Not science

Are there things that are not understandable through science? Well, of course. We all know them.

Like love. Some people think such things as all is love. Or all is light or something similar. But love is just an example of something that we accept as not under the purview of science. But is it real?

Of course it is. Everyone knows this directly. You could say love is even common. Right? And definitely real.

In a way you could sort of say that love is the opposite of science. We even allow that science has nothing to say about it. We don’t even ask the question.

But it’s real.

Are other things real that are not in the domain of science?

How could we say?

Well, if we experience them… aren’t they real? Non ordinary events. Religion. Unexplainable phenomena. Superstitions. Coincidences so outrageous we don’t accept them as coincidence. Has everyone at times, not experienced shit that we just can’t explain? Or rather, can’t explain with science. So that we say that we can’t explain them at all.

But is any of that shit real? Of course it is. If it is experienced, it is real. THAT is what real means. Real doesn’t mean ‘When science says it’s real.’ Real means, or should mean, ‘When something is experienced.’

If you look at the world through that lens, the role of science changes to: ‘For making shit.’ And you can adopt any way of looking for its own purpose. Not to be judged as more or less real. But properly used for its purpose. Real has nothing to do with it.

Real is just a synonym for ‘that that was experienced’. And our stories are just that. Stories to shape what happened. They are tools. Not swords. Science is a story.

Blah, blah, blah.

Blah something better.

Good night.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *