Reality and Existence: A synthesis of the different schools of thought

Reality and Existence: a synthesis of the different schools of thought


Although technology and science has advanced tremendously over the centuries and millennia’s, and the same can be said for our societal systems and infrastructure’s, the problems our species faces is seemingly growing in accordance to this growth and the mysterious lands of that which is unknown remains incomprehensively vast. With an extroverted viewpoint, there is the problem that concerns our physical bodies, our environment, and the relationship that binds the two together; with an introverted turn of the mind, there is the problem of our particular set of emotions, and of the thoughts, desires, and instincts by which we control our action. Both, national and international, societal problems are many; why should there still remain human caused atrocities such as starvation, war and suffering, when we are so aware of such challenges arising from outside of our species? Why should the majority of our species remain in the thrall of extreme poverty, of sickness, and discomfort? Is there a purpose underlying all that we see around us, and if so, what is it? What is the destiny of our species, insofar as the universe as a whole, and what is its origin, and what is the reason for our/its present condition? These are questions that most, if not all, of us will ponder upon at some point in our lives, and have passed through the minds of thinker’s right down through the millennia’s.

There have been many attempts to reply to these questions, and as we study them, we find that the answers fall into three main groups. The first being Realism or Materialism, and it teaches that things are what they seem; that matter and force, as we know them, are the only reality, and that it is not possible for there to be anything beyond the tangible. This school of thought contends that one should be satisfied with facts as we know them, or as science explains them. For some of us though, this explanation fails to go far enough and discounts too much of the unexplainable. In refusing to concern itself with anything except that which can be proven and demonstrated it stops short at the very point where the enquirer says, “that is so, but why?”

Secondly, there is the point of view which we can best, perhaps, call Supernaturalism. This school of thought contends that things may perhaps, after all, not be exactly as they seem. They contend that man, and all he sees, cannot possibly be only an accumulation of physical atoms, material substance, and that of the tangible. Rather, that there is a universal consciousness, power, and/or phenomena nature that links all of reality together in a subtle but unified manner. This is which has led to the evolution of the Abrahamic religions point of view, which posits a God outside of the universe, who created it, but is itself unbound by it. This school of thought contends that this being or power guides our worlds and universe, keeping our little human life in the hollow of his/its ‘hand’, ordering all things according to some hidden purpose which is not possible for us, with our finite minds, to glimpse, much less to understand. This point of view, like that of Realism, is unable to explain away the whole of our problems and reality, and thus only embodies a partial truth.

The third line of thought we might call the Idealistic or Philosophic. It posits an evolutionary process within all manifestation, and identifies life within a universal process. It is the exact opposite of Realism/Materialism, and brings the supernatural deity, predicated by the religionist, into the position of that which is evolving through, and by means of, the universe, just as man is evolving consciousness through the medium of an objective physical body.

These three standpoints – the frankly materialistic, the exclusively supernatural, and the idealistic – sum up the three main lines of thought which have been put forward as the explanation of our reality and universal process, yet all of them remain only partial truths and fail to offer a holistic understanding for our minds to grasp. It is unfortunate that these three are perceived by the majority of us to be in conflict with each other, and thus cannot be reconciled into a synthesis of one, however, I contend that maybe this is due more so to our egos and rigidness of belief, than it is due to an inability of these concepts to be unified. We must remember in connection with every statement of truth made by these schools of thought, that each is made from a particular point of view. Until we have further enlightened our mental processes, and until we are able to think in abstract terms as well as in concrete, it will not be possible for us to fully answer the question of what is truth, nor express any aspect of that truth in a perfectly unbiased manner.

There have been people, although far and few, throughout our history that have incorporated a broader view into their belief system, one that accounts for all three of these schools of thought. In fact, many more, beyond enlightened beings and scientists who posits a certain high level of intellectual genius, are beginning to think in this manner and that is truly a hopeful sign for our species. However, many of us still remain in our rigidness and refuse to move beyond the boundaries set forth by our egoic conditioned minds. This group of people is also growing, and is causing much unneeded conflict within our species; conflict that is counter-productive to our growth and understanding of reality, and clouding the waters of realization for our species as a whole. This is truly an unfortunate and depressing sign for our species, and it must be challenged if we seek to move forward in this new millennia in any sort of a productive and helpful manner.

It is not enough to say the beliefs of the religionists (Supernaturalists) are wrong or misguided, if you are unwilling to say the same of the materialist/realist, insofar as the idealist/philosophic, and vice versa. It is not enough to say one school of thought is wrong, if you are unwilling to say they are, or may also be, partially right. It is not enough to challenge the beliefs of others if you are unwilling to challenge the beliefs of your own. Doing so only binds you to the same restrictive thought patterns that you so dearly want to challenge. Doing so only furthers the conflicts between our species. Doing so only holds us back from achieving the understanding and insight that we all are seeking, and allows the possibility for self destruction to exponentially increase. Therefore I purpose for you to relinquish your attachments to your beliefs, and ponder upon the beliefs of others as if they were your own. You need not worry about losing sight of what you already know, or believe to know, for, these patterns of thought are already deeply conditioned within your mind and will never completely leave you. It is not what you already see or know, but what you refuse to look at, what you refuse to think about, that is allowing for your, and thus our, ignorance and conflict to presume.

Maybe by the union of these three lines of thought; science, religion and philosophy, we may already have a working knowledge of the truth as it is, remembering at the same time that truth is accessible within ourselves as much as it is without.


Thanks for reading.

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


Thank you very much for extending your thoughts and helping to bridge the perspectives. There is a gentle rain of individuals coming to understand these things falling on the collective awareness... and I agree... it is accelerating.

Namaste!

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy



LifeIsEnergy,

Interesting. Have you heard of Bashar? He has a interesting view on this.

Bashar - The Physical mind

youtu.be...

Big Jedi

Well Lifeis

Well Lifeis
You seem to me to be of the third school which you call the Idealistic or Philosophic. I follow your thoughts here and see these divisions of perspective positions as you present them.

It's the nature, though, of the barriers which surround these positions and isolate them from one another which I consider to be the next logical point of inquiry if we are to move on to the synthesis you are talking about here.

What do your insights have to add to this question?

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


I am not sure what the question is, could you rephrase or elaborate on what you were saying?

I agree with your assessment that I am, generally speaking, more influenced by the idealistic/philosophic school of thought, although like I said, it can only explain reality and existence partially and thus I also am very interested and open to the other schools of thought. Each have there own purposes and validity standing on there own, but it seems if humans could begin to study these in such a synthesized manner as was stated above, and not see them as conflicting with each other as most of us have and do now, then maybe each of these lines of thought would be able to advance much faster then they have and are currently doing so, insofar as explain what they are intended to explain much clearer and thoroughly.

Take for instance the areas of science such as quantum physics, evolution and general relativity, where certain religions and philosophies already had contemplated and hypothesized on such things millennia's ago. Now think if science would have hypothesized and thus begun to study upon such things at the same time as them in a unified manner, would our scientific understandings not be far more advanced today then they currently are? I don't know, but it sure seems like it, huh? And the same can be said vice versa.

Peace.

What I was guided to, was written in a thread after a discussion with my son where we both experienced the same Guide, laughing with delight at our discussion of infinity. There is an energy in this holographic school, metaphorically one could say, the computerized television set, and you have to turn it on. Its waves at a condensed frequency to create the perception of matter via our minds interpreting the input signals. So its shared reality, yet still quite magical/miraculous. And we do have input into it, to some extent, ie. the observer affect, the double slit.

We're in a dream school, its not real. But the Love we need to grow here, is.

The Family are Light, and stream all light in, via the stars, the gateways, the projectors. We are Light, not the same as the mc2 energy waves that construct things. Conscousness/Soul/Light.

And this is a school, to learn basic levels of Love. Service to others. Some say kindergarden, but I think John Lear said it right on Lou Baldin's website, we're prenatal, waiting to born.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Therefore I purpose for you to relinquish your attachments to your beliefs, and ponder upon the beliefs of others as if they were your own. You need not worry about losing sight of what you already know, or believe to know, for, these patterns of thought are already deeply conditioned within your mind and will never completely leave you. It is not what you already see or know, but what you refuse to look at, what you refuse to think about, that is allowing for your, and thus our, ignorance and conflict to presume.

Closest to what I meant in my question earlier is your quote here. Your first sentence above. Relinquishing ones attachments to ones own beliefs.

First, I wonder if this is not already a prerequisite for your Idealistic/philosophical position. But besides this my question is more the scope and aim of your proposal.

I understand that belief ties us down. All of us, though all of us will not agree on this. To some, belief is paramount to the establishment and maintenance of self. So for those who understand that attachments to beliefs bind and limit us, the course of development is clear. As individuals.

My understanding breaks down in trying to extrapolate this individual practice onto a larger societal scale which I take to be your intent.

Philosophy has been considered a religion just as much as science is the application of philosophy. I will create an allegorical demarcation line between religion and science in the manner that I would expect you are referring to religion as Theism, and science as Atheism, as for example Buddhism is considered a religion although being an atheist (but philosophical) pursuit, explanation, and guide for living.

Now, we have the three: Theism, Science, and Philosophy. I would understand that you propose that a union of the three would encourage a greater understanding of our universe and perception of reality.With such an "ideology" in place it would seem to remind me more of a form of government resembling a Theistic Technocracy in which the scientific personnel control the decision making in their own individual fields but also following the doctrine of a deity bound by philosophical pursuits.

While on paper it may seem like a productive amalgamation of scientific individuality, theistic comfort and philosophical encouragement, I cannot perceive such a system as being liberating if forced upon a society. Unfortunately not many will perceive this system as beneficial for them and conflict will arise out of genetic dependence on macro and micro conflicts for self-propagation. What I mean to say is, the more you encourage a form of trouble-free existence, the less individual development that will be present due to there being no need.

In regards to the Theistic Technocracy, I would perceive it as people becoming dependant on said governmental body for their own individual sense of living conformity after a period of time has passed. So I will dismiss this ideology as a macro-level neo "school of thought", but I would encourage it on an individual bases to maintain independence.

For example, if said school of thought involving the union of theism, philosophy and science was blended seamlessly, and taught on an individual basis but not forced, then this school of thought (let's call it Theo-Technocracy for easier reference) would allow the individual themselves to add their own perception into said belief, encouraging it's own propagation so much as different interpretations of the Bible for instance, caused the East-West Schism of 1054, though this need not be as terrible.

In conclusion I would say that this is a very viable pursuit, just as in an economical sense, the positive and productive qualities of differing forms of economical governance such as capitalism, communism, socialism, welfare and so on, would be excellent. But sadly it seems that on paper it would function perfectly, yet in the "real world" would perhaps fail as humans can be unpredictable at times and we do not have a mathematical equation (a general description) perfected enough to predict human behaviour for instance.



I apologise if I am jumping from point to point like a rabbit. I am hung-over

Regarding establishing a broader form of thinking: I agree that this is perhaps one of the best methods in encouraging both individual intellectual development as one is not bound by petty ideological boundaries and manages to accept the productive qualities of each philosophical idea.

reply to post by Somehumanbeing


Although I truly appreciate your first post, and it definitely offered a great deal for me to ponder upon, this:

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Regarding establishing a broader form of thinking: I agree that this is perhaps one of the best methods in encouraging both individual intellectual development as one is not bound by petty ideological boundaries and manages to accept the productive qualities of each philosophical idea.

is much more of what I was getting at. Forcing such an idea is not only creating the same narrow minded and intolerant perception that I was speaking upon, but I am not sure it would even be possible. It must come freely from a loss, or as I stated, a relinquishing of our rigid belief systems, thus allowing a much more holistic (broader) viewpoint to hypothesize from.

Thanks again friend, I will re-read your first post again tomorrow as it is late, but it was very well put indeed.

Thank you for letting me know about this thread. Nice job I like your thoughts. If I can respond to one of your questions. What is the destiny of our species? I wonder is that another way of asking what the meaning of life is?? But I would say the destiny of our species is to grow to learn to experience. We could take it a step further if we want to look at a more religous or supernatural aspect of it.

Great post, and thanks for sharing. Have been trying to let go of beliefs, etc, for a while now, but haven't looked at it in the way of seeing 3 main belief systems and spending more time looking at each one in that way. Will give it a go though, as there's probably a lot I've looked over in the others.

I really don't understand how people can complicate things so much. Instead of taking the journey of truth or the journey of intellect, why not take the journey of emotion? Why keep trying to hunt down a single truth and just FEEL your way through life? You already have a compass that is leading you to where you need to be and that is the emotions. Take the journey to feeling better and better.

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


You replied something on my post, but I am too busy to read yours right now. I am writing this message to save it to my "my ats" tab so that i can pull it up later. i look forward to reading this thread.