Weltanschauung

There is an astonishingly deep and dangerous disconnect between our mainstream world view, and reality. So deep and dangerous is that disconnect I believe it imperils the survival of the human race.

That disconnect is demonstrated by modern science's approach: that for every physical effect, there is (in theory) a physical cause. If someone is sick, a physical cause is sought. A bacteria perhaps? Hence the widespread use of antibiotics.

It is a simple matter to show that these mechanical-world views are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

When chatting with a friend recently we discovered that we had (independently) come to a similar place in our lives -- a wonderfully light, free and peaceful place.

We found that we each had arrived at this place by doing something exceedingly simple -- we had finally "let go" blaming others, or blaming "out there" or "suffering" blame from others.

Dialoguing with various participants on a LinkedIn forum, I was mindful to explore some of the benefits of understanding the deeper principles (not necessarily the mathematics) of quantum physics.

As Einstein demonstrated perhaps unwittingly, being too focused on the mathematics can take one away from one's intuitive feel for the deeper rhythms and connections in life.

In response to the question "Does God exist?" on a forum in LinkedIn, I drafted the following, which seems to be sufficiently well-formed to be posted here, prior to posting there as well:

----------------------

There is no "God" in a purely objective, independent sense for that would require weird, nonsensical disconnects (within any holodynamic systems, or indeed any reasonable rational context).

The idea of an independent creator was an idea developed during the childhood of humanity:

Bishop John Shelby Spong:

"Religion ... was for most of human history, always childlike and by definition authoritarian. It was, to be specific, a primary activity of the childhood of our humanity as a species."1

I put some creativity into explaining a few things on a forum (not my usual bent), and recognised some useful ideas that I thought should also be shared, and reproduced here (with some additions and amendments):

In my experience when giving business presentations on the practical uses of quantum mechanics, or business courses (e. g. Begin with the end in play workshops), I've nearly always found a distinct and highly noticeable divide in the audience.

I was dialoguing with members of a "systems thinking" group who it seems are all left-brained, mechanical-universe thinkers who believe that there's no metaphysical dimension to life. It's all just physical stuff.

So I wondered, how do you offer a bit of a 'chink' in their thinking, beyond the Proofs of the Impossibility of Physical Movement1 as I've previously explained to them?

So I wrote the following. Maybe it'll help some, maybe not.

Recently I joined a networking group and posed the question "Will Zeno's Paradoxes + quantum theory accelerate and ultimately ‘force’ acceptance of holodynamic systems thinking? "

Given the large and consistent amount of evidence, it was effectively a rhetorical question. Yes, it's only a matter of time.

During the dialogue I offered a reward to counter the Proof of the impossibility of physical movement.

When writing Be and Become during the latter half of the 90's, the various revisions of the manuscript1 included chapter (Nine) titled as "Men are particles, women are waves".

However, prior to publication I had the thought (contrary to my better instincts) that the chapter would best be titled differently, to what is now "Material men, wonderful women". It was, I thought, less likely to be dismissed as 'stereotyping' people, even though I felt at ease with the "Men are particles ..." title.  "Men are particles, women are waves" quite adroitly and succinctly expresses the inherent dynamics of life towards individualism, and collectivism -- men and male animals do (as a general rule!) bias themselves towards the hard, physical, individualistic side to life (characteristic of particles). Women do bias themselves towards the soft, interconnective, cooperative, relationship side to life (characteristic of waves and fields).

Just ran across a wonderful quote by Harriet Rubin, which I expect will be lost on many:

As The Belief Doctor I'm often asked if I'm actually a doctor (presumably most ask in terms of my being a medical doctor). To which I answer a resounding NO, definitely not!

To have a doctorate (be it medical or philosophical) would give me a socially-acceptable authority that would be counter-productive to my message: that message is "Don't listen to others on the important stuff. Go you own way, forge your own path, be creative. We are each our own authority."