Psychological Logos and Psychological Eros and their inextricable link to ones perspective concerning the nature of reality

Document Sample
Psychological Logos and Psychological Eros and their inextricable link to ones perspective concerning the nature of reality Powered By Docstoc
					 Psychological Logos and Psychological Eros and their
  inextricable link to one’s perspective concerning the
                      nature of reality
                                    Paul Budding

Science has reached the individual level. Logos Science is (in some ways) catching
up with Eros Science. Logos Science is embracing implications of quantum theory
in some quarters. However, what is profoundly underestimated is psychology.
The vast majority (or at least the majority) of people are either absolutely set in
Logos consciousness or absolutely set in Eros consciousness. In modern western
culture and society, there is absolutely no doubt about it: The vast majority possess
an absolute Logos psychology. So for all the hope about progressive science we
should not delude ourselves that whatever progress is made… it will be a drop in
the ocean compared to the entrenched and hypnotic cultural Logos psychology
that is in control of the modern western individual. Thus psychology is sovereign
over philosophy. Philosophy is subordinate to psychology. Philosophical ideas
derive from Logos or Eros. It’s a case of “This is my experience hence this is my
psychology”. And let’s be honest, it is a case of… “This is what I was born into hence this
is how things are”. The BS (to use un-academic language)… is when people say that
they freely considered everything and perfectly neutrally came up with their view of
reality. That would make for an unbelievable coincidence of how China and India
possess different cultures to the west.
If we experience Logos consciousness then we will experience the world
differently to if we are in Eros consciousness and vice versa. Such a person cannot
understand Eros which is all a load of garbage from Logos perspective and vice
versa. Hence the experiences of Eros (e.g. synchronicities, precognition) are just
part of nature from this perspective. Both Eros and Logos are right in the sense
that they accurately explain their experience of reality. The psyche’s experience is
When a person who experiences reality through Logos consciousness experiences
an NDE they are FORCED into Eros consciousness. Hence they cannot deny
their experience. It throws their world upside down. Because from Eros
consciousness perspective, the NDE is part of nature. Normally Logos would only
really believe in phenomena such as the five senses and cause and effect.

Eros is the unconscious mind from the modern west’s viewpoint. Logos is the
conscious mind. This is because (as said) the vast majority of modern westerners
experience Logos consciousness. But because Eros is potentially possible, it is
there, usually or often deeply repressed, in the unconscious of the modern western
Eros consciousness has been successful in China and India and thus our western
Logos consciousness is not the only psychological way of being.
What I am saying here has implications for whether or not the experience of the
NDEr will ever be accepted in our culture. The answer is that an overall
paradigmatic consensus is out of the question. More positively of course, a
consensus is inevitable among a collective that experiences Eros consciousness.
Hence the NDE is just one of nature’s ingredients that belongs to the category of
‘Eros’. It is within the Eros context that the NDE is accepted. It is not a case of
‘can the NDE be accepted within Eros?’ It always is accepted within the Eros
In conclusion Logos consciousness and Eros consciousness live in different worlds
and are therefore psychologically incommensurable to one another.


I am not saying that Logos is good or bad or Eros is good or bad. Both seem to
have their advantages. At the collective level Logos consciousness eliminates
physical disease and enables longevity. Eros consciousness is greater for
psychological health.

LOGOS: Linear time, the 5 senses, cause and effect, technology.
EROS: Acausality, synchronicity, telepathy, precognition, NDE’s, OBE’s, Remote

                              AM I KUHNIAN?

I had Brain/Mind Separation and Materialism in mind when I
wrote this:
I am DEFINITELY Kuhnian in the sense that I refute that non-materialist
evidence can change minds. Of course there are one or two exceptions because
open minded and genuinely scientific scientists exist - - - but overwhelmingly the
scientific community agrees on what science is and no amount of evidence will
change that. (unfortunately). Kuhn understood the conservatism of science and
realized that it takes library loads of evidence to cause a revolution. Simply
applying the scientific method doesn't work at all. And to some extent I agree with
the conservatism. I do not think that science should be overturned as soon as a bit
of contradicting evidence is discovered. However that bit of evidence should result
in investigative experiments, studies designed to test the new theory and work out
whether it is true or not. What I do oppose is scientism. And scientism is
unfortunately the norm. Scientism is anti science because it is opposed to testing
and discovering reality that contradicts its ideology.

Wealth, power, status only makes the problem worse but it’s mainly their education
and training that closes their mind. Their status is just the icing on the cake. And...
they are born in the west so it’s a cultural problem. Had they been born in India
they may have a different view. This is worth saying because they think it’s a
coincidence that they think the way their culture does. But they all say that and it
must be wrong for most of them.


Firstly I need to define what I mean by ‘ultra-open-minded’ people. I mean those
that consider all possible imaginable scenario’s about the nature of reality… and
just go round in circles never supporting and never rejecting any of those imagined
worldviews. My perspective on those people is that they are absurd because they
are trying to get to absolute truth and that’s impossible. How would you know that
you had discovered it? There could be another layer of underlying reality and
another 100 layers underneath that and an infinite number of layers underneath
those 100. Therefore my position is to say that we are not interested in absolute
truth due to its impossibility of being discovered. What we are interested in is
knowledge for knowledge sake. So Gallileo discovered other planets and since then
we have realised that earth is not the centre of the universe. We do not have
absolute truth but we understand reality a little more than we once did.


Mind/Brain separation does not ‘prove’ the afterlife but it does suggest it, imply it,
makes it more likely. The reason why it makes it more likely is because Mind/Brain
separation would mean that Mind wasn’t physical. Hence why should non-physical
energy die? It’s easier to assume that the Mind would continue to exist rather than
perish. When the NDEr goes beyond the earthly OBE stage of the NDE and
experiences the afterlife… this component strongly suggests indefinite
continuation because if the early OBE stage was real (which it was because the
early stage is verifiable) then the later stage should be taken as real. However we
cannot get beyond non-eternity to say “he or she lived forever”. But we can clearly
see what the NDE is suggesting. Mind/Brain separation suggests eternal life but
does not prove it.


Re: Sam Parnia’s Aware Study: Sam Parnia has leaked it that the study has had hits.
Even if he hadn’t leaked this information I would still be convinced of positive
results given that Jung was talking about patients who had proven to medical staff
that they were conscious during near death in the 50s. Also the timing criticism is
easily answered by reminding dumbo that the OBE is all about timing. The
"chance" theory is also really dumb. The OBEr can thank the life saver later on. Is
it chance that they went up to the exact person and thanked the right person who
coincidentally looks identical to the person they saw in the OBE? Moreover the
Aware Study isn't culturally biased. This is my criticism of the sceptics. (sceptics are
really just western unconscious conformists). When they say "Chance coincidence"
I respond "Western bias". Anyone who doesn't believe in cultural bias lives on a
different planet to me. I assume that the sceptics think it’s a coincidence that they
think consistent with their culture. Now that's a "CHANCE" coincidence that I

don't buy into. The laws of probability refute it. The westernised sceptic says the
brain and mind are one. I say that we have had cameras across dozens of U.S. and
UK hospitals for 5 years that are about to prove that cultural conformity
assumption ‘wrong’. Not only do we now have 70 years of hearsay evidence
proving that wrong, we now have the scientific method proving that wrong.
There’s only one thing I will admit. The scientific method isn't really rated by
scientists. They hate non-western phenomena that falsifies their conformity. Hence
the Parnia Aware Study will get slaughtered precisely because it does falsify biased
western scientism. It’s a culture war that is to do with prejudice and bias dressed
up as being objective. That is why evidence is 100% pointless. (i.e. pointless
concerning changing minds. The only thing that changes minds is opening minds
in the first place).


Shared By:
Description: Pages 1-2: Psychological Logos and Psychological Eros and their inextricable link to one's perspective concerning the nature of reality. Pages 2-3: Am I Kuhnian? Pages 3-4: My Perspective on Ultra Open-Minded People. Page 4: Does Mind/Brain Separation 'prove' the afterlife? Pages 4-5: Supporting the Scientific Method and Opposing Scientism. Overall Word-count: 1,543. Free to Read.