Look and see the mystery in you and me.
The mystery in you and me is the reality that is understandable and yet unfathomable.
That is what mystery means: the reality that is understandable but unfathomable.
- First fuel for thought (1).
* * *
Look and see for yourself.
You know you can't use the empirical or so-called "scientific method" to prove "you" exist.
Why so? Why can't we prove "you" exist scientifically?
It's simple. By "scientific method" we understand it to mean the three-steps procedure: (1) measure, (2) predict and (3) repeat. Ultimately, everything has to reduce or boil down to a theory or a formula.
Isn't this the fundamentals of the "scientific method"? Or is it just an oversimplification?
Still, isn't that what we do in science? Don't we measure or quantify? Don't we predict or formulate? Don't we attempt to seek a pattern and repeat the pattern in a controlled manner? Don't we do that to reproduce the result? Isn't that what science does?
Isn't "science" an endeavour to explain everything in terms of theory or formula? And by so doing, isn't that simplifying everything?
Suppose we agree to understand this as the "scientific method" then consequences have to follow.
One immediate consequence is this. According to this so-called "scientific" view, anything that goes beyond this method is "unscientific."
The question is what are measurable or quantifiable, predictable or formulatable and repeatable or reproduceable?
- We know, physical things are.
The next question is, are "YOU" physical?
The immediate and apparent answer should be "yes" because I have a body and I am my body. So I am physical. Nevertheless, are "YOU" merely physical? Are "YOU" only your body?
You know the answer already. Yet let's make the question clearer in more concrete terms.
When "YOU" dream, the "YOU" that is in the dream, is it real and is it physical?
Well, when "YOU" dream, your dream may not be realitistic according every other waking person's reality, but isn't it real to "YOU"?
At the same time, the "YOU" that is in the dream has no physicality and yet it's still the same "YOU" in your dream as when "YOU" are awake.
How about another instance. When "YOU" think, are "YOU" physical or not? In other words, is your body thinking or are "YOU" thinking?
The deeper questions are, is "thinking" physical? and are "YOU" the same and identical with "thinking?"
Now, is your thinking "physical"?
- As mentioned before, by "physicality" we understand it to mean what is quantifiable or measurable, formulatable or predictable and reproduceable or repeatable.
So can we apply the three-steps scientific procedure on "thoughts or thinking"?
Probably. You can count the number of thoughts. You can categorize thoughts. You can predict and formulate thoughts. You can systematize thoughts and you can repeat thoughts. By the supposed scientific definition thoughts or thinking are physical!
But doesn't that sound a bit weird?!
When we assert thinking or thought as physical, isn't there an immediate reaction to it? Thought, physical? Just like the body? Doesn't sound right?! Does it?
- Here is another source of fuel for thought (2).
Let's get to the bottom of this.
First, we need to make clear of something: you can't count my thoughts, nor can I, yours. Isn't that clear?
Put it in another way. You cannot get into my head to count my thoughts, nor can I, to yours. Objectively speaking, I cannot stand from the outside and look at you and then count the number of thoughts in your mind. However what I can do is to count the thoughts you express in verbal or written words. So what I can really count are words.
It then follows that what I can quantify or measure, predict or formulate, and repeat or reproduce are words.
Now, when I hear or read your words and internalize them, then they become my thoughts. No longer yours. In that way, we share something together, but not necessarily the exact or identical thoughts for I might have misinterpreted or misunderstood your thoughts. Nevertheless, we probably share something together.
Now, on the subjective side, when I count my thoughts I do not need to use my external senses. That is to say, I do not need my eyes to see, ears to hear or fingers to touch the number of my thoughts. I do that directly.
With the external senses, I have to go through a certain standard process. Let's use the eyes as an example. With the eyes I have to do the following:
1. Look.
2. See.
3. Perceive.
4. Interpret.
5. Understand.
6. Retain.
7. Express.
On the other hand, without the senses I could just directly count my thoughts in my mind. There will be no misinterpretation nor misunderstanding of what I think. I directly know what I think.
So the point is thoughts become physical when they are outside in verbal and written words. That is, when expressed.
Hope this is some fuel for more thoughts.
* * *
Next, the more important question is: are "YOU" the same and identical with "thought" or "thinking"?
Of course, you can see the distinction between "YOU" and your thinking. You are what you're thinking just as you are your body, but you're not entirely and wholly what you're thinking. You are above and beyond and underlying what you're thinking. So "YOU" are not the same nor are "YOU" identical with thinking.
Why?
As supposedly and scientifically established, there probably are some physicality in thinking since we can measure, predict and repeat verbal and written thoughts. Yet can we measure, predict and repeat "YOU"?
The answer is obvious: Nope!
Well, we can count "YOU." Yes, we can: ONE. And then there is no other.
Can we predict or formulate "YOU"?
- Again, nope!
Perhaps your behaviors or sentiments or ways of thoughts, but not "YOU."
Since there is only one "YOU" what is there to predict or formulate?! "YOU" mysteriously and beautifully happens only once and for all. There is no way I can reduce "YOU" to a formula. "YOU" are unpredictable.
Finally, can we repeat or reproduce "YOU"?
You may say, according to the theory of evolution, humans came from the apes but you cannot say "YOU" come from the apes. For the monkey is not "YOU" nor are "YOU," monkey! Neither anybody else is "YOU" nor "YOU," anybody else!
"YOU" can only be "YOU" and nobody can be "YOU." "YOU" are unrepeatable.
Isn't that again fuel for thought?!
Please breathe . . . Breathe out now for tension relief.
* * *
Let's recapitulate. It seems "YOU" cannot be proven to exist scientifically and therefore, the existence of "YOU" is unscientific.
The taboo is this. When we say something unscientific, we immediately identify it with something unreal or not realistic!
Yet, is that so? Can you say since "YOU" cannot scientifically be proven; therefore "YOU" are unreal and not realistic? Does that sound right?
The question then is "Are "YOU" real?"
- The answer is affirmative and yet not scientific. In other words, "I" am real but not scientific, "YOU" are real but not scientific, "WE" are real but not scientific. And isn't that a mystery?
The mystery in YOU and ME and WE is understadable but unfathomable.
This requires us to move into a different plane of knowledge called "Direct Knowing."
We know, you know, I know, we all exist. This comes about by direct knowing, more than mere scientific proof.
Put it another way, I know directly I exist. You know directly you exist. We know directly we exist. And we all exist directly.
The point is clear. There are many realities which are above and beyond and underlying science. One reality is right under your nose - and that is the mystery in "YOU."
Enough fuel for thought, today.
Breathe . . . Breathe out now into the Holy Presence of God's lifegiving Breath, the Holy Spirit.
God bless y'all now.
No comments:
Post a Comment