You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 🎨 Event II
Science is a objective approach to understand our external reality of space and time. There is, however, another reality, the internal, the subjective - the reality of consciousness. If this is overlooked then science is limiting itself to the observation of phenomena within space and time, which is basically a classical mechanic / materialistic perspective. McKenna's statement beautifully illustrates the limits of this approach: If we believe that the universe sprang from nothingness then we can as well believe that it was created by a bearded old man in 7 days.
Science is also an approach to consciousness. It's not a reality of it's own though.
And even in the big bang theory, it is not assumed that it came from "nothingness", but that all mass was very very VERY tightly in one place.
Terence McKenna should familiarize with the subject a bit more :)
Then still, where did all the mass come from? And if consciousness doesn't have it's own reality then what else does? The only reality you can be certain of is YOU as consciousnesses! :-)
I believe that McKenna and many other mystics and philosophers had way more understanding and humbleness of the nature of our reality than most of our recent "experts". It's the tunnel view, the elitism and greed of many modern scientists that brought the worst of disasters over the planet.
The thing is, why do we need to assume it has had to "come" from anywhere? I assume everything has always existed.
I don't see it as an own reality, but it is how we perceive the reality. I shouldn't even trust our own consciousness either, as we as humans have mechanisms which make us untrustworthy even for ourselves.
We can't trust our mind, senses or memory perfectly. We have only a limited view on the reality and the consciousness is disturbing on it too to protect the mind and to fill the gaps in the senses.
I do not believe as you do, kept in short regarding McKenna and other mystics. Even though what you believe, she doesn't seem to have very much knowledge regarding the Big Bang :)
You have a theoretical framework, well defined, with a domain of application. This framework makes predictions that can be verified by data. That makes the difference between theories that are still considered by the scientists and those that are not. So far, standard cosmology is in agreement with all data at an enormous level.
It does not intent to describe what happened before t=0. It is not because it does not that it is wrong. As I said, each theory has its own domain of application.
In contrast to what you said to @apsu, my reality is not only me, or you, or whoever, but consists of data (facts), which may be counterintuitive (which does not mean they are wrong; it is not because you don't feel that something is like this or that that it is not). You can propose another paradigm, but this new paradigm should do as well as the currently adopted one if you want the scientific community to consider it fully.
Finally, as I said, science is not a matter of beliefs... This is left for religions.
I understand the scientific methodology, the concept of verification of theories, the proof and replication of experiments and so on. What I tried to explain is that this approach is one-sided and only outwards oriented. Our human experience but is on the edge of two planes: The external, the objective - everything we perceive in space and time, and the internal, the subjective, the mental, the self-aware, the origin of creativity, the reality beyond physics.
Mainstream science today can be seen as another religion because it believes that only what can be examined through its objective methodology is relevant whereas the metaphysical reality is completely neglected and ridiculed. Interestingly many of the genius scientists don't neglect the other side at all but admit that this is where their ideas, solutions and inspiration come from, and it's not about thinking but receiving. The subjective reality is not necessarily about believing but about knowing. Just because you can't communicate and proof something you experienced doesn't mean it's a matter of religion. It's an experience or an information that can not be translated into the objective plane.
Science certainly can also be practiced (and it was) on the metaphysical plane without being crippled by a methodology which is rooted in an outdated mechanical worldview. It's a matter of awakening.