Stephen's blog

Are you a REAL doctor?

[Note: "Are you a REAL doctor?" was posted on the previous 'beliefdoctor.com' website and is reposted here, for consistency of links.]

To be a superlative Belief Doctor one must remain 'outside' and independent of the belief-systems being analysed, in order to be unhindered and free to look with fresh eyes at the assumptions and beliefs that are routinely accepted as 'fact'.

For example, in being a scientist I would almost certainly believe, like the vast majority of scientists, that physical movement was perfectly continuous and contiguous (comprising an infinite-series of "infinitesimal" increments). However, in being free from any need to abide by that root assumption (which is wrong), a good belief doctor can develop and espouse theories that actually fit the facts, as is covered in the post "The Modern Superstitions of Science and Religion" and elsewhere on this site.1

Likewise, being free of the need to believe in various religious doctrines, a good belief doctor can see the contextual nature of religion (being a product of the childhood of humanity) and offer more holistic views that accommodate both quantum theory and indigenous belief-systems.

The same applies to issues around gender. A competent belief doctor, despite accepted sociological theories, will easily "marry" the seemingly opposite characteristics of "feminine" and "masculine" with such efficacy that neither sex then need blame or scorn the other.

And a competent belief doctor will easily see the errors in, and failings of various new-age or spiritual traditions.

As a result when I'm asked if I'm actually a doctor (presumably most ask in terms of my being a medical doctor) I answer a resounding "NO, definitely not!" (for the above reasons).

Moreover to have a doctorate (or confirm publicly any qualification) would send the wrong message to those who need a new, empowering world-view. And that message is:

'You don't need anyone's permission, certificate or grade-mark to enjoy health, wellbeing and fulfillment. Your 'internal guidance system' - your inner knowing - is your highest authority. By all means get advice from others, and gain whatever qualifications are needed to operate the machinery of life (be it scalpel, jumbo jet or whatever) but for the important stuff, learn to trust yourself and go your own way. Forge your own path, be intuitive, perceptive and creative. We are each our own authority.'

If I deserve any authority it is because of the power and congruency of my ideas, and their efficacy, not on some external credential. But even then I'd be cautious and reserved about accepting any such authority, even for the 'right' reasons.

Historically we've been in a child-like state, culturally speaking - looking up to "higher" authority. We're not grown-ups, spiritually speaking, at least not yet.  We're culturally habituated to follow, and to not creatively and powerfully lead our own lives, without much care for what the neighbours might think.

When I suggest to people to "lead God" many are shocked by the sheer audacity of such an idea. They're deeply shocked by the sacrilege. But the idea of "leading God" is simple common sense ... in that God must be the All of all of us,2 and cannot be anything less, so when like children we are genuinely, spontaneously creative we lead our parents, our friends, family, and the community ... and God. That's what we call genuine creativity, when the whole of creation in effect looks on in wonderment (for where else is such wonderment to be sourced, if not within each of us).

The ultimate authority, one that could be described as a meta-authority is the creativity to forge new paths, to break new ground, to illuminate the way with our light, and to add to creation, not merely be passive, lame, "God fearing" recipients of it.

Category(s): 

Science - religiously late

simon-sinek-laggards.pngIn his entertaining TED presentation Simon Sinek1 explains what it means to be a laggard (they're the late late-adopters): "The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore."

A curious phenomenon is occurring. And it is extraordinarily fascinating to be in the middle of it, observing it live, as we speak! What's so fascinating is that the great bulk of scientific theory is now lagging well behind the advances in quantum fact.2 But for those who are lagging none of this is at all fascinating. Not in the least. Indeed, it's something else entirely.

Category(s): 

It "must be" about time

While chatting to a psychologist recently I happened to explain a bit about my work.

I explained that while I'm happy to dig into the nitty-gritty of quantum theory and experiment, not that many people seem too interested. So I recounted how, talking with a photographer friend, I explained some of the practical benefits of quantum physics -- such as travelling with safety.

Now, I explained to this particular lady that with the benefits of quantum physics we now have sufficient evidence to draw some remarkable conclusions. And that is that (to quote someone I expect is way smarter than me) ...

any correct model of reality has to incorporate explicit non-local connections. No local reality can explain the type of world we live in. Furthermore, (since that model) is based on experimental facts, it is independent of whether quantum theory is correct or not.1

in other words ...

Whatever reality may be, it must be non-local.2

I explained that most of us are as a general rule locally-focused so we don't pay much attention to the nonlocal signaling that's ever-present, ubiquitous and vitally supports our ability to live life (more on that vitality and necessity another time -- hint: Dr Damasio's work with frontal lobe-damaged patients).

Category(s): 

Timeless knowledge

Voices of the dayWhile visiting a friend in Barkandji Country (Aboriginal country around Wilcannia, and along the Darling River), I was given a book "Voices of the first day", by Robert Lawlor. It contains concepts and ideas which are highly congruent with my basic model of The Theory of One and All that I intuited and explained in my book, BE and BECOME.

When researching materials to support the ideas in BE and BECOME I came across a number of leading physicists who voiced a more technical explanation: within certain bounds and constraints (via various 'lattice-works' or matrices, such as fractals), matter and energy is "plastic" — it can be molded or influenced with mind1. At this stage of our evolution it's not yet a noticeably large influence, but it's the principle that is important. It can be guided (again, within constraints), by virtue of the fact that all bits of matter and energy are 'instinctively choosing' to form the world we know.2 They 'instinctively choose' how to collapse the wave-function (collapse possibility into actuality -- see Fig. BI_RPA). As physicist Freeman Dyson explains:

Category(s): 

Making God small. Not good.

The white-bearded guy in the skyWhile at a social function recently I got chatting with some religious people who started to talk about how we're all 'fallen', sinners in need of saving, and how we're all needing His forgiveness, and so on.

Now, from a systems perspective this all makes no sense.1

So I asked, "if God is infinite, isn't all necessarily WITHIN God? After all," I added, "if we and all else, including evil is not of God, then we're outside and beyond the infinite — and that would make us and evil bigger than God. That would make God small relative to us, and relative to evil."

"Best not do that," I said.

"Think of it this way," I explained "God is infinite ... literally that means "He" has no limits — he's everywhere, and in everything, everyone, every spirit, including Evil. In other words, everything and everyone is of God.  It's His energy that's behind all the muck-ups, and the beautiful wonderful things, and ..."

If all — including Evil — is not God's creation then that means "He" has limits to where His creative energy goes. That makes Him small. Best not do that.

If it's not His energy, then it's someone else's, but that again means He has limits to where His energy goes.2

Pretty straight-forward, I would think, to understand all this.

Category(s): 

on the subject of 'free will'

While emailing back and forwards to a friend who's scientifically minded (and credentialed), we got into the nitty-gritty of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and what it all means as far as 'free will' is concerned, and our daily lives.

My friend doesn't believe in any 'genuine' free-will, in that the choices we make are all, in a sense, 'determined' by forces or systems beyond ourselves (technically speaking, by downward causative influences).

Category(s): 

Astrology, the Enneagram and Seth

Contents:

In brief

The Table of comparisons highlights a noticeable difference between the 3 methods of classifications. Column 1 (Seth) responds well to the question: "Where do those who belong to a particular category focus their energy, time and commitment for best effect and fulfillment?"

The Enneagram responds "less directly" to this question (in that the Enneagram may offer insight that one is a 'leader' but not where to apply leadership for best effect or fulfillment).

Astrological categories provide little if any meaningful answers to this question.

Astrology and the Enneagram are not in the least "systems-orientated". They do not take account of the interactive dynamics of biological, ecological or social systems, such as that of one's local community, or how the global economy impacts and influences behaviours and attitudes. They do not therefore provide substantial insights into how we ought best interact with the world around us. They, in effect, offer little guidance as to where we might apply our energy and focus for best results and fulfillment.

Introduction

Table comparison Seth Enneagram AstrologyThe fields and disciplines of psychological testing, astrology, numerology and the Enneagram, are, like all fields of human understanding, based on certain beliefs about the nature of reality.

So when we seek to group people into meaningful categories it's prudent to first establish the belief-system by which those categorisations are made. If the belief-system is unduly limited, individuals and groups will necessarily be categorised or 'squeezed' into various psychological or astrological 'boxes' to fit the observed behaviours. In the process those capabilities and potentials that lay beyond the accepted framework of belief — which could otherwise be recognised and developed for personal and social benefit — will be ignored or denied.

Category(s): 

The urge to categorise

UR IIWhen we reflect on the number of people (more usually women1 ) who believe in Astrology, as well as those who believe in various other 'ologies' we can be reasonably confident that there's an underlying shared trait or need — the need to belong, and to categorise people.

Personality tests (e.g. DISC, or Myers-Briggs) are widely (if not almost universally) used to help decide who's suited to particular roles in businesses and organisations.

So when a friend started extolling the great relevance and benefit of understanding the Enneagram (a process of grouping people into one of nine types, or 'tribes'), I decided to look deeper into this particular habit.

Category(s): 

The promise of greener spiritual grass

I had a long chat today with a good friend who had recently complete a 3-day self-development workshop.

As we chatted about what he experienced and gained (for  a not-insubstantial fee in excess of $500 for the weekend), I asked, "So what did you learn that you didn't already know?"

His answer was that nothing substantially new was encountered, except some tools for being 'more authentic'. Even so, he retained a warm regard for this course.

Category(s): 

Pages