faith
December 2008 
Z-Bate: Faith, Reason & The Four Quadrants (response 2)
Posted on Feb 8th, 2007
by 
~C4Chaos
~C4Chaos
(Here's my second riff on Z-Bate: Faith, Reason & The Four Quadrants)
On his second riff on this ongoing Z-Bate, Julian had expounded on the three basic eyes (or modes) of knowing: the eye of the flesh (empiricism), the eye of mind (rationalism), and the eye of contemplation (mysticism). Thanks to Julian for taking his sweet time to elaborate. It's good to know that we both agree with a lot of things.
Before I address some of our nuanced differences, I will briefly expound on the modes of knowing as it pertains to science. Science (or the scientific method) consists of the three strands of all valid knowledge: injunction (do this), apprehension (data), confirmation/rejection (validity or falsifiability of the knowledge). In order to be deemed "scientific" in their respective domains, each of the three basic modes of knowing should follow the three strands of knowledge when they make certain validity claims.
If a person want to claim the validity of the solar system, the person asks other people to look at the hubble telescope (injunction), which would yield observable data like sun, stars, trajectory of planetary motion, etc... (apprehension), which would then yield to the validation of the existence of the solar system (confirmation). This is an example of scientific method as applied through the eye of flesh (empiricism). Wilber calls this "narrow" science since it only deals with "reality" observable by the sensorimotor (e.g. the five senses and their extensions).
If a person want to claim the validity of String Theory, the person asks other people to check the equation via complex mathematics (injunction), which would yield proofs comprised of mathematical equations (apprehension), which would then yield to a consensus on the plausibility of the theory (confirmation). This is an example of scientific method as applied through the eye of mind (rational). Wilber calls this "broad" science since it deals with concepts like logic and mathematics which are not observable by the sensorimotor (e.g. we don't see E=MC(2) running around in the physical world, we don't "see" Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, we understand it through logic and philosophy.)
In mysticism, if a person want to claim the validity of God, The Transcendent, The Divine, Spirit, or however they call it, the person asks other people to practice meditation or contemplation, or ecstatic dancing, or take psychedelic substances (e.g. Shamanism), or other mind expanding tools or practices in their religious tradition (this is the injunction), this would yield to accounts of direct experiences of God or the Divine (apprehension), which would then yield to comparisons and evaluations of spiritual accounts (confirmation). The pass/fail criteria of the accounts are evaluated by the recognized "Masters" in the tradition. Similar to how professors evaluate the pass/fail criteria of university students. This is an example of scientific method as applied through the eye of contemplation (mysticism). Wilber classifies mysticism within the "broad" science since it deals with knowledge which is not disclosed by the sensorimotor or rational concepts like mathematics or logic. Hence, according to Wilber (and mystics of Wisdom traditions), we can't empirically or rationally "prove" God, or Spirit. So to the question, "Does God exist?", the technical answer is: mystical experience (e.g. satori in Zen).
Consider this: At the core of major religions are genuine mysticisms thought by the original founders and the rockstar mystics in their religious tradition--Buddha in Buddhism, St. Theresa of Avila in Christianity, Ramana Maharshi in Advaita Vedanta, Rumi in Islam, etc.
So, what does this tell us? This tells us that at the core of the major religions is the scientific method. And therein lies the "integration" of science and religion, at least according to Wilber, which I believe makes perfect sense.
Now back to riffing my response to Julian's call...
Julian says: "Now, i think we both agree that the kind of religious belief that Dawkins is attacking is not that which is based in any of the three sciences being discussed. Contemplative discipline is almost completely absent from faith-based, literal mythic belief as it is embraced by the vast majority of the world's population."
Exactly. I agree. The religious beliefs that Dawkins is attacking are those mythic beliefs (beliefs based on mythology and not on experiential knowledge brought by mysticism) that make validity claims which don't pass the three strands of knowledge of the scientific method. In short, there is no "evidence" for their claims when they are subjected to either narrow (empiricism) or broad science (mysticism).
"Dawkins is not addressing deep spiritual practice when he eviscerates religion. He is not doing so precisely because we have largely forgotten the eye of spirit, and religion as we know it is almost completely devoid of the eye of spirit - though remnants remain and are practiced by rare mystics and theologians whose beliefs do not look recognizably anything like those held by the vast majority of religious adherents today."
Exactly! Dawkins is not addressing deep spiritual practice when he eviscerates religion! That's why his approach is not only partial, it's less embracing. His reasoning is geared towards the destruction of religion, not integration with science! Why? Because he's a rational fundamentalist. I'm using that label because I believe it is fairly accurate description of Dawkins' approach. It's not a judgment on him as a person. It's a judgment on his approach. I'm just reflecting the name-calling he generously bellow upon the idiotic people who don't agree with him.
"James Randi is not attacking the eye of spirit when he debunks charlatans, nor is he doing anything genuinely spiritual any harm (as I know you agree) - for we are brought closer to an authentic experience of spirit by negating what it is demonstrably not."
Exactly. We also agree on this. James Randi is using the eye of flesh (empiricism) with the scientific method to debunk the "psychics" who make outrageous validity claims. But what happens is that because Randi is on the mainstream and gets the publicity, people believe that he is an authority on the paranormal. For example, Randi debunked Uri Geller's claim of telekinesis, therefore telekinesis is not real. But to me, what this proves is that Uri Geller's claim is bogus, but it doesn't necessarily make telekinesis bogus. Big difference.
My point is that, James Randi is a good debunker and a valuable skeptic, but he's not an authority on the scientific study of the paranormal or psi. There are hundreds of scientists and researchers who are scientifically studying and cataloging the accounts of extraordinary human functioning, as well as paranormal phenomena (e.g. ufos, ghost sightings) which science still has yet to satisfactorily explain.
"As you say, the vast majority of what passes for the psychic or paranormal is to the eye of mind again akin to what pulling a rabbit out of the hat is to the eye of flesh and what constructing a clever palindrome is to the eye of mind. Nothing more."
I was being partial when I said that. There exists a body of knowledge of the paranormal that have been investigated with the eye of flesh. In other words, the paranormal is as evident in the physical realm as well as the realm of the mind. Case in point: accounts of extraordinay human functioning (see Michael Murphy's The Future of the Body.) And as I mentioned before, I believe that direct mystical experience of the Divine, or Spirit, or God, requires some kind of paranormal functioning. Why? Because it's not "normal" (in our society) for people to go around having mystical experiences while swimming on Miami beach.
"Let me wrap up by agreeing with you - yes, there is cautious and conditional eye of flesh empirical proof for the existence of certain kinds of psi - but this in no way implies that we should be any less rigorous, or see this as carte blanch to “believe” naively in all manner of “possibilities.”"
I agree. But for "things" that are yet to be satisfactorily proven or disproven, I'd rather remain open and have an open-ended "belief".
"As far as what is plausible viz psi vs parallel universes - this is fun speculation (especially for theoretical physicists) but for the moment somewhat beside the point. It's possible that we are all inside a computer program called The Matrix and are actually being used as Duracell batteries for The Machines to feed off, and all of reality is actually a computer generated illusion….. KEWL!"
I specifically chose to cite the paranormal and parallel universes as reasonable examples, because there is evidence for them. For the paranormal, hundreds of research and meta-analysis prove the existence of psi. For parallel universes, there are mathematical proofs that suggest its possibility. Physicist are trying to prove this with the eye of flesh (empiricism) by recreating the big bang using particle accelerators.
The possibility of us being inside a computer program called the Matrix and are actually being used as Duracell batteries for The Machines to feed off and all of reality is actually a computer generated illusion is good science fiction, for now that is. Imagine a future where there is a machine which could feed us with all sensorimotor information (sight, touch, feel, hear, taste). When jacked into that machine, will you still be able to tell what reality is or you can only know the version of reality fed to you by the machine? Oh, wait, we're already jacked into a similar biological machine: the human body ;)
"The problem as I see it is that the reduction of any of the quadrants or modes of knowing can happen in any direction. Those who champion the subjective can deny the objective or claim foolishly that ALL of the so-called objective realm is inferior to/under the power of the subjective - The Secret anyone? On the other end, the rigid empiricists can claim that only the objective is real and all talk of subjective interiority is meaningless, unprovable and merely a product of superior things that are empirically measurable? Both are egregious mistakes."
Exactly. Mystics had participated in the reductionism game. For example, the Great Chain of Being was believed to be the explanation for all of reality, yet in the Four Quadrant model, it's only 1/4 of reality (the Upper-Left). The elegance of the Four Quadrant model is that it conceptually shows that there are different "types of truth." When "broad science" is applied applied to all four quadrants, each quadrant will reveal a different type of truth. Because each quadrant has different types of data: objective truth (behavioral), subjective truth (intentional), interobjective truth (social systems), intersubjective truth (cultural justness). To paraphrase Wilber, "one method many truths." That's Wilber's version of unity-in-diversity. And I believe it to be rightly so.
"The other problem is that (as you have pointed out) within each quadrant or mode of knowing there is actually a developmental process that reveals discrete levels of depth that have access to more complete understandings of the truth being accessed through that “eye.”"
Yes. However the "developmental process" is rarely, or not even, addressed by Dawkins, or Sam Harris, in their critique of mythic religious beliefs.
"You are right, Dawkins does not understand this, nor does he claim to - his critique would benefit greatly from the addition of some Integral/SD nuance - but that's where we come into the picture! However, as much as it would be enhanced by them, his critique is not refuted one iota by Integral Theory or Spiral Dynamics."
Exactly. Dawkins critique of mythic religion is just as poignant as Wilber's critique on premodern spirituality and mythical religious beliefs (see The Marriage of Sense and Soul). To me, they both make perfect sense. Those two look more like allies in a crusade to champion reason over blind faith.
However, Dawkins has not clearly differentiated religion (e.g. mythic beliefs vs. mysticism) because of his ignorance (or maybe he just doesn't care) of mystical traditions. Hence, his pronouncement that God is a delusion, is his own delusion.
Dawkins' approach is not integrative. It's divisive. His purpose is not to "integrate" science and religion. His purpose is to destroy religion in favor of science.
Wilber's approach goes much much further. He seeks a true integration more embracing than what Dawkins had ever articulated using his rational approach. Sadly, Dawkins' God Delusion sold more copies (and still on the New York Times bestseller list as of this writing) than Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Soul. Rightly so, because Dawkins has the intellectual balls to go out in public and bask in the limelight of the mainstream. Wilber could learn a thing or two from Dawkins when it comes to advancing his "integral" agenda.
"Lastly, i have said elsewhere that I find Dawkins to be quite in awe of the natural world and that his expression of spirituality lies in his reverence for evolution, humanity and reality itself - here he is reading from his most recent book. Skip ahead to about 4:10 to hear what I mean. Also, notice his beautiful distinction between “supernatural religion” and “Einsteinian religion.”
If that's the case, then Dawkins "awe of the natural world" spirituality is his religion with the story of Darwinian evolution as its mythology. Note that I'm using the word "mythology" in a loose sense to illicit a dramatic effect. I'm not saying that Darwinian evolution is a myth. But that Darwinian evolution is only one of the theories of evolution. And yet Dawkins seems to be clinging to it like it's the story of everything.
And finally, here's a video of Ken Wilber eloquently talking about the three strands of deep science. If only Ken Wilber would be willing to participate (or be invited) in debates such as the Beyond Belief Conference. Ah well...
Ken Wilber - Spirituality and the 3 Strands of Deep Science
Bottomline: It seems like our "disagreements" are very superficial at this point. I think we've already addressed the topic of "reason" in this Z-Bate. The next topic for exploration is "faith." So allow me to leave you with these questions:
-- How do you define faith?
-- How does faith fit in our understanding of reality?
-- Does faith help in our psychological or spiritual transformation?
-- Are we putting too much faith on the Four Quadrant and Ken Wilber?
And this bluesy music continues to play...
Access: PublicTagged with: Ken Wilber, Richard Dawkins, religion, spirituality, science, Z-Bate, videos, Youtube, faith
C very well articulated especially in regards to the sciences of narrow and broad. excellent.
C4? Julian? This has been a treat so far.
I just wanted to throw in my 0.02 - more in Julian's direction than yours - which I'd posted as well to an I-I pod.
The scientific rationalism to which you both subscribe depends on the assumption (taken on faith!) that the universe is, in fact, a rational place. While the scientific method might be a useful tool (certainly I've found it to be such!), at some level it too must be merely believed: after all, there's no way to 'prove' the scientific method.
I, personally, do not believe - based in part of my own experiences - that the universe is a rational place. Obviously, rationality is applicable in certain domains, but even science has provided us with indications that reality is in many ways more irrational and paradoxical than not. In any case, there is no 'universal reason' - or at least, it's impossible to say that such a thing exists. Human reason is a product of the human brain, itself a product of the (irrational) forces of evolution, and is apparently applicable within the - perhaps limited - domain of our embodied existence. Though we all possess bodies and thus can all, usually, use such reason to come to agreement about the world “out there,” this by no means proves that the world “out there” is rational. (In fact, Gödel demonstrated that even in mathematics, there are things which reason cannot show to be true or false; thus, the very basis of rationality much be taken on faith to be true, as reason itself cannot be proven by reason.)
So while I think it's useful to, in certain contexts, limit oneself to a scientific understanding of the universe – be it through the eye of flesh or mind or spirit, or however you want to articulate these things – I also think this approach leaves out a lot. There are a few more things, Horatio, on heaven and earth. ;)
But ~C? You finish with some excellent questions. I can't wait to see where this is going.
backatcha blues brother!
and peace out - it's been really fun and engaging…
gracious graciases
I posted a question on Julian's follow-up entry, but maybe you are the one with the answer, ~C4…
Where did the term “injunction” come from in reference to the three ways of knowing? Is this a common term in scientific circles, and means something very different than the legal (and my dictionary) definition of “being forced to stop doing something”?
This is probably the best critique of Dawkins I've ever read.
Siona
“The scientific rationalism to which you both subscribe depends on the assumption (taken on faith!) that the universe is, in fact, a rational place”
firstly, the universe is neither rational nor irrational - those characteristics refer exclusively to a specific function of consciousness.
“While the scientific method might be a useful tool (certainly I’ve found it to be such!), at some level it too must be merely believed: after all, there’s no way to ‘prove’ the scientific method.”
a method cannot be “proven” - only it’s usefulness and validity in a given situation.
“I, personally, do not believe - based in part of my own experiences - that the universe is a rational place.”
the universe is what it is. if we fail to apprehend it accurately, that is human error. the universe most certainly is entirely consistent with itself… our inability to explain it entirely bears no relation to its nature.
“Obviously, rationality is applicable in certain domains,”
why “obviously” when you exclude certain other domains from it’s application, and without naming them? and which “domains” are those from which rationality is exiled? and why?
“but even science has provided us with indications that reality is in many ways more irrational and paradoxical than not”
good science is only the messenger. that’s it’s job - it’s a dumb waiter ideally, bringing up intellectual food from the depths of the unknown (the celestial kitchen). p.s. that was a metaphor ; )
“In any case, there is no ‘universal reason’ - or at least, it’s impossible to say that such a thing exists.”
it is not logically impossible to say, it is however unnecessary. reason can (and should) be applied to any and every situation - and it’s always the same thing - a specific function of consciousness whereby experience (however weird) is integrated in a non-contradictory manner. the parameters upon which reason operates are wholly situation dependent. reason itself is by its nature universal.
“Human reason is a product of the human brain, itself a product of the (irrational) forces of evolution”
even if evolution were “irrational” (see above), that bears no relation to the validity or functionality of any its products, including reason. birds’ wings were also produced by the forces of evolution, they work fine. the use of reason is often somewhat “fluffy” however, much like young birds’ wings…
“and is apparently applicable within the - perhaps limited - domain of our embodied existence.”
if you can tell me what that means, I’ll be grateful for the elucidation.
“Though we all possess bodies and thus can all, usually, use such reason to come to agreement about the world “out there,†this by no means proves that the world “out there†is rational.”
see above. what is, is.
“(In fact, Gödel demonstrated that even in mathematics, there are things which reason cannot show to be true or false;”
the conclusions reached by the proper application of reason when applied with incomplete or inaccurate data/premises are compromised to the extent that the data/premises is inaccurate or incomplete. with greater accuracy and data, reason would supply more accurate conclusions.
gödel’s a priori proof of the existence of god I find delightful, and reminds me of some of the “proofs” I see for various other imaginary creations. it should be noted that gödel’s theorems only apply to systems that are used as their own proof systems. citing him here is not appropriate in the context of the universality of the application of reason.
“thus, the very basis of rationality much be taken on faith to be true, as reason itself cannot be proven by reason.)”
reason is a function. the notion of a function proving itself has no meaning grammatically or logically. the use of the word “thus” can furthermore be regarded as inappropriate, since the preceding statement is erroneous.
“So while I think it’s useful to, in certain contexts, limit oneself to a scientific understanding of the universe ”
science merely continues rational enquiry in a specific way. reason allows for everything that is - including fairies at the bottom of the garden, if they in fact were to be shown to exist. the whole pejorative language of “narrow” science or “limit oneself to a scientific understanding” I find somewhat inappropriate, and based on mistaken premises.
“– be it through the eye of flesh or mind or spirit, or however you want to articulate these things – I also think this approach leaves out a lot. There are a few more things, Horatio, on heaven and earth. ;)”
prove it or remove it, or file under “unknown”
the whole eye of… concept is based on numerous logical fallacies and false assumptions. watch this space.
no intention to single you out here Siona, it’s just that I see a lot of rather fluffy deductive reasoning going on on this site, and your comment happened to be a bite-sized post-dinner mind snack. I’ll be commenting on the whole Zbate shortly (and starting my own if I get the time - well done Julian for such a marvellous idea).
“But ~C? You finish with some excellent questions. I can’t wait to see where this is going.”
hopefully in a more objective direction than it has been thus far… if anyone would care to refine or point out any inconsistencies in my comments, please do so. thanks in advance. A
Hee. Glad to be of service, and I'm glad Julian has another advocate for rationalism on his team. :) But well played, elektroglide! That's a brilliant opening, and you're right; I agree. Neither rational nor irrational is a much more accurate way to put it . And I wholly agree with you on the whole “eye of” note you end on. You've got a delightfully pragmatic perspective. Again, well said.
I will, though, go on record as saying that I have no problem with paradox and inconsistency (if you have any in your comments, kudos to you :) and contradiction, and I believe the universe - and reality - is fundamentally paradoxical. Reason is hard-pressed to deal with ambiguity and equivocation. I think it's a valuable and necessary tool for getting to such a place, but there are, it seems to me, limits.
(And, as an aside, what I meant by the embodiment of reason was that the structures of our bodies and brains limit the literal concepts we're capable of forming. These concepts – which come from our direct apprehension of the world – can be, and are, used as the basis of abstract concepts. Nonetheless, our reasoning is wholly dependent on the unconscious use of metaphors, which themselves are dependent on embodied selves. This is why I'm not sure it makes sense to speak of reason as universal.)
What do you consider reasonable? What do you consider real?
hi Siona
wow! that was a quick comeback. man, this site is jumpin’!!!
“Hee. Glad to be of service, and I’m glad Julian has another advocate for rationalism on his team. :)”
haha - I’ll be picking up some loose ends soon with J I noticed a few months back, not to mention some more recent peccadillos. I’m not on his team, I’m hoping he’ll be on mine soon : ), or rather that we’re all on the same team asap. there are reasons why I think his particular worldview is very relevant to the future intellectual direction of zaadz in particular and the “spiritual community” in general.
anyway, you people are so nice!!! time for some more confrontational debating though - gets things moving right along. we’ve got everything to play for and the clock’s ticking…
” But well played, elektroglide! That’s a brilliant opening, and you’re right; I agree. Neither rational nor irrational is a much more accurate way to put it . And I wholly agree with you on the whole “eye of†note you end on. You’ve got a delightfully pragmatic perspective. Again, well said.”
thanks for the very kind comments, it’s just that there is sooooo much use of the language of reason and logic on this site to justify deductive arguments (ie decide something is a certain way, then building the “proof” later…) about things which are a) unprovable and b) so subject to mental distortion as to be effectively useless c) approaching the ineffable. I see a whole lot of really nice people writing on this site basically living out rich imaginations with lots of compassion, but not overtaxing their minds with accuracy… and while there are doubtless great deeds being done every day by zaadz, I do wonder about how those inaccuracies actually play out in the real world. I mean, we’re supposed to be the good guys right? hmmm… what was that saying about “good intentions” again?
“I will, though, go on record as saying that I have no problem with paradox and contradiction, and I believe the universe - and reality - is fundamentally paradoxical.”
even if it were paradoxical (and the _appearance_ of paradox doesn’t in fact necessitate contradiction) it doesn’t obviate the conscientious use of reason to the utmost of our abilities. we’re living on a real planet in a real mess. dream on, or think on… our choice, every moment of every day. yes, paradoxes do in fact exist, but a paradox is a phenomenon of logic, not of physical existence.
anyway - in what way is the universe paradoxical?
“Reason is hard-pressed to deal with ambiguity and equivocation.
what isn’t??? and if reason isn’t used to clarify those, what is??? not all things make sense at the time, but I do not think that there is _no_ sense to them which can be discovered.
” I think it’s a valuable and necessary tool for getting to such a place, but there are, it seems to me, limits.”
for sure, but within the limits of what we’ve got - emotion, sensory input, intuition, expansive states of consciousness etc (in other words all human faculties) - reason is (or should be) the ultimate arbiter, the adult, the decision maker, that which overviews all else in consciousness. by that I do not imply that one should be operating at optimum reasoning at all times eg during wild sex, but reason would suggest with whom, where, how that sex takes place, based on emotions, situation, etc etc. (just to head off any notions that I am in fact a robot ; )
“(And, as an aside, what I meant by the embodiment of reason was that the structures of our bodies and brains limit the literal concepts we’re capable of forming.”
haha - in mystical circles throughout recorded history, I see no apparent limit to what human beings can both conjure up and then believe in literally!
” Nonetheless, our reasoning is wholly dependent on the unconscious use of metaphors,”
hmmm - i’d be curious to know where that statement comes from, and why you consider it accurate.
” This is why I’m not sure it makes sense to speak of reason as universal.)”
I don’t mean universal as in existing everywhere as a law to which all that is must comply. I mean that reason is universally _applicable_
“What do you consider reasonable?”
great quote from ben franklin: so convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to …
I differentiate strongly between reason and reasonableness - the latter is a feeling of acceptabliity for action or inaction, belief or disbelief, based on an arbitrary set of justifications (“reasons”) which need have no basis or consistency in reality.
“What do you consider real?”
what I consider real is everything that reason tells me exists i.e. is a _thing_.
reason tells me that that which I perceive with my senses and consciousness is at least a sensory phenomenon (that is a thing, albeit spiritual rather than material), and if my senses also convey information which cause me to believe that they are sufficiently accurate in their perception, then I consider that thing to be real outside of my cognition, and open to verification by further enquiry or testing.
in other words, I consider as real everything that _is_. I consider unreal those things which are imagined as real, but which do not in fact exist outside of the imagination (although that imagined thing is itself a spiritual “thing”). a dream is real, a thought is real, a wish is real, a fantasy is real… but that which is imagined/dreamed/thought exists only in my consciousness. if it were proven beyond _reasonable_ doubt that those things had a _direct_ physical correlate, then I would regard those as real also. it’s pretty simple really… prove it or remove it.
if I have a tendency to romantically imagine that a higher power is guiding my every action, then that tendency is real, that romanticism is real, that imagination is real, but the higher power is not real (unless proven otherwise).
I’ve been away a while, but I do have a yen to encourage more consistent reasoning on this site with a view to developing a more effective community. I think it’s our responsibility. that’s a lot of mental horsepower tied up in metatron/reincarnation/suchness-knowingness belief systems which could be used to point people to the beauty and joy of life as we _already_ _know_ it without putting a fancy hat on it and calling it something it almost certainly isn’t…
ciao 4 now
p.s. I suppose I should network more. I’ll send you a friend request. all I ask is that you use all of your processing ability (reason, feelings, intuition, body) to evaluate how valid my comments are, and if you find your own views to be less valid, that you change them, or find consistent grounds for not doing so! I think it’s important. the problems we are engaged in globally are conceptual ones, with physical side effects. every true voice counts.
What I came up with the other day was that it seemed like the only realistic way to live my life is to be fully open to and observing of the Universe/reality/existence, and to act in a way that corresponds with what I have been able to understand about how things work, up to this point in time. And whenever I discover some new evidence of something I will try to encorporate that knowledge into my actions, changing my theories whenever they no longer appear to work well for me.
In other words, I live my life as a scientist. And I can't imagine any other way to live.
nor can I.
I like the way you put it… hmmm, it’s quite encouraging to find a straightforward reality-oriented worldview on this site. I like on your zaadz page that you cite rocks and trees - and bicycles - as interests… rock on !!!
you have a headstart, because your goal is to live life in a realistic way. what really _blows my mind_ is the willingness of most of the human population to live according to belief systems which betray their own minds and reason. then again, I (and presumably you too) was born into a culture which encouraged - at least to a degree - independent and critical thinking.
the question is, what psychodynamics must be present in order for someone to voluntarily adopt mystical beliefs in the absence of clear evidence? I can speculate on some likely candidates that a psychologist may be able to verify…
apologies to C4, we appear to have appropriated your blog! I’ll get the hang of the protocol soon, promise!