Monthly Archives: October 2012


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.


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.

Subjective exploration, true subjective discovery is a personal thing.
To replicate another’s personal discovery in one’s own experience requires personal involvement, personal commitment. Personal insight being a subjective discovery requires a personal  understanding and personal perception. One can NOT simply listen to another’s words and fully comprehend another’s subjective discovery. It requires involvement that attracts an event that allows oneself to recognize a correlation with present reality. Only then can a communication be perceived as an experience of understanding.
Commitment, more than curiosity, is required for one to attract or discriminate the subtleties of subject events.
Commitment is driven by a passion for personal and individual discovery. Passion for self discovery is driven by desire, a desire to inquire and understand ones own individual consciousness.
Where does one find this desire? Where does one derive such value association?
 Such a desire can only exist if one has:
  1. Belief that such inquiring action is effective, that it can reveal discoveries, and
  2. Belief that such discoveries are highly valued
Such MUST become ones’ foundational beliefs, before desire for inquiry appears.
Here is where each of our realities differ greatly. What have we interpreted of the events we have experienced thus far? Did they endear to us an inquiring nature, or a mistrust of personal discoveries.
Here is where we see if one has a belief that one CAN affect the value of his being or if one believes such lies in the control of another.
To make sure I am strongly oriented to my preferred view, I loathly describe being controlled as the “victim” mentality and exalt the other as the “omnipotent” mentality.
Whether I decided or discovered this, I am not sure. This much I have discovered: Whereever I focus attention with an intention to to discover, I attract discovery that provides a better look at what I’ve given my focus of conscious attention.
I choose to believe personal discoveries hold the key to unfathomable treasure.  I am excited to discovery we can simply “Ask and Receive”, and that which we believe we shall and do receive.
Which do you choose? Which do you truly experience?
Decide it today, believeit then realize it.

Supporting Material:
Jude 1:10 (AMP) 10 But these men revile (scoff and sneer at) anything they do not happen to be acquainted with and do not understand; and whatever they do understand physically [that which they know by mere instinct], like irrational beasts—by these they corrupt themselves and are destroyed (perish).