The Argument for the Limits of Scientific Methodology in the Investigation of the Fundamental Nature of Reality
1) Observation of natural phenomena by an ‘outside’ observer provides data about the behaviour (i.e. what it does) of a given phenomenon.
2) Observation of natural phenomena by an ‘outside’ observer does not provide data about the fundamental nature (i.e. what it is) of a given phenomenon.
3) Scientific methodology (as it is today) is based on the observation of natural phenomena by an ‘outside’ observer.
Therefore
c1) Scientific methodology (as it is today) is capable of explaining how certain natural phenomena behave (i.e, what things do).
c2) Scientific methodology (as it is today) is not capable of explaining the fundamental nature of natural phenomena (i.e. what things are).
Therefore
C1) Scientific methodology (as it is today) is not fit for the investigation of the fundamental nature of natural phenomena.
C2) In order to investigate the fundamental nature (i.e. what things are) of natural phenomena we need to:
a. Find an alternative to scientific methodology (as it is today)
b. Expand scientific methodology beyond what it is today
The Argument for Analytical Phenomenology as a Valid Research Methodology in the Investigation of Ourselves
1) Observation of natural phenomena from an ‘inside’ perspective may provide data about the fundamental nature of a given natural phenomenon.
2) The only natural phenomenon humans can have an ‘inside’ perspective on is of each ourselves.
Therefore,
C1) Humans need to observe ourselves from an ‘inside’ perspective in order to obtain data about the fundamental nature of ourselves as natural phenomena (Analytical Phenomenology).
C2) Humans need to take the data from the observation of ourselves as valid information in the study of ourselves as natural phenomena (Pragmatism).
1.1.3. The Argument for Analytical Phenomenology as a Valid Research Methodology in the Investigation of the Fundamental Nature of Reality
1) While humans have many characteristics that are unique to us, we also share many characteristics with other things that exist.
2) By observing the characteristics that we share with other things that exist from an ‘inside’ perspective, we are also be gathering valid data about other things that exist.
Therefore,
C) By observing ourselves from an ‘inside’ perspective, we are observing certain aspects of reality from an ‘inside’ perspective.
The Argument for Holotropic Research in the Study of Reality
1) Everything that exists, including us, is made of matter (whatever that may be).
2) Being made of matter is a characteristic we share with everything that exists.
3) We have consciousness (whatever that may be).
Therefore, Probably
C) Things made of matter have consciousness.
4) Consciousness has properties (e.g. qualia, the sense of self, the sense of time) which can be experienced in different ‘levels’ of intensity/depth.
5) Holotropic research methodology provides a number of methods, techniques and practices to change (add, subtract, distort) the properties of consciousness (e.g. qualia, the sense of self, the sense of time).
6) Holotropic research methodology provides a number of methods, techniques and practices to change (add, subtract, distort) the ‘levels’ of intensity/depth in one’s experience.
7) These new ‘levels’ of intensity/depth presents researchers with new data for the study of reality (and of ourselves).
Therefore,
C) This methodology should be explored1.
- Stan Groff, Bertrand Russell, Sir Arthur Eddington, David Chalmers, Phillip Goff ↩︎