To what extent, if any, do we limit our consciousness potential by refusing to acknowledge what common sense informs? In the theatre of debate one sees those who will, for example, refuse to acknowledge scientific findings in the name of religious belief. Others will similarly refuse to acknowledge the mysterious nature of highly anomalous episodes, however compelling the evidence, because the evidence doesn't conform to prevailing 'scientific' paradigms and seemingly flirts with terms like supernatural or the miraculous.
Finally-and here's one that I feel is greatly overlooked-l: What of those who make a habit of never voicing their ideas in these subjects: does this trait tend to limit the potential for breakthroughs to higher levels of understanding-of God, of science, or whatever? Does one close a channel that would otherwise be open if the fence-sitting approach were abandoned?
I really have no idea, just to be clear, but my hunch is that our dispositions do play a significant role when it comes to such things. I envision some combination of emotion combining with intellect in this regard, two forces that we are often trained to believe should be divorced or separated from one another when it comes to what we believe and how the "evidence" may reflect or refute our current philosophical position, on a given issue or in general. It's easy to see how emotion can cause intellectual misdirection, and vice versa. But my feeling is that we may limit and maybe incarcerate our awareness potential by refusing to acknowledge personal errors in either regard, thereby triggering a kind of self-induced karma of consciousness that represses our potential in ways we don't recognize.
Returning to an earlier idea, if there's something valid about this emotion-intellect pairing, as a contributor to levels of awareness, then surely being silently non-commital must also have a stultifying effect, as such an approach stifles one's emotion by definition... (?)
Maybe there's a tie-in here, having something to do with what it means to have a young mind-a concept which, we all know, has nothing to do with chronological age. Is there something relevant here, to the idea that many of our most memorable 'lessons' come from this time, or when we were especially passionate and open (emotionally youthful and not intellectually jaded)?
This is not a blog post, of course. It is an invitation to discussion. And so I ask, any thoughts on how states of consciousness may relate to the interplay between emotion and intellect?
Edits, as usual, have mainly to do with cellphone typos.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 25-May-19 17:40 by Poster Boy.