What's new

The New Paradigm

lexmark

Patron with Honors
I have received some critical comments about some of my posts saying they are too long and I should not copy and paste from other articles. The reason why I did this is to present another view. Continuous criticizing of Scientology and Miscavige in particular is like water off a ducks back. The basis of Scientology is about spirituality and a belief that you are an immortal spirit. Whether you like it or not it places Scientology in the category of a religion. Definition of a religion: Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Many of you would like to see the destruction of Scientology but this will not happen unless you can prove that it a fake or a fraud or whatever. Therefore, some sort of alternate doctrine needs to be presented in order to compare Scientology to. Of late science has entered the field of spirituality and a new science is currently being developed by scientists based on spirituality. Many books and papers have been published on the subject. I have presented a “New World View” in a previous article that I pasted on this site. There is quite an amount of scientific writings that is presenting the future of our world and don’t confuse it with “new age” literature; that comes from people who use the scientific findings to do their writings.

Much of the negative stuff occurring on our planet today such as war, global warming, terrorism, economic catastrophes, Gulf oil spills etc. is being addressed by the new science. It addresses subjects such as the human spirit, nature, life, economics, healing, the universe and many other similar subjects.

Around 4 hundred years ago we saw the birth of modern science. It was a major “paradigm shift”. It handled everything to do with the physical nature of the universe and brought about great discoveries that made life easier in many respects but it also brought about the philosophy of materialism and denied the human spirit. Four centuries later saw some major discoveries resulting in a new science, one that can address the nature of the human spirit and of God a ”New Paradigm shift”.

Scientolgy's disconnection policy and similar practices are part of the old paradigm and needs to be discontinued. Much of the writings of LRH, but not all, are based on materialism.

Embracing the "New Paradigm" is a step in handling the evils of Scientology.

Travers Harris
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Thanks for the personal commentary, Travers. :)

I agree that Scn, at face value, addresses man as a spiritual being and that should entitle Scn to be a religion. When the hidden aspects of the subject come to view (See ESMB thread on Ambry's "The Scientological Onion"), and the CofS gets into the act with its routine business practices of extortion and financial pillage and rape, that designation becomes a little iffy.

Many, most, if not all, of the people here want to see the end of the abuses of the CofS. Some want to see the end of Scientology (the subject) as well, but I consider that an extreme view.

You are talking about "the New Paradigm" and "a new science" based on spirituality. I see a naming problem here. I understand the idea of Goswami's published views of life, which some scientists and some non-scientists may support, being pushed by supporters. Is there really a new science? Isn't it really just Goswamism?

Paul
 

lexmark

Patron with Honors
New Paradigm

Scientology can hide behind their status of a religion and commit their evil acts and somehow hide them behind their status.

400 years ago when we had the birth of modern science and a new world view or paradigm it was presented by a single scientist followed by another and another untill today all scientists follow that original paradigm thus presenting a "new world view" in which politics, science, medicine & economics base their philosophies. Goswami is but one presenting the new paradigm but there are others such as Dr, Fred Alan Wolf who are basing their research on earlier scientists including Einstein and a few others. It appears to be a chain reaction but who knows what our world will be like in say a 100 years time based on the new science.
 
Scientology can hide behind their status of a religion and commit their evil acts and somehow hide them behind their status.

400 years ago when we had the birth of modern science and a new world view or paradigm it was presented by a single scientist followed by another and another untill today all scientists follow that original paradigm thus presenting a "new world view" in which politics, science, medicine & economics base their philosophies. Goswami is but one presenting the new paradigm but there are others such as Dr, Fred Alan Wolf who are basing their research on earlier scientists including Einstein and a few others. It appears to be a chain reaction but who knows what our world will be like in say a 100 years time based on the new science.

I think you are confusing a hypothesis with a paradigm. What you are saying is not a paradigm in science.

You can call it that and promote it as such, but it isn't a scientific paradigm.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
There's this Goswami guy, and this Wolf guy, and apparently they hold doctoral degrees and some kind of legitimate scientific credentials. Okay.

Thing is: there are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of trained scientists in the world. Very, very few of them believe anything like this 'new paradigm'. And among the very many others, you can find one or two outlying individuals who support practically anything.

So, not only is there essentially no scientific support, proportionally speaking, for this great new paradigm; there is also just as much support for many other contradictory viewpoints, as there is for what Goswami and Wolf are saying.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. Just, don't hold your breath waiting for this new paradigm to sweep across the scientific world like a tsunami. That just isn't happening, at all.
 

lexmark

Patron with Honors
I think you are confusing a hypothesis with a paradigm. What you are saying is not a paradigm in science.

You can call it that and promote it as such, but it isn't a scientific paradigm.

The Anabaptist Jacques

The paradigm presented four hundred years ago was that "Matter Is The Ground Of All Being" the new paradigm is "Consciousness Is The Ground of All Being".

Your politics, medical science, economics, and more are based on the old paradigm.

These paradigms were presented by scientists of the day. Ample proof exists in scientific literature and can even be Googled
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
The paradigm presented four hundred years ago was that "Matter Is The Ground Of All Being"; the new paradigm is "Consciousness Is The Ground of All Being".

One last try then I'm outta here.

You are being a PR man. You are postulating a hoped-for reality, not stating an objective fact. There's nothing at all wrong in postulating a future reality, but you will have trouble in your own life if you can't see the difference and trouble on ESMB if you smush the two together.

Paul
 
The paradigm presented four hundred years ago was that "Matter Is The Ground Of All Being" the new paradigm is "Consciousness Is The Ground of All Being".

Your politics, medical science, economics, and more are based on the old paradigm.

These paradigms were presented by scientists of the day. Ample proof exists in scientific literature and can even be Googled

I don't think you really understand what a scientific paradigm is. The term was first used by by Thomas S. Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

You are using it as a broad general hypothesis. That is not what it means.

And by the way "Matter Is The Ground Of All Being" was most certainly NOT the paradigm of Frances Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, et al.

I understand your passion for your hypothesis, but it is not a scientific paradigm, and you are very much mistaken about the paradigm of the founders of modern science.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

J. Swift

Patron with Honors
"Many of you would like to see the destruction of Scientology but this will not happen unless you can prove that it a fake or a fraud or whatever."

Lexmark, Scientology does almost 100% of the work in destroying itself. CoS is self-destructive. In any case, the courts, critics, and the media have amply proven that CoS is an evil, greedy, and corrupt enterprise masquerading as a religion. Therefore, according to your criteria, critics have proven that CoS is both a fake and fraud embodied in a malicious and deranged series of pseudo-religious fascist organizations.

3. You wrote:

Of late science has entered the field of spirituality and a new science is currently being developed by scientists based on spirituality.

This is not correct. Science and spirituality are different domains and cannot be unified. Perhaps you are referring to popular books that examine conceptual similarities between ancient Hindu descriptions of cosmology and modern quantum mechanics and Big Bang cosmology.

*****
The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould articularted his notion of Non-Overlapping Magisteria, or NOMA, as a way to approach Science and Religion:

In an 1997 essay "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" for "Natural History" magazine, and later in his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion." He draws the term magisterium from Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis (1950), and defines it as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution", and describes the NOMA principle as "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

/////
 

themadhair

Patron Meritorious
Science and spirituality are different domains and cannot be unified.
Reiterating a point posted elsewhere on this board since it emphasises just how large the disconnect is between the above.

At heart of science is a concept called methodological naturalism. This is the recognition that science can only test what exists, can only test what is tangible, can only test what exists in the natural world.

The concept of spirituality varies greatly from person to person, but in the manner Lexmark is using it incorporates aspects of the metaphysical and the supernatural.

Think about this. How can science be used to examine spirituality in practice when such is almost forbidden by very definition?
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Think about this. How can science be used to examine spirituality in practice when such is almost forbidden by very definition?

I've thought about it.

How about the researches of Dr. Michael Newton? He used hypnotism on over 7,000 cases to explore and map the Between-Lives world. He used open-ended questions, not leading questions, and discovered (to his initial huge surprise) a remarkable similarity in the answers. This was before he had published any of his books and people did not know what exactly to expect, and had many different cultural backgrounds (confirmed atheist, Christian, Muslim etc.). Yet their non-suggested answers were very similar.

This is the fact that makes his research so compelling to me.

Paul
 

lexmark

Patron with Honors
Reiterating a point posted elsewhere on this board since it emphasises just how large the disconnect is between the above.

At heart of science is a concept called methodological naturalism. This is the recognition that science can only test what exists, can only test what is tangible, can only test what exists in the natural world.

The concept of spirituality varies greatly from person to person, but in the manner Lexmark is using it incorporates aspects of the metaphysical and the supernatural.

Think about this. How can science be used to examine spirituality in practice when such is almost forbidden by very definition?

Firstly do not confuse spirituality with religion. Spirituality could be synomous with consciousness.

Secondly it appears that experiments can be done into what was previously considered the unknown or the metaphysical. Example: Below by 3 scientists.

We Create Our Own Reality, But . . .

It was in the nineteen seventies that the physicist Fred Alan Wolf created the evocative phrase “we create our own reality.” The images the phrase evoked led, however, to many disappointments. Some people tried to manifest Cadillacs, others vegetable gardens in desert environments, and still others at least parking spaces for their cars in busy downtown areas. Everybody was inspired by the idea of quantum creation of reality, no doubt, but the attempts of creation produced a mixed bag of results because the would-be-creators were unaware of a subtlety.
We create our own reality through quantum collapse involved in making an observation, but there is a subtlety in consciousness. We do not create reality in our ordinary state of consciousness, but in a non-ordinary state of consciousness. This becomes clear when you ponder the paradox of Wigner’s friend. Eugene Wigner was the Nobel laureate physicist who first thought of the paradox.
Imagine that Wigner is approaching a quantum traffic light with two possibilities, red and green; at the same time his friend is approaching the same light from the perpendicular road. Being busy Americans, they both choose green. Unfortunately, their choices are contradictory; if both choices materialize at the same time, there would be pandemonium. Obviously, only one of their choices counts, but whose?
After many decades, three physicists at different places and times, Ludwig Bass (1971) in Australia, myself (Goswami, 1989, 1993) at Oregon, and Casey Blood (2001) at Rutgers, New Jersey, independently discovered the solution of the paradox: consciousness is one, nonlocal and cosmic, behind the two people’s local individuality. They both choose but only figuratively speaking, the one consciousness chooses for both of them avoiding any contradiction. This allows the result dictated by quantum probability calculations that in many such crossings, Wigner and his friend each would get green fifty percent of the time; yet for any individual crossing, a creative opportunity for getting green is left open for each.
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Travers, please make it clear when you are quoting another. :grouch:

And I don't see how spirituality is synonymous with consciousness *at all*.

Paul
 

lexmark

Patron with Honors
New Paradigm

I love it when people misunderstand physics, then think that means it's the same as New Age bullshit. :)

The new age writers get their information from the scientists I quote.

The scientists are primary creators the new age writers are secondary.

Remember also that I said in a previous message a split has occurred in science today. There is the branch of physics based on materialism and the new science based on consciousness. You are quoting from the old science.

Nothing in this universe is static even science changes and advances.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The new age writers get their information from the scientists I quote.

More like 'buzz words'. It's a kind of 'scientific cloaking' (cloacaing?) Like wrapping yourself in the flag. It was one of Ron's favorite gambits.

Zinj
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Remember also that I said in a previous message a split has occurred in science today. There is the branch of physics based on materialism and the new science based on consciousness. You are quoting from the old science.

As you wish. Goodbye.

Paul
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Three rogue theoreticians ≠ "modern physics". Among all the physicists in the world, you can probably find three who believe any damn thing you want. Training in physics does tend to make sane people saner, but this effect is not infinitely strong, and there are an awful lot of people in the world with training in physics. You can even find some big name physicists who believe things hardly any other scientist does. Brian Josephson is a loopster with a Nobel prize, and even Stephen Hawking has a faith in Euclidean path integral quantum gravity that practically nobody else shares.

Bass, Goswami, and Blood are not even big names. I've never seen any papers written by them, or seen anyone else cite their papers in a physics journal, and the foundations of quantum physics have been my professional field for nearly twenty years. I'm no big shot myself, but I do know the big shots. I don't know these guys.

Of course this does not prove they are wrong. But it does prove that their ideas currently have the status of fringe hypotheses, and NOT accepted modern physics.

The 'Wigner's friend' scenario is a standard coda to the famous 'Schrödinger's Cat' thought experiment. It has nothing to do with traffic lights.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Reiterating a point posted elsewhere on this board since it emphasises just how large the disconnect is between the above.

At heart of science is a concept called methodological naturalism. This is the recognition that science can only test what exists, can only test what is tangible, can only test what exists in the natural world.

The concept of spirituality varies greatly from person to person, but in the manner Lexmark is using it incorporates aspects of the metaphysical and the supernatural.

Think about this. How can science be used to examine spirituality in practice when such is almost forbidden by very definition?

What Hubbard did was make the claim that he had the ability, via the e-meter, to measure spiritual phenomena, and that spiritual phenomena behaved according to rules. This served to create a scientific veneer on his claims. For now, I'm not going to get into whether there was anything to any part of his claims.

When you say "At heart of science is a concept called methodological naturalism. This is the recognition that science can only test what exists, can only test what is tangible, can only test what exists in the natural world", it contains some hidden assumptions. The chief assumption is "If we cannot measure it, using our current methods, then it does not exist". By that standard, electromagnetic phenomena in the non-visible spectrum did not exist prior to the 19th century.

Another fundamental assumption of science is that the universe is understandable, with the internal implicit assumption that everything in the universe is understandable by intelligence in the human range. This may or may not turn out to be a valid assumption. Our descendants may find themselves hitting the wall at some point, encountering phenomena that nobody can figure out a theory for.
 

themadhair

Patron Meritorious
When you say "At heart of science is a concept called methodological naturalism. This is the recognition that science can only test what exists, can only test what is tangible, can only test what exists in the natural world", it contains some hidden assumptions. The chief assumption is "If we cannot measure it, using our current methods, then it does not exist".
Care to point out where such an assumption is made? Because it sure looks like you attacking a straw-man from where I’m sitting.
Another fundamental assumption of science is that the universe is understandable, with the internal implicit assumption that everything in the universe is understandable by intelligence in the human range.
This isn’t an assumption, rather it is a working tautology so to speak. That which we can explain is explainable. If there are aspects of the universe that are not understandable then they will never be understood. You are taking what is fundamentally a tautology and trying to form a criticism out of it. Smells like another strawman to me.
 
Top