13 Oct 2009 @ 20:17, by Beto Hoisel
Whoever is acquainted with the present state of affairs knows that the present paradigm, the one that still prevails in the scientific world – the one that excludes the spiritual face of reality –, is under siege by many laboratorial experiments and scientists’ papers and consciousnesses. The so-called hard-nose scientists are the supporting group of this conservative “right wing” - those who adhere to a naïve materialist conception of reality -, which attained its highlight in the 19 and first two thirds of the 20th century.
We have already delineated – in other texts – what is the post-quantum conception of the totality into which we are all embedded and we ordinarily use to name “the universe” or “the world”.
We also made clear why the word universe should be avoided. First of all, because of its ambiguities. Usually “universe” means all that exists, without making clear how wide is the meaning of the word “all”. In the realm of science, however, according to the present paradigm it’s stated that science occupies with the “physical” universe, with the explicit exclusion of the subjective or imaginary face of the cosmic totality. However, we are focusing in the collection of everything that exists, have existed and will exist in all ontological levels, be it in the material or spiritual hemispheres.
Whoever is acquainted with the present state of affairs knows the present paradigm, that still prevails in the scientific world – the one that excludes the spiritual face of reality –, is under siege by many laboratorial experiments and scientists’ papers and consciousnesses. The so-called hard-nose scientists are the supporting group of this conservative “right wing”, those who adhere to a naïve materialist conception of reality, which attained its highlight in the 19 and first two thirds of the 20th century.
In the present time, there is a rupture in the corpus of scientific knowledge between the materialist hard-noses (Freudians, Marxists and other ists) and the scientists of the new paradigm, open-minded to the imaginary/subjective hemisphere of totality. This has caused a schizophrenic crack in scientific knowledge and we usually see, in a congress, elbow to elbow, members of the two slopes into a silent virtual battle, once they have entirely different weltanschauungs (world conceptions).
To our purposes, we use the word “wholeness” to correspond to everything that exists, have existed or will exist in the physical and trans-physical aspects of the universal being. To this totality being we have already suggested it is bounded to a 6-dimensional truss of three dimensions of the order space (x, y, z) and three of the order time (t, u, v). This 6-dimensional frame comprehends everything that can be accessed via our cognitive mind and apparatus. Anything supposed to stay beyond that frame couldn’t be accessible to our knowledge.
We have already defined, in other texts, the consensual character of that thing we used to call “objective reality”, and today we already know that it only “exists” as far as there is a consensus between interacting subjectivities. It’s the interacting of a subjectivity with the already collapsed reality that collapses new functions of Schröedinger, continuously weaving the fabric of reality. It’s the collapse of the quantum function that turns one of the virtual futures in the field of quantum possibilities into an actual present. This way the Copenhagen interpretation shows to be the most fit as a model of wholeness. Consciousness, as a vast spectrum – analogous to the electromagnetic spectrum – is the creative agent of the “reality”, the one we believe to be objective.
This conceptual back-ground and the non-linear character of 2 and 3-dimensional time requires an utterly new subject/object relationship, into an epistemological standpoint rather different of the one adopted today. They suggest the creation of a new approach capable of facing the fact that any notions of succession or chronological ordering have lost their kernel condition, now untruthful as a reliable reference.
In other texts, I’ve already written on the new possibilities open by this new conception of time and what are some of the new ways of using it. However, this subject is too far of its exhaustion.
The logic development of those considerations cannot ignore the impact of those synthesis in the daily life of any of us. How can the post-quantum conceptions influence on people who became aware of this new epistemological standpoint?
The leap is too wide and many are prone to refuse this challenge. It’s a total subversion in the relationship between the subject and the cosmos. It’s an enlarged version of the same kind of what happens in the study and practice of Jungian psychology. You cannot study and apply the Jungian view of the world and life in an irresponsible way, devoid of an ethical standpoint. This is the reason why there are not dishonest Jungian doctors. If he is not honest, all Jungian worldview he tries to impose on reality will be inconsequential or false and he will become nothing more than a charlatan.
By the same token, and in an enlarged edition, we have the post-quantum view in the subjective/objective relationship of the individual with the whole cosmos. This view requires an absolute sincerity of purpose, to be understood in plenitude, once it’s this inner attitude that will establish the degree of sharpness of the cognitive fact. It’s not only necessary a revolution, but a total subversion of the relationship between the individual I (me) and wholeness. If this subversion of scales and values is not completed the understanding of the post-quantum scientific view will not be attained.
In the conservative materialistic view, a scientist could assume a standpoint outside the studied universe – as if he were not part of it. The same way occurs when a Freudian analyst stays outside the patient’s problems, “just applying a theory”.
The post-quantum view doesn’t permit such magic. Each one of us is part of the “reality process” and cannot stay outside it.
We are forced to be honest.
We have already delineated – in other texts – what is the post-quantum conception of the totality into which we are all embedded and we ordinarily use to name “the universe” or “the world”.
We also made clear why the word universe should be avoided. First of all, because of its ambiguities. Usually “universe” means all that exists, without making clear how wide is the meaning of the word “all”. In the realm of science, however, according to the present paradigm it’s stated that science occupies with the “physical” universe, with the explicit exclusion of the subjective or imaginary face of the cosmic totality. However, we are focusing in the collection of everything that exists, have existed and will exist in all ontological levels, be it in the material or spiritual hemispheres.
Whoever is acquainted with the present state of affairs knows the present paradigm, that still prevails in the scientific world – the one that excludes the spiritual face of reality –, is under siege by many laboratorial experiments and scientists’ papers and consciousnesses. The so-called hard-nose scientists are the supporting group of this conservative “right wing”, those who adhere to a naïve materialist conception of reality, which attained its highlight in the 19 and first two thirds of the 20th century.
In the present time, there is a rupture in the corpus of scientific knowledge between the materialist hard-noses (Freudians, Marxists and other ists) and the scientists of the new paradigm, open-minded to the imaginary/subjective hemisphere of totality. This has caused a schizophrenic crack in scientific knowledge and we usually see, in a congress, elbow to elbow, members of the two slopes into a silent virtual battle, once they have entirely different weltanschauungs (world conceptions).
To our purposes, we use the word “wholeness” to correspond to everything that exists, have existed or will exist in the physical and trans-physical aspects of the universal being. To this totality being we have already suggested it is bounded to a 6-dimensional truss of three dimensions of the order space (x, y, z) and three of the order time (t, u, v). This 6-dimensional frame comprehends everything that can be accessed via our cognitive mind and apparatus. Anything supposed to stay beyond that frame couldn’t be accessible to our knowledge.
We have already defined, in other texts, the consensual character of that thing we used to call “objective reality”, and today we already know that it only “exists” as far as there is a consensus between interacting subjectivities. It’s the interacting of a subjectivity with the already collapsed reality that collapses new functions of Schröedinger, continuously weaving the fabric of reality. It’s the collapse of the quantum function that turns one of the virtual futures in the field of quantum possibilities into an actual present. This way the Copenhagen interpretation shows to be the most fit as a model of wholeness. Consciousness, as a vast spectrum – analogous to the electromagnetic spectrum – is the creative agent of the “reality”, the one we believe to be objective.
This conceptual back-ground and the non-linear character of 2 and 3-dimensional time requires an utterly new subject/object relationship, into an epistemological standpoint rather different of the one adopted today. They suggest the creation of a new approach capable of facing the fact that any notions of succession or chronological ordering have lost their kernel condition, now untruthful as a reliable reference.
In other texts, I’ve already written on the new possibilities open by this new conception of time and what are some of the new ways of using it. However, this subject is too far of its exhaustion.
The logic development of those considerations cannot ignore the impact of those synthesis in the daily life of any of us. How can the post-quantum conceptions influence on people who became aware of this new epistemological standpoint?
The leap is too wide and many are prone to refuse this challenge. It’s a total subversion in the relationship between the subject and the cosmos. It’s an enlarged version of the same kind of what happens in the study and practice of Jungian psychology. You cannot study and apply the Jungian view of the world and life in an irresponsible way, devoid of an ethical standpoint. This is the reason why there are not dishonest Jungian doctors. If he is not honest, all Jungian worldview he tries to impose on reality will be inconsequential or false and he will become nothing more than a charlatan.
By the same token, and in an enlarged edition, we have the post-quantum view in the subjective/objective relationship of the individual with the whole cosmos. This view requires an absolute sincerity of purpose, to be understood in plenitude, once it’s this inner attitude that will establish the degree of sharpness of the cognitive fact. It’s not only necessary a revolution, but a total subversion of the relationship between the individual I (me) and wholeness. If this subversion of scales and values is not completed the understanding of the post-quantum scientific view will not be attained.
In the conservative materialistic view, a scientist could assume a standpoint outside the studied universe – as if he were not part of it. The same way occurs when a Freudian analyst stays outside the patient’s problems, “just applying a theory”.
The post-quantum view doesn’t permit such magic. Each one of us is part of the “reality process” and cannot stay outside it.
We are forced to be honest.
|
|
