WildFlower - Alpha Male Subliminal

[WildFlower]

I haven't studied homeopathic stuff - I have less than an hour's worth of research into the subject under my belt - but I can say this. Science attempts to force all things to be validated through one way of thinking: logic. And many times, faulty logic. While logic is wonderful for understanding things, there are things that logic cannot and will not ever be able to understand, scrutinize or explain, which are quite valid. I'll ask a scientist for a definition of life - simple question, right? What is life? But science can't explain it, may never be able to, because "life" exists outside of the limited arena that logic alone can (currently) perceive.

Another example. Ask a scientist what the difference between the brain and the mind is. They don't know. They may give an answer that sounds pretty absolute and confident, but they don't know. And how do you explain a lot of things that are beyond logic alone to explain? Logically focused thinkers try - naturally - to understand everything through logic alone. We don't have one single brain though; we have two. One that specializes in logic, and one that specializes in emotion and intuition. I believe we have those two hemispheres of the brain because they are both necessary to have a complete view of the world around us.

It is my belief that science will never advance to true whole understanding of the world around us until we discover the "mathematics" (for want of a better word) that marries logic with - what to call it? Emotion? Illogic? Intuition? - which will finally allow us to explain these things.

That is to say... when you only have a left eye, anyone who sees something through a right eye will appear to be hallucinating (read: placebo effect).

I think that if scientists and "logical thinkers" would stop insisting that they already know everything, they might get somewhere. Instead they refuse to see what is there in a lot of cases simply because it does not conform to their rigid view of what is possible. Which leads us to "That can't be possible because if it is, my comfortable orderly view of the world might be wrong... and if it's wrong, then everything I know might need re-thinking... and that's just too (much work) (scary) whatever".

Not all scientists think like this... but there are plenty of them.

There are lots of things that work for lots of people, which science can't explain, and therefore simply tries to stonewall and ridicule out of existence.

As for Stage 4... you, sir, are a brilliant example of a perceptive user of my subliminals. lol Bravo again!

I couldn't agree more.

As a child, and to this day, I've always had massive, massive respect and awe for nature; both at the biological level here on earth and on the level of the entire cosmos. The natural world just fascinated me. This meant I was heavily into science and I put all my faith in it. I believed that science had all the answers but that I didn't have the mind to appreciate those answers. A few years ago I had a shift in thinking, realised science doesn't have all the answers, and no longer put science on the pedestal I once did. I've just finished reading Bill Brysons, "a history of nearly everything", and wow, it's true we know hardly anything. I still read a lot of science books and magazines, but I now see science as just one of many sources of knowledge.

Like you said, reasoning based on logic is the foundation of science. Logic is a very valid way of examining things but it does have it's limitations. By it's very nature - self-confessed nature - logic is purely about reductionism. It is very good at cutting reality up into little pieces and then describing how, individually, each of those pieces behaves. What logic is not very good at, is seeing and describing things as a totality. Reductionism - and therefore logic - can never explain totality, only the parts that make totality. Logic creates jigsaw pieces.

The greatest scientists, are the greatest scientists because they have always been able to combine the logical aspects of pure mathematics and physics with more unique, less tangible ways of seeing and explaining things. I don't think there is a word for that, maybe you could call it 'trans-logic'? Logic not subject to reductionism. Newton loved science only second to alchemy, which was completely rejected by science at the time. Likewise, his scientific ideas where also rejected. Einstein is another example. His paper on special relatively was almost bare of mathematics. Relatively was essentially an idea or a thought (and not one you could reach using logic alone) that he later developed more mathematically as general relativity.

My own, personal experiences on, Pheromones, Subliminals, Spirituality and Zen meditation seem to contradict scientific opinion. I've grown to become comfortable with that but I'm sure it would be easy to disregard and dismiss me as a delusional, new-ager. Science is supposed to be impartial and non-biased but it seems more and more that it is becoming overly rational, and closed minded in the process.