Descriptions of the Universe reflect the theorist more than research findings. Nonetheless, descriptions enable researchers to imagine what they might discover. Then they invent devices able to scope out those imagined possibilities. Focus your thoughts on those devices for a moment. Those devices associated to scientific investigation extend human senses beyond human limitations. Point is this: fundamentally humans are very limited in what they can observe.
This one truth of scientific investigation is extremely significant to this discussion. Humans utilize other tools outside their scope of experience or capacity to discover or to deduce their truths. “Duh!” you say? Before I explain why this is so important, I want to expose another tool used by scientist: mathematics.
Mathematics (at the theoretical level and less advanced) use computations, formulas, or algorithms which investigate concrete and abstract postulates. Sometimes, computations are exact in their results. Sometimes, computations measure the probability of something being factual or fictional. Sometimes, computations abstract other mathematical abstractions and derive “answers” reflective of hypotheses.
One more factor of scientific investigation I want to weave into this discussion is the “observer effect.” Widely accepted now, scientists must admit that their hypotheses, their tools of observation, and the very moment of their observation alters the results of their investigation, no matter what they are investigating.
I am a social scientist as a Clinical Psychologist. I am and was always surrounded by professionals in the fields of physics, artificial intelligence, mathematics and neurology. I esteem and respect scientific methodologies, tools and scientific efforts to discover information. I assert, nonetheless, that no scientists of integrity can assert that their data collecting, tools of observations, analyses, hypotheses or conclusions are irrefutable Truths.
I am also an ethereal mystic. I practice the meditations and healing arts of Reiki, Shamanic Soul Journeys, and Pranic energy to name a few. I explore and use Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, Akashic Reading, Channeling or Mediumship to discover amazing possible domains. My experiences of each of these tools has been amazing, heart-stoppingly awesome! Yet, as with science, I could never declare my findings as objective, all-encompassing universal, irrefutable Truths.
As a scientist, I see no merit in being dogmatic. As a mystic, I see no merit in being dogmatic. Both are limited because humans are limited.
Consider these four points for another moment. Point one: Scientists and mystics are driven by the same passion to discover what this existence is all about. What is this Universe, this experience, and these complexities surrounding us? Point two: scientists and mystics both wish to use the answers to these questions to empower and evolve the human path. Point three: neither the scientist nor the mystic has full, totality of understanding and both the scientist and the mystic can only create theories. Neither the scientist nor the mystic — no matter how enlightened and carefully researched — can authentically embrace any “finding” as an ultimate, irrefutable, unchallengeable conclusion.
Nowadays, some scientists admit their mystical ponderings about how nature works, what consciousness might be, or what exists outside of form or beyond physical life. Clearly their useful tools, math, and “observer effects” are intrinsically limited. Moreover, games of a scientists’ egos, politics or need for grant money can no longer disguise those limits. Nowadays, some mystics (as spiritual or religious teachers) rid themselves of dogmatic declarations. For a small example, there may be more than one way to interpret a passage in sacred writings or more than one way to explain how laws of attraction works. Moreover, power and money greedy religious leaders are spotted more easily. For both these scientists and mystics, experiences are described as discoveries or adventures but not taught as absolute generic Truths.
Points-of-view is simply that, viewing from a point and describing what is witnessed. Describing is an art especially when the describer refrains from jumping to definitive conclusions. Analyzing what is witnessed is helpful until the analysis is embraced as a dogma. Why?: Dogmas cause the following: 1) Researchers stop researching while they preach their dogmatic conclusions; 2) Students of researchers become passive because they believe their is nothing more to discover; 3) Students and colleagues fear that if they question or challenge the dogmatized findings, that they will be rejected by their essential communities; and 4) Dogmas become societal constructs around which all future thought, research and conclusions are blindly focused.
So, (here’s the goal of this entry) how about each of us as scientists and mystics in our own fashion becoming open-minded explorers who learn from each other’s explorations, observations and tentative conclusions. Also, how about if we also share open-mindedly our own discoveries while NONE of us become dogmatic about our exciting and meaningful discoveries.
Oh, I forgot to add, as you likely now know, I am also an optimistic idealist. I dream a world of respect, curiosity, open-mindedness and the awe of mutual discovery. I long for the conversations when narratives of someone’s experiences are enthusiastically shared with wonder and hypotheses. It seems to me that we are each blind, insightful, limited, expanding, and passionate explorers and creators. But, none of us need to become slaves to dogma.