A Philosophical Question Then

Given that we often misinterpret the true nature of what we perceive in our consciousness (like the famous example of dreaming and thinking that our dream is not a dream), I would like to propose that we restrict ourselves to the following logical methodology in this thread, in an attempt to answer the folloging question:

Methodology: That we show no bias toward any spectrum of our conscious experiencing-- neither the human (anything deriving from thoughts, feelings, or visions-- as long as they are logically consistent), nor the material (anything directly observable through our five senses.

Question: Can anyone deny that our EXCLUSIVE choice of any paradigm (system of knowledge) whether “religious” or “scientific,” does in fact presuppose a conscious choice on our part TO BELIEVE ONLY in that spectrum of our experiencing on which that paradigm rests; and that, in the interest of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, one must OPENLY CONFESS ONE’S BIAS?

For Example: I hold that the man who exclusively believes in the scientific paradigm, denying the existence of anything on a spiritual realm, is in fact PHILOSOPHICALLY DISHONEST in choosing to sqush an entire other spectrum of human experiencing; whereas the man who accepts the “spiritual” along with the “physical” is the more philosophically honest, because he will not restrict himself to any one spectrum of his possible experiencing, nor does he have the audacity to deny the existence of the other.

PS: The philosophical nature of this post cannot be denied except by biased individuals, so if it is removed, I will know that I’m discriminated against in here. If it stands, then I welcome all serious and pointed responses. Please do not refer to a philospher if you will not use his reasoning pertinently, and please do not dismiss this question with unargued for statements of untenability.

OK, but let’s be specific here. “Religion” is perhaps the paradigmatic example of a ‘truth-procedure’, that is, a method which (when followed faithfully) will result in a process of subjection to an event, that is, will make us ‘subjects’ to its ‘truth.’

But certainly there are further archetypes: we can also consider science, politics, art and love to have this structure, of only really existing for a subject who has faith in the event (of love, of justice, etc.)

“Faith” is not equivalent to “bias,” though, right? We don’t have to ‘confess’ because we’re not guilty of anything! Get it? You’re not trapped!

Sure, our beliefs have an awful lot to do with how we perceive the world. But our behavior has a lot MORE to do with it. In fact, one of the meanings of “bias” is a diagonal cut, or fold… so a bias can also be thought of ‘positively’ as a transversal line which makes seemingly unconnected spaces intersect.

From the general perspective of consciousness, dismissing any paradigm whatsoever, ouside of the grounds that it is internally logically inconsistent, is fundimentally biased. Period.

OK, so describe an “unbiased” paradigm.

(Maybe I’m not understanding you here. Did you read my comments?)