While sharing some ideas on the ResearchGate site, I wrote the following:
“Now that we have met with paradox we have some hope of making progress.” [Niels Bohr]
I go further and argue that if the theory you are considering (e.g. to explain consciousness) is not at root a paradox, then it is a limited truth.
And no, we can never fully comprehend these paradoxes of life -- such as finite within the infinite, consciousness within a deeper collective-unconscious, part within whole, individual within oneness.
If you think you've fully understood any of the above paradoxes, you've simply demonstrated a bias of focus towards one side.
For example, to say you fully understand the "finite (physical) within the infinite (meta-physical)" would require you to demonstrate infinite knowledge. Not going to happen.
Just as it would be rather vapid to say your fully understand some community (and thus each individual within it) including all the sub and unconscious processes of each individual). Again, not going to happen.
But, here's where it is highly beneficial to recognise the power of paradox -- it leads us into new discoveries and insights. And that process will never stop (for reasons mentioned above).
Just "plucking a few questions out of the air" so to speak, reveals the power of paradox
Q. Is Darwinian Evolution correct, or "Intelligent Design"?
Q. Can I achieve enlightenment?
Q. Can I transcend my ego and achieve perfection?
Q. Will brain research reveal why people shop-lift, or are violent and anti-social?
Q. Will scientific research find a cure for cancer, AIDs or diseases in general?
Q. What about all that missing "Dark Matter" in the universe?
Q. What's the 'secret' to sex, gender and relationships?
Q. What's needed to be highly creative and innovative?
Q. To what extent does profitability rely on creativity and innovation?
Q. How do we see through and beyond the latest management fads?
Q. Is there a "glass ceiling" for women seeking executive roles in large organisations?
All of the above questions (and many many more) are more fully explained with the help of what I call "the Paradox Rule", [ the answers for the above are included at http://beliefinstitute.com/art
I should add that you can "poke" the paradox rule in any direction and it will reveal the dogmas, superstitions and biases inherent in any belief-system, such as religion, new-age philosophies and science.
And sociology as well.
For example, in the media here in Australia, great merit and accolades are heaped on those who are "selfless" -- this (according to the Paradox Rule) is nonsense, and sends a very pernicious message. To be entirely "selfless" would require no self. (aka being dead) Not very helpful, useful, or praiseworthy.
Equally, being selfish is seen as bad. But again anyone who is not in some sense selfish, would be ... you guessed it, selfless. Dead again.
Obviously the Paradox Rule simply reveals the value and efficacy of being selfish WHILE BEING selfless. It both at once. Of being an individual while being in a sense, the community. Or, to put it in more paradoxical terms (and thus more technically correct) you are more than just an individual, and yet you are not entirely the community: you are the community-as-you (both at once).
Whole cultures would benefit enormously by applying that simple consideration. American culture, as a prime example, would then get rid of their ridiculous "right to bear arms", as that simply reveals a bias towards selfish individuality at the expense of a cohesive-community. Who are we bearing arms against? "Them, those in government" is the usual reply. Really. Who comprises the government? Individuals ... within the community. (In other words, the right to bear arms is community-abuse)
Similarly Eastern cultures, such as China would likewise benefit greatly. They would be more considerate of individual wellbeing, instead of being biased towards community-wellbeing, at the expense of individuality. Their so-called human-rights abuses are merely examples of community-first bias at the expense of individual rights.
Chinese media would be equally justified in highlighting our Western abuse of community-rights. We don't see rampant individualism as community-abuse simply because we're so deeply indoctrinated in the rights of the individual.
They are some examples of how to make far greater sense of the world. American (as a general rule) is biased towards the individual-particle nature, Eastern towards the collective-wave.
Both suffer as a result. We all suffer as a result.
btw, all of the above needs to be understood within the context of the immaturity of the human race -- we're (by and large) somewhere in late adolescence, as a race. We're still individualistic (nation versus nation) and preoccupied with technology (teenagers and their toys).
We're in Stage III, some stage IV, definitely not stage V (http://beliefinstitute.com/art
icle/evolution-human-psyche ). All of which means we're in the most dangerous time of the evolution of the human race. As teenagers are more prone to risk-taking, dangerous activities, and thus higher death/accident rate.
ps. yes, the DNA Waves and Water (pdf) gives some linkages between mind and its effect upon chemical processes in the body (e.g. the em frequency of 7 Hz of both DNA and the nervous system -- and that entered by (not in the article) deep meditative states! As I recall, light meditation (Alpha) changes brain activity to just under 14Hz, and Theta (deep meditation), changes brain wave frequency down to around 7 Hz).
The extent to which we're disconnected teenagers (spiritually speaking) is borne home by Ross Gittins article on the Sydney Morning Herald, how Jesus advocated some seemingly 'radical' economic pratices. (Gittins is reporting on the ideas in the book The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics, by the Californian theologian and teacher Ched Myers).
The name sabbath (the seventh day) is a reference to the biblical injunction - mainly honoured in the breach - that the Jews practice ''jubilee''. Every 50th year (the year following the passing of seven times seven years), slaves were to be freed, people were to be released from their debts and land returned to its original owners.
So sabbath economics involves an ''ethic of regular and systematic wealth and power redistribution''. You can see why this is an uncomfortable topic (for me as much as anyone else)
Yet, when considered they're quite sensible, at least if we want to live in a more equitable, open and sane world.
The degree to which we think such ideas are 'radical' is the very same extent to which we're disconnected from a deeper sense of community and oneness.
So a lot of my talk about feeling into nonlocal awareness (e.g. trusting intuition to speed with safety) will be hugely foreign and not a bit scary for those who are deeply disconnected from the underlying connective tissue of life.