What is the Force MkII

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Williamkaede wrote: I'm a big fan of the 'three blind men and the elephant' parable when it comes to exploring the Force.

Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared, 'Men are flat.' After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.

Moral:

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
-Werner Heisenberg

Nice one Kyrin.

Now in the future if you could reply to something like

Adder wrote: I like this

"we can conceive of no radical separation between forming and being formed, and between substance and space and time…the universe is conceived as a continuum [in which] spatio-temporal events disclose themselves as "stresses" or "tensions" within the constitutive matrix…the cosmic matrix evolves in patterned flows…some flows hit upon configurations of intrinsic stability and thus survive, despite changes in their evolving environment…these we call systems."
~ Ervin Laszlo

with something like

What do you like about it?

It would make everything so much better, thank you.

So to tie this idea of systems philosophy to the parable of the elephant as a method to discern truth, the parable is deeply flawed on many levels. The parable itself is not a path to truth because it is still just an assertion and not an argument. An assertion is just a point of view, an opinion. An argument on the other hand is a point of view supported by reasons that demonstrate the view is a good one. While the parable is a powerful illustration it is still just an assertion because it does not prove anything in itself. It does not make the point a rational or valid one through justified evidence.

Another failing of this parable is in the idea of claims of personal relationship. When it comes to something like Christianity they claim to have a personal relationship with God and when it comes to Jedi they claim to be able to commune with or feel or otherwise communicate with the Force. If this is truly the case, opinion and conjecture of what the force is should be put to rest. If this power can make itself known to us it can reveal its true nature. But the parable does not take this idea into account. i.e. the elephant does not talk and tell the men what it is.

Had the blind men explored just a bit more deeply instead of jumping to conclusions their error would have been revealed to them. This is a God of the gaps argument where inductive reasoning is used instead of deductive reasoning. Broad generalizations are made about the elephant in the face of incomplete data. This is the idea that when faced with disparate ideas all of them can’t be right. More data and research must be completed before conclusions are made. The blind men failed to do this. The elephant can’t be both a rope and a snake, it has to be either one or the other or something else altogether.

The blind men failed to gain a full and accurate picture of the situation and erroneously made conclusions there was not sufficient evidence for. They were clouded by their bias in their attempts to explain the elephant because they remained within a limited system. This is different than the King who was outside the system and could clearly see the truth of the situation. His view is meant to be an objective and true assessment of the world in contrast to the folly of the blind men who know they are blind and yet claim they can see. This is a contradiction in the fact that if we are all blind then none of us can know if any of us is mistaken and so the only logical conclusion to draw is a skeptical one until such time as one of us actually proves he can see.

Is psychology a science? One quote from online said;

Psychologists examine the relationships between brain function and behavior, and the environment and behavior, applying what they learn to illuminate our understanding and improve the world around us.

... but the scientific method can only go so far when the tools are not available to handle the system being investigated.

So what is the difference between philosophy and psychology? Or perhaps its just that psychologists spend a lot of time philosophizing and call it counselling :silly:

So to the topic of the Force, and what is it... the context of my Ervin Laszlo post was actually my prior post on the topic in the thread. I prefer to post that way, as if concepts were both forming and reacting to the thread topic and progression. And as such the quote to me references ''what we think as how we think', rather then 'how we think as how we think'. The later being a neuroscience question and the former being one more in the realm of psychology. For I like to think that when it comes to Jedi, they foster and exercise a connection to something that cannot be fully known called the Force and as such examine the relationships between brain function and behavior, and the environment and behavior, applying what they learn to illuminate our understanding and improve the world around us.

Along those lines the topic of systems philosophy is a 'worldview', being; the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

Sorry I was not able to post my thoughts sooner

Adder wrote: Is psychology a science?

Yes, it is.

One quote from online said;

[a quote]

I don't know who "online" is. Call me old-fashioned but even when you quoted Dr. Laszlo I was still missing the paper or book title and page or talk from whence the quote came for context. "Online" is not even a person. I did however just copy the text and google it because at the end of the day I'd look like the spoiled and lazy one for expecting references to be something one can look up without doubting whether one is working with the same sources or not. The only place I could find with the exact same text at a glance was the homepage of the American Psychological Association. Not exactly a neutral source on the matter. But then again, I'm not sure (again) what point you are getting at.

... but the scientific method can only go so far when the tools are not available to handle the system being investigated.

You can do particle physics with LEGOs and a subwoofer. The scientific method does not begin or end with high power lasers or scanning electron microscopes. Galilei only had marbles and wooden slides, doesn't make his work any less scientific. The only thing needed to investigate observations is making them in the first place. Sure, some things cannot be seen directly without the proper instruments. Your own eyes are instruments, too, though. In that sense, nothing can be seen directly and that point is entirely moot. An effect that is so weak as to escape our detection is literally too weak to matter. This "only so far" is, frankly, as far as it gets, period, and no amount of "tools" can change a thing about it. Any further than the scientific method can go is at best unreliable and at worst utter nonsense, when it comes to any kind of observable realm. There are plenty difficult questions out there up for grabs. No need to hijack the simple ones also.

So what is the difference between philosophy and psychology? Or perhaps its just that psychologists spend a lot of time philosophizing and call it counselling :silly:

Though I do not have data to confirm this, I can imagine that plenty psychiatrists and counselors more broadly happen to also be psychologists. Still, I do think those are separable disciplines. There is the car mechanic and then there is the combustion chemistry researcher.
I don't know how much philosophizing counselors or actual psychologists do. All I can say is that it is science to exactly the same extent to which it is contributing to the construction of predictive models, and to none other. Psychology is not just glorified philosophy in that sense. It is scientific when and only when it meets this one criterion, just like anything else, and as far as I for one am aware, it actually tries to be a lot of the time, where philosophy almost never does.

My questions were not dichotomous questions but more like semantic differential questions to the scope of what those fields undertake. And asked to illustrate my point.

Gisteron wrote:

... but the scientific method can only go so far when the tools are not available to handle the system being investigated.

You can do particle physics with LEGOs and a subwoofer. The scientific method does not begin or end with high power lasers or scanning electron microscopes. Galilei only had marbles and wooden slides, doesn't make his work any less scientific. The only thing needed to investigate observations is making them in the first place. Sure, some things cannot be seen directly without the proper instruments. Your own eyes are instruments, too, though. In that sense, nothing can be seen directly and that point is entirely moot. An effect that is so weak as to escape our detection is literally too weak to matter. This "only so far" is, frankly, as far as it gets, period, and no amount of "tools" can change a thing about it. Any further than the scientific method can go is at best unreliable and at worst utter nonsense, when it comes to any kind of observable realm.

You're not wrong - the scientific method doesn't begin or end with the tools you're using, and it's the method, not the tools, that makes it science - but the tools available for use are important. The data you can acquire, and its accuracy, is limited by the tools you're using - which is why science often proves itself wrong when new technology for observing and testing phenomena is invented. I think that's what Adder was referring to when they mentioned tools not being able to handle the system being investigated. It's the problem of "hard science" (ie, the physical sciences), which can be objectively proven as fact, versus "soft science" (ie, psychology, sociology, etc) which can sometimes be objectively proven but often has to be taken on the word of the people who are the subjects of the experiments/studies/surveys because it's based on their subjective experiences of the world. (Often those subjective experiences are exactly what's being studied, for that matter, so there's no real way to objectively "prove" those experiences are happening - at least, not within the bounds of current technology and how much we can look at what's happening in a person's brain.)

Adder wrote: For I like to think that when it comes to Jedi, they foster and exercise a connection to something that cannot be fully known called the Force and as such examine the relationships between brain function and behavior, and the environment and behavior, applying what they learn to illuminate our understanding and improve the world around us.

From this quote I see you has viewing the Jedi in the infancy of their understanding of this thing you have labeled as “The Force. However you have already committed a fatal flaw in your assessment that will doom you to mediocracy. You have begged the question. In other words you have come to a preconceived conclusion about a phenomena and then you set out to prove your conclusion. This is not the way science is done nor is it the way philosophy is done.

You can’t assume the conclusion before you investigate the phenomena or the result will be incomplete, cherry picked data that leads you by the nose down not a path of enlightenment but a path of biased inference. You have basically committed the same fallacy as the blind men in the parable. You can’t just pick a worldview and then decide all data you investigate must conform to that. It’s just the opposite, you have to investigate the data first and then let it build a worldview, and in this process you must allow it to be built independent of your personal preference. Meaning you might not like what is built but it will be the truth and you must accept the truth over what you want it to be.

Using intuition and inference is no different than using faith to arrive at a conclusion. There is no way to verify the validity of the claim and so they must be tossed out as valid paths to truth. The various religions that exist in our world make very different claims about things. Some are the same of course, the idea that there is a maximally powerful [intelligent] “force” that drives life is one of them but beyond that high level, its disingenuous to claim all religions are equal because the nature of their claims differ greatly beyond that. And there are things that are just evidential fact.

We know that Scientology is an invented fiction by L Ron Hubbard. We know that Mormonism is a lie constructed by the con artist Joseph Smith. We know that Jediism as a religion is assembled from a science fiction movie franchise. So these things can’t be put on the same footings as other religions that evolved not as a result of intentional construction but as a result of humans trying to solve problems and explain things and as a result stories were created. Mistakes were made of course but the most popular stories and the ones that were least subject to being proven false still persist today. But that’s all they are - myth.

What we know as conditional fact is that the universe began with the big bang. We can decipher a good idea of events after the Plank time. But beyond the Plank time we can really know nothing because the laws of physics break down there. What we can honestly say at this point is we don’t know. However to go beyond that and make an inference that it must have been started by an intelligence or a Living Force is disingenuous. Does that mean we will never know or that we can also infer that it is something we will NEVER know about or otherwise fully understand, of course not! We can’t infer that either.

The psychology of the human condition will also function in this very same way. There are many things we don’t know about human consciousness. But can we say we will never know what it is and how it works. No we can’t. All we can do is take the available data and draw hypothesis and then test those over and over until theories emerge. It may be a never ending process, it is probably a never ending process, but it is definitely not a process that we can ever claim has a limit.

Jediism is named, not assembled from, a sci-fi franchise. There's more Adi shankara in us than star wars.

Dragonheart wrote: You're not wrong - the scientific method doesn't begin or end with the tools you're using, and it's the method, not the tools, that makes it science - but the tools available for use are important. The data you can acquire, and its accuracy, is limited by the tools you're using - which is why science often proves itself wrong when new technology for observing and testing phenomena is invented. I think that's what Adder was referring to when they mentioned tools not being able to handle the system being investigated.

At the risk of being overly pedantic, I'm hard pressed to find one instance where "science proved itself wrong" even assuming a colloquial usage of "prove" here. The weakness of Aristotle's model of motion is not in that it is wrong. It accounts for and predicts that rocks will sink to the bottom of the ocean because that is where they belong by the gods' design. It predicts that anything in motion will come to rest because of that same telos imposing it a will to rest. The advantage Newton's mechanics have over Aristotle's is that the predictions it makes are more specific. The planet's aren't just roaming the skies "as is their purpose", but they follow patterns Newton predicts. It makes predictions that make his model more useful, and more falsifiable. A model picturing the earth as flat is not wrong either. Aforementioned Galilei assumed it, despite "knowing better", because for his purposes it was unimportant. Whether you throw a ball and describe it's flight path as a parabola or building a house, trying to account for the slight curvature on such miniscule scales would cost too much in computation for no visible gain in accuracy.
Of course I am not arguing that the advent of more sophisticated technologies that allow us to resolve ever finer images doesn't matter, but a theory is not wrong for failing outside of its scope. And, as you say, the method doesn't depend on that anyway.

It's the problem of "hard science" (ie, the physical sciences), which can be objectively proven as fact, versus "soft science" (ie, psychology, sociology, etc) which can sometimes be objectively proven but often has to be taken on the word of the people who are the subjects of the experiments/studies/surveys because it's based on their subjective experiences of the world. (Often those subjective experiences are exactly what's being studied, for that matter, so there's no real way to objectively "prove" those experiences are happening - at least, not within the bounds of current technology and how much we can look at what's happening in a person's brain.)

I wholeheartedly disagree. There is science and then there are disciplines that aren't any. If evidence is of concern, if it is about predicting observations, that alone settles it. History is as much a science as chemistry, psychology as much physics, and though I understand that gathering representative data sets is more difficult in some subjects than it is in others, and sympathize with those that elected to pursue careers in them and their plight, I do not believe that anyone stands to benefit from lowering standards and expectations because of it. If one's data does not warrant a strong conclusion, I think it would be nothing shy of dishonest to insist on one confidently anyway. It is frankly a shame that in some of those "soft sciences" so many researchers are ever at the risk of losing funding for not announcing quite sensational enough "findings", effectively punished for daring to be humble and honest... Perhaps with the advent of neuroscientific tools we may not need to hear these dying pains much longer.

ren wrote: Jediism is named, not assembled from, a sci-fi franchise. There's more Adi shankara in us than star wars.

Do advocates of the religion call themselves Jedi and Jedi Knights? Do they believe a mystical energy field called The Force exists as described by the Star Wars movies? Are light sabers and Jedi robes (Creations of Star Wars) used as common symbols and representations of this religion? Is there a Sci Fi movie franchise that existed before the religion that came up with these concepts? i.e. the myth existed before the religion. Is there any official doctrine that all Jedi accept that says it is more Adi shankara than Star Wars? Do advocates of this religion of Jediism commonly use quotes and examples from the Star Wars Franchise in the exploration and explanation of their religion? (I never see a quote from Hinduism used, and even it if was, it would just make it a sect of Hindu Religion). Isnt the primary salutation of this religion "May the Force be With You"? (A phrase created in the first Star Wars movie)

You can call a duck a pig but it does not make it a pig.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: For I like to think that when it comes to Jedi, they foster and exercise a connection to something that cannot be fully known called the Force and as such examine the relationships between brain function and behavior, and the environment and behavior, applying what they learn to illuminate our understanding and improve the world around us.

From this quote I see you has viewing the Jedi in the infancy of their understanding of this thing you have labeled as “The Force. However you have already committed a fatal flaw in your assessment that will doom you to mediocracy. You have begged the question. In other words you have come to a preconceived conclusion about a phenomena and then you set out to prove your conclusion. This is not the way science is done nor is it the way philosophy is done.

Not necessarily. Using concepts from fiction to work with experience is not the same as using concepts from fiction to expect experience. A fictional construct based purely in fiction is just fiction. But an experiential path modeled using fictional concepts to engineer progress is not fictional. Which is why I didn''t arrive at Jediism until after about 18 years of study in Taoism and Vajrayana et al

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The psychology of the human condition will also function in this very same way. There are many things we don’t know about human consciousness. But can we say we will never know what it is and how it works. No we can’t. All we can do is take the available data and draw hypothesis and then test those over and over until theories emerge. It may be a never ending process, it is probably a never ending process, but it is definitely not a process that we can ever claim has a limit.

Which is what I'm saying Jediism is IMO, a worldview... not a science. But the scientific method has importance and practical import in all parts of living (ie rationality) and even more so when dealing with exploring new concepts. So clinging to scientific fact as a requirement for something to be useful seems a clear category mistake, and especially so to something that is defined as being at least in part outside of science. It's like telling a psychologist who is doing counselling (and important part of their job) that they are not being psychologists....

Anyway, that was my points in my posts. That we cannot fully know the Force as something because that would require being outside of it to observe its entirety and to have some context to define it as a standalone system - so instead we define it by our interaction with what suppose it best is in our lives. The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about.... its just the data is subjective experience rather then objective measurement. Though there would be overlap where the efforts can incorporate objective measurement (as much as possible!), and I think that leads people to explore how an overlap of subjective experience might impact objective reality (leading to all sorts of unusual ideas and hypothesis). But the focus IMO is not the alignment to objective reality, but the skills in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections. The more the merrier but if they are irrational or uneffective then it would be counter-productive to incorporate or propagate them... though discussion is often the best manner to bash these things around a bit (if the environment is a supportive one, otherwise people simply will do it elsewhere or do something more easy like conflict and socializing). The 3 Tenets are focus, knowledge and wisdom after all... not just knowledge.

Adder wrote: Which is what I'm saying Jediism is IMO, a worldview... not a science. But the scientific method has importance and practical import in all parts of living (ie rationality) and even more so when dealing with exploring new concepts. So clinging to scientific fact as a requirement for something to be useful seems a clear category mistake, and especially so to something that is defined as being at least in part outside of science.

You say "so", but... how so?

It's like telling a psychologist who is doing counselling (and important part of their job) that they are not being psychologists....

Yea, I'm glad nobody is saying any such nonsense. That would be almost as silly as to say it be an important part of a playwright's job to sew the costumes for their play's performance.

The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about.... its just the data is subjective experience rather then objective measurement.

Oh, so it's the kind of data that rather than stand up to any scrutiny is deliberately and in advance protected from any, i.e. "data" that is functionally equivalent to no data at all...

But the focus IMO is not the alignment to objective reality, but the skills in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections. The more the merrier but if they are irrational or uneffective then it would be counter-productive to incorporate or propagate them... though discussion is often the best manner to bash these things around a bit (if the environment is a supportive one, otherwise people simply will do it elsewhere or do something more easy like conflict and socializing). The 3 Tenets are focus, knowledge and wisdom after all... not just knowledge.

What does "the skill in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections" mean exactly, if it is not a skill one can demonstrate any kind of proficiency in? Like, I appreciate I'm sounding like some kind of closed-minded zealot here, but how am I to sound if this is what we're dealing with? I for one am happy to reject the notion that "objective reality" is a meaningful expression in its own right, but I have yet to come to understand what on earth utility means in the context of things explicitly "outside of" or at any rate "beyond" reality? It is like insisting that non-reality is still real (and often enough that reality itself isn't, ironically - though this may not be addressing you particularly, Adder, I'm just using your post as a jumping off point).

The three tenets speak of focus and wisdom, too, sure... (the code doesn't). Meanwhile, in recent years I have seen far more of the "let go of your thinking" kind of attitude (if I may take some hyperbole), a spirit of un-focus, and un-knowledge, in my humble assessment, than I have teachings of the tenets. The unwise "live in the now" mantra was the central message of an entire book that (at least) used to be part of the IP. Through focus I can persevere, through knowledge - progress, through wisdom - succeed. And through woo-woo I can skip all of the effort involved in any of that and instead move straight on to feeling like I am above such primitive human concerns...

I dunno if people actually want to read us go backwards and forewards, so an alternative is to take to private message if you need a much higher degree of interaction I think. But I'll persist until people tell me to STFU :silly:

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: Which is what I'm saying Jediism is IMO, a worldview... not a science. But the scientific method has importance and practical import in all parts of living (ie rationality) and even more so when dealing with exploring new concepts. So clinging to scientific fact as a requirement for something to be useful seems a clear category mistake, and especially so to something that is defined as being at least in part outside of science.

You say "so", but... how so?

To bounce off the definition I used in an earlier post about what worldview means, consider what 'cognitive orientation' might mean to you. To me its the constructs of meaning we use to contextualize phenomena, and in particular in this context to be in a productive manner over an unproductive manner. Like I said, the thoughts in thinking viewed as how we think, rather then what we think. I would go as far as to say its a type of self-psychology, hence inviting the reader to consider the scope of what psychology does and how another form of it might exist when being used by the individual for net benefit.

Gisteron wrote:

It's like telling a psychologist who is doing counselling (and important part of their job) that they are not being psychologists....

Yea, I'm glad nobody is saying any such nonsense. That would be almost as silly as to say it be an important part of a playwright's job to sew the costumes for their play's performance.

Why do you say that? AFAIK psychologists do a lot of work in the subjective realm of patients to work with their way of thinking to engineer better outcomes. It's not 'hard science' yet its important to the role of a psychologist. Unless your saying psychologists not doing hard science are not real psychologits!!? I'd rather say it was that psychology encompasses various disciplines and techniques, some hard science and some so soft they probably are not fairly called science. Don't ask me to write an critical examination of psychological methods though, for if your interested in examples a web search should be replete, if your that interested.

Gisteron wrote:

The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about.... its just the data is subjective experience rather then objective measurement.

Oh, so it's the kind of data that rather than stand up to any scrutiny is deliberately and in advance protected from any, i.e. "data" that is functionally equivalent to no data at all...

Not at all. How you'd get that conclusion from what I said? If anything it should imply it is a process of subjective mind rather then a state of objective reality - but I'm always curious to how other people genuinely see things differently, so feel free to elaborate your chain of thought to that conclusion.

Gisteron wrote:

But the focus IMO is not the alignment to objective reality, but the skills in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections. The more the merrier but if they are irrational or uneffective then it would be counter-productive to incorporate or propagate them... though discussion is often the best manner to bash these things around a bit (if the environment is a supportive one, otherwise people simply will do it elsewhere or do something more easy like conflict and socializing). The 3 Tenets are focus, knowledge and wisdom after all... not just knowledge.

What does "the skill in exploring contextual networks to develop novel connections" mean exactly, if it is not a skill one can demonstrate any kind of proficiency in? Like, I appreciate I'm sounding like some kind of closed-minded zealot here, but how am I to sound if this is what we're dealing with? I for one am happy to reject the notion that "objective reality" is a meaningful expression in its own right, but I have yet to come to understand what on earth utility means in the context of things explicitly "outside of" or at any rate "beyond" reality? It is like insisting that non-reality is still real (and often enough that reality itself isn't, ironically - though this may not be addressing you particularly, Adder, I'm just using your post as a jumping off point).

Goes back to the 'worldview' basis of my point. A person can manage what they think, which I would say alters how we think to a large extent. So the particular phrase I used of exploring and developing is about working up conceptual structures which have the best effect.
To clarify, IMO subjective reality is that experience which is not aligned to objective reality - its a categorization to associate awareness (which is entirely within the subjective realm seemingly) to a theorized objective reality (tho so real it hurts). The purpose of the distinction between the two is because they afford different types of experiences. And so, efforts to improve ones experience of life and living means engineering those experiences can benefit from different approaches to those two 'operating areas' of awareness.
Like how you can fly when your dreaming doesn't work when your awake!!
So the effort to question is not what is objective reality, but rather accepting its all subjective and using the best tools for the appropriate category/domain/realm of either subjective or objective mental process. An objective mental process would be all about best quality information being tested critically and updated for relevance to applicability. A subjective mental process would be whatever your mind can conjure up with your body in its environment to feel at levels approaching or exceeding that which one might be familiar with in objective realty. When done so for positive outcomes, its beneficial. When that is also worth the effort, its rewarding.

Gisteron wrote: The three tenets speak of focus and wisdom, too, sure... (the code doesn't). Meanwhile, in recent years I have seen far more of the "let go of your thinking" kind of attitude (if I may take some hyperbole), a spirit of un-focus, and un-knowledge, in my humble assessment, than I have teachings of the tenets. The unwise "live in the now" mantra was the central message of an entire book that (at least) used to be part of the IP. Through focus I can persevere, through knowledge - progress, through wisdom - succeed. And through woo-woo I can skip all of the effort involved in any of that and instead move straight on to feeling like I am above such primitive human concerns...

Yea I agree with you. To me that is a 'part'' of a toolkit to work with the subjective mind and most definitely not an end-state goal. People like Krishnamurti influenced the likes of Watts, Tolle etc and they all focused on that small part IMO of the bigger practise..... whether its all they learnt, made progress with, or actually thought the audience was only ready to handle that much properly. A bit like people thinking Yoga is doing stretches from the catalogue of Asanas. Other 'parts' can include working with complex mental process and investigation/examination/thinking, depending on which schools one looks to.
So what part is it... I'd say its part of the early purification and connection phase to deeper levels of experience, ie the reset. If you watch this video its like when they wipe the slate clean to 'start again'. Though to be fair its not just a preparatory tool, but also a capability of equanimity to approach complexity - for we are all dealing with the efficient use of limited resources and need to be a bit strategic with our efforts (like a lot, given how short life is). As such I'd define it as having an important place in both finding ones connection to the Force, and also remaining connected to the Force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32vlOgN_3QQ

What do the other parts do, work to integrate the various faculties of mind and body to that effect, being much more confronting but rewarding... integrating the activation of visual circuits for visuals, auditory circuits for sound, energy allocations for supports, skin for spatial mapping, but its the integration of all those various types of things which create the over-arching suite of dynamic capability. Of course whether a person wants to believe that is possible or worth the effort is up to them, but not believing is no reason to criticize others for believing and like me, knowing, its possible. Whether its worth it is another question, and one left to the individual. Is it rewarding for others, only insofar as they benefit second hand from the practitioner I guess. Do the subjective tools influence the objective reality beyond normality/scientific truth, probably not IMO but its fun to explore boundaries.

Perhaps I'm just profoundly uneducated in the subject, because I understood almost nothing of that. To pick a paragraph, when I read

To clarify, IMO subjective reality is that experience which is not aligned to objective reality - its a categorization to associate awareness (which is entirely within the subjective realm seemingly) to a theorized objective reality (tho so real it hurts). The purpose of the distinction between the two is because they afford different types of experiences. And so, efforts to improve ones experience of life and living means engineering those experiences can benefit from different approaches to those two 'operating areas' of awareness.

I understand that it is intended "to clarify", but to me it does nothing of the sort. I have no idea what the alignment of an experience means, or what it is supposed to be a categorization of (seems like it is a word employed for its length and beauty moreso than its appropriateness for what ever message it is supposed to help convey), or what association between awareness and a theorized objective reality would be. I for one am tempted at this point to question what this "theorized objective reality" is supposed to be also, since I had skipped over that need earlier, but clearly it seems to be a term we want to keep using and I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it. Apparently it is an "operating area of awareness", except it is helpful to distinguish it from just regular old "awareness" because that may help improve experience which I presume includes both subjective reality and that which isn't? The more I try to understand it, the less sense this word salad makes to me. Only by shutting off my mental faculties entirely and letting the salad flow around me moving nothing inside me can it pass me in peace. I don't want to not listen. This is not how conversations work, nor learning or growing, but this seems to be the sum total MO some of the time here...
Anyway, on to something I actually can somewhat respond to:

Adder wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

It's like telling a psychologist who is doing counselling (and important part of their job) that they are not being psychologists....

Yea, I'm glad nobody is saying any such nonsense. That would be almost as silly as to say it be an important part of a playwright's job to sew the costumes for their play's performance.

Why do you say that? AFAIK psychologists do a lot of work in the subjective realm of patients to work with their way of thinking to engineer better outcomes. It's not 'hard science' yet its important to the role of a psychologist. Unless your saying psychologists not doing hard science are not real psychologits!!? I'd rather say it was that psychology encompasses various disciplines and techniques, some hard science and some so soft they probably are not fairly called science. Don't ask me to write an critical examination of psychological methods though, for if your interested in examples a web search should be replete, if your that interested.

I see no meaningful distinction between "hard" and "soft" as you introduced them earlier and I explained why I do not most recently in post #335524 . I also see no reason why it has relevancy here. Counseling isn't "soft science", it is rather no science at all because it does not seek to build predictive models. It is as much a non-science as sewing costumes is non-writing. Psychology, on the other hand, is a scientific discipline. Not "soft science", nor "hard science" just "science" because it is about building models to account for and predict observations and that is the only relevant criterion for the distinction. I don't know what fraction of psychologists are counselors, I imagine psychiatrists doing much more of that seeing as treating patients is their entire job, but I wouldn't know. My point is that we need to distinguish between the research and the application. I never said that one is less of an architect for cutting wood planks, I'm just saying that it is not (a necessary) part of the job. One is no less a psychologist for studying subjects whilst offering no psychiatric treatment psychiatrists exist to provide, just like one is no less an architect for designing buildings whilst not laying down any bricks.

Adder wrote: The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about....

This right here is your basic failing. How can you make a presupposition about something you know nothing about and then enact data processing that only leads you do that conclusion? This is wrong and i don't care if your scientifically minded or not, this is not the way to truly learn anything about reality, subjective or objective.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: The difference then between a Jedi and non-Jedi IMO is that Jedi just don't suppose to fill in the gaps of understanding, but instead presuppose and refine through that same process of data, hypothesis and test that you talk about....

This right here is your basic failing. How can you make a presupposition about something you know nothing about and then enact data processing that only leads you do that conclusion? This is wrong and i don't care if your scientifically minded or not, this is not the way to truly learn anything about reality, subjective or objective.

There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Arisaig wrote:
There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Just to be perfectly upfront and honest here, I see this comment as nothing more than attempt to derail this thread and single me out and antagonize me. you see, there is a better way to say what you have said here as well. So take your own medicine and get back on subject and leave me alone please. Thanks

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
There is a way of saying that without making it a personal statement... :whistle:

Just to be perfectly upfront and honest here, I see this comment as nothing more than attempt to derail this thread and single me out and antagonize me. you see, there is a better way to say what you have said here as well. So take your own medicine and get back on subject and leave me alone please. Thanks

I apologise.Still, we know there is two ways of handling what was said.