It's arrogance to demand reality bend to some arbitrary philososphy spelled out by humans, which science is.

It's not a reasoning that proves the problem is with science, but it shows a strong possibility it is so.

That's a narrow view of Science. According to Mystics, Yoga and Meditation are Science. Deconstruction is Science as well. So it depends on which culture/part of the world you ask. Its important we mention which particular Science we are referring to.

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

The rules of science are not strong enough to ensure their proper execution by real humans in the real world. So in fact, it is a problem with science itself, no scientists

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.