YeKengalé

As I wish was already evident to all, there is absolutely no sound rationale for rejecting that dimension of human experience we call the ‘supernatural’ (and every pragmatic reason for seeking to  understand, harness and utilize that dimension for healing,  progressive innovation, and human and environmental development. (as my friends at www.opensciences.org   have already made a tentative start with….and if you are not yet aware of the post-materialist science movement, then Rupert Sheldrake’s Ted talk controversy – the scientific equivalent to Luther’s 95 theses is a good place to start.)

However, as I address in What do we know?, if one’s software is not compatible with their OS, then even Jesus could work no miracle in too familiar Nazareth because of their ‘unbelief’.

Faith and skepticism are mindsets (mental filters/software) producing distinct experiential results… even if modern skeptics are yet to discover the truth known by sages for centuries, presently echoed by Quantum Physicists, that observation itself (the attitudes and disposition of the observer) matters.

Consciousness yet in search of itself (unawareness) cedes its creativity to material facts, which are themselves born of conscious creativity. What a conundrum!

It was Bertrand Russell’s mentor, Alfred North Whitehead who indeed noted intuitively that both human consciousness and matter itself at its core were process phenomena – therefore more of time than space. Once free of the static, atomistic, mechanistic, cosmological assumptions limiting our conception of who we are, where we are, and how we relate both among ourselves and with our environments, we are released into a creative dynamism  we now can only imagine to be ‘supernatural’ but perhaps might more appropriately be called ‘superconscious’.

Science itself is simply not equipped to adequately explore the consciousness question*….which is why spiritual practitioners from Alph Lukau to Imhotep, over a 5000 year span of human history, in almost every civilization on earth and certainly throughout every age of humanity, empowered only by the science-scorned religious insights which have informed their understanding of self and possibility,  have neither needed nor required science’s approval, empowering or endorsement to perform in abilities categorized  today as ‘anomalous’.

In Nazareth, the anomaly of the strange citizen, is not met by curiosity, (the central disposition of true science)  but by a kind of resentful scoffing or mockery. When our science succumbs to a  xenophobia of ideas,  it simply stagnates.

Nazareth (like stagnated science) wears its poverty (can any good come from this ghetto town) with arrogant petulance until finally forced by its own dire need of a ‘miracle’, to choose between a proud death or change; and then begins to seek what was always there, but refused to see.

• Yes I am aware of the recent promising breakthroughs in Consciousness Studies (snubbed as they are by the academy) and its applications for personal and community transformation. This is all very good, but hasn’t the process been painstakingly slow, and constantly reined in by the need to anchor the intuitive racehorse to the turtle of the intellectual processes and  canons of science? This is what i mean by ‘ill-equiped’. If iron-age intuitives could have long covered the ground that we, with all our modern information hyper-processing capacity are just beginning to discover, then is the scientific method the best tool to explore this field?

See also Prophecy 4,                   prophecy 1,                 What do we know?,                        Religion and science,                   What do you think about Jesus?

You may also enjoy Defining Observations