Heart-Science
 

Science was always meant to be highly benevolent, bringing great benefit to humanity, but in the 20th century it became increasingly heartless and materialistic. To fulfill its true purpose, science needs to be wedded to spirituality in a balanced partnership, thus creating Heart-Science.
In order to progress benevolently, a civilisation needs to have 3 sciences working together in balance and harmony:

Spiritual science,
Social science,
Material science.

When Spiritual science and Social science (human relationships) work in harmony with Material science, the latter becomes an expression of Love, thus becoming Heart-Science. Albert Einstein once said that the missing link in science was the energy of Love.
:hug2:

I very much agree with these ideas, Explorer21. There are a number of people today who are advancing the understanding of how consciousness affects the world. These, in my mind, are the true pioneers, scientists and serious thinkers who research the potentials within human consciousness.

There is a long list of such scientists, though most every one of them has been argued with and ignored by the old paradigm of science which just builds on what is already known. Much of what science knows is limited by the kind of minds that apply it.

Some scientists I find cutting edge are Gregg Braden and Nassim Haramein. Both have shown profound power in the way we may view reality by looking at things in new patterns of unity. Our unified heartfield is the center of all human consciousness and it is connected by infinite space to the center of the galaxy. :icon_flower:

Hello Explorer 21. On the same sort of track that you suggest-- Objective analysis, observation etc. are great tools for understanding from a viewpoint separated from that which is being analysed, observed etc. but in the case of analysis, observation of that of which the observer is an inseparable part, from within the whole, does this present a limitation to the ability of objective analysis to be comprehensive in such a case? If so, then some way of understanding from within the whole may be useful in augmenting the traditional scientific method.

Understanding within the whole is a lot like empathy, which in turn is part of loving--Imo. petex

Thanks, Starflower. I greatly admire the way Nassim Haramein communicates cosmic concepts, expanding scientific knowledge beyond the narrow bounds of rigid orthodoxy. He represents the future of science because he puts Heart and Soul into it. I love what you say about the unified heartfield of humanity.

We are unity, thanks for your thoughtful and interesting comments. I like what you said about understanding within the whole.
:smile:

THE INFECTION OF SCIENCE

In Robert Shapiro's book SHINING THE LIGHT 4, it says, "Most people today believe that the Nazis were defeated in World War 2 by the Allied forces, but in point of fact, you don't defeat an idea. You might defeat the forces who hold that idea, but the problem was that the National Socialists (Nazis) had taken polarized negative science (science without heart) to the extreme. They had done things in the camps that developed such advanced knowledge (from a scientific point of view) that many of these scientists who were a portion of the Nazi party were coveted by various governments (at least their work was coveted). The Nazi party was able to perpetuate its ideas and ideals through the creation of this technology.

It was the Nazi party that began and really insidiously infected science as you know it today with the polarization toward heartlessness. Look back; read scientific documents around the turn of the century (the beginning of the 20th century). Without exception, they were full of heart and regarded science as something that would uplift humankind and save it from whatever horrible affliction that that particular branch of science was interested in. It was actually something quite uplifting and fairly well connected with the Creator (God) even then. It had lots of heart.

It was really the Nazis who managed to create a branch of science that was heartless, perpetuated after the war because of their influence. Because of the pursuit of expanding the intellect (especially after WW2), this heartless science has affected many other things----not the least of which is selling technology. Whatever you're selling---whether it's an idea, product, service---heartless science needs to be changed. You can't get rid of science; you just need to add heart to it."

This is interesting and explains what seems quite incomprehensible. Heartlessness seems very self-defeating ultimately.

In the book, The Dancing Wu-Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics by Gary Zukav, I first encountered a discussion about why separation from nature had become so ingrained in science. It was seen as a fundamental misinterpretation of "I think, therefore I am", a famous tenet of Rene Descartes and Cartesian Philosophy of Reason out of which "the scientific method" evolved. In this way of expressing, thought is given ascendancy. He might have said, I feel, therefore I am, but feelings are not easily measurable, and of course he expressed his own state of self-understanding. Science has used this to discredit many intuitive leaps and undermine them philosophically rather than investigate further. There is research today from Gregg Braden, the people of HeartMath, and others which says that our hearts have a "brain" and this is what coordinates the human body. Heart intelligence is intuitive and magnetic, very inclusive rather than analytical. :sunny:

I would like to share further thoughts on this topic, but may only be able to do so in short separate posts as I have trouble submitting longer posts--when it comes to trying to submit longer posts the site tells me I am not logged in and cannot submit that post. petex

Thoughts as follows:-
Evolution has provided for all species varying abilities and attributes which enable species to survive in the conditions for which those abilities and attributes have evolved thus enabling species to survive. petex

Continued:-
In the case of our species, one of those attributes is to have evolved an amazing toolbox of sensory equipment which function quite specifically across the physical divide between what we think of as "ourselves" and all else which is. petex