- Big Questions
- Consciousness & Healing
- Extended Human Capacities
- Worldview Transformation
- Community Groups
commented on July 23, 2014
This is going to be quite a heavy read for anyone just into thoughtlessness. I view my life like this, if I was supposed to be completely thoughtless, why did I choose an existence that incorporated a mind? I would have been better existing as a rock not a being with a mind. Yes I believe we should learn thoughtlessness but not over and above the mind but to use thoughtlessness to help us use the mind more wisely.
I actually wrote the following for an IONS site but once again I’m going to share this around.
I have just thought of an interesting analogy of contrasts; if a person came up to a scientist and said I saw a flying pink elephant ,the scientist would 0% believe them. If the same person came up to a psychotherapist, as opposed to a psychoanalyst, the psychotherapist would 50%-100% believe them, the difference is amazing. The psychotherapist has to believe that this person saw a flying pink elephant even if it was just a delusion.
The psychotherapist doesn’t actually believe themselves a flying pink elephant exists but they do believe that the said person does believe they saw a flying pink elephant. The logics and reasoning processes used between these two sciences are quite obvious. The psychotherapist doesn’t need actual physical proof of such an animal to exist to formulate a deduction but an actual scientist would. I suppose that is why psychotherapy has it’s own sphere/concepts of reasoning and logics as neuroscience is to physics to one extent or another. These are not specialised fields for no reason.
This brings me to spirituality; spirituality’s, similar to the sciences, has a huge array of varied ideological principles using different forms of reasoning and logics. Now if a person came up to a spiritually aware person and said I saw a flying pink elephant, what would be the answer? The answer would be between 0%-100% depending on what kind of spirituality/religion they were into.
Logically, how could anyone put all spirituality into one basket (together) especially a logical science minded person? Logically you can’t, just like you can’t place all sciences in one basket but it happens quite frequently. Why do supposed logically minded people do this when it’s so illogical to do so? Dogmatism, to show that every other ideological principle, other than their own, is flawed.
So every other ideological principle is flawed but didn’t this take flawed illogical logics to make such deductions in the first place? Of course such deductions from such flawed logics can’t be taken seriously.
During the religious Dark Ages, the churches in Europe would not accept any other evidence in contrary to their own ideological principles, any evidence supplied had to be within certain doctrines otherwise it wasn’t accepted as evidence.
Modern day science; this ideological principle uses the same process today, if any said evidence doesn’t conform to their ideological principles of science logics, it’s not evidence. I get this Dark Age mentality quite a lot on science orientated sites, if any said evidence doesn’t conform to certain science principles; it’s not accepted as evidence just like the churches did back in the Dark Ages of religion.
It is so easy to judge one ideological principle is wrong or right over the other, this would mean psychotherapy is wrong to physics or neuroscience. I have even had a number of science minded people tell me psychotherapy isn’t a science especially when I used psychotherapy to prove a point. This kind of Dark Age mentality of judgement only clouds our logics, it certainly doesn’t enhance it!!