Beyond Light Speed: A Tenet Nosce suggestion

[Tenet Nosce]

There certainly have been many attempts to represent aspects or portions of consciousness mathematically.

Attempts that have been taken seriously by the scientific community? Can you give some examples so I can check them out?

People in general. That is the condition we all have, including both you and me. The expressions are slightly different based on what one needs to learn. But we tend to re-use the same valuing memes left by other pioneers in order to depict our current biases. No, I am not a scientist.

I see what you are saying. This makes more sense to me now.

Scientists also observe many in the scientific arena being just as dogmatic as some religious fundamentalists. Religious people do the same. Such viewpoints are just steps to learning about the self. And, yes, they also find it quite humorous and ironic. But if you look into both science and religion, there is nothing about the purpose of science which is dogmatic and nothing about the purpose of religion which is dogmatic (in the pathological or regressive sense). The scientific method is based on creating relationships from observation. The religious ceremony is about connecting to the creator.

The purpose of both appears to be to ascertain truth. Something about the process seems to lead many astray. It appears in both cases to lead to attachment to a particular conception of truth. Both processes seem to make it too easy for a seeker to become attached to certain ideas, or to feel that they have arrived at the "ultimate truth" of some kind.

It isn't made plain to seekers that one truth will lead to a greater truth will lead to a greater truth, and so on.

For example, in every generation since the advent of the scientific method, some bozo out there declares that science has reached its limits and that "we know everything there is to know". In every generation since Jesus, some bozo out there has been declaring that Armageddon is upon us. And so on...

The scientific method is based upon a false idea of an objective observer. Religious rituals have been manipulated in order to reinforce a feeling of disconnect to the creator. (For example, the doxology following the Lord's Prayer in the Christian liturgy changes the entire ceremony from an invocation to an evocation.)

The "purpose" of science and religion seems to have become lost in the "process" of science and religion. Seekers in both camps have a tendency to place undue "faith" in the process and selectively ignore the countless examples of where the process has failed.

What do you mean broad brush strokes in the manner of the security-blanketed, dogmatic science and religion?

It appeared to me that you were tossing me into the camp of others who claim that because a scientific discovery is "fitting for the times" that it should be accepted without reservation. I may have projected this on to you, however if so your words were not clear in this respect. I am an individual and belong to no camp. That is where the "broad brush stroke" comment comes in.

As for the "security blanket" piece- it is as I described before. Many scientists feel that the "scientific method" is so sacrosanct- so perfect- that any failure to arrive at the truth must have been a failure to apply the scientific method properly. I don't observe scientists turning the scientific method upon itself in order to arrive at an improved methodology.

In the religion department, we can use as an example the "security blanket" of those who "just pray to Jesus" over and over again despite their prayers not being answered. They have absolute "faith" in Jesus- ascribing powers to him that do not exist.

In both cases there is the security blanket of false "faith" which, ironically, reinforces the belief in a faulty process every time it fails. Instead of taking the failure as an opportunity to improve the process, the seeker takes it as an opportunity to "renew their faith".

Does this address your question, or did I misunderstand it?

Its actually just yet another way to explain the condition that is currently happening. The "unbridled" term I got from Ra, as I felt it was an apt depiction of hyper-intuitive behavior where blanks in cognition are allowed to be filled by unconscious desires i.e. in the manner here or here.
The "masking" term was used because any meme which we inflate as "truth" is necessarily temporary.

I see. That makes more sense. If I may make an observation, sometimes your posts leave many blanks for the mind to fill in with projections. It might improve communications with others to provide the kind of details you offered above- especially when using words that can be taken in several different contexts.

The so-called open minded person who is the would-be purveyor of truth (for example, some conspiracy) and therefore some kind of "liberator", is often just parroting what they are compelled to do based on valuing-meme identification. They do not see the hole which they have dug from the attachment to their borrowed ideology. For them it is entirely appropriate or fitting to what they perceive to be the actual situation and righteous.

And so, am I to assume that this above paragraph is your depiction of myself? If so, this seems to be a recurring distortion in our communications.

This thread was intended by Conifer16 and myself to be a discussion of this new observation- not as an exposition of truth by self-appointed "liberators" of humanity.

The "grasping" necessarily follows from the attachment, for one can not fully see any brand new condition of being which they are drawn to for some reason. "grasping" is an apt word because it does describe this new condition of learning. We tend to move in stages from apprehension (grasping), to comprehension to understanding.

Well this makes more sense. I took "grasping" to mean as in "grasping at straws" in the sense of desperately holding on to a perception despite clear evidence to the contrary. It appears you are using "grasping" as a necessary stage to comprehension and understanding.

Yes, all of us - hence the broad-generalization brush strokes.

OK. Well again, it might improve communication if you were to more readily point out where your own mind might be "filling in the blanks" in addition to pointing out when this occurs in others. Your fixation on identifying bias appears to be your own bias.