Weltanschauung

"Weltanschauung" is a German word used to describe one's "world-view", but its meaning is broader, including one's philosophical view of the fuller dimensions to life, be they physical, meta-physical, spiritual etc. As such "world" view is too limiting. Hence the use of Weltanschauung

About (The Belief Doctor)

[Note: "About" (The Belief Doctor) was posted on the previous 'beliefdoctor.com' website and is reposted here, for consistency of links.]

My focus and passion as The Belief Doctor?1 is in analysing and improving 'bodies of belief' in all fields of human experience including science, religion, business, management, politics, new-age, health ... life.

I do so by a number of robust, effective means.

But in all my approaches, I apply one overarching rule that will stand the test of time, in all circumstances — that of accepting, and affirming the irreducible paradox of life of part and whole, of individual and community, of "trees and forests."

An example. Recently I was asked what did I think about Buddhism. Without going into too much detail, we need only review the beliefs of Buddhists, from that paradoxical perspective (using the reciprocal test).

Let's take a specific example: that of the ideal of non-attachment. Achieving non-attachment can only be gained by being attached (to some degree) with that outcome. If we're not attached to, or in some way consciously creating or desiring that outcome (of non-attachment) then we would have absolutely no (as in zero) conscious choice, volition or free will in achieving that outcome. We would be "pure" victims to some process or spiritual force that was in control of us. That might suit some, but it's hardly a prescription for effective living.

In the context of the "Paradox Rule", the goal of achieving non-attachment is an oxymoron. It's basically a waste of time (pun intended).

Another (parallel) approach is to work more effectively with time, from a forward-focused creating approach -- primarily, by focusing on what we want, and "letting go" what we don't want.

It is our addictions to the past that causes continual recurrence of old habits, ailments and problems. Fortunately the creative process enables us to move beyond old habits to gain (or regain) health and wellbeing. That is not to suggest we avoid, ignore or deny the past -- the past serves as a platform of stability and order that is crucial to life.

The Theory of One and AllThe art and science of health and wellbeing lies in balancing both past and future ... of balancing both

  • routine and creativity
  • stability and surprise
  • possible and actual
  • knowledge and imagination
  • logic and precognition2
  • individuality and community
  • one and all
  • finite and infinite
  • physical and "pre-physical"3

Men are particles, women are waves

Update (August, 2016) - see latest regarding the dynamics of gender

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).

Stereotyping?

Hardly -- walk down any street asking everyone encountered their occupation.  Then note the gender percentages of those in the 'hard-sciences', engineering and Information Technologies, compared with those in care services, humanities and communications.

The bias is not because men or women are 'pushed' into the various professions, or due to restrictions such as 'glass ceilings'. There's been plenty of attempts to get more women into IT, but they simply just aren't as interested ... as a GENERAL rule!. Yes, there's always exceptions, but we're talking 'bias' in numbers, of percentages, not of exceptions.

Category(s): 

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): 

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):