First of all, you took part in this experiment. Thank you. In my view, the SC is a matter that should first be tried out in smaller groups. In working groups in professional environments, for example,

Thank you, I am pleased that you comment. Some of the questions cannot be given the hours of consideration necessary to actually relegate to them a specific ranking, and due to incomplete information and

I am convinced that whole we perceive is false. Such meaning as it has to us is what we seek to justify in our self-deception. You take it way too literally. If you read a poem, you understand it, yet

To the rest of your response, I answer you with a quote from the book I gave you the link for: Here the anthropologists, the mythologists, the pre-historians do agree. All things are tied together: a sacred

Ben Franklin, who strove to exemplify what he considered to be the seven signal virtues, once wrote to his son that he had quite given up on humility, as he was certain he would be proud of achieving it

The desire for quantification and testing is, in my opinion, due to the fact that people are reluctant to accept something like uncertainty. Instead, they want to gain certainty. There is no certainty

and there's an almost unlimited list of very good reasons to not respond please, explain.

Oh, here is another source, I think you may like it:

I make a distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness (being aware of oneself). I would state that at least in living beings you can find forms of consciousness. And I find it safe to say that

... and that can be possible even if we are biased, as long as we are not so biased that we proceed to make assumptions that prevent testing our hypotheses. A very significant point. What scientist or

I largely agree with your view that a hypothesis is a working basis until it has been falsified. Today's scientific community seems to be more concerned with verification and getting as many so-called

Heinz von Förster once put it this way- I guess, it is mostly him who influenced my stance on the topic of objectivity (I watched all what is available about him and some books as well as texts and interviews

Since when is a proposal or thesis unscientific? Or what do you mean by Scientism? Science is initially based on assumptions, on the basis of which it is formulated into theses and hypotheses. I would

such as the claim that if we believe and state we will become rich that the universe will conform to that statement, something I think is referred to as the law of attraction. I have read very strong beliefs

While we all have biases, these biases do not completely exclude objectivity. Objectivity should not be considered only an absolute, but is a range. But that is exactly what prejudices do, they preclude

I think that it happens to you the other way round, to reject reasonable insights, because in your mind the interpretation is to the disadvantage of spirituality and therefore, when you have to deal with

For the most part, I can agree with what I find as overriding statements in your comment. Therefore I try to be open minded regarding my beliefs, and prepared to change my mind when something I believe

I point out that life is an act of war because it helps me to dispel insuperable and irrational speculation regarding spirituality. The question is, why do you want to dispel them? If you delete the word

I would like to ask you directly, because you say that you do not make this distinction, whether you think that body/mind influence each other or that what happens on the mental/psychosomatic level in

Yes, I accidentally replied to your comment :) So thank you for answering me nevertheless. I will do, too. I see the thing as a pendulum movement, where the end of the movement before the pendulum swings