|
NEW CONSCIENTIAL PARADIGM
This text was extracted from the book
Projectiology:
A Panorama of Experiences of the Consciousness outside the Human
Body, and reproduced here with authorization
of the author, Waldo Vieira, MD.
Definition. Basic scientific paradigm: model that
orients the criteria of the activities and norms of scientific research
in general, as a whole.
Synonymy: disciplinary
matrix; emerging paradigm; fundamental scientific decoding; leading-edge
theory; main scientific model; standard-theory.
Dying out. As previously
shown (see chap. 1), it can be seen that the essential Newtonian-Cartesian-mechanistic
paradigm of conventional incomplete science is currently dying out,
despite all the resistance of various origins and sources.
Corruption. Humankind’s
self-defensive nature leads it to hide information or remain silent
when faced with incomprehensible issues regarding the problems regarding
which it is incapable or does not yet possess the resources to solve.
Pathothosenes. The following
are 3 examples of intraphysical complacency or collective, tacit
pathothosenes:
1. Consciousness. Conventional
science avoids directly researching the consciousness as
an object, which is a contradiction or irrationality.
2. Monoglotism. North Americans
avoid talking about their basic monoglotism, which creates gaps
in their culture and affects the areas of science in general, based
upon the English language.
3. Hunters. The majority
of armed forces, in all countries, do not refer to their own reality:
of being professional-technical people hunters.
Unawareness. The Newtonian-Cartesian-mechanistic
paradigm has systematically kept scientists profoundly ignorant
of parapsychism, interdimensionality of the intraphysical consciousness
or conscientiology, its realities, principles and laws.
Soma. In their obstinate
unawareness of parapsychism, they affirm that the enigmas of life
are entirely based in the natural sciences and only in the development
of the cells of the human body (soma).
Gap. This is the great,
deplorable gap in human understanding. Scientists voluntarily and
blindly distance themselves from the deeper and more productive
reality of consciential evolution (even from themselves) which is
capable of further accelerating the inner progress of humankind,
under the pretext of only employing positive, objective –
but superficial or epidermic – methods.
Priorities. Among the follies
and resistance of the still immature and materialistic scientific
community, we can single out the regrettable absence of discernment
and perspective in the establishment of priorities for basic or
pure research, which could lead to a more consciential technology.
Subsidies. Even in Brazil,
for example, considerable official subsidies, financial grants and
support – coming from resources provided by all of us who
make contributions – are currently earmarked for the sometimes
useless, absolutely non-priority and even repetitive technical studies
of the tiny hairs on the sexual organs of some small, unknown
animal. This research does not have the slightest chance of providing
immediate aid to starving children, young non-students, or adult
consciousnesses who are at odds with themselves, all of whom pertain
to the minorities of intraphysical society.
Report. According to UNESCO’s World Science
Report 1996, the paper/patent ratio in developed countries
is 2:1. In developing countries in Asia the ratio is inverted, or
two patents per paper. In Brazil, we have the shameful record of
one patent for every 40 articles published.
Sponsorship. Up until the present, in Brazil, no
person or governmental organ has been encountered that would sponsor
the most promising research project for the sophisticated parapsychic
analysis of the consciousness, a vital, priority subject for everyone,
in all places, times or circumstances. The International Institute
of Projectiology and Conscientiology completed one decade of work
without having been granted any official subsidy. It has now, in
1998, become a national “Public Utility” institution
(officially considered by the Brazilian government to be of benefit
to society).
Number. Those wishing to bear this out need only
observe the number of traditional, costly technical magazines in
Brazil.
Sensibleness. A somewhat greater degree of sensibleness
on the part of upcoming human generations is to be hoped for. Those
alive at the time will see.
Ignorance. Low-level interests can turn science
into a negative discipline. Examples: bellicosity, atomic bombs;
anti-ecological endeavors; anti-bioethical realizations. Other human
objectives also impair scientific development.
Prey. Those who diligently combat, restrain or
omit new scientific conquests – whether they are religious
persons, politicians, militarists, industrialists, merchants, lobbyists
or even certain immature scientists – when doing so in a criminal
manner, behave atavistically like birds of prey.
Oligarchy. The delinquent plunderers intend to
maintain the ignorance of brainwashed, robotized beings
who live under the control of their social influence (oligarchy).
Privileges. The maintenance of the status quo
of profit and the expansion of privileges that the oligarchy enjoys,
and to which it is addicted, are dependent upon the manipulation
of these beings and this blind ignorance and consciential control.
Misoneists or neophobic individuals, not having these advantages
and privileges, would not know how to live the human experience,
arising from renewal in other bases, which are generated precisely
by these new scientific conquests.
Lobbyism. Thus the current vicious circle
of dominating-dominated intraphysical consciousnesses continues
(corporatism, lobbyism, nepotism, ethnocentrism) in many fields.
Revision. All scientific laws, as rigid as they
may be, are susceptible to revision.
Response. In science, it is impracticable to offer
a general, exhaustive response that fully answers a question.
Dynamism. Scientific truth is dynamic, corrects
itself and does not purport to be definitive. Scientific knowledge
remains fresh for as short a period of time as fish.
Impermanence. There is no permanence for scientific
concepts.
Obsolescence. The life of a scientific work (paper)
is very short.
Coerce. The obsolescence of the materials available
to us is continually more intensive and pressuring.
Foreknowledge. Little of that which the author
affirms today will be correct ten years from now. Articles published
a decade-and-a-half ago are almost useless in many scientific fields.
Decades. The bulk of what we learn now will not
be sufficiently correct within 5 decades.
Acceleration. In the world of today or the increasingly
rapidly mutating Intraphysicology, the phenomenon of acceleration
of human history, in which we are immersed and rooted, is irreversible
and overwhelms neophobic and anachronistic minds in all lines of
intraphysical knowledge.
Shortening. On the other hand, the acceleration
of history promotes the democratization of information and the shortening
of the period of infancy, puberty, adolescence and the generation
gap. Intraphysical consciousnesses mature at an earlier age. Today,
there are 9-year-old mothers. There are 10-year-old assassins and
drug dealers.
Creativity. What is of the greatest importance
is to create and maintain a scientifically alive, open and creatively
stimulating environment.
Neophobia. In science, one
needs to elude conceptual straightjackets (neophobia).
Omniscience. Only in a
word of amateurs can an individual intend to possess monolithic
omniscience or absolute certainty.
Fortification. Science
has the magic wand of being eternally new. The revision
of a theory does not necessarily weaken it. It can even strengthen
it.
Victory. When we are obliged
to modify our conception in this manner, it does not constitute
a loss for our scientific point of view, but a useful victory.
Step. In science, each
former abandoned point of view signifies a new step forward in scientific
vision.
Dilemma. The consciousness
is not a product of matter. Nevertheless, the infantile and infantilizing
mind-matter (consciousness-brain) dilemma continues.
Comprehension. Despite
resistance from traditional scientists, parapsychic research is
calling for drastic revision of the conventional structures of various
segments of mechanist science with regard to the comprehension of
human nature and the nature of reality itself.
Parapsychism. In psychic
and parapsychic areas, there are many phenomena which are currently
subject to intense controversy. Examples: the phenomenological complex
of unidentified flying objects (UFOlogy); the theory of existential
seriation.
Documentation. Other facts
have been described, verified and documented with such frequency
by scientific observers that they are no longer the object of heated
debate. Examples: hypnosis; telepathy.
Obscurity. However, deep
obscurity still persists for us regarding the essence of these phenomena,
including those which are more accepted, or more to the point, less
stigmatized.
Subsociety. Besides this,
it is necessary to definitively destroy the link between pure parapsychism
and the following four spurious realities:
1. Occultism or popular group autism.
2. Inappropriate commercialism.
3. Sensationalism.
4. Shrewd mystification.
Disconnection. As difficult
as this may prove to be, it has to be done. As things are, unfortunately,
serious persons distance themselves and a field as promising as
this is characterized as an ingenuous, simplistic subsociety.
Significations. One cannot
enter into a world of significance without formulating the necessary
postulates.
Ingenuousness. In religion,
these postulates are called blind or rationalized faith.
In the majority of religions, the sacred, infallible truth
is decreed through doctrine (dogmatization, dogmatics, theology).
Its acceptance is based on the unquestionable faith of ingenuous
religiosity.
Heresy. Any sign of doubt
or questioning is considered heresy or dissidence, when not
bordering on anathema.
Ethics. In Ethics, postulates
receive the names of norms or ideals.
Postulates. In science,
postulates are hypotheses or theories.
Sermons. Science does not
give sermons on unverifiable truths.
Demagogy. The following
are five spurious products of unverifiable, absolute and imposed
truths pertaining to the religious demagogies of the great theological
empires, ancient, traditional and modern sects:
1. Clan. Exaltation of the
spirit of the clan and of nationalism.
2. Sectarianism. Subtle
inculcation of sectarian belief through the channels of social welfare.
3. Palliatives. Palliative
social welfare, in appearance only, with no real remissive intention
(primary consolation task).
4. Catechism. Manifest or
masked indoctrination, catechism, subordination, proselytism and
brainwashing, aiming at mystical salvationism.
5. Sacralization. Imposition
of static principles and sacralizations, without a right to question
anything (anathema).
Advantages. We are aware
of a greater number of advantages than disadvantages, in the scientific
discoveries that we have up until now. On the other hand, scientific
investigation has to be pure.
Limits. There should not
be limits to scientific research.
Goal. What is scientifically
done, or produced in a laboratory, should not always be realized
with a predetermined goal.
Philosophy. Nevertheless,
in light of the above, we can neither exclude Philosophy as a useful
coadjutant, nor Ethics as a wise rule of behavior (Cosmoethic) from
science.
School. Every schools have
its specific policies.
Contention. Philosophy
and Ethics, as well as Logic, are indispensable for restricting
the excesses of human immaturity in the process of brutalization
stemming from the abuses of applied science in technology (technicians,
technological torture, technophobia/technolatry, technovictims/technodependents),
and actions of the of the public opinion agencies.
Biotechnology. The following
are 19 examples, from 1997, of the so-called monstrous threats
of Biotechnology, the great economic vector of the Twenty-first
Century, involving the two extremes of human life, the fetus/cradle
and elderly/grave:
01. Everyday and cutting-edge Bioethics.
02. Artificial insemination.
03. Pre-embryos.
04. Rejected human embryos.
05. The Australian physician who had 10,000
children.
06. Human Genome research.
07. Human abortion.
08. Euthanasia.
09. Kidney-transplant tourism.
10. The human market or the marketing of
human life.
11. The removal of organs from adopted children.
12. The exportation of children.
13. The genetically engineered rat.
14. The fly with 15 pairs of eyes.
15. The cloning of Dolly the sheep.
16. The cow Rose that produces human milk.
17. The cloning reproduction of the human
being.
18. The bioethical question of arms.
19. The indiscriminate and careless use of
nuclear energy.
Cosmoethics. Immature scientists
avoid discussing ends. They only discuss means. Therein,
the maturity of Cosmoethics, which is still completely
inexistent, should come into play.
Identity. Science, per
se, does not have an identity. It has to be free and prospective.
Uses. The manner in which
we use science is very important, as is its ethical utilization
(Cosmoethics).
Honesty. Scientific means
should be perfectly honest. Let us observe what occurs in this world
of modern Bioethics. Ethics is not quantitative, but qualitative.
Technologism. For example,
as military security measures (top secret), the ideologues (technocrats)
of the Technologistic (computerization of society) system, divide
scientific projects into as many functional parts as possible, delivering
their solution to separate groups.
Domestication. The scientist
– usually a first-rate experimenter – domesticated
in this manner, works in total ignorance of the reason behind
of his/her project.
Distortion. He/she is not
aware of the true ideological determinants that govern his/her personal
process (minicog), as a part of an entire structure or system (maximechanism),
the primary proposal of which is the technologization of society.
It is the distorted, amoral, model of scientific knowledge.
War. In war, evil is organized
bureaucratically, through the interaction of science and technology,
so that no one beneath their superiors can be held responsible
for that which occurs.
Dilution. The pointers
of cosmoethical consciousnesses become diluted.
Error. The cold application
of Aristotelian and Newtonian concepts, tempered with Cartesianism,
has drenched this planet with human blood, notably in the Twentieth
Century.
Industry. Besides the death industry,
which is maintained by political leaders and military technicians,
the greatest error committed by the scientists of Incomplete Science,
which is regulated by the still dominant Newtonian-Cartesian-mechanistic
paradigm, is the myopic decision made by the majority of the professional
community to entirely ignore the extraphysical nature of the human
consciousness.
Resistance. This is the absolute and absurd resistance
to interdimensional or multidimensional relative truth. Scientific
knowledge can be canonical, preconceived and pretentious.
Superficiality. Myopic researchers devote all of
their attention exclusively to the physical, organic, peripheral
or superficial areas of the personality, which are far more complex
when addressed in a comprehensive manner. They thus feel vindicated.
Dermatology. Sheltered within crippled-semiscience,
in the mutilation of knowledge and the explosion of fragmented knowledge,
researchers with temporal power paralyze scientific research
projects by establishing a lowest common denominator and committing
their efforts to the dermatology of the consciousness,
where they feel more secure and have greater economic and social
support.
Dichotomy. Orthodox science (purism) and orthodox
religion (fundamentalism) have both been institutionalized and frozen
within a mutually exclusive dichotomy.
Sociopathy. This is a pathological, or a drastic
sociopathy, because it maintains subcultures and selective blindness.
Protoknowledge. On the one hand, the author has
therefore sought to eliminate all conditioning resulting from cultural
development over decades, notably in regard to religion, a protoknowledge
which is as outdated, in the phase of consciential maturity, as
any other line of knowledge or kindergartenish.
Present-future. On the other hand, he guides himself
through secularism, rationalism and empiricism, although based upon
an integrative, greater, holosomatic, multidimensional, evolutionary
universalism, endeavoring to see today and tomorrow,
the here and now and elsewhere, the present-future.
Personal. The interdimensional, transphysical
phenomena of projectiology surpass the current resources for the
physical detection of universal occurrences that are utilized by
conventional science. So far, they allow only the interested individual
to directly access the processes and orientations developed here.
Empiricism. In summary: only personal empiricism
is executed. They are still unable to offer traditional, direct,
scientific replicability of consciential phenomena or, in other
words, public, universal, easy or common empiricism.
Difference. When we compare knowledge gained through
conventional, orthodox science with the knowledge gained through
projectiology and conscientiology, we can identify the fundamental
difference between one and the other.
Universal. Traditional
or conventional scientific knowledge is contingent. Its propositions
or hypotheses have their veracity or falsity perceived through non-participatory,
universal, replicable experimentation. It is not obtained
merely through reason, as occurs with philosophical knowledge.
Individual. The veracity or falsity of the propositions
or hypotheses of projectiological knowledge are also currently
based on experimentation, with the only difference being that it
is a personal, individual, participative, non-universal
and non-public (intraconsciential) experimentation.
Verifiability. Parapsychic knowledge allows only
personal verifiability, the employment of reason and the mutual
critiquing of experiences between experimenter projectors. This
helps the exemplificative intraphysical consciousness.
Systematization. Despite the differences, similarities
also occur. Traditional or conventional scientific knowledge, as
well as projectiological knowledge, are systematic.
Connections. They stem from logically organized
knowledge, forming systems of ideas or theories and not disperse,
disconnected knowledge. The interested individual can bear out this
fact with the projective techniques included in this book.
Fallibility. Both traditional scientific knowledge,
as well as projectiological knowledge, constitute fallible
knowledge, by virtue of the fact that they are not definitive, absolute
or final. For this reason, they are approximately exact.
Propositions. New propositions and the development
of conventional and projective techniques can reformulate the collection
of existing theories.
Generality. Science cannot be limited in its research.
Nevertheless, pure science always endeavors to be a general
science and not an individual science.
Nomothetic. Science likes universals, not particulars.
It deals only with broad, preferably universal (nomothetic) laws.
Ideography. Individuality cannot be studied correctly
through existing conventional science (as will be seen in the next
chapter), but by history, art or biography, the methods of which
are not nomothetic or, in other words, involve the formation of
general laws or seek out universal laws. They are, however, ideographic,
namely, those which endeavor to study individual cases (reports,
experiences, experiments).
Contradiction. This scientific dogma of
universality is a contradiction, because it places an arbitrary
limitation upon the unlimited range of scientific investigation.
Evolution. Conventional scientists lack the priority
module of evolutionary intelligence.
Problem. The consciousness is, nevertheless, a
phenomenon, even when it is encountered only in individual forms.
The consciousness, as an object, is an unwavering trans-knowledge
that is before us.
Feelings. Conventional science, in an illogical
and partial manner, does not take into account that which we really
feel: the subjective experience (individual and collective). It
describes the cosmos or a world of things that have no value, interacting
as though humanity did not exist. It describes nature in a cold,
incomplete and unsatisfactory manner.
Conscientiology. Individuality creates unique problems
for conventional science. It may be the greatest relevant problem
that Conscientiology represents for the person of conventional science
(participative consciousness).
Inconvenience. The consciousness is therefore
a disturbance or an inconvenience for Incomplete Science.
Coherence. As the consciousness is an universal
phenomenon, science – although remaining frozen in an exclusively
nomothetic manner of thinking – has to study this nuisance
in order to maintain its coherence. Nevertheless, it cannot
study it correctly, except when it seeks the individuality of standardization
(a paradox).
Alienation. This is the essential dilemma of Incomplete
or alienating Science over the last 2 centuries, represented by
the separation of subject and object. This began the logical exhaustion
of the Newtonian-Cartesian-mechanistic paradigm, which is still
in force.
Authority. From this point forward, the conventional
scientist, who still possesses neither the authority nor the experience
to correctly study the universal phenomenon of personality
or the consciousness, also lacks the authority to correctly
judge the research and findings of Conscientiology or the personality,
when considered in its entirety (holosomatic, multidimensional,
pluri-existential, holobiographical). These are the facts.
Concessions. The individual who makes more concessions
to intraphysical powers fairs better at that moment and in the world
of superficial discoveries.
Conscientiality. The individual who seeks to transcend
the common standard of scientific mediocrity, limiting personal
concessions, is the only personality who will be able to attain
the leading-edge relative truths of projectiology and obtain a better
level of conscientiality in regard to personal intraconsciential
and extraconsciential realities. This will allow the individual
to overcome the dispensable self-mimicries that constantly attempt
to monopolize that which we do in human life.
Events. Events directly related to human beings
never repeat themselves the same way twice.
Individualities. There
are no two similar or identical individualities.
Subjacency. Events can,
however, have a subjacent determinism.
Replicability. This definitively makes the basic
scientific determination of replicability of facts or laboratorial
research unviable.
Partiality. This also eliminates material instruments
or physical resources as being inadequate. It furthermore removes
pure science and immature scientists from the scientific investigations
of Conscientiology – the science of the whole psychological
individuality – and, consequently, from Projectiology, both
of which demand participative research (consciential energies, parapsychism)
in order to reduce the current partial nature of incomplete science.
Individual. The ideographic or individual study
of the personality or the consciousness, in an isolated manner,
is extremely complex.
Isolation. In practice, it is extremely difficult
to study an isolated individual, because nobody exists alone (a
fundamental three-word megathosene).
Absurd. On the other hand, every time we measure,
we are introducing a general or nomothetic law. If taken literally,
the ideographic perspective is absurd. We can, however, accept it
as an appeal to not neglect the individual in our search for general
laws.
Foundation. The facts of projectiology definitively
convince only the lucid projector through self-thosenization. Thus
far, projectiology does not have a foundation capable of persuading
non-practitioner or non-participant researchers.
Guiding-myth. It is hoped that this possibility
shall arise one day, with the development of refined technology
applied to consciousness research. At this point, the mechanistic
paradigm – the guiding-myth of contemporary Incomplete Science
– will have already been substituted by a new consciential
paradigm defined by Projectiology.
Ambiguities. This is the thought that progresses
beyond the ingenuous logic of current human society, a less precise
paradigm that is still contaminated with ambiguities that need to
be eliminated.
Transition. Scientifically
speaking, we are currently undergoing the crisis of transition,
the pains of integration, the ethics of the interim, toward the
primacy of a new paradigm.
Doubleness. There are even holistic researchers
who think that we are currently living in a post-paradigmatic period,
wherein two scientific paradigms – the depleted and the new
– somehow peacefully coexist.
Challenge. Projectiology currently has little to
offer the researcher who is a purist and a mechanist, in regard
to the impersonalization of science and the inviolability of the
principle of direct, systematic replicability, impeded from conducting
experiments of a participative nature and, consequently, developing
him/herself regarding the consciential aspect, whether it is due
to temperament, mesological repressions, personal conditioning or
an inability to tolerate crises of ambiguities.
Extraphysical melancholy. The author recommends
the study (pattern-behavior versus exception-behavior)
of post-desomatic parapsychoses and extraphysical melancholy to
all colegues, with a maximum of self-critique and heterocritique.
Instrumentation. The use of adequate, sophisticated
instrumentation can one day substitute personal projectiological
experiments in consciousness research. This instrumentation has
not yet been invented. This is a challenge to our intelligence,
which has remained undefeated since the Nineteenth Century.
Instrument. Today, in experimentology,
the consciousness is the most efficient instrument of choice at
hand in consciousness research. This, however, is not as bad, deficient
or inefficient as it may seem to those less attentive individuals.
Adversaries. There are those – the adversaries
of the consciential paradigm – who affirm that we should not
research the consciousness by way of another consciousness, but
instead, through the use of material apparatuses or physical instruments.
Questions. At this point, it is worth posing four
rational questions and presenting their respective answers:
1. Creation. Who created
these apparatuses and instruments? The creative human consciousness.
2. Research. Who performs
research in all the areas of traditional and modern science? The
human consciousness as researcher.
3. Brain. With which instrumentation,
for example, does Neurology research the human brain itself? Precisely
with the brains of neurophysiologists or neuroscientists, researching
the brains of human beings through the functioning of their own
brains.
4. Virus. If the human consciousness
cannot research itself and other consciousnesses, inevitably in
a participative manner, who is it that these arguers and conventional
science itself hope that will research it? The virus? This is nonsense
or an absurdity.
Irrationality. As can be
seen, this is an undoubtedly irrational argument. We can thereby
rationally perceive how conventional science is indefensibly contradictory,
omissive, immature and mundane (tropospheric).
Evasion. For 2 centuries, science has been irrationally
and habitually concealing resources and constantly evading –
a collective, group, lobbyist or corporatist defense mechanism –
the direct, chakra-to-chakra, pore-to-pore research of the consciousness
or the participative research of the researcher-object. We cannot
dispute the facts.
Observation. The scientist is not merely a camera
lens, recorder or computer. After all, direct observation is the
best source of knowledge. This is so even when – or still
when – this direct observation is multidimensional or is performed
with the para-eyes.
Substitute. In regard to all this, there is one
invariable reality: there is no substitute for personal experience.
Right hand. The reader knows that his/her right
hand has five fingers and, furthermore, knows how to operate it
to his/her benefit. No one needs to give this person lessons about
this.
Techniques. Everything in our transitory life in
this intraphysical dimension requires technique. Even avoiding a
sneeze.
Understanding. Nowadays, there are also logical,
rational techniques for anyone who is interested in understanding
him/herself in an integral or holosomatic manner.
Neosynapses. Fortunately or unfortunately, the
fact is that conventional science, which remains myopic, does not
possess these techniques. The interested individual endeavors to
change paradigms and create neosynapses, devoid of neophobia.
Presuppositions. On the one hand, many of our propositions
are still not science, being merely scientific hopes, in the sincere
opinion of the mechanistic scientist, who is fearful of losing his/her
professional security, being dependent on financed survival
from conventional science, under the pressure of which he/she has
been living (the author has been an independent researcher for the
past four decades).
Semi-science. On the other hand, as with conventional,
incomplete science, these projectiological propositions still constitute
handicapped-semi-science.
Darkness. For this reason, the best way to facilitate
the advent and the full implantation of matured science will be
to understand how dense the darkness that we touch is – regarding
conventional science, on the one hand, as well as regarding projectiology,
on the other hand.
Provisional. Never forget, however, that the presuppositions
of conventional natural science, with which we began, are provisional
and subject to revision.
Debates. In scientific debates, a theory cannot
be defended in an irrational manner, notably one which is old or
antiquated.
Classification. Science requires classification.
Similarities. We are not able to obtain general
knowledge unless we group phenomena on the basis of similarities
(identities, affinities, interactions).
Enumerations. In this way arose the projective
techniques, didactic enumerations, specialized terminology and the
panorama of this book, which is quite rigid up to a certain point
(all didactic annotations notwithstanding).
Losses. Through matured science, the individual
who defends the theory of existential seriation will be able to
prophylactically defend him/herself against the causes of repetitive
existential lifetimes or unconscious self-mimicries.
Self-mimicries. Self-mimicries generate loss in
energy, effort, mental time and evolutionary opportunities in the
micro-universe of our consciousnesses.
Perspectives. The great difference between conventional,
mechanist, physicalist science and Conscientiology (a world of consciential
and multidimensional research) is a matter of priority with regard
to two perspectives:
1. Scientist. The conventional,
materialist, four-dimensional or parochial scientist feels incompetent
because he/she still dies in the transitory human body. This scientist
would like to take shortcuts, living forever in an illusory matter,
through the elixir of eternal youth.
2. Serenissimus. The Serenissimus,
having a multidimensional, holosomatic, maxi-universalist perspective,
feels incompetent because he/she still needs to live in the transitory
human body. He/she would like to skip steps, living forever disconnected
from matter, in his/her infinite self-evolutionary career.
Syntheses. The (universalistic
and interdimensional) scientist, within the world of Conscientiology
research is, above all, as a first step, interested in attaining
the most difficult of the last (but always relative) syntheses of
the most essential (priority) analyses and investigations of the
consciousness, or human personality, within the globalizing context
of the Physical Universe.
Interest. This interest allows the individual to
finally achieve, at a later stage, the context of the Consciential
Universes that exist and can be reached by the ego that is restricted
and immersed in the process of resoma.
Stages. These stages of more sophisticated –
and the most important – investigation can only be achieved
by the lucid consciousness through its intelligent performance,
proceeding from the mentalsoma, controlling its holosoma, in order
to control a truly more ample range of consciential dimensions,
while in the mature human body.
Repetitions. The following are 13 factors, among
many others, that predispose unnecessary repetitions in existential
seriation or multiexistential experiences, presented here in alphabetical
order:
1. Bad information, subinformation and disinformation.
2. Concealment of data.
3. Conditioned repressions.
4. Deeply rooted taboos.
5. Erudite charlatanism.
6. Exploitation of public credulity.
7. Fictional occultism.
8. Instinctive mysticism.
9. Irrational sacralizations.
10. Manipulation of vulnerable consciousnesses.
11. Popular beliefs.
12. Professional esoterism.
13. Subtle abdominal brainwashing.
Hopes. Faced with life’s
problems and the need to understand human nature and the structures
of the consciousness, individuals tend to place excessive hope,
or have faith, in conventional, mechanistic, incomplete
science, as though it could solve all of humankind’s
problems.
Modes. To a considerable extent, many of these
problems can be resolved in other ways of understanding reality,
or other modes of cognition. For example: esthetic, religious forms
or non-empirical suppositions.
Integration. The author nevertheless recommends,
in all honesty – as always – the integration of conventional
science with the simple consciential paradigm of projectiology.
Simplicity. All things being equal, we should prefer
the simpler theory or that which resorts to fewer presuppositions
and paradigms. This is a concept of conventional science itself:
“Occam's razor.”
Whims. At this point, it is valuable to understand
our whims, in increasing order, which manifest in three ways:
1. Biomemory. The mind –
in this case the intraphysical consciousness or the consciousness
with its personal cerebral dictionary and biomemory – is less
whimsical.
2. Will. The will is always
moderately whimsical.
3. Emotion. The emotion
is always overly whimsical.
Forms. As previously argued, the scientific form is a singular
one, among many existing alternatives, for understanding our inner
and external reality.
Mentalsoma. Science shows
itself to be better, because it is founded on the bases of the evolved
mental body or mentalsoma (the consciousness).
Discernment. This signifies: logic, rationality,
discernment, refutation and vanguard, relative truth.
Priority. In summary: what is presently lacking
in conventional science is the more refined discernment of priority.
The majority of conventional scientists have still not discovered
the existence of evolutionary intelligence.
Psychosoma. Other lines of knowledge and human
inquiry, e.g., art, esthetics and religion, establish their bases
in the less evolved emotional body or psychosoma.
Manipulation. This signifies systematic emotionality,
dogmatism, perverse indoctrination, abdominal brainwashing,
distorted truth (subinformation, disinformation) or disguised will
(the quality of intention), in order to manipulate consciousnesses
or social beings.
Anticosmoethical. This troublesome, anticosmoethical
work has been efficiently performed throughout the twentieth century
by opinion shapers, agitators, multifaceted demagogues, merchants
of many origins and the shameless manipulators of robotized consciousnesses
(existential robotization).
Religious person. The religious person, when based
only in the emotional body and moved by sectarianism, repudiates,
with violent suspicion, the consciential qualities coming from the
mentalsoma. This individual combats open education, universalistic
knowledge, the intellect and science.
Piety. This individual erroneously consider these
things to be destroyers of instinctive sentiment, innate intuition,
natural piety and innocent perspicacity. This does not,
however, correspond to the reality of multidimensionality and applied
cosmoethics.
Tranquility. Those who merely possess natural
good sense, lacking the logical bases of scientific research,
are afraid of expressing themselves and are anxious to demonstrate
that their points of view are correct. They use all their passions
and sophistic weapons to this end.
Decider. The rational decider, the pointer of the
discerning consciousness, cannot be moved by emotions.
Serenity. Consciousness research only becomes established
in the more serene researcher.
Whys. As previously affirmed, the main
mechanistic model of conventional science is presently heading toward
exhaustion. It alone cannot answer all of your (the reader’s)
questions and whys regarding the comprehension of your own complex
personality. The simple intraphysical consciousness does not exist.
Self-control. For example, science still cannot
explicate the following three aspects with reasonable explanations
or techniques:
1. Behavior. Greater control
of the individual’s personal behavior.
2. Decisions. Making of
wiser choices in your daily life.
3. Self-control. The brilliant
scientist’s lack of emotional self-control.
Professionals. It should
not be forgotten that we still encounter the following seven categories,
among others, of contradictory and embarrassing professionals relative
easy in this intraphysical society:
1. Cardinal: the cardinal
who smokes (addicted to pipes and cigars).
2. Dietician: the obese
dietician (addicted to food).
3. Diplomat: the monoglot
chancellor.
4. Journalist: the illiterate
journalist (the press).
5. Nobelist: the Nobel Prize
winner found to be a pedophile.
6. Lung specialist: the
lung specialist who is an inveterate smoker.
7. Psychiatrist: the onycophagic
psychiatrist.
Participation. Therefore, if you are disillusioned
with conventional science – which explains nothing about the
why, but only about the how – you only stand
to gain if, from this point on, you also begin your personal, participative
research, in order to help improve this situation that disappoints
you.
New. Come over to science. Help us to
prove the new consciential paradigm, the emerging model, the most
recent decoding or scientific systematization.
New perspective. This will signify three renovations
or innovations:
1. Life. A new projectiological
perspective on life.
2. Science. A recycling
of science itself.
3. History. An alteration
of the perspective of history.
Evidence. This is the clear
objective of this book: to emphasize pieces of evidence, however
small they may be, of this vanguard reality or this leading-edge
relative truth, thereby presenting these ideas, which then no longer
need to be reinvented in the near future, either in this human existence
or in others.
Researcher. In the practical, daily life of conscientiology
(and the subdiscipline of projectiology) researcher, at least the
three following scientific priorities, listed here in chronological
order, are rationally indispensable:
1. Self-organization. Organize
one’s own intraconsciential, intraphysical and extraphysical
life: personal discipline.
2. Self-experimentation.
Accumulate the facts observed in the consciential dimensions: participative
personal experimentation.
3. Fixation. Present the
findings, independent of any other intercurrent factors or variables,
placing the less impermanent scientific communications above the
ephemeral intraphysical institutions: the fixating of leading-edge
relative ideas into human life.
Self-relay. This formula,
which is simple to present and difficult to execute,
is a logical way for the consciousness to experience the meshing
of healthy multiexistential self-relays, thereby becoming a minicog
within a multidimensional, interconsciential, interpersonal, assistantial
maximechanism.
Fecundity. The theory defended
here – in its first generation – for the integral analysis
of the consciousness stimulating and potentially fecund.
Developments. This theory
at least presents a summarily influential structure in preparation
for later further technical developments.
|
|
