As I've probably blogged about before, I've been reading (on and off) this book called The Divided Mind by Dr. John Sarno for a while now. I've set it aside for several months, just because I'm reading several non-fiction books at once so it takes me a while to get through them. But I recently recommended this book to a friend and was perusing some of the comments about it on amazon, and one of the commenters included this quotation in his entry:
Deepak Chopra chides modern "science" stating:
So what's the real nature of the world? What's it really like? We can't trust the senses. They give us a very distorted view. They break up that wholeness into a small fragment and we call it reality. We happen to agree about it. We even call it "objective reality" and we have a whole methodology that we call "science" to explore that. But, if you really understand what science is, then science at least until now has not been a method for exploring the truth. Science has been a method for exploring our current map of what we think the truth is.
There is some real truth ("truth?") to this idea... so many of us get caught up in this whirlwind of proof, objectivity, facts, hard SCIENCE. And believe me, I'm one of those people sometimes. But I also like to think of myself as readier to accept nonlinear ideas, because I don't really believe in absolutes. Objectivity is a bit of a myth; it's much more realistic to shoot for objectivity and then describe all the biases and their limitations.
Man, I get so nerdy about some of this stuff. I absolutely love science, and what I love even more is how such non-scientific things (art, religion, etc) are so hand in glove with it. They are seemingly diametrically opposed, yet are such a crucial pairing. I guess that's how it works with polarity; how can you have one without the other?
Anyway, I know there's a lot more to be said about this topic but I don't really want to write it all down. It's a beautiful day outside, and I need to catch some sun.
Visit
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(16)
- December (1)
- October (2)
- September (1)
- July (1)
- June (3)
- May (1)
- April (1)
- March (2)
- February (1)
- January (3)
-
►
2008
(45)
- December (6)
- November (2)
- October (2)
- September (8)
- July (7)
- June (4)
- May (2)
- April (4)
- March (3)
- February (2)
- January (5)
-
▼
2007
(55)
- December (5)
- November (5)
- October (6)
- September (2)
- August (3)
- July (5)
- June (13)
- May (3)
- April (2)
- March (4)
- February (4)
- January (3)
-
►
2006
(61)
- December (5)
- November (1)
- October (4)
- September (8)
- August (4)
- July (5)
- June (8)
- May (5)
- April (6)
- March (6)
- February (6)
- January (3)
3 comments:
I like What the Bleep Do We Know (down the rabbit hole version); it makes such a bridge between science and spirituality...quantum theory blows my mind. I like to hear Deepak Chopra talk about it; I had rented some movie by him that was really good.
Anways, I think that is all so interesting.
It's so true, we limit ourselves and call it done. I think there's a false security in calling something science. I went to a meditation workshop because it was called "Fierce Compassion" and really liked the teacher, Sharon Salzberg. I've been reading her book "Faith", and last night read something on this:
"Buddhism uses an analogy to describe what happens when we allow fixed beliefs to contour reality for us. Buddhists say that holding such views is like gazing at the sky through a straw. The sky is the unobstructed truth of who we are and what our lives are about. When a received belief system circumscribes that for us, it is as if we are looking at the truth through a narrow tube, seeing only a very small part of it while convinced we are seeing the whole. When we're attached to our beliefs, we can spend a lot of time comparing straws: "I've got a better straw than you. It's a little wider and it's got a design on it." Especially in the face of fear, we tend to hold on to our straws with a death grip."
I have to say, what I find so intriguing about you is how you bridge science/spirituality so well. Living in the overly-rational camp, I recognize that I relate to about half of you, your posts, etc. And the other half I learn from but realize that I never think that way.
So back to your career thing, I think this is a great feature you have. To be analytical AND empathetic, to be able to figure out when to use one or the other, to bridge them, etc. Not sure what field makes sense for that (on the surface, nursing seemed to fit, dealing with patients but also symptoms, etc) but there may be others. I think probably why you have trouble figuring out what you want to do fully, is because so many things are just appealing to one side of you, when your greatest feature/asset is that you really have two equally strong drives. You just need to find something that uses both rather than pitting one against the other, or leaving one to wither.
or something like that, I've had a bit of wine here.
-A
Post a Comment