|
|||
Trained as an
engineer in the hard sciences I migrated over the
years to teaching and coaching in the fields of
personal development, leadership and management
development. While moving from 'hard' to 'soft', I
could never let go of my desire to have a solid
logical foundation for what I did. Consequently I
was forced to become a practical philosopher and
discover 'the road less traveled', leading to the
development of the LOTA philosophy of science. I
shared these insights with students for more than
a decade through courses, workshops, projects and
seminars on personal development, leadership
development, creativity and creative achievement,
with many positive life changing experiences for
them to account for. The bottom line of this
experience is this: Once we accept
a broader mental model on the nature of mind, we
become aware of the powers inside us to heal our
past, transform our present and shape our future. May this brief
introduction encourage you to read on.
The
problem Educators in the field of personal development learn sooner or later that Western science is grossly inadequate in supporting their needs. This is illustrated by the fact that the overwhelming numbers of books published in the field of personal development have no support base in the Western scientific models. This has irritated me to no end since I was initially educated as an engineer in the information sciences, enjoying the comfort of rational thought. In my early years as engineer I benefited for instance from physics since it is an excellent support base for the innovation of material things. Subsequently I moved into
management and discovered that our scientific
foundations are no longer an asset when it comes to
understanding ideas like people’s inner motivations.
This is eloquently illustrated by the following quote
from Abraham Maslow:
My full time involvement in education started 30 years ago, as European Training Manager for Hewlett-Packard. I became aware, through frequent examples, that the popularization of physics can be a barrier with respect to people’s abilities to discover their full potential. Because physics was holding the high ground in the domain of logical thought whereas it is often not compatible with contemporary and ancient insights in the mind-body relationships.
The
opportunity My own training
consultancy was formed in 1993 and in spare moments I
worked on the exploration of models for the
integration of mind, body, rational thought and
science. Scientific reports
emerged during this period about the self-organizing
nature of complex patterns. Hence I pondered the
question: What kind of universe would we have if all
interaction patterns evolve in the most complex way? Note however that this
idea was not compatible with Western scientific
thought, which has its roots in a long European
tradition going back to the days of Aristotle. It is
not surprising therefore that I found no
existing philosophy of science where ‘complexity’ is
taken as its starting assumption. Do we really need another theory? Starting
assumptions During 1995 and 1996, I
closed my practice in order to work full-time on the
development of a model based on three starting
assumptions:
The results were published in 1996 in my book ‘The Origins of Mind, Space and Time’. Do
we need another theory? Alternative 1 If you are happy with
the things you have been told about the nature of
time, matter, gravity, energy, the mind/brain/body
relationship, evolution and the big bang, you are
encouraged
to read no further since it will merely make you
uncomfortable with no benefits for you.
Alternative 2 What
will you get? A model, published in 1996,
with predicting power. It predicted the
potential for signals faster than the speed of light
and the potential to tap into the background energy of
the universe. Both are now (2012) part of our
established facts in science, with commercial
applications just around the corner. You will find
some references in the link pages to the relevant
experiments and emerging applications. These ideas
were very controversial in 1996 and I still have the
correspondence with several highly respected
scientists to prove it. They did not pull any punches
and my predictions were declared wrong. Hence science
seems to be moving in the direction of the model.
Indeed the original book version is still as valid
today as it was in 1996.
Where is this predicting power coming from?
It requires a carefully crafted design
approach in order to arrive at an architecture that is
built from only the three assumptions mentioned earlier.
Hence theories about the nature of the universe based on
starting concepts like time, matter, gravity or the Big
Bang are a waist of time because we really do not know
what these things are.
They are to be seen as merely derivative aspects of reality once the fundamental architecture is established from the three basic assumptions mentioned earlier. It is a good way to reduce your reading list since it cuts out a large portion of the publications. Easy to learn The model is easy to
learn and it will set you off on a lifetime of
fascination. Learning times are in the order of hours
and days, not weeks, months or years.
Integrator in science The
model
is
an
excellent
integrator
for
the
sciences,
because
it relates rather elegantly with any science discipline
I have come across, even when there are
incompatibilities among these disciplines.
Excellent tool for mind-body research and applications The model is an excellent support tool for those involved in the mind-body relationships. It is highly practical for these types of applications and leads to new innovations quickly. Explore in your own way There
are
three complementary branches to choose from
Thank you for your visit. I hope you will benefit from it. |
|
| © 2007-2012 Cornelis Slenters, all rights reserved. You have permission to copy, provided you reference the source. |
