Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Thursday 10 July 2014

Spirituality v Psychology/Science?


Written by Mathew Naismith

We can quite easily judge that spirituality is in opposition to the sciences, even though many of the ancient eastern religions also incorporated science within their religion to one extent or another,  so really spirituality should not be seen as in opposition to the science but it is by many today.  The strange thing is both spirituality and the sciences are about awareness so what’s the problem?

Because I am also into the sciences, like psychology for instance, this to a spiritually aware person seems contradictory for the main reason a psychologist uses the mind to think more not less plus a psychologist has to judge to evaluate. The psychology I am into is to do with analysis not the therapy side of psychology which is all about evaluating and judging, so doesn’t this clash with my spiritual perspectives?

If I was to sit there and judge that I am thinking too much then I would be thinking too much, we need to be careful in how we judge, is it wrong to be spiritually aware and have an interest in the sciences?  To a true spiritually aware person who believes one should not judge a wrong or right there could be no wrong in this even though I am thinking more while using psychology.  The point is it’s not how much we are thinking but how we are thinking!!

Scientist have proven, even under the most deepest meditative states, we still have brain activity but this activity is different to thinking scientifically, when we think scientifically we use the brain differently to being in a meditative state.  It all comes down to how we are using the brain not how much we are using the brain.  Being spiritually aware, am I going to judge thinking too much is wrong? If I did judge this wrong or negative in some way I would be a hypocrite so what is so wrong in thinking period and when do I judge when I am thinking too much?  Actually there is no such thing in thinking too much, especially to a spiritually aware person because they can’t judge accordingly.

The reason my science interests don’t always interfere with my spiritual interests is one, I don’t judge when I’m thinking too much and two, when I judge at times I don’t judge  a right or wrong, if I was to judge a right or wrong then I would  be judgmental  within my opinions which does happen at times.  Being in judgement is only an observation like when a spiritually aware person judges when they or someone else is thinking too much.  Being judgemental on the other hand would be like a spiritually aware person judging a right or wrong of thinking too much.  


To me it comes down to how we think not how much we think but of course to a science minded person they would judgmentally see the lack of thought as being so and so, in other words wrong or negative in some way however to a spiritually aware person thinking too much can be seen as negative or wrong in some way. To me it really doesn’t come down to how much we think but how we think but I suppose I could be wrong!!!!! 

Sunday 6 July 2014

Religion and Science-Controlling Ego


Written by Mathew Naismith

Are the ideological principles of science and religion/spirituality flawed? Well actually no not until you bring in dogmatism, once one becomes dogmatic about any such ideological principles that is when flaws start to appear, not in the principles themselves, but in the people who are expressive of such ideological principles.

When we are dogmatic, what are we expressive of, what human trait does dogmatism rely on to exists, it can’t exist without this particular human trait?  Dogmatism can’t exist without a controlling ego, once the ego takes control of us there is a good chance we will become dogmatic within any ideological principle we take on.

Recently I have been in a discussion with science minded people concerning my last post titled Philosophical Views and the Sciences. The response I got was very typical of anyone arguing on behalf of their own ideological principles they abide by in life, in this case the principles where scientific principles. Science isn’t conductive to dogmas and basically how dare I relate religious mentality with science mentality in this way.  The problem was, the more they argued with me the more dogmatic they sounded which was of course proving my point.

I also showed how corrupt science of today is and how some of these scientists will falsify findings to obtain more funding and prestige.  https://explorable.com/scientific-falsification

I also showed how atheists are just as if not more dogmatic than religious/spiritually aware people.  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201309/dogmatism-and-openness-experience-in-the-non-religious

Like anyone who has an ideological principle that they see is the be and end all, they will defend these principles to the utter end which is exactly what happened, the discussion is still going on.

I thought I would insert one of my responses to a science minded person about the question religion/spirituality doesn’t give evidence so it’s not credible.

I agree, we form a hypothesis /philosophical view takes inductive reasoning but to formulate a non-conjectural outcome of a hypothesis we use deductive reasoning. 

You said there is no evidence, what is evidence to theorist is different to what is evidence to a realist, if we relied totally on a realists deduction we wouldn’t get anywhere because all theories at first can’t be proven so a realist would disclaim theories from the start because there is no solid proof that a theory is fact.  A good scientist is a theorist and a realist but that is obviously not the case for a lot of science minded people these days.

Now let’s look at evidence again between a realist and an idealist (religion), what one calls evidence isn’t evidence to the other and visa-versa, which one is more correct? Someone who is dogmatic will say their ideological principles are, how often do science minded people proclaim their ideological principles are right over all other principles? Is this any different to religious dogmatisms?  Of course not…..

In a thousand years’ time do you honestly think the present scientific principles used today built solely on logics is still going to be in use? Most science minded people will dogmatically say most defiantly negating how science has evolved in human history so far from philosophy and mysticism. Modern day science will keep evolving unless dogma take it’s toll on such progression, quantum physics is a good example of this in how it will evolve. Quantum physics borders on a kind of mysticism at times which is why other dogmatic science minded people refute any claims made by such sciences. I’ve even had dogmatic science minded people try to tell me psychology isn’t a science and of course I proved them incorrect. 


The controlling factors of the ego have infested science minded peoples scientific principles making their science investigations flawed. This is no different to the Dark Ages when religion was infested by the controlling factors of the ego. I showed how simular Dark Age religion and modern day science is within their mentality, this of course didn’t go down to well mainly because of the controlling effects of the ego. 


Spiritual awareness is about awareness and being aware of the connections between dogmatism and ego in any ideological principle.  Spiritually aware people know, once the ego is no longer in control dogmatism just won’t (can’t) exist and what a shame that would be…….not.(:- 

Saturday 5 July 2014

Philosophical Views and the Sciences


Written by Mathew Naismith

Because I’m also have an interest is the sciences, I converse with a number of science minded people, unlike myself I should say for the main reason I’m also into spirituality, philosophy, history and psychology. Most science minded people are into science and more science, it would seem all else is irrelevant for the main reason no other ideology is more logical and correctly accurate. Does this not sound simular to other dogmatic ideologies?

Religion can be dogmatic like this but science minded people just won’t see these similarities between their dogmatism and religious dogmatisms. Thank God not all science minded and religious people are this dogmatic within their ideological views and beliefs.  You might ask, where am I going with this? It seems to matter not what ideology you are into, if you are dogmatic about these beliefs you are not going to see any other view or want to change these views with the times.  Almost all ideologies have changed in time in some way, they have evolved however you still get people who are dogmatic within these old views and hang onto them no matter what.

If an old ideology still works why change it? You don’t but what you do is accept other ideological views that have kept up with the times.  Just because an old ideology still works doesn’t mean it’s the be and end all as I will explain further using science as an example.

Most science minded people do not like anyone pointing out where modern day science evolved which was from, philosophy and mysticism, obviously for a very good reason. They don’t want their ideological views assimilated with any ideology that isn’t logical and correctly accurate as there’s.  Again this mentality sounds so much like Dark Age dogmatic religion it’s not funny.

The question is now, how accurate is modern day science? It’s more precise than mysticism and philosophy but does this make it more accurate? I don’t know of any scientific endeavour that didn’t first of all evolve from a theory and a theory is a philosophical view/ hypothesis.  At this point of a theory we are using inductive reasoning which is of course what philosophy is about.

When does a theory become fact or accurate? When we use deductive reasoning to test a theory to become accurate/fact or not.  Deductive reasoning gives us more accuracy which is what modern day science people are about; to them this is what gives a theory a logical conclusion.  

For a logical conclusion to be made first it take a philosophical view to make a deductive reasoning from. If we only deductively reasoned we would have no theories to make such deductive reasoning from in the first place, in other words to give us this logical conclusion we first needed an illogical philosophical view.  We should remember here that nothing is logical unless proven to be truly accurate so when a theory is still a theory it’s still classed as being illogical however you can have a theory that is logical in content. In this case, a theory being logical or not, depends on one’s own perception of what theory is logical and what theory isn’t. How accurate would modern day science be without theories/philosophical views?  It wouldn’t be because it just wouldn’t exist, it needs theories/philosophical views for modern day science to exist.  

Modern day science endeavours can’t become accurate without inaccurate assumptions, what if these assumptions where wrong in the first place? For a good example of this, many science minded people believe/assume/theorise that the universe was created through a certain process like the big bang which by the way is only theoretical.  What if this theory is inaccurate, would that not make everything else that was created through this big bang theory inaccurate as well?  All science is really basing all proven science facts on an inaccuracy therefore science itself isn’t an exact science. 

Science has never been an exact science and to evolve in time like any ideology should never be deemed as an exact ideological view giving us facts instead of perceived facts.  Every ideology needs to give itself room to evolve, modern day science for many isn’t doing this because they deem it as an exact science, it’s the be and end all. The funny thing is science, in it’s many forms from when it evolved from philosophy and mysticism, has always changed with the times. Take mysticism, mysticism evolved into alchemy and then into modern day chemistry.  Look at modern day science, it evolved from basic science to many forms of physics today which a lot of science minded people denounce because it’s evolving in time.  Before DNA became known, if you went up to a scientist and started talking to them about DNA they would have just laughed at you because back then it couldn’t be proved. Science today has evolved to know better than to laugh at such things these days but it still laughs at anything that can’t be proven.

Just imagine if we all took this dogmatic stance and laughed off everything that couldn’t be proven today, we just wouldn’t evolve because it’s through these theories and philosophical views we have evolved, history proves this time and time again. New age spirituality/consciousness is very much like this, it’s full of philosophical ideological views but without these views we just won’t evolve.  


Yes to evolve as a species we need to push and pull, push old ideological views away to pull in new ideologies. This gives us reactions from this pushing and pulling effect which we have always done as a species.  The effect this is going to give us depends on if we are holding onto old ideologies that don’t fit within these new ideologies, the reaction from this is usually conflictive and again human history shows this time and time again.  The way around this is to accept these new ideologies and philosophies which is done by ridding ourselves of the controlling ego, once we drop the controlling ego acceptance isn’t going to be a problem.  If we can’t do this we are best to stop pushing and pulling altogether.  

Saturday 15 March 2014

Spirituality-A Secret Balance


Written by Mathew Naismith

There seems to be, in most, a definable difference between our spiritual self & our human self which is defined by awareness, the more aware we are of the inner and outer workings of life, as a whole, the more our human selves realise we are not being all we are.  The funny thing is though; spirituality is defined by how aware we are which means spirituality is about becoming more aware. This means when we talk about spirituality we are talking about awareness so is this saying the human self is of ignorance?  

Going by actual experiences, there is a huge difference between the human and spiritual self, when we talk about the spiritual in life we are actually talking about awareness which is quite different to human sciences. Human science can only become aware or knowing of what it is consciously aware of but the spiritual self is aware of all of what is. I can understand how science minded people see spirituality as being threatening to their ideological views however the most successful scientists in human history, I believe, are also connected to this spiritual awareness. Many sit within their own quietness which is similar to meditating.  What a scientist is doing when they sit within their own quietness is focusing, people who meditate also focus especially on their breathing. In this case, scientist have balanced out the human self with the aware spiritual self, unbeknownst to most scientists, however the ego wants to take all the credit in being so smart and usually refutes any claim the only reason they are so smart is because of their connectedness to the spiritual aware self.  

This brings us to spiritually aware people themselves, what gives balance to a spiritually aware person? Believe it or not, if spiritually aware people didn’t have this balance between their spiritually aware self and the human self they wouldn’t exist as humans, they would, like the Mayans and many other individuals, physically disappear which brings us back to the question, what balances out a spiritually aware person so they don’t just disappear from this physical world/reality?

Let’s go back to scientists, what balances them out? Believe it or not it’s our ignorance which is egotistically driven; most scientists are ignorant to where there braininess comes from because they want to believe it’s them as individuals who are so aware and knowing.  Of course spiritually aware people know differently mainly because we tend to be not as driven by the ego however I feel if we weren’t driven by ego at all we would disappear.  What I am saying is the ego helps us balance out our spiritual and human self so we don’t change our vibrations to the extent of disappearing.     


The below link shows quite clearly how spirituality and science are in tune with each other and how science minded people just can’t see beyond their egos where’s a lot of spiritually aware people can.


Extract: Right before the event began, I approached the professor on the panel to say hello. We had met once before, and as I stretched out my hand for a shake I noticed a hesitation on his part in return. Frankly, he didn't look very happy to see me, but I didn't make much of it. During the dialogue and discussion, I noticed he was very aggressive and took every opportunity to belittle all the aspects of spirituality and yoga, of which he had little or no knowledge about in the first place. I realized at that moment that there was a new breed of fanatics on the rise and this breed had nothing to do with religion.

I would also like to add to this by saying; there are a lot of spiritually aware people who clash with science ideologies as well which again denote a controlling ego controlling us to think in certain ways.  When we are thinking in certain ways, either it be spiritually or scientifically, what is driving this thought pattern? Also have some spiritually aware people become highly egotistical when they think of themselves as being more aware especially over and above science minded people?  The link above shows clearly how science and spiritualty are as one however our egos tell us something quite different when we believe in a supposed opposing ideology.  It’s our egos telling us we believe in a much wiser and aware ideological process however being spiritually aware does make us or should make us more aware of this. I don’t believe this is the case with scientists who shut themselves off from the rest of the world to focus on a particular point like spiritually aware people do when meditating.

Anyone with a fixated ideological belief isn’t going to accept this mainly because of the controlling factors of the ego.  

I believe the scientists who have shut themselves off in this way have quite nicely balanced out the spiritual & human self, mostly unbeknownst to them,  probably a lot better than most spiritually aware people can. This is because a lot of spiritually aware people are only focused and believe in spiritual awareness and denounce anything else beyond this thought process. This thought process is obviously controlled by the ego denoting,” my ideological beliefs are far superior to science ideologies”.  It takes a wise spiritually aware person to become aware enough to know it’s all about awareness no matter how that awareness has been obtained.  Yes science has proven itself unworthy at times but so has spirituality, when this happens, where is this awareness?


It is funny to think the ego is keeping us balanced between our spiritual and human selves unless we are unwise. It is obvious the ego has gone troppo in this reality either it be scientifically/technologically driven or spiritually/religiously driven however where there is a balance between our human and spiritual selves the controlling factors of the ego are far less controlling which in turn gives us balance. According to a number of spiritually aware people we should rid ourselves of the ego all together; I believe there is no balance in this between our human and spiritual selves. If we want to end up like the Mayans fair enough but most of us don’t see any point to this. I believe there is a reason we are here and it’s not to just disappear but find a balance between the human and spiritual self or if you like, the ego and spiritual self.  Once we find this balance collectively, what we know what heaven to be will seem lame.  

Tuesday 29 October 2013

Ages of Human Awareness

Written by Mathew Naismith

Before I start I would like to point out that I feel that all human advancements are due to awareness, the human brain is only as good as what it is programed by, the brain on its own without being programmed is thick. We tend to separate human awareness from spiritual awareness within this concept of understanding, where has all the oneness gone in this? It’s still there it’s just we have separated human & spiritual awareness into two different categories mainly because of human reasoning. Under the one umbrella of the universal consciousness all awareness pertains to the same thing, universal conscious awareness. This is saying there is only one universal consciousness so really there is only one point in where all this awareness is coming from & it’s not from our human brains.   

The graph below basically showed the scientific advancements through the ages but on the right hand side of the graph I have added human awareness as human awareness pertains to all human advancements, I don’t like separating one from the other & categorising  them as something different.  



   
I would like to mention here that there has been a bit of controversy with the said graph above, the following link will hopefully clear this up if you have a problem with this graph.


Below I will also like to give a basic overview of our advancements through human history which will help us understand more about the advancements of human awareness over the ages than what the graph shows above. I’ve also included the medieval period, (dark ages), & the modern era as well to give a better outline in how fast we have developed in awareness over the last few hundred years

Stone Age: 160,000 years ago – 2000BC
Bronze Age: 1000BC – 600BC
Iron Age: 550BC – AD700
Medieval period: 500 – 1500AD
Industrial Age: 1700 – 1900AD
Modern era: 1900AD – Present day
Information Age or Quantum Age: 1970 – Present day

The above ages given here are by no means accurate as the links below will explain further if you are interested. A lot of the ages of awareness, as I like to call them, overlap a great deal depending in what part of the world we are talking about at any given time. For example the Roman age of awareness was different to India’s age of awareness as was the Americas at the same time period of human history; this is why the above ages only give an approximate valuation.  I did base the time periods more on European standards in general however even in Europe, at the same time period, there was different awareness process going on in different parts of Europe so one can’t track down precisely the exact time period in relation to human awareness overall.





This brings me back to why I wrote such a post in the first place. I look at all my lives I’ve lived in this reality as being one life not many different individual lives, I imaged the whole of human existence like this & all of a sudden I saw a huge surge of energy like a geyser shooting up & realised exactly what it was, the awareness of humans all of a sudden shooting right up. If we look at the graph above you should be able to see why I imaged a geyser representing human awareness however like all geysers they dissipate so does this mean our awareness will do likewise? Yes I think so but only in the way our awareness has grown over human history. We will find different ways other than through science’s &/or spiritualties to develop further in awareness I believe which will bring us into a different level or kind of awareness. I looked at this geyser of human awareness & saw immediately why so many soles have chosen to be here right now, it’s a once in a lifetime experience, a whole once in a lifetime experience not just one life time of human experience.  Look at life through your entire life of your sole & the world we are in looks & feels completely different. By doing this we then realise this geyser of human awareness is only a grand of sand on a beach or a spit in the ocean, it’s very fleeting in the overall time of things. 

Thursday 15 August 2013

Faith, Mysticism & Philosophy to Science pt2


Written by Mathew Naismith

I thought I would share a few comments from a post titled Faith, Mysticism & Philosophy to Science from Google community.


From Pedro

I don't think an atheist would have just flat-out reject fire. I believe that one such man/woman would simply conclude that he/she has no way of explaining the phenomenon.

Now, something that is a very common theme in all of humanity is our inward instinct to want to know everything. Our brain, by its nature, doesn't like not knowing everything. If we can't deduce a plausible solution, we make one up.

Besides, as a caveman/woman, I would just be thankful that the fire existed, because our ability to control fire is what led us to become what we are today.



G’day Perdro

So what's the difference between fire & God or faith? Atheists don't accept there being a God so with the same logic they wouldn't accept fire either, they couldn't if they used the same logical thinking process, it's logically impossible. 

What they did use was faith, faith within the fire without being able to logically understand how it was & how it worked so what's the difference between that & a God or faith of today?

I'm a spiritually aware agnostic if I was going to give what I believe a label which makes me a little more open minded to different perceptions than most atheists so I can open my mind up to more possibilities than a closed minded atheists obviously.


From Ben

Logic points to people creating religion to explain what they don't understand. I don't see how an atheist caveman's reaction to fire has any connection. I'm sure the caveman(atheist or theist) would think fire was magic and would keep a cautious distance. Maybe they might think it's a message from a higher life form. Again, logic points to magic being the answer when the answer is unclear. Some of us will reserve judgement until more facts are in... Others will blindly cling to the first answer they hear. 


G’day Ben

We don't understand the human brain to it's fullest extent but that's not of religion & neither is the universe because we can't even agree in how it was first created & what about everything else we don't understand about it.

If we used the same logical deductive reasoning that atheists use today that we have with God or faith the cave man fire wouldn't exist but it does obviously because we can see it but an atheists couldn't accept this because it's not of any logic within their awareness or knowing. This same concept is used to formulate an idea that God can't exist or that faith is delusional today.

God or what I call consciousness collectively or not is like the fire, it exists because we exist, in other words we are proof of a creative consciousness or God exists, just because we can't logically give it definition yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


A thousand years ago there was no way we could ever take flight because that was logically impossible at the time. Logic changes with our conscious awareness however some logic like atheist logic hasn't by the looks of it.  If it's not logical at the time it can never exist, strange atheist concepts I have to admit however the concepts of agnosticism are quite different.  

Faith, Mysticism & Philosophy to Science


Written by Mathew Naismith

I’ve been having quite an interesting discussion with an atheist lately in how hypocritical atheism can be depending on the dogmatic attitude of some atheists & how it is also of a belief but mostly how flawed the beliefs/concepts/theories or whatever you want to call them are.  Some atheists think if it isn’t of logic it can’t be proved so it can’t have happened or it was a delusion of some kind. Where did logical thinking & science derive from? Faith, mysticism & philosophy, this is the way we were thinking before logic & science thought became thought but we still evolved from living in caves & foraging for food, how did we evolve without logic at first?

Below is part of my reply to an atheist that can’t or won’t see that the beliefs of atheism are flawed & in fact they think they aren’t beliefs at all but if you can’t prove something without a doubt it’s not fact so if it’s not fact it must be of a belief, no one can prove or disprove God doesn’t exist, this is a funny argument coming from a spiritually aware agnostic as myself.


G’day Paul
I experienced from quite a young age phenomena that science can’t logically explain as yet but it doesn’t make it delusional or unreal Paul just because science can’t logically prove something, this is small minded thinking. A thousand yrs ago people knew it was impossible for humans to ever gain flight or that we would ever have motorised vehicles, just because it wasn’t logical back then doesn’t make it illogical period Paul, this is a lame way of thinking Paul & thank God we have foresighted thinkers because if we all thought like atheists back in the cave man days that is exactly where we would still be obviously because nothing could be proven logically back then especially by science there for we wouldn’t have evolve through lack of logical proof. This way of thinking that everything has to be logically proved before implemented Paul is utterly flawed!!

How did we evolve from the caves without logic Paul? It was through faith & eventually science was formed from faith, philosophy & mysticism, now this is fact Paul as this actually happened & without logic.

You obviously haven’t experienced any genuine spiritual phenomena Paul that can’t be explained as yet by science but most of us here have, it doesn’t make us wrong or delusional like you keep trying to say. Just because it’s scientifically illogical doesn’t make it delusional or unreal Paul it just makes it unprovable at this point in time to people who only think logically. Most of us here think outside the logic square which to me denotes foresighted thinking.


If we were all born atheists & had the thinking capability of an atheist back in the cave man days would have we accepted fire? We couldn’t because we had no logical understanding or awareness in how fire existed. I could see an atheist just putting out the fire because there was no logical proof of its existence & this is no different with the existence of God or a creative consciousness. The argument would be of course from an atheist is, “we can see the fire exists but we can’t of a God &/or consciousness”, what are we & of all of creation, we are God &/or consciousness. Just like the fire it exists & just like the fire in the cave man days it still exists without logical proof for the main reason we can neither logically prove nor disprove such things just like fire in the cave man days so yes I can see atheists back then putting out the fire.

All I can say is thank god our ancestors back then didn’t think like some of us do today, we would have never evolved & this is why the beliefs of atheism is flawed, it can’t possibly exist without logic. We didn’t have the logical understanding of such things back then but we did have faith & from faith  mysticism & philosophy evolved & from faith, mysticism & philosophy science was created & evolved so really we have a lot to thank faith for. So the big question here is, since we have evolved from cave man days of faith to logical thinking do we need faith any longer?  Logic gives us one thought perception or mode of thought but faith gives us another which of course proved handy in our evolutional thought process & perception for without faith we obviously wouldn’t have evolved & I don’t think it’s any different today.

The related link is shown below:


Tuesday 6 August 2013

Seeing Past our Limited Consciousness


Written by Mathew Naismith

Because of our various belief systems we take on we tend to have a hard time perceiving & understanding past our perceptions or conscious understandings which is fair enough because how is anyone supposed to perceive past what they consciously don’t understands, however in this lies limitations. Recently on a forum site it came up that science is limited, I replied science is only limited by our thought process, if we think it’s limited it will be limited like anything else. Consciousness is unlimited & for ever changing & science is a part of this collective consciousness so how can science be limited as it is forever changing as well?

Science like any other belief or conception is limited by its understanding, that is the only limitation they have which is brought on by our limiting thought process but what if we didn’t have to understand to perceive consciousness beyond our understanding? To understand anything we have to have a perception of what we are about to understand first which gives us our perceived conscious understanding , it’s our perception in the first place that gives us something more to understand & it’s this perception that also gives us what we are going to understand & in the way we are going to understand.  For an example some atheist can’t or won’t understand faith because they perceive it as being blind, they can’t see past their conceptions in the first place to be able to understand how faith works & someone who is religious can’t see how a God can’t exist. In both cases it is impossible to see past their conception/belief, this is what’s limiting not what we can’t or won’t understand or even perceive beyond our conscious understanding.

What I am saying here is one doesn’t need to understand to perceive & in actual fact one needs to perceive first to understand, it’s our perception that is limiting which makes our understanding limited, just because we don’t understand doesn’t mean it’s limited as it’s only limiting within our perception not within the collective consciousness I believe. What are we able to perceive within our imagination? This is how unlimited the collective consciousness is, are our dreams limited? They are only limited like our imagination to what we perceive not what actually is or can be. How many of us understand our dreams but it doesn’t stop us remembering them thus perceiving them? Well in actual fact it does seem that way. A lot of us don’t remember our dreams because we don’t understand them because they are too farfetched however this again is brought on by our limitation to what can be, we just can’t perceive such things happening in the first place therefore our understanding of such things can’t exist thus we don’t remember our dreams, conscious life is no different.

The collective consciousness has no limitation because it has no set beliefs or concepts to limit it, science is limited because it’s only perceives within in its understanding, if it has no understanding it can’t perceive beyond what it understands at any given time. If we looked back a thousand years ago could have scientists perceived what modern day science was going to be all about? It could only perceive in what it understood at that time but if scientists of them days allowed themselves to perceive firstly before they had an understanding things could have been quite different & in actual fact at times this did happen in the science & religious/spiritual fields, how could seers see what they did without an understanding of what they were seeing & how did miraculous inventions & discoveries appear out of seemingly nowhere? It all comes down to what we perceive or imagine, not everything needs to be understood first because in this lies limitations which is what a lot of scientists are doing today limiting themselves to understanding first instead of being able to perceive & imagine before one has an understanding in what they are perceiving & imagining.  


Our conscious understanding is limited by our perception which is brought on by our beliefs/concepts, once we realise this the skies the limit or I should say in this case while referring to the collective consciousness the sky is unlimited by what we perceive/imagine, the more limiting we are in our perception the less consciously aware we will be & the more non-limiting we are in our perception/imagination the more consciously aware we will be, it all stands to reason. 

Friday 24 May 2013

The World of True Spiritual Acceptance pt.6


spirit eveolve
Written by Mathew Naismith

Evolving Through Acceptance: Recently it was pointed out by someone reading my blog that we can’t accept our circumstances in life & evolve at the same time, meaning we are not going to improve if we just accept our lot in life & do nothing to improve it. However the concept of acceptance is about accepting our present condition in life before we improve it instead of trying to change it through non-acceptance which is conflictive, it’s not about sitting on our hands & accepting what comes but accepting it first then changing it in a more peaceful manner instead of in a more conflictive manner.

Most of our advancements have come from conflicts as most of our advancements for starters have arisen from the necessity to out do our opponents through better technology.  What I am saying is how about accepting our circumstances for once without being in conflict with them & then change them in a more peaceful state, at least this way were not taking any leftover portion of these conflicts into the change & messing them up as well.

spirit harmony

Harmoniously Changing One’s Environment: Being in conflict with any part of our environment before or during the process of changing what we don’t like is ephemeral because we are still non-accepting & in conflict with a part of ourselves as our entire environment is very much a part of us if we like it or not & there is nothing you or I can do about it. If we are still in conflict with a part of ourselves we will take this with us through any changes we make which only transform the change into another conflict because the change has only come about because of conflict & not through peaceful means, only through this peaceful process can we obtain true change. We are really chasing our tails around & around when were constantly trying to change our environment through non-acceptance all the time as it doesn’t matter what change we make it’s still conflictive.

You would think humans are naturally conflictive with their environment & at times with themselves but that couldn’t be further from the truth as there was & are times when we were more at peace & accepting of our environment.  As hunter & gatherers we had to rely on our environment for everything & the less we relied on the environment for food & shelter the more conflictive & unaccepting we became over time. Another time when were not in conflict with our environment & ourselves is when were spiritually aware & the more aware we become the less conflictive we are for the main reason we have become more aware through our understanding & acceptance of our environment & realise it’s connection & importance to our wellbeing.

To evolve we must accept changes as well as this is a part of the concept of acceptance, we need to accept these changes that we are going to make or are impelled upon us by other forces as only through these changes can we evolve, to not accept these changes is being conflictive & non-accepting which will cause us further problems, we need to relearn what we once had to accept these changes in a more harmonious & peaceful way but at the same time realise any change that is forcefully applied will only result in more conflict. Any changes that are conflictive with our environment will result in more conflict. The saying,” do to others what you would have them do to you” really goes for our entire environment not just each other as our entire environment is who we are & is very much a part of us all.

science spirit

Similarities:  If one was to read all my posts you will begin to see the similarities of both science & spirituality in many ways not just from where science originated from but in all its action & reactions to the rest of humanity. Where the rest of humanity is at certainly dictates how science & spirituality are going to behave, if you looked at the churches & their reactions in the dark ages you will find they are very simular than how science is acting today & it’s all in the reaction to power & wealth.

One might think that all scientists have sold out their knowing to the highest bidder without remorse of what they are doing but just like the spiritualists of the dark ages not all scientists have sold themselves out to the highest bidder to do their will no matter what the consequences are.  This is how one vibration can effect another vibration in so many ways, you have a vibration called a scientist & then you have another vibration called a multinational which wishes to utilise the science vibration for its own ends in any way it can, if you entice the science vibration with enough materialistic vibrations they will change their vibration to serve the multinational vibration or in some cases the scientist will be ostracised or threatened in some way with yet another vibration.

Science & spirituality are dissimilar within it’s logical structure through how it uses logic but they both use logic, science uses logic within its deductive analysis where’s spirituality uses faith but with modern day science the final logical analysis is illogical because it’s destroying itself & the environment it relies on to survive where’s spirituality in its over all logical deduction always nurtures themselves & the environment, in the final logical analysis one is destructive & the other constructive.

Science & spirituality are dissimilar within its formulated deductive reasoning but at one time or another they are both logical within their reasoning, they are after all not that dissimilar within their effects & this is why spirituality & science belong together, they both enhance & balance each other’s  attributes.