Okay, cool. So Hi everyone, today I'm going to prepare you for Module Three, nearly written. So there's a picture that came up during the writing of it that I want to just share with you and land with you and and see how it lands and it could make sense. And then we'll do a little journaling and little sharing. It has to do with the limits of natural science, as it's conceived today, and how that relates to inner work first, and co creating healthy society second. So it's pretty big topic, and it touches a lot of areas. But I'm just going to present the basics. Before we dive in, we just do a quick check in just like, where you are in the world if you're not home. Or, and, you know, what are you entering the call with today? Any questions, any reflections from last week or anything like that?
Just make it quick if you can.
Well, I'll start. I'm coming in. I'm matching Jeff with my headphones. So I'm feeling great, Jeff, like, but I'm good. I'm very glad to see you all. I'm in.
Hi, I am in Berlin, as you know, and I'm coming in with. Yeah, I'm excited to be back. First of all, in a good timezone to be part of the community calls and I am coming in with a lot of amusement about myself. Well,
I'm from the San Francisco Bay Area. And just a lot of things are blooming right now. So I feel very, in a summery mood.
I'll jump in. I'm in Montreal, Canada. And I'm, for the first time I think everyone one of these calls, I'm coming in feeling really awful. It's been a bumpy, 24 hours. And I'm feeling like I want to curl up in a little ball. But I'm also aware that it's temporary. And this is a good space to be and be alright.
I can echo that kind of in a deep trough. And I had to present this morning on the Eightfold Path, and spiritual striving and went to reflecting during the week of positivity with the six fold six basic exercises and that just had to go and like say, look that sometimes the greatest route to positivity is in the deepest darkness. So that's what I'm trying to work on.
So I'm in Sausalito haven't moved much, but I'm going to be moving to Portugal in a month. And I'm resisting feeling the fear and, you know, things going on there. I'm just being in the moment and feeling really good about that. Thank you. Wow.
And I'm in Bonn in Germany. And I have been thinking a lot about death this week as the father of my ex husband died recently. And that it was only very positive. I don't know it. It felt like a liberation in many ways. And it has brought like lots of new perspective about death that I didn't have. So deep and unexpected and quite positive in the end.
Well, Sue and unloose we're just doing a quick quick chicken. So if you could just say a few words about what you're coming in with, but just try to make it quick because Jeff is about to launch into a presentation.
Just present. Awesome. panelists, good to see you.
Hey, sorry I dropped into late but I'm happy to be here. That's it. Okay,
cool. Awesome. Welcome everyone. So as I was saying when we when we first got on I don't know if you'll remember this, but when we when we wrote and produced module two, we went back into module one and clarified some things about phenomenology. And as we've been writing Module Three, we're again having the opportunity to just revisit the basics and get it really clear so that as we introduce module three in the higher development mapping the higher self we can, we can just give the most sort of, I don't know, the most solid handrails possible. And the key is phenomenology. It really can't be said enough that without phenomenology, it's really easy to make stuff up and believe it and go down the garden path. Whether you're doing your meditation or studies, or did you training with the guru are doing trauma work or anything, you're in the realm of the soul and the mind and the realm of the invisible? And in my experience, it's very hard to gain any objective, grounded rigorous. I guess the question is of how can you be sure. And and the phenomenology is really the training to help you grow that surety. And it's like, it's literally like sort of strength training for your body. But it's strength training for your mind and your soul. It's strength training, so that you know, when you train yourself, you not only become strong, but you you become limber, you become capable, you become less liable to get hurt, you know, sure of yourself more steady on your pins more steady in your body. There's certain benefits of exercise that are not only not only about strength, but about stamina, and balance and health and vitality and centeredness and groundedness of being in a body. And phenomenology is important. And I want to go into a little bit of why. And I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to present a picture out of this, this book, called the boundaries of natural science from Rudolf Steiner, which I've been studying the last couple of months. And while I was studying it, I just came to a picture that I've been wrestling with. And it's very simple, but I find it very profound, very, sort of, I don't know, like chewy has a lot of layers to it. And I want to share that picture with you. So let's just dive in. And we'll have a chance to,
we'll have a chance to talk about this as we go. So, today's Can y'all see that. So, Today's focus is the metamorphosis and the inner life. And we're gonna get a picture of the limits of natural science, as it's currently conceived, which is this cheery picture that I want to share with you. And then we're going to talk about building the hut or building the really, it's building a place in the mind and the soul, where you do your training and your do your strength training, and it becomes a kind of a home for you in this in this world. So we'll talk about that. And then if we have time, there's some other things to share about what's going on in magenta. But I didn't put this in there because I don't know if we'll have time. So now, a couple of weeks ago, I shared this picture of this is just like an open cube, if you can imagine a cube with three sides. And this picture of the mind and the soul, just a crude picture of the inner life that inner life is a kind of container or lens through which thinking and feeling and will and things like dreams and intuitions and other minute manifold experiences kind of flow in and through. And in, in our culture in everyday life. These streams kind of get bit clouded and, and and turbulent. And there's there's closed loops that form as you grow up. We've talked about this Many times. And so you can think about these, these these three spheres thinking and feeling and willing, a little bit like layers, thinking is very transparent, very immediate feeling is a little bit more dreamlike, a little bit more flowing a little bit more, less clear. But all the more alive sometimes and willing is very mysterious. You know, we made the point that nobody really knows, we don't really know how we move our arm, we just move it. But again, the picture that over time, these faculties can metamorphose Okay, they can become not what they are right now. But they can be strengthened, they can they can go through a metamorphosis. So this is the this is a picture of the metamorphosis of the inner life. And I realize it's very crude and very simplistic, but it just gets us started down this road of what are we trying to do, when we map the higher self, we're actually going to be doing a lot of exercises, that kind of work out, like strength training, the various aspects in the thinking life in the feeling life and the will, which, you know, in this school of thought, they need to be transparent, and they need to be effective. Alright, so let me give you a picture. This is from Steiner his boundaries of natural science. Or, you know, it's adapted from that. And in the history of science, and the history of modern civilization, Western civilization. In technical civilization, there has been a gradual increase of focus on the technical world. And one way to understand that is that for ages, humanity lived in what could be called phenomenal experience experiencing the phenomena. And this is this, let this orange ball just here be any of the salmon colored ball here just be the realm of experience appearances. And what I mean by that is like, you know, when you see the tree, or you see the hummingbird, or a butterfly, or a torch, or lighthouse, these are just images I pulled from my hard drive. They're like, what you see and what you experienced with your senses, and their phenomena. Now, as I pointed out in, as we pointed out in the course, in the history of European thought, in science, scientists began to wonder, well, what's behind these phenomena? How can we explain them? And it became, for a whole lot of reasons. A way of thinking, to think that well, the phenomena as they present themselves is not what they truly are. We just see them that way, subjectively.
Okay, and you guys will be familiar with this. But the idea is that, behind these or if you get close enough, let's take the butterfly and if you get close enough microscopes, you see the scales and the butterfly wings, and if you go further and further and further and further and further, you will approach a threshold, you will approach the threshold of the phenomenal world beyond which there's no more phenomena, okay, there is instead. And what happened in the 19th and 20th century, is a world of particles. And that threshold, that transition between the phenomenal world and the world of particles is extremely, extremely monumentally important. Because what happened is humanity, who was under the influence of this idea, began to think of actual reality not as what it presented itself. Which if you think about it are our holes within holes, you know, the whole tree within the whole forest within the whole region, or or beings, angels and archangels and other beings and they vary based on your cosmology and your culture. What happened is, we started to think of all that as just appearance or illusion, and what underlies them as particles as actual reality. And in the process, our way of thinking in our culture in many, many, many ways, in many different domains, from how we think about ourselves and and in each other, to psychology became really, really focused on particles, energies, wave forms and other invisible entities, which we assume exists based on abstractions based on our mathematics, and not part of the phenomenal world. Rather, they're part of the phenomenal world, but only a very small part of the phenomenal world. And in some ways, what happened was the phenomenal experience then took a backseat. And, and although of course, we live and exist in the phenomenal world, with each other, with our family, with the sun, with sunsets, with gardens with with having fun, the thinking itself, our thinking itself, when we think about reality goes towards these particles, or when we think about ourselves as human beings. The corollary is we go to the brain, we go to the nervous system, we go to the neurons firing, and we say things like we're wired this way or that way, because we assume this underlying reality. And the way that shows up and change work is, as we've as we've taken aim at, and the course, is a kind of very abstract way of thinking about a lot of change processes. That we, we've taken this world of this, this way of thinking, from this field of study. That's a very, very particular way of thinking. And we've applied it to the world and systems and change work. And so what is particular about this way of thinking is that and you can read this in the history of science, the founders of this way of thinking were concerned, for example, with quantities, not qualities. And they said that, if we're going to count it within the domain of science, it has to be measurable, we can wait, we can number it, or count it, we can measure it. And anything qualitative, anything in the realm of phenomena, as qualitative, cannot be in the domain of science. And so you can see a way of thinking there, where we say only quantitative things matter only kind of dictated things can be sure. But it has its advantages, and that you can put a Cartesian grid on it, and you can know exactly what you're talking about. But of course, you lose a lot of reality and its qualities, and its beingness. Now, what happens in change work, as you as you know, is that change processes are designed in systems and sort of like machines. With a very causal, closed loop way of thinking, if we do that, we'll get this, if we want this, we have to do that. And lots of money, and lots of time and energy is spent in this way of doing change work.
And when the phenomenal world shows up, for example, as close closed loops and binding shadows, most leaders don't know what to do with it. And, you know, projects and companies and systems or, you know, platforms get torn apart, and people go back to the drawing board, and then come up with another plan, we've covered this. So what we're going to do is we need to, we need to reassert the reality of the phenomenal world. And if you if you want to do that, there's some really good books in module one and module two, I can help you we can talk about that. But the picture here is that the phenomenal world is where phenomena unfold is where creativity happens. It's where we meet each other. And it's where we can create social holds together. And I think one of the one of the brilliant points that Steiner makes in this body of lectures is he said that this domain here is a very limited domain. That has to do with if we're really honest, machines, it has to do in other words, based on based on the way that the scientists constructed their definition of science, and then seventh and the 18th and 19th century. It was defined as something that can be taken apart into its parts, something that can be quantified. And so everything that can be taken apart, and whose existence can be understood by a sum of its parts could be included in science. Well, there's hardly anything in the realm of life that can be on stood as the sum of its parts, but machines can be understood as the sum of its parts. So this way of thinking is perfectly suited for technology and machines. And it's no wonder that we've seen the rise of machines in the last 150 years, because our way of thinking is perfectly adapted to that way of thinking. It's causal. So causation is primary. And this is the realm of death. And that's not a bad thing. It's just to say that this realm of causation and machine like linear reality, where everything real is the sum of its parts, and nothing more, cannot encompass life, because organisms, and beings, and the realm of life is always more than the sum of its parts. This is where wholeness manifests, and beingness. So, this is another way to think about this question of phenomenology to really give space define the space of causal thinking of machine like thinking of abstract reductionism. And realize it's very, very good, it's perfect, within a limited domain. And we can give it that space and say, yeah, that's the perfect way of thinking about machines or, you know, fixing the hole in your wall or, or working on your car or whatever. There's lots of lots of things about our civilization that absolutely need this way of thinking, to work and to function. And it's not everything we need, need to embrace and develop an exact way of seeing, and inter interacting with and co creating with the realm of life in the realm of being. When we do that, when we do that, we can develop the mind and the soul phenomenologically. Because when, when we see these different ways of thinking in ourselves, and we constrain them to their proper place, you could say, especially this one, and we see the limitations, then when we enter the world of the phenomenon of life of being, we can take the same exact thinking that we've developed here, right, with just as crystal clear. Where we have Cartesian like clarity, except that in the world of living phenomena, we don't fix and reduce to static images, static concepts, we don't kill them. Instead, we practice the same exactness, but in beholding, living, metamorpho metamorphosing emerging phenomenon.
So what we get here is, whereas we have a kind of formulaic knowledge here of abstractions that are completely clear, but lifeless, they're completely defined, but static. Over here, we're going to get pictures, we're gonna get clear pictures of emergence, without being able to define and measure them with the same, the same tools. So when we move into the phenomenal world of the mind and the soul, it's not that we lack clarity, we want to keep the clarity. But we have to give up the reductionism and the fixed nature of knowledge that's appropriate to the sphere of the lifeless. Instead, we're going to get to know these phenomena in full clarity and presence of mind. But we get to know them as a living, evolving emerging beings. So we form a different relationship to them. These phenomena here, and this enables us in these exercises that we're going to be sharing, to enter into thinking and and feeling and the will with utmost clarity phenomenologically and to observe there without always having to To reduce them to formula to reduce them to something that we fix. And that way we can get to know them in their livingness without losing clarity. without becoming overly, you know, mystified and mystical about things, we can remain phenomenologists in the realm of the invisible.
So let that land for a bit. And I'd like you to resign unless you have a better idea. I was just gonna ask folks to journal for a few minutes on these pictures, and I can put them up on the screen again. But let that land for a bit. And I'd like to talk about it. Because as we go into module three, this is a this is kind of one of the foundations. And so if you have any questions about the phenomenology applied to inner work, or the concept of the metamorphosis of thinking and feeling in the will, let's talk about them. Let's just discuss them today while we're here. And there are going to be plenty of time as we work into this module. But I want to introduce hitting and get started today with you.
So why don't we take like three minutes to sit with these ideas, write down questions, write down thoughts that came up for you. And then we'll share. Yeah. Jeff, can you do your time because my phone is not in evidence. Can you put the diagram back up? Is that the diagram you meant Lorraine? Okay. Jeff, you're
sharing your screen. All right. We have about 30 seconds Okay,
so um, can you hear me? Okay? Yeah, sorry, I was just gonna respond to that email that you sent me mom about this shirt. My mom's making a quilt for me, and she's including a bunch of old shirts. It's very cool project. So I need a example of a scientific fixed abstraction to compare with a living creative being like a butterfly. That was from from Sue in the chat. I'd love to hear from you. But let me just quickly respond to that. There's a there's a beautiful quote by Greta, it's in one of the modules. We're talking about a butterfly and he says, you know, you, you capture the thing, you handle it delicately. You it trembles in your hand. And before you know it, you have all you have all the parts of the butterfly, except the most important one it's life. And greater was basically contrasting a way of science that killed things, to break them into parts and analyze them both, both conceptually And literally, with a way of science that could apprehend and comprehend the living world. And in the living world, one thing becomes another becomes another becomes another. So it's a study of metamorphosis, rather than a study of parts. And these two are just worth contemplating. Okay. And the, the science of life includes this science of parts, but it transcends it because it understands that these parts are expressions that continually metamorphose. Okay, so let's hear, let's hear just some thoughts. Oh, yeah. Karen, you had another example. So I'll shut up. And let's just talk about these pictures.
Yeah, something that was rising for me was, I studied media and public relations. And, you know, back in HR, in the early turn of the century, they thought it was, you know, more carrots, like that, you would get more work from people, because you would pay them more, give them a better role, you know, title or whatever. And then I think it was around the 50s or 60s, they realized that purpose was a lot more important. So instead of just the numbers and treating people as this amorphous, kind of that's the workers, they realize that it's about the individuals and and how they achieve purpose. So that that felt it just I don't know, it just kept rising for me that that was more phenomenology, where it was sort of observing what the individual is needing, rather than just, you know, a group of machines who are people, and what their needs are. Just I'm not sure if it's helpful, but it was rising for me. And the curious part that that I'm interested in is how do we then transfer instead of a scientific study, again, of thinking how, how to have people sort of behave and perform within an organization or organize together? How do we turn it into this sort of non quantitative for how we do it in a qualitative sense, because I feel that's where we're going with the social change component is how to recognize those individual phenomena.
I'd love to build on that if I can. Because Karen, it's interesting to me that you went to a kind of corporate structure example what was really popping for me Jeff, as I listened to you, it by the way, it all made really good sense. I really appreciated the visual like it just makes it that much more sensical. And what I was noticing was the role of branding in our kind of corporate universe and the way I was interpreting it was business and I'm going to say some kind of negative things and I'm going to generalize business takes a political approach, you know, units produced, number of hours required, audience segments, sales dollars, etc. raw materials are very practically. But to achieve their ends a lot of businesses even business to business, but certainly consumer facing they use a branding approach to present a phenomenological situation, but it's not true. So I'm going to use a really absurd example. deodorant. It's Gloop that changes our body's ability to produce and recognize pheromones and the signals produced from like, human smell. That's all our smell is right as like a form of signal. But somewhere along the line, we decided we don't want that or we want to change it. So we do that. But the business that sells deodorant doesn't sell, you know, single use plastic canisters of Gloop, it sells attractiveness. It sells the wholeness idea. But that's not actually what happens. And so I was realizing a couple calls ago, Jeff, you talked about this kind of sickness of conscious or consciousness, yeah, disease consciousness. And I suddenly can see the gap so much more clearly, like you can do it with anything like alcohol, pretty much anything, where what the thing is, versus how it's actually presented. And there's a big gap. And the particularly bit is really clear, and making all kinds of money in the markets market there up, and how it actually lands in terms of our wholeness and our life, and our ability to thrive is a big gap. Yeah, so that's what was popping up for me, it seemed to explain the diseased consciousness thing with very meaningful
pathways. Can I say something? So do you want to go first? Okay. Yeah. What was very interesting to me, Jeff, when you are presenting is that there seem to be like a big paradox, in the sense that the language, just speaking things or trying to explain things to me is, is part of what's happening on the left side. So languages, especially logical language is like a chain of causation or it's something that's, that tends to, to kill the life out of things by you know, creating fixed images or some kind of realities that we can grasp of that are limited in themselves. And so when you're suggesting that when we go more on the phenomenology, amin on the feminine side, we'll have more pictures, there was new what we should have videos, we shouldn't have stills. And I'm not sure. I'm not sure any kind of attempt to explain what's happening on the life side ever makes sense. Because whenever you try to explain it, you're you're actually missing the life element of it. We're just focusing on on stills, but then it's like, again, like a fragment of reality that you can link to other fragments of reality, but it's, you're missing the movements of it. And and that's also some of the limitations I find sometimes when people talk about the importance of systems thinking, in the sense that, you know, we should have this whole system's view and we should see all the dynamics and but then whenever you try to start to explain it, then you're missing the whole point. So how do we really work with this constantly moving reality that we're going to actually kill and reduce whenever we're trying to explain it? Being humans we need to communicate about things. So we're limited in our very ability to convey anything that's related to life that is what we're actually supposed to be able to grasp so we can I'm sure we can grasp it at an individual level. I mean, we can feel it or maybe poetry to me works better sometimes to express things but how, how do we work with that? In in a tuning to one another one actually cannot express the life elements of the phenomenon.
I think that's the question of the age.
That reminds me of something that that came up for me, which is an I'm going to sort of put it in the context of what you're saying loralee nordforsk is built on that. There's so many different ways of communicating and words is only one. Have you ever had the experience of you're going through an experience with somebody else, and you glance at them, and they glance back at you, and you have this sudden shared understanding? That's like, Oh, you know, and you both get it. It's like this thought package that arrives to both of you at once. And you know, that the other person is thinking exactly what you're thinking, no, have you ever had that experience? before? Well, so from what I've been learning, this is how animals are constantly communicating, this is how life is constantly in communication, they're there. You know, you, you want to go trap the gophers and you've got all your gopher traps, and you go outside, and there's not a gopher inside. Whereas two hours ago, before you had the idea, there were gophers everywhere, because they, they Intuit, that you are thinking about them with your little traps. So there are so many, so many ways, in which and so I think the challenge for a human is, is learning to develop the muscle of listening into a kind of peripheral place, where life actually is active. It's like the threshold between day and night, you know, light and dark, that's where magenta the color magenta is. And that's why we've called our company magenta. Because in order to be able to perceive there, you have to build a muscle where you can begin to observe through a phenomenological way, a combination of feeling knowing, you start to build this feeling knowing which is wordless, in a way because our English, our English language, let's let me just narrow it down to English is built for this materialistic world. It's not really built to explain the phenomena that's on the edge in this way. I'm just going to stop there and see what comes up for others.
I was wondering, Jeff, you talked about the threshold of when something becomes a particle and thinking about the ways or maybe it's similar to what you're talking about is there is wondering if we could talk about the threshold of a phenomenon where I guess if we've developed these muscles, we see sort of what Louisa was talking about. Are we sense? It's just curious about the threshold on that side of
the picture here with reference to these last few comments is that as is regarding the fruit of this mapping the higher self activity. So if you if you build and this is the building the hut piece, if you train yourself to tolerate that contradiction learning, right, that you mentioned that paradox or that tension or that space at the edge and the threshold, you train yourself to embrace it, and live live with it. Which I think many of us on this call if not everyone already practices in, in some way shape or fashion, right. But it's not necessarily a common cultural practice, to put yourself inwardly on these thresholds of experience where something is real, but not necessarily language, herbal or definable, or, you know, measurable, then you're in the phenomenal world. But you're clear, and you're structured in your thinking and your perception. And when you practice those faculties, within that, on those thresholds are within this domain or plane where sort of subtle distinctions of reality can be sensed, but not necessarily measured, or given language. So they're phenomenon but they, they're just at the edge of our dominant paradigm, or our dominant use of language. But when you dwell there, you grow those faculties of perception, and cognition, so to see them clearly, and to know that you're seeing them clearly. What happens then is you actually grow the mind and the soul. Something latent, and otherwise dormant, starts to grow and be active as a faculty. And so good. And Steiner, after him call that first, first, call that imagination, distinguishing it from fantasy, that imagine imagination, grows into an organ of perception. So that as you get used to seeing these distinctions, and these movements and these reality that can't be measured, or given, you know, definition in the usual sense, you actually get better and better at doing that until you start to see more and more and more. And they call that imagination that call that an organ of perception. And at that point, something can happen where you recognize realities, and you perceive realities that have no corollary to the physical senses. In other words, they don't show up to your eyes and ears and touch. They don't show up in nature. But they show up in life they show up in, in the spiritual world, in the invisible world. And so you're building an organ of perception for spiritual realities. That's where we're going to, that's kind of where we're going. We just in this course, in this program, we're just going to hinted that, but I'm saying that Mary with reference to your question about the threshold. So Time, time becomes more fluid, you start to see things in time that you've not seen before, whether it's in your own biography are in the way that events are unfolding in the world, that certain certain things happen, where you go, Oh, that's interesting. That's something and you can tell by the way that it happens, that there will be a feature event connected with it. The crazy world but that's how it works in my experience. So you start to develop these organs of perception, to where you can even feel in your own morality or your own will. Possible fork. If I do it this way, it'll, it'll go that way into the future. If I do it that way, it'll set up this in the future. And that that becomes so that time element becomes more tangible, and part of that way of navigating, emergence during creative processes. Because you want it to emerge without explosions without, you know, causing more harm. So you develop this faculty for seeing emergence for seeing metamorphosis, if that makes sense. Anyway, I'll stop there.
Any other thoughts coming up? I see some quizzical brows.
Well, what comes up for me is that, you know, certain language is a problem. For certain thing, and then another's profit for another, and in the end of the day, like, I've been thinking to myself, well, what's so bad about, you know, a science that goes so deeply into, you know, exploring something in its particles and understanding, like all the elements and so on, like, I, you know, I think that's great. It adds to the whole picture of what one can know about this world. And, and so for me, it's more about then I think this this kind of inquiry invites me to think about the attitude or the approach one takes to something right, is, and then to be clear also to what I use when, but in, in the end of the day, it's like the actual intention or the approach, or the form of the approach, perhaps that, then, lets me stop here, or lets me go further. So So, yeah, that's what came up for me.
Yes, just to clarify, not necessarily bad, just limited. And harmful, if that way of thinking is applied outside of its own domain to everything. That is colonialism that is reductionism, that is nature as a stock of resources, people as wage slaves. That's making the world the machine. But within its domain, it's great. It's just consequential, applied to everything. Besides that's, that's one way of seeing it.
Mary, are you talking on mute? Yeah.
I'm reading a book called The mother tree about the relationships of trees and what happens in the forest. Bye by Suzanne Simard. And so she's able to be in the scientific realm and measure how mother trees are sending nourishment and carbon to their kin. So in some ways, what she describes in this book is sort of proving things to this patriarchal world by measuring and being doubted. And finally, it starts to sink in. But there's an element that sort of beyond measurement, as well, in terms of what she's talking about, and what she's perceiving.
Thank you for sharing that. Mary. I was trying to figure out how to articulate I just finished the overstory. And now I'm reading Yeah, tree. Yeah. Because it, it shows a picture of how time in nature is so different from the time of the time that we've created this linear time that is so reduction reductionistic is that the word, Jeff? And, and it's like it's expanded my whole my whole awareness of the reality of nature just opened, opened up in a very deep way. And so that's a that's a really good example of what you're talking about, but I couldn't figure out how to talk about it
might just be where I'm at right now. But I keep wanting to argue on behalf of natural science because it's not at particles anymore and hasn't been for a lot of years. I mean, the culture that has adopted science as religion may have stopped at particles but science itself is is at fields of possibility is the foundation of reality and And so like the reductionist thinking, and the rigor of the phenomena of real science has led to the same truth, of phenomena in becoming in perceiving in experience of, of an objective reality to the paradoxical nature of things. And I think that that, for me, makes it hard to separate phenomenon from objectivity or particle as a piece. But I haven't long practice of seeing reductionist thinking or the isolation of variables in order to come to objective certainty, as an application of death to life. And I think, where I go with that now is how do I, how do I apply the forces of thinking of forces of death? To Life without killing life? How do I make sure that I am showing up as a reverent steward of the life that I'm thinking about, and the life I'm feeling about and working with. And it's really late in the call for this kind of concept. But that really brings up for me the, the certainty and subjectivity of the filters of feelings that we have when there is conflict between individuals perceiving and trying to perceive deeply a shared reality with which they perceive aspects that seem in conflict.
Sounds like you are trying to include you your own lens and your own cognition, your own feeling life, in the process of observation. Is that true to say?
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And to learn to be precise about it, and to learn to tease out what is an objectively true instrument of my feeling, and a false projection, a filter of pain or a closed loop that I have twisted, the phenomena around it inside myself.
That's the crux of the matter.
Yeah. Is there something I could read that would talk about the advances of science in the way you're talking?
Sure. There There are actually several TED Talks even on that level of phenomenology as field of probability.
They share them.
Pretty fun that adjustable, I'll post them somehow.
Yep. post them on the community timeline platform, the awesome. Yeah.
But it's, it's really beautiful. I think, Lorraine, that you brought up the marketing piece and Karen the business side, because it's really the business and the propaganda use of science, in my experience, that has extrapolated this reductionist thinking as a control mechanism for society. And that opportunity to market this idea that Yeah, it'll go too long. We're over time. But thank you for sharing those pieces.
I mean, I think point is very valid, Tim, about where the actual sciences and where the culture is. I mean, after all, we've just been through a reality distortion field based on dangerous particles,
and I think the question to hold is, you know, at some point, at some point, the science will show that that objective reality is a human construct, can't be removed from the one who calls it objective. So at that point, we're getting somewhere with a paradigm shift, to say that reality is always participated. But until then, we risk not really being able to, in my view, at least, grow these faculties of perception that I'm that, you know, I'm talking about and others have talked about, because it just is a hindrance with always having this belief, which are in Barfield calls that the idolatry of the study. We create a concept. And then we forget that we created that concept and we believe in the Absolute Truth of that concept, whether it's a particle or a wave or objective reality or field of possibility or probability or whatever it is, we forget that we that are thinking created it. Yeah. And when we do that we we think of something without thinking it becomes, it becomes something else.
Yeah. When we isolate the variables to come to a truth, we forget to add that this is the truth just based on the subset of very isolated from Exactly, exactly. It will determine an isolated variable. How hard
clicking on the links in the chat? Oh, I must.
I just muted you soon.
Good. All right. Well, let's
wrap up. Any Any closing? comments, we can continue this. Speaking next week, hopefully 3.3 and 3.4 will be written by then. So this is this is something we're going to be wrestling with as we build the hut and talk about our experiences of building the hut and doing this work. So we'll continue but I'd love to hear any any closing thoughts that you haven't been able to express so far?
I no longer feel like weeping. And for this, I'm grateful. Good question. Dark Matter. Yeah.
All right, my friends. We'll continue next week. Have a great week.
Take care much love. Thanks for joining. Thank you. Good day.