Emissaries of Divine Light: Pathway to Spiritual Awakening

Having said that you come to outline it, that truly is at the heart of it - the internal clock gets re-wound and starts once again with a a lot more healthy and happier heart.

The Convergence

Science is a perception method. It is a remarkably successful 1, but a belief method nevertheless. Yet, the direction of physics, psychology and metaphysics all seem to be to be converging on 1 comprehending of what is explained variously in these disparate disciplines as a unified discipline, the collective consciousness (or collective unconscious), Unity, Wholeness, Floor of Becoming, the Absolute or 'God.' Just pick your term.

The question that this points to is why a belief system steeped in the rigors of the scientific technique - with the incumbent necessity to have its "laws" and "theories" make verifiable predictions that will produce 'objective' and repeatable results - need to be pointing towards basically the same conclusion, albeit in diverse terms, as the far 'mushier' social sciences and metaphysics do: that the all (or 'All') is One, and in it "we stay and transfer and have our getting." (Acts 17:28)

Two conclusions look apparent: First, that we just have a simple affinity, even with our egoic and inherently dualistic self-consciousness, with the numeral 'one' as the most fundamental unit of calculation (the idea of "nil" or "zero" came along much later on) or, that we seriously are integral sections of an undivided 'wholeness' or universal subject. So, for this reason, let us transfer rapidly to analyze the latter for an explanation of why scientists, psychologists and philosophers all appear to be scratching the surface of the identical issue.

The Resistance

Certainly the most influential guide of the previous an individual hundred ages discussing just what modern science 'is' and how the method (and progress) of modern day science 'works' is Thomas Kuhn's "The Construction of Scientific Revolutions."

Kuhn's essential thesis is that science arrives to take a 'paradigm' that explains and accounts for the observations that scientists have manufactured to that position in time and the experiments they have operate to confirm their theories about just "what" is "what." A paradigm is thus basically the prevailing "belief system" in the greater "perception system" of science.

Kuhn asserts that a dominant paradigm will continue to be rigid until finally somebody notices an "anomaly," or 'result' which the paradigmatic theory does not and can't demonstrate, even hypothetically. At that stage - and quite usually it is the very same particular person who very first spots the anomaly - some theorist arrives along with a new concept or belief process that can and does reveal the 'results' which the prior paradigm could not.

The "ordinary scientists" in lab coats - all those charged with 'fleshing out' the older scientific paradigm and pinpointing its intricacies, somewhat than sweeping it absent with a theoretical flourish - are most commonly opposed to and suspicious of the new paradigm at 1st. Nevertheless, in time as the new paradigm is recognized and tested, and its predictions are established to be correct experimentally, each foremost and mainstream scientists will sooner or later come to a consensus in favor of it. The new 'theory' or 'belief system' is progressively adopted and the outdated idea falls by the scientific wayside as a 'new paradigm' is born. A very good instance of this practice (and a person utilized, not astonishingly, by Kuhn himself) is how Einstein's theory of relativity superseded Newton's "classical" theories of optics, motion and gravity.