Consensual Separatism: fragmentation of knowledge

[Eongar]

I translated as I have an article I wrote some time ago, you can find it in Spanish here: http://es.sott.net/article/20316-El-separatismo-consensuado-fragmentacion-del-conocimiento-y-el-adoctrinamiento-hacia-la-estupidez

The matter is typical in all sectors not connect the dots regarding the knowledge of things, which I called consensual separatism because it is an ingrained habit in which most people of all social and scientific, and that no allows to arrive at an objective map of reality. Sorry for grammatical errors that may have.

Consensual separatism

There exists a world and an objective truth. And in this world there are many branches that make up what we consider the reality. And since the reality is fragmented, each civilization, culture, religion, group and / or individual gives a particular interpretation to these fragments comes from its idiosyncrasies. Therefore, those interpretations may be erroneous, lacking data, framed by the characteristic subjective frame of humanity.

Moreover, since the average person on the street passing by the most avid researcher, we can see that it is customary to focus on a few aspects of what makes up all Reality, and worse, not tend to associate with some other aspects. When it comes to weather, not is talk of sociology. When it comes to conspiracies, psychology infrequently discussed. If we study issues related to human development - which is often called spirituality-, do not talk about the Pathocracy.

With these words I want to start a little analysis of what it means for the human whole focusing only on a number of aspects of Reality and ignore others who truly globally if exercise is done to connect the dots and understand that the Reality is one and that's our job search relations between the fragments, we would have the entire map, and we could live with knowledge and acting accordingly in each specific situation or particular historical moment.

Have data and understanding

"With ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish between knowing and understanding. They think that the more they know the more to understand's. Why accumulate knowledge or what they call them, but do not know how it stacks understanding and not care to know. "G. I. Gurdjieff

The first problem we encounter when boarding any subject, is that of understanding. In this age we have access to a wealth of information. Exists an infinite range of options when it comes to inform unprecedented in history. But there is a very wide availability of information at our fingertips, we are not necessarily smarter or we are more prepared for the circumstances of life. Simply know more. And does not mean that we know more things than we are in some way our ancestors? No. Because have data is not the same as understanding.

The study of Reality is not based solely on the collection of information and data. It is necessary to integrate the knowledge learned within oneself.

Have data to have specific information about something without having understood or taken to application. Can be learn many things, have a lot of information by reading books or listening to lectures, but the simple information does not produce transformative results in the Being of any individual. Wrote philosophy professor Jacob Needleman:

"[...] The philosophical ideas do not change anything in the life of an individual. Without the practical knowledge how to bring great ideas to heart and even body tissuesthe philosophy can not take us very far." [Lost Christianity]

Reality the studies on, so they can be useful and transformers in a person, have to be understood, ie , integrated in the Being. The knowledge learned is valid only in this way. Understand, then, is to integrate within itself specific information, making it part of oneself. Unlike the know, that only has to do with the intellect, understanding is the assimilation of information at both intellectually and emotionally and even physically.

The study of Reality does not end in understanding. Understanding the student carries practical knowledge assimilated and integrated information. Knowledge is the practical application of learning and understanding at the time, position and required field. Knowledge is know-how. What good is it to know something if we do not have the proper knowledge to use it?

To understand in a practical way what we are talking, we will exemplify. Imagine a person who opens the TV and he have to watch the news. The presenter we "reports" - or misinform- about the atrocities being committed in a war zone. Generally, the reaction of this person is usually a certain disinterest, since then will the sports news of the day and peace here and then glory. In part, this is because the mass media acts that way, and partly because our viewers not understanding what is happening. Just have some data, and even though he knows that are being committing murder and injustice, does not really matter too much. If I did a comprehension, first would wonder why these things happen. Informing oneself a little more and doing an exercise of empathy for that situationmay get at least minimally in the skin of the event, and therefore, to understand some of what happens. And that fact, though it may seem insignificant at first sight, is an act that changes the perception of the subject he is interested.

Extrapolate this exercise into our daily lives. Imagine again our hypothetical viewer, that his workplace has a clash with a fellow because he has spoken evil, disrespected him yelling and takes all day in a bad mood. Well, our boy/girl has the option of entering that game "to see who is stronger" or avoid the situation as he/she can. After the discussion, he/she can only worry about the lack of respect he/she has suffered, what others think of what they have seen, their own emotions, etc.., Or the option to exercise an act of understanding.

Consensual separatism

In a form somewhat strange - to describe somehow the next habit-, specialization in all branches of knowledge has provoked a conscious or unconscious the emergence of a consensus separatism between some branches of knowledge. As I mentioned at the beginning that when talking about a branch of science, it is often associated with other-or not enough-, because sometimes it seems that a branch can be even antagonist to study of different things. Yes, the concept of "consensual separatism" is an oxymoron in the making, but it is a reality that not only are in the field of science, but on society as a whole, as people have a tendency to classify the components of Reality unbonded between them, indeed, split. And all agrees that it is right. Therefore, the consensual separatism is the custom to spread the knowledge without just creating a link between the parties, being well accepted by the majority.

I will put them some examples. Are only examples I've found in my life, but I hope will be useful to understand what I mean.

For circumstances of life, I have had enough contact with people seeking spirituality - or what they think is spirituality-. These people, as input, usually sharply in demarcated a barrier between "matters of the spirit" and social issues in which they may be living. They live immersed in a bubble in which there is no interest in knowing the environment in which cohabit with others, because they believe that only need to focus on the spiritual, the soul, and to think about the bad things that occur is demean and lower they vibrations of consciousness - I know it's a meaningless word salad, but I assure you I have heard more than once.

But if these people do not know what happens in the real world in which they live, can be victims of their ignorance. Because maybe they are consuming food injurious to health, or buy products that have been made by children in terrible conditions, or have their money kept in a bank that feeds the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In this context, what is the focus on "spiritual matters" if with small acts are contributing in one way or another to continue evil scenarios on the planet?

But if these people do not know what happens in the real world in which they live, can be victims of their ignorance. Because maybe they are consuming food injurious to health, or buy products that have been made by children in terrible conditions, or have their money kept in a bank that feeds the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In this context, what is the focus on "spiritual matters" if with small acts are contributing in one way or another to continue evil scenarios on the planet?

Also, and this is usually common, I met people outraged with the capitalist system and to advocate for change, but who fail to understand - although report it_that the blame for the current situation is not capitalism per se, but rather the cause is the Pathocracy, and that capitalism is a symptom of this. But equally, it seems difficult that people make relations between psychopathology and politics or systems analysis, and which may even mock and reject it categorically.

And in this case, if it is not the appropriate relationship between politics and psychopathology, we will always be victims of Pathocracy, either under the name of capitalism, socialism, etc..

No one is exempt from falling into consensual separatism. It is a deeply rooted habit in civilization. Each person or group perceives reality in a particular way, and that framework that not allows them to move not see beyond what is imposed. So it's hard to find groups who focus on spiritual and political issues at the same time, or ufology and psychology at a time, or nutrition and religions. If the branches of knowledge are linked objectively to each other, we can see that all that exists is related, and to focus or specialize in just a few branches of knowledge does not help us too much time to understand the reality as a whole.

Deepening the individual aspect of each person, we find another example of separatism consensual and that affects the understanding of oneself and the environment. One can come to realize how destructive it is the system or society as a whole is in a process of rapid degradation; prevailing consumerism, individualism, vanity, competition among peers, the lack of critical thinking, etc. . etc.. Everyone blames politicians, Hollywood, television and everything that can condition the population. But does anyone think that the corruption of society begins with schooling? Schooling is something mentioned in social criticism, but people think it's still a sacred cow. Schooling is the indoctrination into stupidity. John Taylor Gatto, in his book "The Secret History of education," says:

Ordinary people send their children to school to be smart, but what modern schooling teaches is stupidity. It is a religious idea out of hand. You have to accept this, however, to realize that this kind of economy would be threatened if too many smart people knew too. [...]

The stupidity of the old used to be simple ignorance. Now ignorance has been turned into permanent mathematical categories of relative stupidity like "gifted and talented", "main group" or "special education." Categories in which learning is rationed for the good of a system of order. Stupid people no longer simply ignorant. Now is indoctrinated, their minds conditioned with substantial doses of commercially prepared disinformation purposes reassuring.

Jacques Ellul, whose book Propaganda is a reflection on the phenomenon, advised us that prosperous children are more susceptible than others to the effects of schooling, because they are promised more comfort and safety in exchange for permanent total surrender:

"Critical judgment disappears altogether, because in no way can ever be collective critical judgment [...] The individual can not continue to judge for himself because inevitably relates his thoughts with the whole complex of values and prejudices established by propaganda. Regard political situations, the facts give value judgments invested with the power of truth [...] the word of experts. "

The new stupidity is particularly deadly to middle-class kids or medium-high, and multiple superficial facts pressures to conform imposed by the outside world usually lightly rooted parents. When they become adults, they are convinced they have to know something because their degrees and licenses so they say.

They remain so convinced until an unexpectedly brutal divorce, a reduction in average staff age or mindless panic attacks disrupt the precarious balance of their incomplete humanity, their stillborn adult lives. [...]

Ellul describes it:

"The individual has no opportunity to exercise judgment whether in matters of principle or his implications. This leads to atrophy of a faculty not easily exercised under [the best] conditions [...] Once personal judgment and critical faculties have disappeared or have atrophied, not simply reappear when propaganda delete [...] would take years of intellectual and spiritual education to restore these powers. Whoever is under the influence of propaganda, to be deprived of a propaganda immediately adopt another. This will save the agony of being vis a vis an event without an opinion drawn up. "

Once the best kids are broken by a system, morally they disintegrate, becoming dependent on group approval. A National Merit student of my own family once wrote that his dream was to be "a small part of a great machine." That broke my heart. What stunned by the school kids can not do is think for themselves or ever staying put for long without feeling crazy. Boys and girls show dependence idiots exploitable in many ways by the elderly specialists in it.

It can get branded as farfetched to consider that stupidity is taught, but if we analyze creativity, critical thinking and value judgments of ordinary citizens, will find that such an assessment is unfortunately very true. Think of the predisposition to behave gregariously, or how we are easily manipulated - remember the effect of the third person not to fall into the idea of believing oneself as "not manipulable. Pusillanimity and consequent social gregariousness are characteristic completely erased the ability to think for oneself, and therefore have the option to live freely.

"No one is more slave than that is free is not." Goethe

 

[Buddy]

Mark Twain was once noted for saying (paraphrased): "I've had more intelligent and dignified discussions with 6 year olds than I've had with 16 year olds. What are the schools doing to the children?"

Indeed, fragmentation as described is first imposed from external sources, OSIT.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

I liked a lot and made me think! Thanks Álvaro, y you too Buddy.

 

[psychegram]

Thank you for sharing this, Alvaro. It was very interesting.

The fragmentation of knowledge that has characterized the natural and human sciences since the so-called Enlightenment seems to be reaching its end. There are too many contradictions between the various branches; too many cases in which one discipline ignores completely the results of another, results which very much undermine the paradigm. Communication between disciplines has become virtually impossible, amidst an explosion of hyper-specialized jargon, acronyms, etc., which aid in the precision of description within the subdiscipline but make it completely opaque to outsiders, thus serving ultimately as an obstacle to knowledge. This precision is characteristic ... an amazingly detailed facsimile of reality, mapping the world from the scale of galaxy clusters to subatomic particles ... but at the same time failing entirely to connect the pieces into a coherent whole.

My own favoured example of this is the refusal of the natural sciences to take seriously the findings of the human and social sciences, including philosophy, regarding the social construction of reality. Scientists refuse to consider the fact that, as human beings in a certain cultural context, their view of the world will inevitably be coloured by this context, that they will draw on familiar metaphors to understand the world, and that this will necessarily make them less than objective unless they take account of this bias and make an active effort to calibrate themselves and their communities for it. This can only happen through critical engagement with both one's own psychology, and the cultural, social, political, and economic context that shapes it. No such effort is made ... the result being the blind adherence to reductive materialism (in the face of a quantum "mechanics" that practically screams the truth of panpsychism), and the survival of other old paradigms at the expense of whatever sort of theoretical handwaving is required (e.g. neodarwinian evolution, which utterly fails to explain either the origin or the development of life; the gravitational cosmos, which must be propped up with dark energy and dark matter; the Big Bang, which requires inflation; etc).

I feel as though there are political and psychological analogues to this. On the political side, there is state secrecy, "need to know" compartmentalization of black operations, which ensure that massive projects can be carried out with only a very few knowing the ultimate goals and their ramifications. On the psychological side there is fragmentation, dissociation, splitting ... schizoid tendencies that keep human individuals divided into many little 'i's, unable to integrate themselves, contact their higher self, and evolve spiritually. All of these are connected together.

And that of course is what makes this forum so important ... the Work engaged in on an individual and collective basis, connected to the effort to uncover the historical and political capital-T Truth of the world (i.e. to counter the epistemic warfare conducted by our erstwhile rulers against the masses of humanity), and of course also related intimately to the effort to illuminate the scientific truth about the world and the cosmos of which it is a part. In the end, none of these projects can be carried out in isolation ... the attempt to do so, which has been the defining method of analysis engaged in by academics and intellectuals over the past few hundred years, guarantees only the existence of massive blind spots.

 

[Buddy]

My own favoured example of this is the refusal of the natural sciences to take seriously the findings of the human and social sciences, including philosophy, regarding the social construction of reality. Scientists refuse to consider the fact that, as human beings in a certain cultural context, their view of the world will inevitably be coloured by this context, that they will draw on familiar metaphors to understand the world, and that this will necessarily make them less than objective unless they take account of this bias and make an active effort to calibrate themselves and their communities for it.

I've become aware of that, too. My favored examples are in the field of neuroscience involving research on the brain, genes and associated behavior. There seems to be fragmentation even within the same fields involving different interests and purposes. It's been amazing to see researchers 'discover' a variation on the D4 dopamine receptor and a different 'repeat' sequence on a specific allele. In the U.S. it will be called the ADHD gene, in Israel it's the 'alcoholism' gene, on another part of the globe its the 'celtic' gene. To someone else it will be called something else. To a psychiatrist it may simply be the pathophysiology of whatever 'non-normal' manifestation they happen to be studying.

Good gosh people, you're all talking about the same thing. You all just have a 'snapshot' view of the total organism and layers of assumptions between your data and the real deal you found in the body and these assumptions differ across domains of interest. As well, there exists a stated or implied blueprint for what ought to be 'normal' within those assumptions.

And that of course is what makes this forum so important ... the Work engaged in on an individual and collective basis, connected to the effort to uncover the historical and political capital-T Truth of the world (i.e. to counter the epistemic warfare conducted by our erstwhile rulers against the masses of humanity), and of course also related intimately to the effort to illuminate the scientific truth about the world and the cosmos of which it is a part. In the end, none of these projects can be carried out in isolation ... the attempt to do so, which has been the defining method of analysis engaged in by academics and intellectuals over the past few hundred years, guarantees only the existence of massive blind spots.

I have been brought to a point to see Gladwell's Four Horsemen in corrupt science writ large: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism and contempt - all tools used variably to counter any honest attempts at error correction. I'm subscribing to William James' Radical empiricism because it gives primacy to that preconceptual experience of reality that is the same for an infant as it is for an old scientist. And that shouldn't be a problem for empiricists, just a problem for a subject-object metaphysics masquerading as empiricism - something that seems more and more visible with his approach.

How else are we going to solve the problem of people being institutionalized for 'failing to understand reality' when different schools of physics can quarrel for years with no firm resolution on either side? By that criterion, shouldn't everybody be locked up?

Note: if this sounds somewhat like a rant, it probably is. There's a lot to be disgusted with when it comes to 'fragmentation'.

 

[psychegram]

My own favoured example of this is the refusal of the natural sciences to take seriously the findings of the human and social sciences, including philosophy, regarding the social construction of reality. Scientists refuse to consider the fact that, as human beings in a certain cultural context, their view of the world will inevitably be coloured by this context, that they will draw on familiar metaphors to understand the world, and that this will necessarily make them less than objective unless they take account of this bias and make an active effort to calibrate themselves and their communities for it.

I've become aware of that, too. My favored examples are in the field of neuroscience involving research on the brain, genes and associated behavior. There seems to be fragmentation even within the same fields involving different interests and purposes. It's been amazing to see researchers 'discover' a variation on the D4 dopamine receptor and a different 'repeat' sequence on a specific allele. In the U.S. it will be called the ADHD gene, in Israel it's the 'alcoholism' gene, on another part of the globe its the 'celtic' gene. To someone else it will be called something else. To a psychiatrist it may simply be the pathophysiology of whatever 'non-normal' manifestation they happen to be studying.

Good gosh people, you're all talking about the same thing. You all just have a 'snapshot' view of the total organism and layers of assumptions between your data and the real deal you found in the body and these assumptions differ across domains of interest. As well, there exists a stated or implied blueprint for what ought to be 'normal' within those assumptions.

And that's just the problem, so often what is seen is not what is actually there, but what one wants to see there. Wishful thinking, total subjectivity, masquerading as objectivity.

And that of course is what makes this forum so important ... the Work engaged in on an individual and collective basis, connected to the effort to uncover the historical and political capital-T Truth of the world (i.e. to counter the epistemic warfare conducted by our erstwhile rulers against the masses of humanity), and of course also related intimately to the effort to illuminate the scientific truth about the world and the cosmos of which it is a part. In the end, none of these projects can be carried out in isolation ... the attempt to do so, which has been the defining method of analysis engaged in by academics and intellectuals over the past few hundred years, guarantees only the existence of massive blind spots.

I have been brought to a point to see Gladwell's Four Horsemen in corrupt science writ large: defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism and contempt - all tools used variably to counter any honest attempts at error correction. I'm subscribing to William James' Radical empiricism because it gives primacy to that preconceptual experience of reality that is the same for an infant as it is for an old scientist. And that shouldn't be a problem for empiricists, just a problem for a subject-object metaphysics masquerading as empiricism - something that seems more and more visible with his approach.

How else are we going to solve the problem of people being institutionalized for 'failing to understand reality' when different schools of physics can quarrel for years with no firm resolution on either side? By that criterion, shouldn't everybody be locked up?

Note: if this sounds somewhat like a rant, it probably is. There's a lot to be disgusted with when it comes to 'fragmentation'.

Heh, yeah, I've been known to rant about this myself from time to time. I have to watch myself when I'm in the company of science colleagues, lest I come off as too radical or heretical.

Thank you for the reference to radical empiricism, I hadn't come across it before and it seems like a useful context. I've been reading up lately on Whitehead (via David Ray Griffin) and his panexperientialist theory. James' work seems to cut to the heart of the conflict between romantic and materialist notions of reality, namely, the question of what is to be taken as a factual basis for empiricism. Mainstream science denies that our experiences, our subjectivities, have any reality at all, and thereby create theories that do not even attempt to account for experience, and thus fail to provide more than a facsimile of reality ... while at the same time excusing them from paying any attention whatsoever to their own subjectivities.

Now, that said, I've noticed in conversation that many scientists, privately, are less than dogmatic about this ... indeed they are quite open to some of these ideas. But only in private. The public face of science, and the official institutions scientists rely upon for funding and status, take a very different position. However, I suspect that change is in the air ... the old paradigm is increasingly untenable.

 

[Buddy]

I've been reading up lately on Whitehead (via David Ray Griffin) and his panexperientialist theory. James' work seems to cut to the heart of the conflict between romantic and materialist notions of reality, namely, the question of what is to be taken as a factual basis for empiricism. Mainstream science denies that our experiences, our subjectivities, have any reality at all, and thereby create theories that do not even attempt to account for experience, and thus fail to provide more than a facsimile of reality ... while at the same time excusing them from paying any attention whatsoever to their own subjectivities.

Whitehead, as in Alfred North? I've made connections between him and James as well. As far as I can tell, when Whitehead wrote that "...mankind is driven forward by dim apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language", he was writing about the same 'pure experience' that James referred to with his "the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories." Fascinating stuff.

Now, that said, I've noticed in conversation that many scientists, privately, are less than dogmatic about this ... indeed they are quite open to some of these ideas. But only in private. The public face of science, and the official institutions scientists rely upon for funding and status, take a very different position. However, I suspect that change is in the air ... the old paradigm is increasingly untenable.

I have the same suspicion and it's quantified by the increase in quantum-type studies.

As an aspiring academic, at least you know about the problems going in. Now you might can have some fun telling stories about famous historical 'trouble makers' organized around something Christian mystic Johannes Eckhart noticed: "Nothing disturbs a bishop quite so much as the presence of a saint in the parish." Or maybe not. External consideration rules, of course.

 

[psychegram]

Whitehead, as in Alfred North? I've made connections between him and James as well. As far as I can tell, when Whitehead wrote that "...mankind is driven forward by dim apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language", he was writing about the same 'pure experience' that James referred to with his "the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories." Fascinating stuff.

The very same. Sadly, the only online material I can find by Whitehead himself is his mathematical work. However, this book by Griffin, "Whitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy", lays out Whitehead's philosophy quite well:

_http://118.97.161.124/perpus-fkip/Perpustakaan/Filsafat/Postmodernisme/David%20Ray%20Griffin%20-%20Whitehead's%20Radically%20Different%20Postmodern%20Philosophy~%20An%20Argument%20for%20Its%20Contemporary%20Relevance%20-%20State%20University%20of%20New%20York%20Press.pdf

As an aspiring academic, at least you know about the problems going in. Now you might can have some fun telling stories about famous historical 'trouble makers' organized around something Christian mystic Johannes Eckhart noticed: "Nothing disturbs a bishop quite so much as the presence of a saint in the parish." Or maybe not. External consideration rules, of course.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some idea of precisely what Eckhart meant. I'd also be grossly, irresponsibly, dangerously egotistical if I thought of myself as some kind of 'saint of science'. Believe me, the temptation is often there, and it's something I continually work to undermine ... I really don't want to get so full of myself that I lose sight of my mission in life. Ego wants all the benefits without any of the Work; to begin with it fools itself without fooling anyone else ... but with even a small amount of accomplishment, it starts to be able to fool others, as well ... which makes fooling the self all the easier.

More practically, I've found two strategies tend to work fairly well. First, to keep my concerns at an abstract, philosophical level ... scientists are often willing to discuss such in a fairly open-minded fashion, so long as their deeper assumptions about reality remain unquestioned. Second, is to gently point out some of the 'mysteries' or anomalies (e.g., "Did you know comets are powerful X-ray sources?"), in the form of questions that point to an answer, but without directly pointing to an answer myself. But I don't fool myself that this sort of discourse will make any sort of large difference ... most of my colleagues are more concerned with publishing papers, finding a tenure track position, etc., than they are with capital-t Truth, and it is not my place to try and make them. After all, I don't want to trigger the General Law.

I adopt a fully different strategy in discussions with (certain) non-scientists. With them I allow myself to be much more open regarding e.g. electric universe concepts or panpsychism. I've found in many cases that this has very positive consequences: people are so used to being told that everything is meaningless, the universe is basically dead, and they themselves nothing but fancy machines, that having a scientist tell them that it might not be so can be very good for their outlook on reality. Sure, philosophers and social scientists will mumble, oh so carefully, about scientific materialism or positivism etc. being "problematic", but no one takes them seriously ... it is hard scientists that are taken seriously. Which, ultimately, is why I'm pursuing a career in the sciences, and not philosophy: it is very clear that as an insider, I can do more to help usher in the new paradigm than I can as an outsider. But I need to tread the line very carefully....

 

[Buddy]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some idea of precisely what Eckhart meant.

Yep, it's an example of a patterned behavior, alright. As it happens, it's one where the contributions to humanity were paid for by a hefty price, though. Abelard with his trouble-making contributions to logic, Copernicus with his trouble-making heliocentric model and Galileo with his trouble-making support of heliocentrism might recognize this pattern retrospectively, though they certainly wouldn't think of themselves as 'saints' at the time of their contributions. The 'observers' here being future folk and all.

...most of my colleagues are more concerned with publishing papers, finding a tenure track position, etc., than they are with capital-t Truth

That's the bishop pattern. Which also encourages the Ivory Tower’s impenetrable, obscuritanist, epidemic, brownie point driven disdain for clarity.

“If you can’t explain it to a six-year old, you don’t understand it yourself. ” -Einstein

I've taken the above to heart, which explains why I like the 'process' in Whitehead's process philosophy (thanks for linking it).

With them I allow myself to be much more open regarding e.g. electric universe concepts or panpsychism. I've found in many cases that this has very positive consequences: people are so used to being told that everything is meaningless, the universe is basically dead, and they themselves nothing but fancy machines, that having a scientist tell them that it might not be so can be very good for their outlook on reality. Sure, philosophers and social scientists will mumble, oh so carefully, about scientific materialism or positivism etc. being "problematic", but no one takes them seriously ... it is hard scientists that are taken seriously. Which, ultimately, is why I'm pursuing a career in the sciences, and not philosophy: it is very clear that as an insider, I can do more to help usher in the new paradigm than I can as an outsider.

And that's a saint pattern. Go, man, go!


Note: just meaning to give some support and encouragement here; not rushing you into an inquisition or anything. After all, the figurative bishop says that society today demands conformity, yet as Carl Jung noted: "Civilized life today demands concentrated, directed conscious functioning..." A balancing act, indeed, so I do understand.

 

[psychegram]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some idea of precisely what Eckhart meant.

Yep, it's an example of a patterned behavior, alright. As it happens, it's one where the contributions to humanity were paid for by a hefty price, though. Abelard with his trouble-making contributions to logic, Copernicus with his trouble-making heliocentric model and Galileo with his trouble-making support of heliocentrism might recognize this pattern retrospectively, though they certainly wouldn't think of themselves as 'saints' at the time of their contributions. The 'observers' here being future folk and all.

The funny thing is, many of the core contributions of Galileo to human thought (e.g. the privileging of matter and motion over experience) are precisely the things that we struggle against today. Interesting example of how yesterday's liberating heresy can become today's cloying dogma.

...most of my colleagues are more concerned with publishing papers, finding a tenure track position, etc., than they are with capital-t Truth

That's the bishop pattern. Which also encourages the Ivory Tower’s impenetrable, obscuritanist, epidemic, brownie point driven disdain for clarity.

“If you can’t explain it to a six-year old, you don’t understand it yourself. ” -Einstein

Einstein's relativity theory might have been bogus, but the man's quote's are consistently amongst the best produced by 20th century scientists. I sometimes think this charisma might have more to do with his success (and the success of general relativity, politically speaking) than the merits of relativity theory.

I've taken the above to heart, which explains why I like the 'process' in Whitehead's process philosophy (thanks for linking it).

De nada :)

And that's a saint pattern. Go, man, go!

Note: just meaning to give some support and encouragement here; not rushing you into an inquisition or anything. After all, the figurative bishop says that society today demands conformity, yet as Carl Jung noted: "Civilized life today demands concentrated, directed conscious functioning..." A balancing act, indeed, so I do understand.

The encouragement is much appreciated. DCM knows I get little enough in the exoteric world, with the exception of a few very close confidantes who know (and approve of) what I'm up to (insofar as I know what I'm up to, which isn't very far sometimes ;) )

Edit=Quote :)

 

[Buddy]

The funny thing is, many of the core contributions of Galileo to human thought (e.g. the privileging of matter and motion over experience) are precisely the things that we struggle against today.

Yep, and it was needed at the time in that historical context, OSIT.

Interesting example of how yesterday's liberating heresy can become today's cloying dogma.

Another useful pattern and that's how reality happens. Otherwise, we might not have made it out of the Dark Ages and into the also bogus age of cultural relativity. Baby steps, maybe, but Humanity progresses on the backs of culture-bearers even when they're partially incorrect.

Einstein's relativity theory might have been bogus, but the man's quote's are consistently amongst the best produced by 20th century scientists. I sometimes think this charisma might have more to do with his success (and the success of general relativity, politically speaking) than the merits of relativity theory.

I think we agree on that. :)

The encouragement is much appreciated. DCM knows I get little enough in the exoteric world, with the exception of a few very close confidantes who know (and approve of) what I'm up to (insofar as I know what I'm up to, which isn't very far sometimes ;) )

Well said. I know what you mean.

Thinking about the topic of fragmentation of knowledge, I wonder what you and others think about this idea:

I know there is probably a 'best' way to organize and teach a public school or university curriculum and that this best way may not be what I have in mind, but how does the idea of organizing knowledge on a time line or time scale sound?

What I mean is, everyone knows that the doings in religion, the work in the subjects of science, history, math, etc, all happen at the same time, so why categorize knowledge into 'subjects'? Why not just teach the way all areas of knowledge advanced at the same time within certain blocks of time instead?

IOW, you have a time line divided into sections and everything that happened in all the various areas of interest are taught together so that students see all the interrelationships. For example, how advances in math led to advances in science which started new businesses, followed by increased repression by Religious 'authorities', additional political intrusions into people's lives, etc.

Maybe I just answered my own question? Still, there's got to better ways than what we have, or don't have, now.

 

[zena]

I translated as I have an article I wrote some time ago, you can find it in Spanish here: http://es.sott.net/article/20316-El-separatismo-consensuado-fragmentacion-del-conocimiento-y-el-adoctrinamiento-hacia-la-estupidez

The matter is typical in all sectors not connect the dots regarding the knowledge of things, which I called consensual separatism because it is an ingrained habit in which most people of all social and scientific, and that no allows to arrive at an objective map of reality. Sorry for grammatical errors that may have.

Consensual separatism

There exists a world and an objective truth.

This is where I wonder if that's actually right. The reasons there are so many different fields of knowlege is that there are different groups that are all creating their "lens" or interpretations of reality via their consensual agreements. Of course, one group's agreements will be different from another. Even if you only had two people, they could look at the same fact in two different manners. So, what is the objective truth? If a photon is influenced by an observer than how can we ever have an objective truth (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/feb/15/photons-denied-a-glimpse-of-their-observer)? My guess is that all of reality is subjective. There is no objective truth. Of course, to measure something it has to be objective. But, measurement is only based on some reference point in comparison to another. So, I propose we measure our realities via patterns, much the same way as you create a mandala. So, instead of comparing one point to another, you are comparing one GROUP OF POINTS to another, neither of which define an absolute reality.

I've been having this conversation with someone on the possibility of all opposites being the exact same thing. Black is the same as white. Poverty is the same as wealth, and being an athiest is the same as being extremely devoted to some religion. Why? The basic patterns are the same, even though the two opposing characteristics fall within a spectrum where they are each on opposite ends. We no longer have the separtism mindset and can start creating our reality based on patterns of holistic thought instead of picking things apart.

But, instead of doing away with the entire article based on that point that I don't believe in an objective reality or if I do it is the same as a subjective reality, I think it actually reinforces more of it. Understanding becomes vitally important, more so than knowledge, because knowledge will always be different based on the observer.

And in this world there are many branches that make up what we consider the reality. And since the reality is fragmented, each civilization, culture, religion, group and / or individual gives a particular interpretation to these fragments comes from its idiosyncrasies. Therefore, those interpretations may be erroneous, lacking data, framed by the characteristic subjective frame of humanity.

Moreover, since the average person on the street passing by the most avid researcher, we can see that it is customary to focus on a few aspects of what makes up all Reality, and worse, not tend to associate with some other aspects. When it comes to weather, not is talk of sociology. When it comes to conspiracies, psychology infrequently discussed. If we study issues related to human development - which is often called spirituality-, do not talk about the Pathocracy.

With these words I want to start a little analysis of what it means for the human whole focusing only on a number of aspects of Reality and ignore others who truly globally if exercise is done to connect the dots and understand that the Reality is one and that's our job search relations between the fragments, we would have the entire map, and we could live with knowledge and acting accordingly in each specific situation or particular historical moment.

Have data and understanding

"With ordinary thinking, people do not distinguish between knowing and understanding. They think that the more they know the more to understand's. Why accumulate knowledge or what they call them, but do not know how it stacks understanding and not care to know. "G. I. Gurdjieff

The first problem we encounter when boarding any subject, is that of understanding. In this age we have access to a wealth of information. Exists an infinite range of options when it comes to inform unprecedented in history. But there is a very wide availability of information at our fingertips, we are not necessarily smarter or we are more prepared for the circumstances of life. Simply know more. And does not mean that we know more things than we are in some way our ancestors? No. Because have data is not the same as understanding.

The study of Reality is not based solely on the collection of information and data. It is necessary to integrate the knowledge learned within oneself.

Have data to have specific information about something without having understood or taken to application. Can be learn many things, have a lot of information by reading books or listening to lectures, but the simple information does not produce transformative results in the Being of any individual. Wrote philosophy professor Jacob Needleman:

"[...] The philosophical ideas do not change anything in the life of an individual. Without the practical knowledge how to bring great ideas to heart and even body tissuesthe philosophy can not take us very far." [Lost Christianity]

Reality the studies on, so they can be useful and transformers in a person, have to be understood, ie , integrated in the Being. The knowledge learned is valid only in this way. Understand, then, is to integrate within itself specific information, making it part of oneself. Unlike the know, that only has to do with the intellect, understanding is the assimilation of information at both intellectually and emotionally and even physically.

The study of Reality does not end in understanding. Understanding the student carries practical knowledge assimilated and integrated information. Knowledge is the practical application of learning and understanding at the time, position and required field. Knowledge is know-how. What good is it to know something if we do not have the proper knowledge to use it?

<snipped text>

Consensual separatism


No one is exempt from falling into consensual separatism. It is a deeply rooted habit in civilization. Each person or group perceives reality in a particular way, and that framework that not allows them to move not see beyond what is imposed. So it's hard to find groups who focus on spiritual and political issues at the same time, or ufology and psychology at a time, or nutrition and religions. If the branches of knowledge are linked objectively to each other, we can see that all that exists is related, and to focus or specialize in just a few branches of knowledge does not help us too much time to understand the reality as a whole.

It's more than that, it's also being affected within timelines, I think. As an example, I can remember as a child that certain words could never be spelled correctly one way, but today they are. I try to look back and see where that change happened, but it's seamless. No one remembers that the word was ever spelled differently. It could be my imagination, but there are SO MANY examples of this in my life that I have learned my memory is not in step with the rest of humanity, and I'm not sure why. In fact, I would say humanity is a victim of this type of consensual separtism and it is highly encouraged by the PTB. Imagine, that the calendar was changed 40 years prior to Jesus Christ even being crucified, but yet BC means Before Christ? It probably meant Before Ceasar. Yet, today, no one would believe that - and there would certainly be no record to prove it. Other examples are like a group finds out the earth is round 400 years prior to someone "official" knowing it. Suddenly, that can't be true. Why not? Well, it has to be a hoax because it's already agreed that we know who discovered that the world was round and when. It's just an intricate and infinite web of self-deceit. It has me thinking I'm caught in a time loop and the conflict in Syria is a "take 2" of the Roman's expansionism into Egypt at the time of Cleopatra. It's all the same pattern, making me wonder: Am I really growing old or is something shifting around me to think time is passing when it is standing still?

This is also the reason I am so weary of organizations and groups. They instantly get a "consensus" going and that defines a path that ends up a Pathocracy, even if in the beginning it was enlightening. Groups tend to evolve in a manner that always end up rather dreadful, IMO. And, of course some of the mass delusions that all human groups endure are pesky things like "the appropriate passage of time" and "historical and scientific facts." As if any of that were actually an absolute.

To make matters worse, there is built-in expanding tolerances in the self-deceit. You tell someone your truth. They agree with it. You test it and more people agree with it. Then, someone picks apart some aspect of it in the interest of further knowledge. Now, you've introduced a tolerance error. That error gets repeated down the line in subsequent generations and explorations, becoming COLLOSAL by the time we figure out it was all a lie - a subjective truth. By that time, all sorts of spinoffs could have occurred. Makes me want to shut my mouth forever and never say a word unless someone accidentally hears me.

Is education the problem? I don't think it is the only problem. I don't think getting rid of education or "fixing" it is going to do much. For one, there are a variety of inborne intelligences, some mental, some emotional, and some intuitive. They will naturally look at different subjects within different contexts. I think the best one can hope for is to generate practical experiences of knowledge concepts that might illuminate our understanding on a very individual basis leaving the final learning concepts up to the student. However, the way I do that and someone else does that would obviously be different, since we are all individuals. How does one customize education for so many variables? Are we back to the master/student religious ideal?

I have probably not really explained this well. I just have this GNAWING feeling that all of my reality is subject to various internal conditions, but which are highly influenced by others I come in contact with. If that's true, what are we all doing? Is there a point to it? I even have an even more overwhelming feeling that much of the understanding we seek isn't even available to us on a 3D format. It's not written down somewhere. It's not taught in schools. No master has the golden key. There is no wizard of Oz who can send us home. We can't even send each other home. It's not hopeless though, it just makes me very thoughtful. Very contemplative, rather silent, and highly cynical about what I consider to be "my reality."

 

[obyvatel]

My guess is that all of reality is subjective. There is no objective truth.

A working definition of objectivity that we use here in this forum is that it is how the universe perceives itself. As fragmented consciousness units, we humans are constrained by limitations of our awareness in our ability to grasp this objective reality in its entirety. So we form a network of individuals who work towards the goal of increasing understanding of this objective reality. An analogy would be the story of the elephant and the blind men. The cassiopedia entry on objectivity has more details.

[quote author=zena]
I've been having this conversation with someone on the possibility of all opposites being the exact same thing. Black is the same as white. Poverty is the same as wealth, and being an athiest is the same as being extremely devoted to some religion. Why? The basic patterns are the same, even though the two opposing characteristics fall within a spectrum where they are each on opposite ends. We no longer have the separtism mindset and can start creating our reality based on patterns of holistic thought instead of picking things apart.
[/quote]

This is an example of post-modern relativism. It is a pernicious idea which plays a role in the ponerization of society (http://www.ponerology.com) by insinuating that there is no fundamental difference between good and evil thus subverting and eventually atrophying the natural critical faculty by which "normal" human beings could recognize and take appropriate action in the face of psychopathology . At the spiritual level, this type of relativism perhaps causes a fracturing of consciousness thus strengthening the pole of non-being .

An analogy of the human body may be relevant here. When there is a disease state in the body, such a state needs to be recognized and treated with appropriate remedies to restore the body to health. At the level of the body, health and disease are not the same and ignoring the difference could lead to the demise of the body. Similarly, at the level of 3D human existence, there is good and evil and the possibility of developing a discriminating wisdom which can recognize which is which in the specific context.

Such concepts are discussed in detail and explained much better in the Wave series.