Sign in to follow this  
Scot

All we have are models

2 posts in this topic

All we have are models

When we use our eyes and look out at the world,  we see objects like people, cars, building, plants, animals, rocks.  And maybe we pick up a rock and it feels solid and heavy.  The way a rock feels in our hand correlates to the way it looks with our eyes.  Sight, sound, touch, smell and taste all work together and corroborate with each other and seem to prove that we experience objective reality.  And in that reality, objects seem to be separate.

But on the other hand, certain spiritual traditions tell us that this apparent reality is just an illusion.  Separateness is an illusion.  My understanding is that if or when we achieve a transcendent state of consciousness we perceive a oneness of all that is.   This oneness is sometimes described as an ocean of energy.  We are just waves on the ocean.  All things are waves on the ocean.   Sometimes this oneness is described as Source.   I am saying that Source is just a term some people use to explain the perception of connection and oneness.  So, yes I am saying that Source is a model.  

But on the other hand, what I tried to describe as objective reality above is just a model too.  Information from our senses travel along nerves to our brains.  Our brains receive those signals and put together the picture that we accept as our reality.  Our normal waking consciousness perceives reality a certain way and we accept it as true or we reject that reality as accept Source as the truth.

  I say either way we don't have Truth at all.  All we have are models.   Models are not "truth".  The question is not whether a model is "true".   The question is whether a model is "valid".  When it comes to describing the physical world, the scientific objective model does extremely well.  When it comes to describing spiritual experiences the Source model does extremely well.

All models may be flawed.  Some models are useful.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there is no full objectivity possible . The scientific model you refer to only appears to be describing the physical world with "accuracy" because we've forgotten how belief and perception create reality, therefore we create that "accuracy" with our own specific beliefs. Objective scientific observation is a nice ideal but ultimately it is subject to perception and belief just like any other form of measurement - plus, there is no consensus over what is or isn't scientific. Many people would consider everything you've just said to be completely invalid scientifically because it dares to consider non-3D factors; some people consider any venture into non-3D thought to be entirely unscientific by default. It seems strange to try and measure the physical world separately to any other dimension - science that can only operate on that level is small limited science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this