Waking up from the dream of Cartesian-Newtonian science

Waking up from the dream of isolation of Descartes

FYI a really excellent objective essay on Descartes’ relevance to the post-2012 world is here:  http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Descartes.htm

Written by Bruce Dickson, SPQR, Spa Fon, On-Off

At least a few pioneering progressive minds, mostly in the fields of healing and personal coaching, seem poised to “cross the Rubicon” in their thinking about science.

The existing traditional barrier is Cartesian-Newtonian science’s presumption it is the ONLY valid science.

Once an individual remembers and acknowledges, we use THREE orders of science every day, there’s no turning back to the idea of ONE, and only one science, no turning back to the Lord of the Rings fantasy of “one ring to unite them all.”

The dream of Cartesian-Newtonian science was a control fantasy; in a phrase borrowed from Alexis Carroll, the fantasy of one science “to predict and control” all others and everything.

This reminds me of John-Roger’s remark, “Control is the master addiction.”
The dream is a Matrix of predict and control working like a swiss watch, completely under control of the small “s” ego.

As long as “predict and control” works for you, there’s no need to consider three sciences. Why complicate something already decided to be simple?

Who are the individuals embracing three sciences? I speculate every one of them has spiritual aspirations that feel unsupported in the matrix of Cartesian-Newtonian science.

It may be, without spiritual aspiration, no solution is called for, no escape from the Matrix is called for, no need exists to step outside the consensus about Cartesian-Newtonian science.

Shifting your world view from one science to three is indeed like jumping ship,; as if, jumping off a slowly moving train. It’s a risk; no doubt about it, because the support of group-think will no longer be on your side nor you on the side of the majority. You are more on your own.

If some of this seems reminiscent of themes from Philosophy of Freedom, you would be correct. Changing your own beliefs, raising your own frequency.

If I allow myself to be indoctrinated through authority-based and reward-punishment-based systems; then, I become part of the cabling connections of the network of Cartesian-Newtonian thinkers and their media handmaidens.

Three Sciences is indeed a more active-dynamic conceptual stance than one science. Crowning second-order science as the one-and-only this serves primarily commercial-industrial-corporate interests, not the interests of seekers of freedom in a post-2012 world.

Breaking the trance that “predict and control” is the greatest good, going through the cognitive dissonance of not one but three sciences is challenging.

Once on the other side, the fresh insights and enhanced awareness can be deeply liberating, generating internal hope and good cheer. Much less of a control system is needed to maintain and protect a scheme of three sciences because the system is less fragile, more synergistic, flexible and resilient.

Imagination, creative visualization, feeling-ization are the engines of a more organic, sustainable and deep, conceptual matrix.

If our imagination is running the dream-program of “predict and control,” we are living in someone else’s dream.

Only in Cartesian-Newtonian science are we hopeless wanderers in a cold lifeless, clockwork universe.

Evidence each soul continues on after our physical body expires is overwhelming, for those open to the evidence of Life After Life, et al. As souls, we go on. Cartesian-Newtonian science was just one chapter in a longer novel with a peaceful, happy ending.

These wisdoms are part of the wealth of a three-science system, connection with galactic significance. Cartesian-Newtonian science is more likely to connect us with more material things nice-to-own and a view of the individual as isolated and alone in a cold universe.

If you have the choice, why allow someone else’s belief system or dream to restrict your imagination? Three sciences supports personal creativity in a way some healthy religions did long ago, 500 years ago and more.

Three sciences inspires independence. When a critical mass of people agree the endgame of “predict and control” is no longer a good game, nor a sustainable game, anymore, then the awesome synchronous power of the universe begins to paint a new world into being, more fulfilling ways of living and evolving individually and in tribes.

The language of this web page was helpful to the above thinking: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11600&page=2

Goethean holistic science analogized to “warp and woof”

warp-woofGoethe’s Science theory and method can be analogized to “warp” and “woof” in weaving. 

Warp and woof point to the two directions of threads in cloth. When woven together, regardless of the raw material, warp and woof together, conjoined, have the best chance of creating whole cloth.

The warp is the the laborious footwork of observing your subject, in Nature as much as possible, from as many angles as possible, in as many seasons as possible.  This is the Outer Game of Goethean Holistic Science.

The woof is taking all your external observations, written notes and explorations inside, into your thoughts and feelings:

  • What observations repeat?
  • What patterns, if any, can you perceive?
  • Have other explorers found these same repeating patterns or not?
  • Is you initial question (hypothesis)  still relevant to your own personal growth direction?
  • Do your observations support tweaking your hypothesis usefully?
  • Going all the way in to Imagination, Intuition and Inspiration, what light, if any, do they add to your subject?

When the Inner Game of GHS is complete, then the explorer returns back to the warp.  Time to report your findings to colleagues, and anyone else interested.  We share our of expansive joy.  We also share to see if others can see our openings to negativity, “chinks in our armor,” in our arguments, better than we can.  

Q:  How does this differ from conventional science?

A:  To understand how a Goethean approach differs, the frame has to expand to include the Three Sciences We Use Everyday.  If new to you, read that then come back here.  

The easy way to discern how a Goethean approach differs from conventional science is to go thru the above again in the framework-paradigm of Three Sciences:

The Outer Game of Goethean Science, the warp applies Second Order Science.  DO the labor of observing your subject, in Nature, as much as possible, from as many angles as possible, in as many seasons as possible. View your subject so completely, any second explorer, any other place on Earth, or in time in the last 100 years or next 100 years, can replicate and verify your observations.

Applying the methods of Second Order Science is the Outer Game of Goethean Science.

Then the woof.  We go inside, to our garret, our cave, our study, our meditations and contemplations.  We assess our observations.  We check our notes.  We recall…

“Being a scientist is simply being careful not to fool yourself” — John Carlson, amateur rocket scientist

We accept and admit to ourself our perceptions are necessarily SUBjective.  There can be error.  Bias, prdjudice and intolerance can all be uncovered and rooted out.  We check and often re-check to remove First Order Science distortions due to imperfect subjective perception. 

That’s not all.  We check ourself to see how we have changed observing our subject.  We also check to discern how observing our subject has changed us.  Maybe in observing birds and wildlife covered in oil from an offshore oil spill we come to a greater appreciation of and dedication to renewable forms of energy.  Noticing how we change in studying our subject is First Order Science.

Third Order Science appears in our moral-ethical conclusions based on our outer exploration and inner cogitations.  Perhaps as was done by some in the 1960s, our outer experiences and inner contemplations causes a few of us to conclude the military draft of young men forcing them to be footsoldiers in wars is unethical, cannot be supported and actions against this form of mind control are beneficial to the majority of people.  Perhaps we are so convicted of this view, a few of us collect bottles of cow’s blood, break into an Army recruiting office at night, and pour blood on all the files and documents we can find.  

This is how applying Goethean Science can lead to acts of civil disobedience.  Thoreau at least would applaud.  

Guess what?  The “powers that be” including virtually all corporations, understand this possible outcome of applying science in its holistic form (Goethean).  They don’t want this.  

How to control science to it remains the handmaiden of corporate interests?  You pay your scientists.  You pay them in part to make an unspoken bargain for them to keep their subjective (First Order Science) and moral-etheric considerations (Third Order Science) off the table, out of sight and out of mind.  

In this way, since about 1940 or 1950, science restricts itself more and more to uncovering only what the “powers that be” including virtually all corporations, wish to have uncovered and discovered; that is, more things to make them profitable.  

The above suggests why Goethean holistic science is potentially dangerous to the current status quo of elites; and, why science must be controlled as it currently is in early 2018. 

Written by Bruce Dickson, HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com

Goethean science as big tent for science and psychology

tent_bigThe idea of a “big tent” in psychology goes like this:  what theory of psychology is sufficiently broad and inclusive so it could embrace, support, shelter and nurture diverse techniques-methods under a single roof?  A “big tent” is a metaphor for a big idea, under which subordinate ideas can gather, identify common ground, find support and engage constructively.

In the 20th century, scores of competing models of the human psyche, each attempted to uncover strong therapeutic direction, what to do with this client in this circumstance.  This intention was healing, even tho many times between models, “the words got in the way.”

Academic psych texts, God bless them, often compounded this problem by comparing and contrasting psychological models.  This emphasized the individuality of each tree in psychology at the cost of a sense of direction and purpose to the whole forest.  This is why Gerald Corey’s Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy, latest edition, is so well-respected.  He minimizes the conflict between facets of the field, emphasizing a synthetic and collaborative approach.

It’s September, 2014 now as I write this.  After 45 minutes of search and reading, Mr. Google has convinced me the topic of a “big tent” in psychology exists; however, the issue is no longer of much interest, addressed mostly in brief remarks to build consensus in opening talks at live, in-person, psychological conferences.

I agree, we do not want to return to the 1850s when primitive ideas about the human psyche, how humans compare to animals; and, whether humans are or are not “spiritual” resulted in knock-down, drag-out fights and heated debate.  Looking back, these seem no more productive than other unnecessary wars fought by men.

Mr. Google persuades me today the foundation on which a big tent for psychology can be erected—if possible—has nothing to do with psychology per se.  It has to do with science. 

In psychology we are, it seems, arguing with on diverse assumptions about science, physics and metaphysics–without recognizing our rhetorical ground is not level.

Mr. Google suggests where most thinkers on big tents in psychology get stuck is in defining science.  They want to define science.  They want one science, with these principles, these values and their definition.  They want a one-pointed science as their big tent in science.  Then they attempt to shoe-horn the human psyche into this mental definition of “science.” Continue reading

Review of Man or Matter (1985) the Einstein of etheric forces

bk-man-or-matter

Review of the 1985 edition, the preferred edition, the most clear, readable and definitive of the three editions. If you have tried the 1951 edition free online, find it inspiring yet also confusing or hard to read, try the 1985 edition.  Tho clearly edited, 1951 edition was more a “first draft” of a later, more presentable edition.  1985 is author-revised and professionally edited by two editors. 

Note ~ You are correct, “Man or Matter” makes little sense. The original title was Man AND Matter. ‘Man AND Matter’ is the relationship Lehrs builds up. The unnecessary title change and forgetting the 1951 copyright suggest a lot about amateur publishing quality circa 1950.

A Waldorf high school science teacher by profession, Lehrs works from a detailed history of science and science biography, at a high school level. He cogently, coherently and politely points out the errors, detours and dead ends exclusively materialistic science took.

Lehrs honors and values the intelligent capacities of the isolated observer-self of Cartesian-Newtonian “hard” science. Lehrs shows how awareness itself, as part of Nature, is like salt crystals dissolved into water. If over time salt content increases, eventually, salt re-crystalizes out of the water into visible, separate crystals. Lehrs likens ‘salt crystalizing out of water’ to the emergence of the isolated observer-self of Cartesian-Newtonian “hard” science. This ego is a limited self, yet a necessary self, a necessary middle position in post-modern science.

Lehrs introduces his famous metaphor of conventional-traditional scientists as one-eyed, color blind, spectator-observer, isolated, divorced and apart from Nature. This caricature is also known as “Island Man.” The self-destructive addictions of the fictional Sherlock Holmes point to the dangers of humanity divorced and separated from Nature and from healthy self-connection. in recent generations, 19th century materialistic science is now the iron bands around the chest of our expanding capacities for Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination.

Lehrs re-frames the entire history of science using Goethe’s holistic-humanistic approach. This leads readers to clearer view of Goethe’s comprehensive holistic theory and Goethe’s general holistic experimental method. These are then applied to etheric formative forces, with varying degrees of success. At its best, a way forward is laid out to re-incorporating into post-modern science, etheric formative forces neglected-dismissed-ignored by Enlightenment science.

The reader is taken on a journey similar to Lewis Carroll in Alice into Wonderland and to the protagonist in Flatland. In little steps, a wondrous unforeseen landscape is gradually uncovered in glimpses.

For Lehrs, the big picture is Nature, the external world, and all the forces within it, are created out of gravity and levity, other polarities arising out of the primary polarity of gravity~levity. In the world Lehrs describes, gravity~levity are constantly at play and in play. Their meeting is the motive energy behind heat, friction, electricity, magnetism and radiation. Emphasis on how all forces devolve from gravity~levity is absent from the first edition. It may help to keep it in mind if you attempt reading 1951.

Along these lines is the modern idea, perhaps coined after Lehrs’ death, of “strong and weak forces.” I think Lehrs might agree that on Earth, gravity is the stronger force, levity is the naturally weaker force. While Lehrs proposes gravity~levity interacting to form other forces, a 50-50 proposition, is clearly not the case.

Q: Why did science of the 1890s abandon all ether theories?

A: No way to model the phenomena of mass was found in ether models–short of including God (our “rock” our “ground”) in atomic theory. This men of the time would not do. The solar system model of the atom, proton, neutron, electron was the best Plan B model they had. For atheistic 1800s scientists, this was the best they could do. See The_Vortex_Atom_A_Victorian_Theory_of_PDF

Lehrs resonates with Goethe, advocating a return to direct, personal observation of natural phenomena, to doing the inner work of evaluation and synthesis, to the final outer work of sharing what has been learned and how the experimenter has been changed by his or her study. This amounts to something like a return to healthy, truly human values in science.

With Lehr’s science coaching, it’s possible to begin perceiving in Nature the over-arching influence of gravity and levity, dancing in countless combinations and expressions all around us.

The result? Sure enough, there is a place for etheric formative forces in post-modern science. Ether can no longer be dismissed as metaphysical abstraction and unreliable clairvoyance. Lehrs Man or Matter is not the last word on ether; it is certainly a most wonderful first word. I recommend it over Wachsmuth’s, Etheric Formative Forces, which I would read second, not first.

A second result of Lehrs gentle touch is much of what is called “physics” today is shown to be “Naïve physics”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_physics

Lehrs suggests the following are also “Naïve physics:” “The Sun makes me hot;” and, “The diameter of this small ball of copper expands when heat is applied because the atoms are agitated and moving further apart.”

Our Naive scientist (inner three year old) likes simple “logical” explanations and is satisfied by over-simplified, naive ideas. This insight explains the origin of most superstition; such as, decaying meat directly causes-births house flies.

When our Conscious Waking Self goes along with naive conclusions, accepts naive explanations as the “final word,” we end up with dogma. which can take centuries to rectify. Lehrs politely suggests how many ideas of modern science, (1850-1950) are more similar to superstition. In the light of Goethean Holistic science theory and method, many of these dissolve and are transformed.

Q: How much progress has been made replacing more naive science ideas with more clear post-modern science ideas?

A: Not much. In 2018 we remain only at Day One of re-evaluating the naive conclusions of Natural Science in this new light. For those interested, the next step is an expanded science paradigm. This is the topic of the Three Sciences we use everyday.

The later sections of Man or Matter 3rd, on esoteric planetary and Hierarchy influences will interest only those already steeped in Rudolf Steiner’s esoteric Christianity.

= = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online:
http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net
http://blog.goetheanscience.net/?s=Three+Sciences+we+use+everyday+article
https://Plus.Google.com/+BruceDickson-healing-toolbox

 

The human being lives between gravity and levity, not gravity alone

BABY-SMILE-levityPlants demonstrate BOTH gravity and levity. This especially observable in seeds sprouting n the Earth.

The root shoots downward. Above ground the stems and leaves are drawn skyward.

Given this clear demonstration of TWO equal forces, in the birth of new terrestrial life, why do we think the human being is defined and bound by gravity alone?

We imagine human beings are defined and bound by gravity alone if we look at the human being with only our intellect.

Our intellect, “Man’s Presumptuous Mind,” is ‘gravity mind,’ our ‘death thinking.’

If we do not also view our life thru the wisdom of the heart, there is only “death is the end,” there can be no ‘resurrection thinking’ no Easter.

The human being is not bound by gravity alone.  Only the intellect believes this, perceives this way.  The human being lives BETWEEN gravity and levity.

Secret Life of Plants 117, Goethe section, inspired the above thinking.  Treat yourself to this chapter if you have not read it.  The whole book is online.  For paper copies try your library or AllBookStores.com for best price.

Written by Bruce Dickson