Talk:Applied Consciousness Sciences

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition (ACS) Term used by several institutions claiming to teach using one's awareness. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Psychology [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive 1  English language variant American English

Removal notice (Case 2011-002)

Page has been blanked. See talk page archive --Peter Schmitt 12:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The text that replaces the article is speculative and commentaries only view from an "evidence based" perspective

I only recently discovered this talk page and I'd like to give some feedback on this discussion and its conclusions.

First of all, the text that replaces the article about Applied Consciousness Sciences is speculative and the comments on this talk page seem to lack a deeper understanding of non-reductionist or holistic approaches. These commentaries are right from a strictly materialistic, evidence based point of departure and paradigm. And I can completely understand this. In contrast ACS includes both general and individual objectives because it is multi-perspectival. And in holistic science we aim at strengthening what individuals cognize with what is observed from a meta point of view, the greater connection or bird's eye view. Holistic science accepts the third-person perspective of conventional science, but it sees it as just one perspective from where reality can be described. Ask different individuals to describe what they observe in one and the same situation and they will likely give different, sometimes conflicting, descriptions. Holistic science accepts the individually described patterns and those patterns that the individual experiences have in common. It is the opposite of reductionism. From where we look what we see isn't less true. We try to go beyond what can be cognized through the intellect.

When you look at the "Occupy movement" what you see is nonlogical, non-methodical, non-hierarchical, chaotic, new, emerging, non-reductionist, holistic, global, transformational, ... a breakthrough. Look at the uprising in the Middle East. The "Shift movement" and many other movements are slowly breaching through the conventional. How is this related to Applied Consciousness Sciences? ACS describes how one can organize without relying on hierarchy, how to recognize new emerging patterns, how to recognize the power of different approaches and living traditions that practically lead to personal, organizational and social transformation. It doesn't prescribe an externally imposed change but change that comes from a deeper realization, it doesn't even promote a meditational practice. What does it do? It does describe a way of seeing beyond the reality that we have captured in our thought patterns. This is what grassroots movements like "Occupy" and "The Shift" do.

So, Applied Consciousness Sciences doesn't refer to a project or institution or person but is referred to as a Creative Commons Share Alike development that is supported by those individuals and organizations that keep it alive and growing. Some supporting organizations and individuals have started to systemize its body of theories and practices since 2001. But in reality there is not a specific moment in time where ACS was created.

I would like to suggest to completely remove all text, if in your opinion what we bring in isn't something that CZ should publish. --Carlo Monsanto 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(Copied rom Archive 1)

Carlo, what you write above makes much more sense to me than your original article but the main problem remains:
In order to be able to judge the status of ACS we need some third-party opinion -- some independent outside reference, areferee's report, an evaluation, etc. -- showing that this is a serious effort of serious people.
Please don't be offended, but without such evidence this could also be pure esoterics, a religious movement, or pseudescientific nonsense.
Since ACS has considerable web presence an article is justified, I think, and even needed. In my brief statement I tried to stay neutral -- it may be serious and of interest, but so far there I do not know a proof. This can be changed as soon as I am proved wrong.
I am convinced that "project" is a good description (there may be a better one) because "Creative Commons Share Alike development" is a technical term describing a copyright status (CZ is also both a project and a Creative Commons Share Alike development). One or more institutions are involved, offering courses that (again: please do not be offended -- it is a possibility) could be a money-making device and the main purpose of the project.
--Peter Schmitt 12:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Peter for your comments. I agree that not many articles have been written by third-parties, and those that have are in Dutch. Many aren't scientific as per the definition of scientific community. But, then again, ACS cannot be compared to conventional science. Applied Consciousness Sciences, sciences with an "s", presents a field consisting of many different approaches. These approaches, of which some have been in existence for hundreds of year, lack visibility in our society. The name ACS tries to bring all of these approaches together. That which brings them together, the view, theory and common practice, might be called a CC 'project'.

I believe that this is a work in progress, which I will continue on the next page: --Carlo Monsanto 13:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The language of a source may present a "technical" problem but does not make it invalid. What is needed are independent opinions with a (potentially) critical attitude (not necessrily "scientific" in its narrow sense) based on good direct knowledge.
(By the way, just as WP, CZ allows you to develop articles in your user space.) --Peter Schmitt 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted from Wikipedia

See here for the Wikipedia discussion (deleted on notability grounds). Meg Ireland (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)