@8:45 this metaphysic helps us understand why a culture that exists at light speed operates from the sensibility of the discarnate consciousness, viewing process as toxic.
@@hopesy12u4 No sir, it is not. Intersecting what he says with Alan Watts’ points about intuition, cleared that pathway to escape this ant farm which hard science has confided us in.
@Kazem Ardekanian wow... You do realise that different people relying on intuition can have conflicting intuitions about the same thing, right? And then what. Which is it? Who's right? Hard sciences aren't "confining", they just give the scientific method the space it needs to produce high-quality evidence (mostly). Hard sciences aren't confining, they're clear. There is a reason why the replication crisis has affected them the least. Soft sciences ARE inferior when they depend on "intuition," something highly susceptible to conflicting subjectivities. Any "scientific" discipline that doesn't respect the scientific method shouldn't be called a science, soft or hard. The word "discipline" suits them better or perhaps the word "study," but the word "science" shouldn't be used to describe them. Unless you're talking about experience-honed intuition that is based on practice and a history of applying a skill for years, throw intuition in the trash, because it's at best unreliable.
This is a wonderful conversation. I’m glued, dissecting every little line from Mr. Young.
Could you imagine being able to have a conversation with Mr. Arthur Young. I really love listening to him.
Yes. A planet has an ego. Your gut CAN lead you astray.
So many baseless absolutist statements, I think I need a Telefast.
23:45 the holy grail
@8:45 this metaphysic helps us understand why a culture that exists at light speed operates from the sensibility of the discarnate consciousness, viewing process as toxic.
8:25 listen please
12:00 is also good
16:45 astrology
ABSOLUTE 🌟🔺
It is comforting to see how he is safely opening a pathway to exit the realm of hard science.
Sarcasm?
@@hopesy12u4 No sir, it is not.
Intersecting what he says with Alan Watts’ points about intuition, cleared that pathway to escape this ant farm which hard science has confided us in.
@Kazem Ardekanian wow... You do realise that different people relying on intuition can have conflicting intuitions about the same thing, right? And then what. Which is it? Who's right?
Hard sciences aren't "confining", they just give the scientific method the space it needs to produce high-quality evidence (mostly). Hard sciences aren't confining, they're clear.
There is a reason why the replication crisis has affected them the least.
Soft sciences ARE inferior when they depend on "intuition," something highly susceptible to conflicting subjectivities.
Any "scientific" discipline that doesn't respect the scientific method shouldn't be called a science, soft or hard. The word "discipline" suits them better or perhaps the word "study," but the word "science" shouldn't be used to describe them.
Unless you're talking about experience-honed intuition that is based on practice and a history of applying a skill for years, throw intuition in the trash, because it's at best unreliable.