The key to break-thru lies in understanding. Understanding the nature of one’s illness provides insight that one can apply to be relieved.
Scientific View
With merely understanding the characteristics of an illness (its symptoms) and the effects of some biologicals and chemicals in connection with it, doctors have found sufficient insight as to derive treatment that negates a symptom. It is along this path doctors hope they will someday be able to remove suffering of all disease.
Discovering a cure to symptoms however, will never really cure nor provide full relief unless the cure treats the root cause and actual origins of a symptom. To truly find the great, full break-thru in ones condition, one must understand the greater universe within which the symptom resides and the fuller reality that comprehends or encloses the universe in which a disease has its being.
To understand the full reality where a disease has being, one MUST look to ones reality to begin FULL discovery of cure and the root of disease experience.
Truth and the limitations of scientific view
We want to believe, Any truth of reality should be observable as the same from anyone’s perspective. Just as we want to believe we all exist within the same reality. In principle, this is the foundation of the scientific method: discoveries must be reproducible by others before they are to be held as accepted scientific truth.
Science holds this as a foundational belief: we all share the same reality and therefore any cure should be observable and reproducible by others. That this is a foundational belief should be self evident; the mandate of reproducibility is the fruit or evidence of the believe it reflects.
In actuality we do NOT all share the same reality and science knows it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is just one of multitude examples. Consider eastern world views verses western, middle eastern vs the global community or Israel, Islam vs Christian, atheist vs gnostic, all the sects inside each of those views. Lastly consider even all the variations of thought within the scientific communities.
When it comes to thought and psychology of the mind, the best science can do is deal with symptoms that appear in the brain and body which the mind works within, or can I say the body it is reflected within.
Science daily observes interactions between mind and body, but its mandate of reproducibility will never allow it to posit nor conclude the mind is the originator reflected in the brain and body. Sciences foundational belief of a constant reality and it’s reflected mandate, is an iron gate forever fencing off the mind from objective investigation and scientific acceptance of its objective discoveries.
Reproducibility of the Subjective Mind
The perceptions of the mind are subject to a persons views of reality. As such, we call these “subjective views”, or “subjective reality”.
Each of us know our life’s experiences intimately well. Each represents our personal perception and interpretation of the event upon which we focus and give our conscious attention. Life is the sum of what has been encountered and experienced since we first became aware of conscious observations. Of these we form our personal views of reality. It is within these that we have our being we think of as “Life” and the perspective we think of as “Self” .
Due to the various events we’ve previously encountered, each of our lives and views of reality are very personalized and highly subject to personal interpretation. As a result, all events we experience today and in our future will always be very subject to personal interpretation or perception.
Objective identification
In discerning detail, we often turn to objectification for clarity. Just as the eye can NOT perceive itself directly and must look to a mirror image reflection for fuller understanding, so the subjective view of another can not be understood except by how it is reflected in the actions they engender. So also, we often do not understand the truth of our own perceptions except by considering the objective actions we see reflecting the beliefs or truths which those actions reveal to us.
While we can NOT look at each others reality and compare it with our own, we can look at the self evident fruits that reflect the beliefs of others and our own reality. We objectify the characteristics of our own being in seeking to understand ourselves better. Unfortunately, not all characteristics of experience or being can be objectively quantified clearly, just as not all the beliefs of others are as self evident as is science’s reproducibility mandate.
Communications
As we find subjective clarity through observing our own observations objectively, so the subjective view of another can not be understood except by how well that viewer reflects his or her views in the word symbols used to objectify or describe it, and further by how well their chosen symbolic words have meanings that correlate with our own.
Clarity of communication relies upon common basis for consistency of perception between communicator and communicatee, the sender and receiver of communication. Here then, the limitations of such communication should be obvious: communication is always distorted according to the variableness of the two parties communication symbols, in fact the variableness of the two parties views of reality. Consider the difficulty one would have trying to describe how his reality differs from another’s when their word symbols have different meanings due to the different experiences the two have had in relation to those symbols. For Example:
Prior to the discovery of fire and only having experience of its destructive characteristics as in a forest fire started by lightning, how would such a communicatee interpret communication of the joy found of sitting beside a warm fireplace reading poetry?
We may think only in communications to others would we run into difficulties. While we may describe the events similarly, our experience of them is highly subjective. The meanings and values we associate are highly variable. We do NOT share the same realities! For other examples:
Reflect upon your acceptance of alternative music genres like Alt-Dance, Alt-Metal, Alt-Indie, Grunge, Punk and Punk-Funk to name a few. We have more differences than similarities … many I would not even consider such as music, yet each has such numerous devotees as to warrant a genre of musical classification.
The better question should be, how do we communicate at all? I believe we simply choose to believe our communications have sufficient common interpretations as too convey meanings. But we too realize the falacy of that view as we experience our words resonating accurately ONLY within ourselves. This blog site is probably the most obvious example I have at hand. There is a limit to how much can be communiated about subjective experience and subjective reality.
- Belief that such inquiring action is effective, that it can reveal discoveries, and
- Belief that such discoveries are highly valued