I was listening to a discussion today between Charles Eisenstein and Iain McGilchrist this morning — two extremely insightful thinkers and writers that are worth paying attention to — when a little tidbit caught my ear.
It occurred to me a few hours after writing this that a scientist might say, "How do you know that our view of the universe as meaningless, mechanical, and random is an axiomatic belief, and not something that we know from direct experience of the world?" That's a good point! As far as I know, they may well experience the world that way. In fact, I suspect that this is true in some cases. It's not as if one should require that other people's experience of the world matches up with one's own. Indeed, how we experience the world is molded, in part, by how we interact with the world. In other words, by how we choose to live. There are ways that I experience the world that would not have been possible without practicing taiji and qigong deeply, and for many years. That practice - that choice I made - changed the world I live in. I can imagine that someone who's life is steeped in thoughts and practices of a mindless, mechanical nature, may well end up experiencing the world as meaningless and mechanical. Of course, that would be a very sad thing, seeing that instead they could find beauty, love, and happiness in the world. If only they made different choices. But it's their life, and their choice to make. And if they look inside, honestly and deeply, I believe they can still find that more beautiful world that is possible.
I think so. The universe is holographic, and our conceptions of the universe map directly onto the universe, in turn modifying it. We're probably lucky that humans aren't the only spirits contributing to the construction of our world. if so, a powerful enough human death cult could fuck up it all up.
I suspect that, in the same way that Aldous Huxley and The Tavistock Institute engineered rock 'n' roll and hippy culture in the 1950s and 1960s as an attack on religion, a similar attack was mounted on religion with scientific materialism by their predecessors in the nineteenth century. Wasn't The Theosophical Society founded (1875) to create an opposing impulse to "scientism"?
I like the term scientism. the only problem with it is that "follower of scientism" becomes "scientist", a word that already has an established meaning.
It occurred to me a few hours after writing this that a scientist might say, "How do you know that our view of the universe as meaningless, mechanical, and random is an axiomatic belief, and not something that we know from direct experience of the world?" That's a good point! As far as I know, they may well experience the world that way. In fact, I suspect that this is true in some cases. It's not as if one should require that other people's experience of the world matches up with one's own. Indeed, how we experience the world is molded, in part, by how we interact with the world. In other words, by how we choose to live. There are ways that I experience the world that would not have been possible without practicing taiji and qigong deeply, and for many years. That practice - that choice I made - changed the world I live in. I can imagine that someone who's life is steeped in thoughts and practices of a mindless, mechanical nature, may well end up experiencing the world as meaningless and mechanical. Of course, that would be a very sad thing, seeing that instead they could find beauty, love, and happiness in the world. If only they made different choices. But it's their life, and their choice to make. And if they look inside, honestly and deeply, I believe they can still find that more beautiful world that is possible.
Physical reality is a mirror of spiritual intent?
I think so. The universe is holographic, and our conceptions of the universe map directly onto the universe, in turn modifying it. We're probably lucky that humans aren't the only spirits contributing to the construction of our world. if so, a powerful enough human death cult could fuck up it all up.
🙌🏻
I suspect that, in the same way that Aldous Huxley and The Tavistock Institute engineered rock 'n' roll and hippy culture in the 1950s and 1960s as an attack on religion, a similar attack was mounted on religion with scientific materialism by their predecessors in the nineteenth century. Wasn't The Theosophical Society founded (1875) to create an opposing impulse to "scientism"?
I like the term scientism. the only problem with it is that "follower of scientism" becomes "scientist", a word that already has an established meaning.
Some alternative ideas here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/2qe2qj/what_do_you_call_a_follower_of_scientism/?rdt=52326
:)