Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 8 Rationalism)

Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 8 Rationalism)

Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 8 Rationalism)

Finally, we are seriously returning to our Doctor/pretext. To point out that the main reason of his anger about religions is simply that he is their rival: his is what he understood of quantum physics! And of course he makes the same mistakes as those he fights!

« What you fear you become »

I think you do not remember my formula that I just give as a subtitle, and that I used to explain that to deny something it was first necessary that the thing exists, which gave me the opportunity to report Anthony was getting very complicated to tell the same thing. Finally, maybe you remember… Am I becoming pessimistic! I intend to explain it to you more technically, as weather presenters say when they want to show you a map of cloud fronts…

And the error of this little world of religions, is to have forgotten to start from the Principle!

Take Christians for example. Their Traditional form is the only one to consider the Trinity that I discussed in my No. 7. So, it is they who have the True God! And they will fight with others who also cling to their « specialties ». Because religions are not the Traditional Forms from the Principle, but what the men of the Iron Age understood! That is often to say: almost nothing!

Perhaps The Principle seems too distant or not visible enough? Yet this is the first « evidence » of all and undisputable: we see that “there is something”… so it is the sign that something is possible. What? ALL what we see! And that changes constantly while nevertheless remaining consistent.

Among the Hebrews, this is the same problem. Their Genesis tells much the same story as the Gospel of John seen from another point of view, and there the name of the « actor » is Elohim. Scholars point out that it is a plural, so it cannot be God! Except that the important thing is not the plural noticed by those nerds proud of their culture, it is that it means the « divine powers » according to the translators. As we have seen, we can consider the Principle globally or as a collection of possibilities (or potential « things »). Forgetting the first sense of “power”, i.e. possibility (it comes from « be able », « be possible ») so instead of having identified The Principle, yet even as the text says that it gave « birth » to EVERYTHING it becomes a by-product of the divinity. Missed again!

Anthony vaguely understood that the « quantum field » was in causal relationship with the universe and that this was the place from where we could cause « unprecedented events », but he too does not go further. For his excuse one can point that it’s not from the beheading of a tradition, but just from the hysterical need to believe in progress and jump on everything that is (or seems) new. This is not very different from the Christian who prefers to refer to St. Thomas Aquinas rather than Christ, because the saint is more recent, and indeed one seems to better understand what he tells (and for a good reason…).

Very few theologians have considered the principle, although it is the only « indisputable » basis, since it is absolute, while other visions of the divinity are relative as the plurality of Traditional Forms indicates.

The Qur’an tells us that « If He willed, Allah could have made only one tradition, but he gave us many so that we have the opportunity to make contests of holiness! ». Well, we missed the boat again!

« Logic has nothing to do with rationalism! « 

This is the transposition of the (recent) note from some logicians: « The causal relationship is not rational… » .We have seen, Logic is from a cause, a principle, an opportunity to examine the effects, and if we observe an effect, it is a sign that there is a cause, without logic itself being able to let us know what. It is the observation of the effect that can allow us to consider what possibilities are expressed, or are manifested. In practice, the sooner we come to consider the Total Possibility (The Principle), the faster we can use Logic to deduce other effects.

Logic starts from a unique and absolute basis and concerns the WHOLE reality in ALL its forms, while rationalism needs three starting elements, necessarily relative since they are three, namely two things to get in, and one to find the relationship between them. And rationalism is not even Einstein’s relativity which does not attempt to express a « ratio » and simply says that everything is « probably related », what we KNOW to be the case considering Our Principle.

So, you cannot compute any relation between a cause and its effect since both are fundamentally different in nature: a possibility on one side and an actuality on the other. That’s why « The relationship of cause and effect is not rational. » Or if we believe science is knowledge of the principles, the rationalists are badly directed. Even completely west!

And what about a ride in India…

I said I could be guided by other forms of Tradition. I will not go through all of them, but just give you an idea of one outcome, such as what The Principle taught Hindus.

I pointed out that two-way passage between the states of potency and act are distinct in Hindu tradition in the form of Vishnu in the sense of power to act and Shiva concerning the return to potency. In fact this Traditional form considers that we should have one side, ‘individual’ possibilities, and on the other, the peculiar possibility that they are « manifested » or « produced ». On the first side, we will talk about « essences » of all things, which define what they will be, and the other of that special essence which makes it possible for things to exist (ex-ist = “be out »). The particular possibility is called the « substance » (sub-stare = what stands “below”). And the Vedas are therefore considering a « Universal Essence » (Purusha) and a Universal Substance (Prakriti). And guess what will be the first production of this substance?

The same as the first production that our commanding God will order his Word: The third function that we have considered first: The Universal Teacher, the Holy Spirit, which completes the Trinity for Christians. For Hindus, this Light is called Buddhi because it is indeed the Light of knowledge, since the universe with his space and his time, will not arrive until much « later » (still the chronological order to express the logical sequence!).

Where’s the Word? It is the game between Purusha and Prakriti, so it will be considered born of Prakriti, which produces ALL under the influence of Purusha essences like the Christian Virgin gave birth to the baby Jesus… This accounts for the « two-edged sword » that the Incarnation talks about to be in the form of two separate considerations…

Did you really think that there was only one way to consider the Principle?


Les commentaires sont clos.