Yes, I would say that you are making a very interesting synthesis because you are not just linking content that should be linked on the basis of some particular systematic method (e.g. belonging to a given sub-discipline), but sometimes you also describe common points between potentially disjoint disciplines. This is something I like very much. That is why, among other things, I like to read what you write and it is interesting to me.
It seems to me that whatever we have read, and especially if this reading has made us feel emotional, it somehow remains in our consciousness and becomes apparent when we encounter a similarity. Moreover, this similarity may be of various nature. Hence, I also liked what you wrote about Kant. Anyway, I must admit that when I was reading FPTM, I often thought about a person or view, and a few pages later that person or concept appeared.
Oh yes! I feel it very well. I got interested in Kant somehow at the beginning of high school. My attention was initially drawn to his transcendental philosophy, and therefore many of the aspects you write about in "The Wave". I saw in this a kind of inversion of effects and causes at the ontological and epistemological level. Later, I was interested in the further development of what Kant had started, so to this day I have a fondness for German philosophy.
I personally see no better method than this kind of synthesis which you call "mosaic consciousness". I would say that I see a kind of non-linearity in this, looking at one object from many different perspectives. Advanced structures certainly require this approach, but even something relatively primitive like a biological cell will by no means be well understood by someone trying to describe it using only biological, chemical, or physical terminology. Too many aspects are lost. I also see what you call "mosaic consciousness" as a kind of interdisciplinary approach, avoiding confinement to one narrow field and completely adopting a particular methodology.
Well, yes, but isn't curiosity a form of emotionality? My experience shows that when I read about something that interests me especially, I feel no less emotional than if I read stories about people. Something that is seemingly scientific and dry can actually trigger huge emotions.
One issue has hurt me here for a long time. Paranormal phenomena have long been the subject of scientific research in some ways, but mainstream science rejects them. The problem is that, according to modern methodology, they are virtually impossible to confirm (but also impossible to disprove). There are some very rigid frames in science and it is difficult to do anything to avoid these frames. The experiment must be repeatable. It does not work with paranormal phenomena as it does with the more "mundane" ones. Here's the problem and I wonder how to get around it. I think an alternative methodology is necessary, a change of assumptions. The problem lies at the very basis of modern methodology. Empiricism seems to contradict theory, but theory has its "security". You can see immediately that it is not solid, but you cannot prove something just because you can see it.
Good point and well said, I never truly considered the importance of mathematics here. It seemed like once I got past early calculus most of mathematics I was learning was based off estimations and assumptions, like the use of limits to infinity or ML estimates with complex numbers. As for quantum mechanics, I've not learned much about it, yet.
We will never be "certain", unless we want to lie to ourselves that we have "The Theory of Everything". But that is not a reason for worrying. Even if we will understand a little bit about fifth and six densities, and we will acquire even a small capability of traveling between these densities/dimensions and in time, we will have thousands of new questions that need to be answered. New territories to investigate, and new aspirations. What else do you need?
Will it be possible to finde out myselve?
What do you think?
