This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Science Delusion – Reexamining our Worldview Mindset
The Science Delusion – Reexamining our Worldview Mindset
By
Cognitive Dissonance
If you are anywhere near a window or door why don’t you stop reading right now, get up, walk over and take five or ten seconds to look outside and absorb what you see. Hell, if that’s asking too much of you then just imagine what you would see if you were to look out your window. Go ahead and take a few seconds. I’ll wait.
Regardless of whether your (imagined) view outside was of lawn, woods, mountains, animals or other humans, homes or out buildings, a road or highway, tall office buildings or even skyscrapers, if I were to ask you to describe in detail what you (thought you) saw, what you (thought you) perceived, everyone would pretty much describe it using similar words, phrases, subtext and connotation.
This is because even though we all saw different things, we all employ pretty much the same basis of understanding or belief in how our natural world works and functions, of what ‘it’ is that we think we actually see. In short, we see, perceive and thereby ‘know’ through the (distorting) lens of our worldview and the individual/collective mindset that forms that point of view.
This in turn determines how we perceive, then interpret and finally describe what we see. Contrary to common belief we do not simply ‘see’ what is there. No one sees and perceives everything exactly the same way as anyone else and I’m not just talking about differences in visible color, clarity or contrast nor just through the distortion provided by a political or religious frame of reference.
Our mindset (selectively) interprets what our senses receive based upon our preconceived notions and beliefs. In short, all that we ‘see’ and perceive in every form is run through our worldview mindset for identification, interpretation and then integration. This means that there is great latitude for error when our mindset has been both created and distorted by prior beliefs, propaganda and bias.
If we don’t believe (in) what we ‘see’ or perceive, quite simply it is dismissed as unreal and nonsensical………if it is even ‘seen’ in the first place. For all intents and purposes from our perspective fully or partially accepted perception is reality, everything else is not. As I will outline below this is our deeply flawed personal and collective mindset and I contend that this is the basis for many, if not all, of our individual and global social problems.

Our point of view determines much of what we perceive
Where we stand depends entirely upon where we sit. This wonderfully enlightening phrase works on both the micro and macro level because our basis of understanding and perception, our worldview, determines how we ‘see’ and perceive reality. Since all we know and all we think we know is right >here< in time and space, unless we make an honest, sincere and sustained effort to see beyond these artificial boundaries, to remove the self imposed limitations we all experience when we view everything through our worldview prism, we are personally and collectively condemned to a life of external and internal (self) manipulation and control.
In my opinion it is essential to understand that everything is a construct of our consciousness, so >here< is essentially non local, meaning even though for nearly all of us >here< is perceived as located between the ears, this is simply not the case. This perspective altering concept, that of non-local consciousness, is a wonderful example of our collective mindset since the vast majority will quickly and completely reject this notion simply because their present day belief system and worldview tells them otherwise. I will touch on this further down when I list some of the beliefs that form our collective worldview, but if just this one alternative view were widely embraced by the general population consider for a few moments how dramatically different the world we just viewed would seem to be.
If we fail to seek our inner knowing to effectively counterbalance the obviously subversive and manipulative external forces that are busily (re)constructing our ever changing, but still very narrow worldview, we become entirely dependent upon that external affirmation to confirm and inflame the internal dysfunction that results from our constant immersion within the insanity. Simply put we go mad, but still remain quite functional in an insane asylum sort of way. Just because I’m crazy doesn’t mean I’m stupid or unable to productively interact with others in our mad world.
This internal dysfunction, our inner insanity, aggravates and perpetuates the external manipulation by way of our collective actions in an endless positive feedback loop of escalating collective madness until finally it exhausts itself in a crescendo of war, starvation, deprivation and death. Our inner madness feeds the external madness which feeds the internal and so on.
We moan and groan about the obvious insanity of our increasingly psychotic world, about the financial, political and corporate corruption, the blatant greed and endless lies and manipulation, all while remaining comfortably blind to its inner source. Wash, rinse and repeat as needed generation after generation after generation. It simply does not need to be this way. But then again maybe it does since to accept that the source of our torment springs from within means not only that we are the problem, but that we are the solution. No one left to blame then.
A perfect example of a thoroughly dysfunctional social feedback loop is the closed society that is present day North Korea. While we do not know exactly what is happening inside that country we do understand that many if not all of its inhabitants do not receive much in the way of a ‘reality check’ to contrast what they are being told by their leadership. Their worldview mindset is horribly distorted by controlling external forces. While our egos might not like to hear this, we here in the West are under similar assault, though the techniques used are much more subtle and extremely effective.

Our entire cognitive spectrum is distorted by our worldview prism
On a micro mindset level our personal stand on gun control depends upon how we view guns, personal responsibility, local, state and federal government and so on. As well, our opinion of the stock markets’ relentless rise over the last four years depends upon our views and understanding (or not) of statistical manipulation, corporate and governmental corruption and self dealing, unlimited fiat creation and so on.
Expanding outward a bit more, on a personal level we believe that our (little patch of the) universe can be fully experienced and understood with just our oftentimes electronically leveraged five senses. Except for a few fuzzy undefined exceptions we believe that nothing further is required in order to fully understand and experience our world other than what we have not yet learned and experienced through our five senses. Man beheld what he cognitively created and it was good.
On a more macro mindset level how we view animals, plants, rocks, rivers and roads depends upon if we think of ‘them’ as sentient and conscious or dead and without awareness. For example, many believe that ‘feed’ animals should be ‘humanely’ raised and slaughtered (or at least they should be blissfully unaware of it when they are not) suggesting that we perceive animals as somewhat sentient. Perhaps this is because animals express emotions such as care and nurturing for their young and distress and panic when their young are threatened. Ask most cat and dog ‘owners’ if their animals are aware and emotional, human like in some respects, and the affirmative will come through loud and clear.
In other words we perceive (certain) animals as somewhat similar to humans principally because they show similar emotions and reactions, not because we have actually measured consciousness within them………or within humans for that matter. But we give little thought to ‘slaughtering’ woods, rivers and meadows, the very Earth itself, other than possibly holding some concern for the loss of the utility or esthetic value. I am, of course, speaking of the loss to us humans; not so much to those dumb, but still somewhat sentient animals……right?
Forget about seeing this as a moral judgment so much as just an irrefutable and near universal belief born of a decidedly narrow perceptional belief, or an iron clad fact some would say. In order for it to be a moral judgment all sides must at least be (carefully) considered, if only to be quickly discarded when it doesn’t square with that delicious steak on the table. It is one of those ‘Duh, that’s obvious’ moments where we roll our eyes and look at the questioner as if he just stepped in dog doo and is stinking up the joint. Humans are at the top of the food chain, alive and conscious. Animals are lower down and maybe conscious, depending on if our view squares with what’s for supper, while rocks and rivers are not at all. That’s just a fact Jack.
Our damned delusional unanimity
There is near universal agreement (among the ‘civilized’ world that is) that the fundamental basis for our worldview is essentially correct and quite obvious, though there are a few nagging details to be worked out here and there. So obvious in fact that rarely if ever do we talk about these concepts and even less often, either as a culture or as individuals, do we invest our time and/or money to study alternatives to these concepts, except maybe as <snicker snicker> career ending fringe science.
After all everyone knows that rocks are composed of dead inorganic material and are certainly not alive or conscious by any stretch of the imagination. This and other beliefs form our most basic assumptions about life and the world we live in and they are so firmly embedded within our way of life, within our worldview mindset, that we don’t even consider them to be assumptions at all, but rather as irrefutable and self evident facts.
And yet if these beliefs were to change, if our perception were to alter and evolve, how different would the world seem even though it did not change, only our prism. Then again, if this were to occur we could no longer be blissfully ignorant in our ravenous and insatiable consumption. It sounds to me like we are deeply conflicted and compromised sentient beings who really don’t wish to look too deep for fear of what we might see. Oops, did I just say sentient beings? I guess the answer to that would depend upon our worldview and perception. ‘We’, meaning the insane, never perceive ourselves to be anything other than sane, normal and very well adjusted to the insane asylum.
We are taught these most basic assumptions and beliefs first by our parents and primary caregivers, then by the state and corporate controlled primary and secondary education system, and finally by our corporate overlords. One is allowed, encouraged in fact, to examine the effects and intricacies of our material world in order to further ourselves personally and professionally as well as to contribute ‘economic value’ to the whole (meaning the overlords) as well as the self. After all I must march to the corporate machine because I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.
But one must never question the very basis of our worldview belief system unless one wishes to be declared a heretic and summarily expelled from the paternal patronage system of advancement and achievement. Only the wacko’s and crazies unnecessarily think so far out of the box that they must be declared permanently off reservation and dead to the academic and scientific world. You know, for their own good lest they rock the boat, spill the beans and hurt themselves and others. So we hitch up our pants, carefully adjust our blinders and then join the collective worldview of the hive mind.

All hail the mighty kings of material science
The modern day material sciences, the new global religion adored by nearly the entire world’s ‘civilized’ population, are thoroughly infiltrated and infused with carefully guarded dogma, blind beliefs, long held assumptions and blatantly obvious taboos. Obvious at least to anyone who steps outside the castle walls and gazes back with a clear and steady eye, not to those still deeply embedded within the meme.
The world’s declared religions must regard with envy and awe the degree of blind faith and revered belief the scientific community exhibits in service to the holy scientific grail, that of provable and repeatable scientific ‘truth’ and ‘fact’. Not to mention the degree of blind adoration we plebs exhibit in servitude to all things materially scientific, the ultimate effect of manufacturing consent.
If it can’t be measured and quantified using repeatable and verifiable experimentation, it just ain’t real folks. But since our measuring instruments are often limited by our own imagination to measuring only that which we are trained and conditioned to perceive, there is an obvious closed loop positive feedback cycle here very similar to a dog chasing its own tail. Good luck getting a government or corporate research grant to examine concepts that might just force us all to reexamine everything, then dismantle much of what we have built in order to preserve what little we still have left……our souls and self survival to name just two.
Since I was a young child I have always been a materials science geek so my love affair has not died, just switched from blind belief to critical thinker. For those of us who wish to look beyond the surface layer and ask the really tough questions that threaten to rock our socks off, these days of heightened awareness and self discovery are actually much more exciting than you might think. But only if one is willing to look beyond our pre-conditioned minds and discover a huge wealth of alternative science waiting to be (re)discovered and perused. In other words, only if we are ready and willing to question everything beginning with ourselves and what we ‘know’ to be true.

The agony of the arrogance
If I were limited to just one word to describe the ‘civilized’ western world (and rapidly the developing eastern world) it would have to be ‘arrogance’. We are so completely sure of our correctness, of our absolute certainty that the world, nay the universe, is pretty much constructed as, of and how we believe it to be because……..well, because our high priests of material science say it is so. See, it says so right here in our cleric approved indoctrination texts with all their pretty pictures, graphs and diagrams. No critical thinking needed since it has already been done for us. Just gaze at the flickering monitor and repeat after me.
With the benefit of hindsight we roll on the floor in delirious laugher at some of the obviously silly notions that were held as gospel decades, centuries, even millennium ago while rarely if ever considering that we presently labor under our own woefully wrong flat world perspectives so deeply engrained within our present day mindset that we are completely and utterly blind to how wrong we might be.
The amount of self absorbed naval gazing narcissistic hubris it takes to think that we are so much smarter, so much more enlightened than our mothers and fathers of just 20, 50 or 100 years ago is simply staggering to consider. In short we are afflicted with a severe and possibly fatal case of cranial rectal inversion and things don’t look good for a recovery anytime soon.
As Mrs. Cog and I continue our journey down the rabbit hole I can’t tell you how many times we have discovered books written fifty, a hundred, two hundred years ago that nail concepts (or just open the mind to other possibilities) that have all been summarily dismissed by the modern day material science priests as deluded and utterly wrongheaded. But after an open minded and thorough reading, we can often see that they clearly and creatively explain so much about the perplexities of our natural world.
At the risk of insulting many of my readers I find little difference in motives and methods between the high priests of central banking & high finance and those so-called scientific authorities who are found in various in-house corporate think tanks and labs, government and corporate run research and development centers and the heart of the beast, glorious academia, with its deeply dug in keepers of the holy thought relics and rituals. For the most part true scientific advancement (rather than just ‘material’ science) only creeps forward when a few more of the old guard dies off and the discipline lurches another step or two ahead before the new crop at the top starts protecting turf while permanently closing their minds to non conforming thought.
Sadly our present day worldview is seemingly confirmed by so much of what material science gets right, at least when it comes to consumer products, electronic gadgets and fiat printing computers, that we can all safely ignore what it gets spectacularly wrong. Just as long as we can get Wi-Fi, or at least a decent cell signal, all is right in the world and we can remain blissfully asleep at the wheel. Even when it does get it wrong, it ain’t wrong for long thanks to a bucket full of scientific superstition, supposition and sensationalism as they announce the latest greatest wild ass guess disguised as scientific fact-theory, all designed to paper over their last wild ass guess gone horribly wrong.
One should rightfully ask a basic question at this point. What difference does it make if science gets a few things wrong here and there? The answer would be ‘not much’ if the errors were at the end of the scientific process rather than at the beginning where they compound over and over again. As anyone who has added, subtracted and multiplied a long stretch of numbers will tell you, while a mistake anywhere along the way will produce an error, mistakes made at the beginning send the resulting sum so far out of the ballpark as to worse than useless, but potentially dangerous. Especially if those errors in thinking and supposition are then used as the basis for other equations, which in turn form our worldview. The result is the insanity that is Earth 2013.

Bridging the ice floes
I have been writing about our disastrously distorted worldview for several years now, though never in detail and always as part of my ongoing theme of looking within for the answers we all seek. I rarely provide direct answers to specific questions (something that tends to infuriate my readers) because I wish the questioner to first ask better questions as part of their own search within, then to seek and find their own answers so that they may own them as their truth.
If I provide specific answers I am not much better than those who peddle snake oil, if for no other reason than I am expecting others to believe me, or at least believe that what I am saying is truth as I believe I know it. In my opinion it is much better for the questioner to seek out and find their own answers so that they may embody them as their own, leaving them better able to integrate that information within themselves. The ultimate authority is found within and the only way to break our dependence upon the external authority is to stop relying upon it for ‘answers’.
I feel the same way about recommending books, particularly books that claim to have answers. All writers, including myself, are ultimately propagandists since it is nearly impossible to write on a subject without holding an opinion on that subject. We wish to influence the reader to adopt our way of thinking and the conclusions that spring from it, thus we will present our best argument in favor of the position we are discussing even when we make a genuine effort to be impartial. This is why I prefer to ask open ended questions that appear to have multiple answers (or worse, only one answer) and then present my thinking.
However from time to time I will point in a specific book because it does present open ended questions or dramatically points to our cognitive dissonances, then it asks the hard ‘why’ questions while trying to fill in the blanks. Or I will recommend it because it pushes the cognitive boundaries well past the accepted norm. This time I seem to have found a book that does many of these, Rupert Sheldrake’s “Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery”. The UK edition is titled “The Science Delusion.
In his book Rupert Sheldrake discusses in great detail ten fundamentally flawed assumptions or dogma that have infiltrated the western world’s worldview. He then explores possible answers to his own questions. Below is Sheldrake’s summary of modern science’s materialist ideology which I transcribed from an interview of Sheldrake on Red Ice Radio.
Number one; there is the assumption that nature is mechanical or machine like. That everything in nature, plants, animals and humans are machine like. Or as Richard Dawkins famously said, we are just lumbering robots and our brains are like genetically programmed computers.
Number two; that matter is unconscious. The entire universe is made up of unconscious matter which includes everything in nature including our bodies, but strangely our minds are somehow conscious. This illustrates one of the biggest problems in materialist science, that consciousness should not exist at all and yet it does, but exclusively within humans and maybe some animals and possibly a few other species.
Number three; the laws of nature are fixed, that they are the same as they were at the big bang and they will be the same forever. This infers that the “constants” such as the speed of light or the gravitational constant never change or vary.
Number four; that the total amount of matter and energy has always and will always remain the same beginning with the big bang and extending forward into infinity.
Number five; that nature is purposeless, that there is no purpose in animals and plants or in life as a whole. The entire evolutionary process has no purpose; it has just come about by blind chance and the laws of nature.
Number six; biological inheritance is material, it is all genetic or epigenetic or possibly in cytoplasmic inheritance, but in any case material.
Number seven; memories are stored as material traces inside the brain. All your memories are inside your head in some way stored in nerve endings or phosphorylated proteins or some other way. No one knows how, but the assumption is that they are there.
Number eight; your mind is inside your head, that it is an aspect of the activity of your brain.
Number nine; psychic phenomenon such as telepathy is illusory. They appear to exist, but they are not real. That’s because the mind is inside the head and can’t have any effects at a distance.
Number ten; mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. Alternative and complementary therapies may appear to work, but that’s just because people would have got better anyway or it’s the placebo effect. That’s why governments, pharmaceutical companies, medical research organizations and universities funds only mechanistic medicine based upon the principal that the body is a machine working on chemistry and physics so it can only be treated by the same processes such as drugs or surgery. While that can be very effective up to a point, it’s just part of medicine.

Please recognize that the purpose of my continuous exercise in cognitive discombobulation, of questioning everything beginning with myself, is not intended to form new conclusions or even to modify my present day belief system mindset. Rather the desired effect is to expand my perceptive capacity, to push my self constrained thought boundaries far beyond my well manicured cognitive back yard and deep into the wooded forest beyond.
In other words it is the journey, not the destination that matters. By challenging our core beliefs, by demanding of ourselves that we look where the emotional and intellectual pain lay, once we honestly begin to do so sweeping new vistas open up. I have no idea what you will find when you look, only that you will find what you are looking for if you are sincere and persistent in your search.
Please note that I have not thoroughly read this book, only skimmed, though it is on my must read list to be perused over time. However I have carefully listened to four of Sheldrake’s interviews and I was impressed with his originality and fearless thought process. While he is a classically trained scientist he seems to have found a way to bridge both ice floes, that of a contrarian and of a traditionalist. If nothing else you might want to take a closer look at this one. I most certainly will.
There is nothing more exciting, or frightening, than breaking from the herd and crawling way out onto the end of the limb. Provided I continue to seek the courage to maintain my own personal journey I suspect I shall find many of you out there where it all begins.
03-03-2013
Cognitive Dissonance

- advertisements -


I liked your "buy/by/bye" phrase, disabledvet.
It appears to me that life is nothing but blowing bubbles (or toroidal vortices.) Each one we are able to appears to be bigger than ever before, and so pops more spectacularly. The current global bubble of a human population organized through electronic fiat money frauds, backed by the threats from the use of weapons of mass destruction, is obviously many orders of magnitude greater than anything we have ever done before!
CD, thank you for another great thought provoking article.
Question everything!
Cant help but think of this:
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
Very nice Men in Black reference. :)
Excellent, thank you.
I tell my Son that science is a religion. "No it's not" he says. "Yes it is" I say. I don't belabor the point and let it go, but I have to at least leave him with the thought.
Science is a tool.
Science discovers what is already there.
The worshipers of science are no different than those who named and worshiped their swords, or geologic features, or the Sun.
Science never answers "why?", only "how?".
All of the amazing things computers do and they are still just calculators using 1's and 0's. Even if they develop DNA Helix processing, memory codes, and storage it will still just be a calculator and exemplify "garbage in = garbage out".
Science and technology devoid of stewardship for the soul of creation is Armageddon.
To me that is a special kind of hybris: to assume there always has to be a non-self-referential "why."
And it might even be underlying one of the greatest all-encompassing fallacies these days: that history is linear, instead of cyclical.
Do you mean hubris?
If there is no why, then is there a why not?
Do you propose to open that Pandora's box?
Yep, should have used the spellchecker.
In my thinking I'm glad to open any Pandora's box.
By definition you can never prove non-existence of something. So yes, I cannot prove a god doesn't exist. But using Occam's razor I don't need to introduce a god to explain the things I (currently believe to) understand about this universe. Nor for the things I don't understand as limitations of my knowledge are the much more likely reasons that I cannot understand it.
My ex-gf used to say the same thing, that 'Science is the new religion'. I thought she was incorrect at the time.
I have quasi theological discussions with a coworker who is very religious, and my fanatacism is worse than his. Its enough for me to realize that in itself. I'm always happy to admit I dont know the answer, and theres at least a small chance that he's right.
awesome work CD. thank you very much for putting this out there.
interesting ideas are popping up everywhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Nice visual of the theory of a vortex solar system/universe.
if i say caltrop (trapa bicornus)
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ploct95.htm
you may think me mad.
.
"The feature plant for October 1995 produces a strange, horny pod that was presented to Professor Armstrong by a summer biology student. This bizarre horny fruit (not the student) has two prominent, downcurved horns and superficially resembles the head of a bull. The fruit body has a woody, sculptured surface that resembles a face. To some people, the entire structure resembles a bat. It comes from an Asian aquatic plant often called "water caltrop" (Trapa bicornis). It is sometimes called water chestnut; however, this not to be confused with the crunchy, tuberous roots of a vegetable called water chestnut (Eleocharis dulcis) commonly served in Chinese restaurants. Other common names for this plant include Chinese horn nut and "ling kio" or "ling chio." It belongs to the water-caltrop family (Trapaceae) and includes the single genus (Trapa) with several closely-related species. The generic name Trapa is derived from calcitrappa, Latin name of the caltrop, in reference to the peculiar, horned fruits. During medieval times, a vicious weapon called a caltrop was used in European warfare. This was an iron device with four points so designed that one was always facing upward, whichever way it landed, to impale the hooves of enemy cavalry horses. A similar device was also used in World War II to destroy truck tires on enemy supply convoys. Actually, the widespread and more commonly-known water caltrop (Trapa natans) has a four-pronged fruit that more closely resembles the caltrop. The fruits of puncture vine also resemble a caltrop, especially when they impale your bicycle tires. In fact, this ubiquitous weed belongs to another unrelated plant family called the caltrop family (Zygophyllaceae)."
.
a form and image converged upon by
the image of the bulls head, or you could
say a horny bulls head, also the pod or form
is nearly the same as arrived at by a species
of brachiopod.
http://www.relic-master.com/images/Brachiopods_sm.jpg
.
or trilobites
http://www.fossilmall.com/EDCOPE_Enterprises/trilobites/04030/04030H.jpg
.
or maybe this is not the best example of convergence.
perhaps look at the variety of paths in evolution to
accomplishing flight or sight from the vegetable to the
animal kingdoms and think about that.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow.cfm?id=lamb-evolutions-eyes-...
"..These findings suggest that our camera-style eye has surprisingly ancient roots and that prior to acquiring the elements necessary to operate as a visual organ it functioned to detect light for modulating our long-ago ancestors’ circadian rhythms."
it leads one to
the notion, the metaphysical notion, of principles that
are in force in the "game" called survival and life.
.."They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect." ...s.a.
the term law
could be used here but the forces and circumstance we are
referring to predate language anyway and certainly predate
the idea of judgment, code or any conscious capacity to
articulate anything we today call "law". yet the convergence
and the accomplishments of life manifest! we did not need to
be conscious of those advancement for them to manifest.
they manifest and developed because the benefit of their
existence and the consciousness of that survival benefit
, that pursuit, was appreciated.
the situation remains fundamentally the same today though,
survival in a field of forces predicated upon a viable pursuit.
conceptualization of
principles and the applicable hierarchy of principles define
the domain today. depending on one's perspective and or standing there
is plasticity to the hierarchy of principles; not that the
principles themselves are flexible, though that may be, but
their relative significance and hierarchical value is determined
by the domain which defines the paradigm. in that religion
and science are identical, both human expressions in a collective
domain, they converge, individual pursuits in the context of a
shared language with a stated purpose of advancement or survival
of the many by the dedication and efforts of the individual.
there are pronouncements, conclusions and dogma but at
the core the discovery
of the context, value and articulation of the principles is
the goal of both religion and science.
when one ceases to be concerned with the discovery process of science
it becomes religion / tentative belief in potentially erroneous
conclusions and when the dogma of religion is divorced from it's
inspired origin of bliss and love it is merely a technology for
social control. or perhaps religion was the original science of
bicameral man used to develop and maintain the technology of the day,
the health and survival of the human individual in collective association
and "science" became the religion of the next phase of evolution of
technology whereby man and his thinking became infatuated with development
and maintenance of machines and material technological advancements,
consciousness being for the most part and most people unwanted and
irrelevant.
my personal view is that consciousness is mostly optional in the current
world for the current man and it is not welcome for the most part in
most circumstances. it is an obstacle and disruption of the accepted
normal flow of materials and energy as the current collective dictates.
.
the problem is we are capable of consciousness and therefore must deal
with this potentiality.
.
The Condensation of Tacit Knowledge
http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/2011/04/condensation-of-tacit-knowledge.html
.
"..Therefore, by comprehending this Universal life principle, religion and science are identical, for that which you want to believe should, a priori, be the Truth. Others may wish you to believe lies – their lies – but the individual prays and trusts that what he/she believes is the honest concrete Truth. Evocation is a auto-self reaction – an involuntary natural, physiological and neurological reaction / response mechanism to the environment (read: milieux) which permits information to be drawn from that environment; that information and data that only a phenomena of your nature, your self, is sensitive to /with; and can become aware of in its esoteric state." ..pjb
.
consciousness is the esoteric state which is heresy today, a sign of the times
and i suspect something to be learned, practiced and developed, like say playing
the piano. you don't necessarily know how to do it because you have seen
it done on t.v. or heard it on the radio, but then again for some, that might
be enough?
.
"..Once new information is sensed it is made coherent by the examination of reason behind the internal evocation and so then described, noted and named; and then thrown to the profane for consumption. This is then Revelation. By natural Principle, the Truth is what is sought and as such this is to be believed; this is science and science relies best in 'self' (“know thyself”) and the Principles of Cause and Effect. Initiated by evocation of a sensitive and fully aware 'self' on its path to the accomplished state. The most natural Christ Principle (the ancient Third Eye Principle) resides awaiting to be released in a functional differentiation – or IOW, by a naturally spontaneous biological, neurological, physiological and evolutionary thresholding process event. In transmutation Principle. " ...pjb
.
Evolution of the Eye [Preview]
Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be
By Trevor D. Lamb
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye
i always thoght that the caltrop would make an awesome alternative currency.
like seashells, but more interesting to accumulate.
much less energy than bitcoin....
and many would be joyful at the extinction of those
horny bull's heads, caltrops, indiscriminate weapons they are.
i have been told they go through flip flops and bicycle tires!
there is the eye and it's capacity to function as it may
and then there is the mind's eye, without which the eye itself
is nothing but a flawed and useless mass, i think both science
and religion might agree on that? it is interesting too the
eye, the mind's eye and the nature of the organism , the integration
of them. you can trust that they are integrated and then named
by their function and acts revealing the nature. perhaps
.
"..Stages of eye evolution
The stigma (2) of the euglena hides a light-sensitive spot.
The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot allows the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis,[17] and to predict day and night, the primary function of circadian rhythms. Visual pigments are located in the brains of more complex organisms, and are thought to have a role in synchronising spawning with lunar cycles. By detecting the subtle changes in night-time illumination, organisms could synchronise the release of sperm and eggs to maximise the probability of fertilisation.
".. wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
very interesting-thanks
the evolution of the eye-luv it...
now i'm thinking-kinda sums many things up for me.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seeing-without-eyes
Blindsight: Animals That See without Eyes [Slide Show]
.
everything you ever wanted to know about "vision" except what it is.
?.
CD, while reading your post I found the haunting melody from "Mad World" running though my head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpjKPy64NpM&list=PL6706E101FE604FDD
I always loved this song, but never knew its name. Thank you.
"In his book Rupert Sheldrake discusses in great detail ten fundamentally flawed assumptions or dogma that have infiltrated the western world’s worldview."
Why are the assumptions there? Are our scientists myopic or has the agenda of this scientific 'religion' been set by high priests bent on shaping the world?
"Are our scientists myopic or has the agenda of this scientific 'religion' been set by high priests bent on shaping the world?"
Yes and an emphatic YES.
While I don't wish to believe that there are boogie men under every bush there is no doubt in my mind that science does not move, but rather that it is moved in order to control and constrain the masses. The good news is that all that is required to break free is to free our minds.
"The good news is that all that is required to break free is to free our minds."
Do you know what happens to wayward scientists?
Culled from the herd and served for supper? :)
Actually there is a thriving alternative science community that they are welcome to join. They might even sell more books and receive more exposure that way.
simple; funny word that keeps me from being sidetracked from the self evident conclusion(s);(and even that is ongoing).
if i get confussed, then i dismiss my thoughts and start over to figure out what i am missing...with humilaty!
leading me to ask; why do humans do "things" that are so obviously wrong? well that is why i read your thoughts and i thank you kindly for sharing.
OT: mr. cog,
have you considered the study of the native american indians and how they were able to sustain themselves
without; written laws, a monetary system-per say and to sum up-all the bs that is manipulated for individual gain rather than for the good of tribe?
reason i ask, i think it gets to the problems of unsustainability of the human species...
just curious.
also, i recognize that their existence was a "period of time" (maybe 500 years behind europeans) only and they too would have "discovered" the elements to progress to where are today and that progression would lead to the problems we all face and mentioned above. because we are all still humans. i am getting at nomadic vs gathering ie the fertile cressent struggle and ultimatly the great reset that the natural laws will deliver.
"have you considered the study of the native american indians and how they were able to sustain themselves"
I have actually and I've mentioned the Native American Indian example several times in other articles of mine. I am always amazed by the firestorm that my mention produces in the comment threads under the article. It seems that the nationalist propaganda is deep seated within us regarding those nasty savages. Sad really. Just another example of our distorted and manipulated worldview.
As with all enemies of the state first you must demonize them, then destroy their healers and spiritual leaders, closely followed by genocide if they persist in continuing to exist and to practice their ways. Non conformists must be eliminated so as not to cognitively disturb the sleeping collective.
That and the "Peter Principle".
Beppe Grillo – The Man Who Knew Too Much
Posted on March 3, 2013 by TearsOfTheMoon
( our money is a (bad) joke )
http://maxkeiser.com/2013/03/03/beppe-grillo-the-man-who-knew-too-much/
.
euronews interview: Lock, stock and one smoking Beppe Grillo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOEbPucsC50&feature=youtu.be
.
Wealth Inequality in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Great article Cog. Sheldrake's ideas tie in brilliantly with the state of the world today and the path of our collective insanity.
This is Rupert Sheldrake's address at the Tipping Point, the Electric Universe conference in NM, January 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4
A wonderful introduction to The Electric Universe, the breakthough alternative science that is gaining traction with the public and in dribs and drabs finally with NASA, can be viewed here in the Thunderbolts Project full length movie called Symbols of an Alien Sky. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY&list=UUvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA&index=33
Thank you for your high praise.
Mrs. Cog and I bought both episode DVDs and we are anxiously awaiting episodes three and possibly four from David Talbot and the Thunderbolts Project team.
We have carefully watched both DVD's several times and still find stuff we missed during our prior viewings.
Wonderful, fabulous, absolutely to the point your essay is. Sheldrake's thinking is a panacea and will prove to be seminal to many new directions in science and the humanities, (along with all his pals at Thunderbolts.com).
I was delighted to see that Sheldrake was invited to this year's Electric Universe conference. I was sad that I could not attend.
BTW I believe it is http://www.thunderbolts.info/
I'm sorta new to the awareness of the Electric Universe. I've have had my mind opened up to it from these daily morning posts.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers?feature=watch
Edit, and nice pictures.
Mrs. Cog and I have a morning bedroom ritual. After we are done with that we watch Suspicious0bservers's early morning youtube broadcast together. :)
<Mrs. Cog found SO and introduced me to him. I don't agree with all that he says, but he is an interesting person to follow.>
Every morning my 3 year old would ask, how come he doesn't say "no fear" daddy. I was sure glad when he added it back in. :>
Kudos for your excellent essay. Double kudos for bringing up Rupert Sheldrake - I've been a fan of his for many years and became convinced he is headed in an exciting direction that will pan out. Triple kudos for bringing up the Electric Universe...
I work in the Science industry and am appalled at the general lack of imagination in the vast majority of Scientists - thank God there are occasional exceptions, mavericks willing to go against the sacred dogmas held by their department heads...
They are the real pioneers, and sadly many will not utter what they really believe, as it would certainly be career threatening. I suppose that's "more civilized" than being burned at the stake "al bonzo" like Giordano Bruno, but the numbing effect on better understanding this world is just as pernicious.
Were it not for the mavericks, I would have no hope at all that mankind will ever evolve any further...
It takes a very special type of humility and courage to buck the herd and be a maverick. They are, and always have been, our future.
Most of them fail. You are talking about the success stories only
Science has both become a form of entertainment and a religious belief. I scored highest in my class in science and physics. I'm not a professor or a physicist, but to become one you need to give up what you know to be wrong in order to fit in with the establishment.
These days, I cannot watch Discovery channel, TLC or National geographic without wincing at least a few times due to some of the preposterous assertions they sometimes make stating certain things as scientific fact, when the jury (that is, the scientific community) is still out on whether or not some fact is for a certainty true or false.
Don't forget the possibility that the when the scientific jury comes in with the verdict they get it wrong. Right or wrong the verdict becomes set it stone as dogma. I've had famous scientists complain to me in private that conjectures they made decades before became accepted as fact and were now defended so zealously that even they could not assail the dogma despite it now being a twisted version of what they hypothesized long ago. Our scientific world view is highly channelized, only projects harmonious with currently accepted belief can survive the grant review process to get funding. Who can guess what advances are being missed because of our blinders.
What are you talking about? If it's on TeeVee it must be true.
/sarc
sarc< It was on " How the Universe was made". It came on after 'Shark Week'. sarc/>
Think about the Big Bang. Not even Hubble accepted the notion. Whats more, in contradiction to their own theories, physics teaches us a naked singularity would immediately censor itself out of existance by warping space around it. This is why the scientific community comes up with things like Branes to try to find an explanation for the beginning. So instead of making statements like 'there is a possibility that the universe came about by the Big Bang' we get the very dogmatic 'The Universe was created by the Big Bang', and like hell, would you be taught anything else.
I'm so glad you discovered Thunderbolts, because I had such a hard time agreeing with what the mainstream said about the formation of Mars.
Some other process sculpted the surface, and matter in the plasma state accounts for most of the matter of in the universe. I don't buy all of their arguments, but I do buy most of them.
For instance, I don't think the planets were very close and chaotic in their orbits in some early time. However Mars may have had a companion that came close, and powerful electric potentials generated between the two could account for the material in the asteroid belt, the Martian surface features, and the demise of the companion as a belt of rubble.
Also, I do believe that at some earlier time, Earth had a more denser atmosphere, and the aurora could have extended upwards thousands of miles in an early tenuous envelope making it visible halfway around the world, possibly accounting for the celestial stairway archetypes and perhaps aurora sometimes coming in the shape of the "squatter" or "stickman" figures we've seen in ancient drawings. This would as well, account for many temples and monuments to be oriented towards the north.
Also, the Celestial wheel Archetype could have been inspired by the sunlight shining through a thick ice crystal layer in the very upper reaches of this atmosphere, creating very bright circular refraction patterns with spokes around the sun and moon that we've seen occasionally in our day.
Look familliar?: http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/news/146961547_1359353575.jpg
Either way, stating any of unproven science as fact is robbing children, the future scientists and researchers, of their own imagination, and implanting the imagination of someone else.
Present facts as facts, theories as theories, and make sure theories come with a disclaimer.
Excellent piece, thank you.
Rupert Sheldrake's (long running) work on so called "Morphogenetic fields" is also recommendable.
I just watched Rupert Sheldrake's discussion of Morphogenetic fields and found some similarities with Lewis Little's "Theory of Elementary Waves". He uses it to explain the double slit experiments with light.
When you shine a light through an opaque barrier with 1 slit, you get a bright line that fades to either side. If there are two slits you get more than two bright lines that fade between them. It's explained by wave interference, but it happens even when they send 1 photon at a time through the slits.
It's almost like the particles are waves! <gasp>
or as if the particles of light have mass and spin and
are influenced and interact with the energy of their
environment over time.
.
The Double Slit Experiment
by Miles Mathis
.
"..You can see that once again a simple mechanical explanation has utterly destroyed decades of murky and muddy hypotheses. An entire sub-field of physics has been destroyed with a few pages of elementary logic. And the entire pseudo-philosophy of QED, including the Copenhagen Interpretation, has been annihilated. Quantum physics is not the math or the probabilities only, it is not beyond a mechanical interpretation, and it is not fundamentally mysterious. Feynman was wrong: Nature does not refuse to make sense—she is not capricious or willfully irrational. But she does refuse to reveal her secrets, except to those who pay her the proper homage and courtesies. She speaks only to lovers. " m.m.
.
http://milesmathis.com/double.html
+1 which is just a good reminder as others to the fact that there is no such thing as science
there are only scientific valid and falsiable theories and the scientific method to go after them
Waves that can interfere with each other whether or not they are there
"I just watched Rupert Sheldrake's discussion of Morphogenetic fields....."
Link please? Share the wealth my friend. I would love to watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ
Thank you for the high praise. I am just beginning to explore all things Sheldrake. I heard him mention "Morphogenetic fields" in several of his interviews.
<Time to hit the books Cog.>
Cog and others;
Can someone explain these decade old findings? Would change the world dramatically. Unfortunately surpressed by company his father worked for.
http://www.urzeitcode.com/english/