|
"...Psi studies do show that creative people -- musicians, writers, artists -- perform better than not-so-creative people. This fits with your idea of the polymath as being more in contact with multiple realities than the more conventional person." - Dr. Dean Radin in email The "infinite meta-structure" mentioned in earlier essays (and often given such labels as "God", "Allah", etc.) is characterized as being everywhere present in all dimensions. It is absolutely independent of context - "context independent". Every object in the known anthropic 3D universe is context dependent and naturally characterized with a "time" and "place" whether in the past, present, or future. Human beings are of course bound tightly to the Earth's ecosystem as well as sociocultural forces. A person cannot grow from childhood without interactions with its surroundings in the known 3D universe. Psychologists, scientists, religious people, among many others generally understand and believe these notions as stated here. Some persons however have a drive to transcend the limitations of the common 3D universe anthropic comfort zone. Those persons are labeled with variants of "spiritual seeker" or "mystic". It stands to reason that the most legitimate direct approach to such spiritualism is simply to imitate as best as possible (within human limitations) the "infinite meta-structure" and strive at every possible opportunity to be "context independent". Now what does this mean in practical terms? It is the striving to be infinitely adaptable. It is not feasible to be infinitely anything as a human being, but it is certainly feasible to try. This is the essence of a true spiritual or mystical seeking. A person could be infinitely adaptable if they possessed an infinitely broad and deep spectrum of knowledge. Such a person would "know what to do" in whatever conceivable or inconceivable situation. There are semantic contradictions here of course since only a meta-entity could possess an infinitely broad and deep knowledge. The ideal could only at best be approached asymptotically. The best shot at this would be by the "Renaissance person" or "polymath". A polymath could never possess infinite knowledge, but rather a limited but broad and deep knowledge base at best. However, the polymath tends to in effect "parallel" or mimic the infinite meta-structure at some level. This is the legitimate base for spiritual growth and seeking. The mystic or spiritual seeker must make their full spread of talent available for the undertaking. Otherwise the seeking has high probability of being not much more than mere self-delusion and thus never truly transcendent. Summary: Doesn't it stand to reason that if there is a meta-structure - commonly labeled "God" and a jillion other terms through history and cultures - that the most valid spiritual or mystical search would be simply to personally try and imitate this meta-form to the greatest extent possible? If that meta-form is "all knowing" as is commonly promoted, then the best shot at understanding that meta-form would lie in becoming a polymath or "Renaissance" person as has been discussed directly and analogically throughout Open Mystic. There's no risk even since "knowing a lot", i.e. having the personal broadest and deepest range of knowledge possible, is fun and has numerous worldly benefits. But I project that the polymath has the best statistical possibility at understanding "God", the meta-form. "God" is context independent by being everywhere and all knowing. Why not try as best you can to be the same ?? That is the most valid spiritual or mystical search.
|
foreword - please read first
| site map |
go
to page 54 |
|
