What we know / what we DON’T know ~

I’m reading two books at the moment, but the one that I’m thinking most about is Gary Zukav’s SEAT OF THE SOUL.

Readers of this blog will know that I hammer on about what Science doesn’t know. It was less than five generations ago we didn’t know that germs caused illness.

So what else don’t we know?

Science takes the view that what’s not known doesn’t exist – and when we begin to discuss such things as intuition, and the Higher Self, and the soul, by their very nature they are not possible to prove empirically, which is what rationalists require.

Here’s an interesting take on it by Gary Zukav…

“The soul is not physical, yet it is the force field of your being. The higher self is not physical, yet it is the living template of the evolved human, the fully awakened personality.

The experience of intuition cannot be explained in terms of the five senses, because it is the voice of the nonphysical world.

Therefore, it is not possible to understand your soul or your higher self or your intuition without coming to terms with the existence of nonphysical reality.

Knowing in the cognitive sense cannot produce proof of nonphysical reality any more than it can produce proof of God. Proof of nonphysical reality does not exist in the dimension that the rational mind seeks it.

Therefore, when you ask from the perspective of the five-sensory personality, “Does nonphysical reality exist?” what you really are asking is, “If I cannot prove the existence of nonphysical reality, do I decide that it is nonsensical? Do I decide that there is no answer, or do I expand myself to the level at which the answer can be given?”

When a mind asks a question that suggests a different level of truth, no matter what the question, expansion has always been the way of the scientist, the pursuer of truth.

At one time in our evolution, for example, the question was asked, “Are there forms of life that are smaller than the eye can see?” From the five-sensory perception, the answer was, “No.”

Someone did not accept that answer, and the microscope was invented.

Then the question, “Do parts of nature exist that are smaller than what can be seen through a microscope?” was asked, and, again, from the five-sensory perception the answer was, “No,” but we did not stop, and instead discovered, and developed a rich understanding of, atomic and subatomic phenomena.

As we created the tools to see, that which was once considered nonexistent became existent, but we had to expand first.

The challenge, and the task, for the advanced or expanding mind is to expand to a level at which questions that cannot be answered from within the accepted understanding of truth can be answered.

What is nonphysical reality?

Nonphysical reality is your home. You came from nonphysical reality, you will return to nonphysical reality, and the larger part of you currently resides in, and evolves in, nonphysical reality.”


8 thoughts on “What we know / what we DON’T know ~

  1. I don’t usually comment on my own posts – but in the making of the PGS film, I have asked several scientists about the existence of chakras. More than half the world’s population believes in the existence of chakras, but our western scientists and doctors don’t – because energetic nodal points can’t be found on a dissection bench. They don’t exist in Grey’s Anatomy, and so they don’t exist, in the minds of the scientific community. But soon a machine will be invented that “discovers” chakras, and then science will accept what’s been accepted by the east for thousands of years…

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I have to disagree with the statement that “Science takes the view that what’s not known doesn’t exist.” Science is a method to learn about the physical world. Many scientists are religious or spiritual people. They understand the difference between a “belief” and a “scientifically proven” knowledge and happily can have both. Scientists have a great understanding of uncertainties and unknowns, and the changing nature of “knowledge.” It is wrong (and disrespectful) to cast the discussion in polarized mutually exclusive terms.


    • Clare – I have the utmost respect for science. My parents both were dentists, my brother is a veterinarian, my sisters both work in the medical sciences. Before I became a filmmaker, I went to medical school at Queensland University. I have grown up surrounded by a deeply held belief in the validity of the scientific process.

      During the course of filming PGS, I have interviewed several esteemed scientists that are deeply spiritual, and a couple who are bona fide mystics – and so I’m well aware of the duality that exists within this area.

      The point of posting that excerpt was to highlight the notion of expansion of thought. That what was not known to exist at certain points in our history now are known to exist, because of expansion of thought, principally of scientists.


    • Clare – further…

      You took umbrage at my saying: “Science takes the view that what’s not known doesn’t exist.” You’re right, this is clumsy and inexact writing. It would have been better for me to say: “Science takes the view that what cannot empirically be proven does not exist.”

      But as you rightly point out, and as I know from my own experience with some of the world’s most respected scientists, great minds don’t accept that adage. They seek to find what’s not yet known…

      In my field of enquiry, the notion of chakras is particularly interesting, because almost all of the medical scientists that I’ve spoken to tacitly accept the “existence” of chakras, and yet they also acknowledge that science does not accept their existence.

      The scientists have just not yet built the machine that can prove their existence, but one day they will, just like in times past they built the microscope, and the sub-atomic particle colliders, to enable them to prove that what we can’t see with the human eye does exist.


  3. (What’s a touch of umbrage between friends?…)

    “Science takes the view that what cannot empirically be proven does not exist.” Not quite. The scientific method cannot (and wouldn’t try to) prove the non-existence of anything. When a scientist can’t prove its existence, he or she is then left either to uncertainty, or beliefs/knowledge based on other systems.

    Sorry to be argumentative (not really; women always have to say that!), but I do have a problem with the positioning of science as something that it can’t possibly be, as if it is incompatible with other approaches to existence. There’s infinite stuff that “science” doesn’t know, and it knows it!


  4. Hello Bill ;
    some thoughts about proving the existence of the invisible world :
    I work every day with invisible force fields, as a chiropractor I have been using for many years two weird technics that traditional chiropractors wont even consider as normal ones , real ones; BEST MORTER and NSA are using energetic nodal points that sure cannot be see;
    Nevertheless, it works;My patients get real changes in the physical world; Changes in postures, range of motion, blood analysis , breathing patterns, strenght of the lower ans upper limbs, etc;
    when a patient tells me I do not trust this kind of technics, I do not see or feel anything, I just say, just lay down and let me work; And the patient can see the results; no need for more explanation, or arguing; Invisible world creates visible world; I just experience this every day of my physical existence;bises


    • Dear Marie – firstly, sorry – this got caught in the spam folder for some reason. My apologies. But yes, both Jennifer and I have seen this with our very eyes, the way you work and the benefits that you bring to those you work on. It can be demonstrated in the physical world. And yet that kind of work, in the eyes of some scientists and doctors, would be regarded as “quackery.” Because it does not adhere to their scientific training and methodology.


Comments are closed.