Playing in Possibility (Step Two to Spiritual Freedom)

Back in January, I wrote about embracing uncertainty and sitting with the discomfort of deconstructing my worldview. It was a terrifying but important part of leaving the cult. At the time, I knew that “The Freedom of Uncertainty” was what I would consider the first step to true spiritual freedom, but it wasn’t the last step. I hinted at the next step towards the end of that post.

“I began to play with ideas, trying them on like clothes, seeing how they fit. I allowed myself to start exploring and creating my own spirituality, choosing what made sense to me rather than what I was too scared to reject. Suddenly the journey to find what I believed was a wondrous, fascinating, and exhilarating journey, rather than one of terror and pain.”


I know I’ve written about it several times already, but it seems the more I look at it, the more I feel its importance. But how can I codify this idea of play into a meaningful philosophy? I don’t know if I can, but I’m going to give it a playful shot.

To start I want to look at two fields in which ideas are treasured, science and philosophy.

I find many people worship science as the concrete body of knowledge upon which they can rely. By worship, I don’t mean they think of it as a god. I mean they treat it like a god—with the same rigid certainty that other religions treat their religious texts.

In reality, science is far from certain. Every published study contains a discussion section at the end which should list weaknesses, ways in which the hypothesis could still be wrong, and areas that need additional research, even if the overwhelming evidence of the study was in support of the hypothesis. Of course, when news stories cover a popular scientific or psychological study, they try to leave that part out. They try to make it sound like the results were “proven.”

In science, nothing is proven; it is merely supported. One of the first things I learned in my research methods class is that scientific knowledge is only as good as what we think we know. Every hypothesis can be torn down by a single new discovery.

Now, before people get angry with me for denying science, I’m not.

I love science, but what I love about science is that it isn’t about knowledge. It’s about exploring the unknown and testing the known.

To some extent, I want to say by testing the known because one of the strengths of science is building off of evidence. But I left the “and” there because the other great strength of science is that it constantly tests itself. It takes imagination to look at an experiment and see what can be built off of the results, but it takes even more imagination to look at an experiment and envisage how many other ways the results can be explained. Scientific “knowledge” is constantly in flux, changing as technology improves and understanding deepens.

It’s a beautiful dance between imagination and experience.

Science pushes the boundaries of the world to see what we can do. It’s a form of physically playing with possibility, but just because something is impossible for science in this moment doesn’t mean it’s impossible. That’s where philosophy comes in.

Philosophy and science always seemed at odds to me. I actually hated philosophy passionately when I was getting my undergrad degree in psychology. Philosophy doesn’t have to demonstrate validity or accuracy. As long as the philosopher can coherently connect her/his line of reasoning, it’s a valid philosophy. It seemed like such a scam compared to the rigorous experimental method that science and psychology had to go through to get a hypothesis or theory widely accepted.

I don’t know when my opinion of philosophy officially changed, but at some point I realized that without philosophy we wouldn’t have science. Before we can get down to testing anything, we have to first imagine something. Ironically, what I find most frustrating about philosophy is also its greatest asset—the ability to consider an idea and follow a line of thinking without regard to whether it’s true.

Every discovery starts with a “what if” question. As I pointed out above, science is limited to our current understanding and abilities, but there is so much more out there right now that science can’t even begin to touch—and scientists know it.

So does that mean that what science cannot test and verify doesn’t exist? One philosophy might say so. 😉

But we would be in sad shape indeed if we limited our exploration of ideas to only what we can physically play with. Not only would philosophy be out (along with all the yummy philosophical ideas that exercise our brain’s understanding of reality), but so would certain kinds of math and science.

Two seemingly opposing bodies of “knowledge,” but together they encapsulate the essence of play.

David Eagleman has this fantastic TEDtalk on Possibilianism. He describes how the universe is full of  infinite possibilities in the unknown, and he encourages people to embrace them. When I watch the video, I get excited that there’s a man who knows how to embrace uncertainty and play with possibility (there’s a man who’s faced down his fears).

But he contradicts himself! He says that possibilianism doesn’t mean people can believe in ESP because, as far as science has shown, there’s no evidence for it.

I agree with him partially. We do need to work with our worldview to incorporate the evidence that we have surrounding us.

But the part that ESP isn’t a possibility is only true insofar as our technology and understanding work today. Given a good imagination, someone could still formulate a worldview in which ESP is a valid possibility without contradicting the evidence that we currently have. The only way in which ESP is definitely impossible is in the way that we have imagined it to function in the past.

I can imagine some are rolling their eyes and thinking, “Oh, great. Pseudoscientist over here who believes in ESP.”

But that’s oversimplifying it!

I don’t believe in ESP, per se. I believe in the possibility for a valid worldview to exist in which ESP fits.

Eagleman does a brilliant job of showing how science and philosophy can play, but I think there needs to be another layer to this idea of playing with possibility—that of being comfortable with relativism and multiple layers of truth. This is actually very much present in philosophy, but we forget about it when we step into the arena of “knowledge,” which is really just another human construct like time.

This is where true spiritual freedom comes together. It’s one thing to be willing to test your beliefs and figure out if they “work” in the real world. That’s important–necessary even. It’s even better to consider the value of a belief whether or not it ends up being true. But when you combine the willingness to play with ideas with the recognition that truth comes in many shades, then you truly have infinite possibilities. You can find exactly what works for you and appreciate the level of truth that it represents to you without feeling the need to deny evidence or prove that everyone else needs to believe the same.


16 thoughts on “Playing in Possibility (Step Two to Spiritual Freedom)

  1. “I don’t believe in ESP, per se. I believe in the possibility for a valid worldview to exist in which ESP fits.”

    Are you sure you don’t believe in the possibility of a valid world where the imagination is the source of ESP.

    • That’s one possibility. 😉

      • Possibility is the weakness of Possibilianism.

        The problem with Possibilianism is that the person who invents “Impossibilianism” will inevitably prove that Possibilianism MUST allow “impossibilianism” as a possibility. Thus, it is subject to negation, as with most idealistic systems.

        Of course, You probably don’t want to talk to a Possibilian about Sesquiplausibalianism.

      • Everything is subject to negation. There isn’t a single worldview out there that isn’t influenced by perspective, experience, and desire–each of which differs with individuals. You can never disprove the existence of something, merely provide evidence for the existence of something.

        And you’re right, I’m not interested in talking with someone who throws out big words in an attempt to blind the other people involved in the conversation with “knowledge.” It’s an argumentative fallacy, and fallacious arguments rarely go anywhere profitable.

      • What fallacy is that? Here is a list of logical fallacies. Please let me know which fallacy I have committed. If you don’t want to, that’s fine.

      • It’s called “Blinding with Science” (How to Win Every Argument by Madsen Pirie, pages 22-24). Also referred to here: (though this doesn’t go into as much detail about how it can be used).

        Also known as argument by prestigious jargon or prestige by pseudo-technical jargon or word mongering.

      • According to the primary source you stated: “The fallacy of blinding with science is well worth the time and trouble required to master it.”

        I like how your source advocates the usage of fallacies in order to facilitate a personal agenda. It shows me that you either are quite recalcitrant and malevolent, or perhaps, at most, a benevolent and contemptuously banal bore.

      • I guess the subtle uses of sarcasm are missed by those too caught up in affectation. 😉 Nice false dichotomy though.

  2. (especially without explaining the atleonaugarithm)

    • here is what i mean by atleonaugarithm. It is not a formal process, except that it is entirely of forms, in literal sense anyway.

      analysis of “Of course, You probably don’t want to talk to a Possibilian about Sesquiplausibalianism.”

      [NOTE TO READER: let me know if this is TMI… please just read this, but do as you wish with the moderation of the comment]

      Sesquiplausibalianism. Still, this word has many useful mutations…
      Order 1
      Order 2
      Sesqui+(order 1)+(i/a)lianism
      Subset as;
      Sesquipossilabianism (invalid… too similar to ____labialism)
      Sesquipossilibanism (quasi-valid. Loses data and information)
      Sesquiprobali(a/e)blism [losing focus… no center for such concepts]

      Order 3
      Sespueprobarbarism (barbarism/barbarianism)
      Order 4
      S(y/e)squasipedastroisie & S(y/e)squasipedestroisia


      Synthesis of (-itisticism)

      Recursion to (rev2?->?)
      Shitistatisticism of Stratisitification

  3. Also, if this is related by some process i’m unaware of;

    The author of the book you referenced has written a work called “Strategy Two (1981)”

    this should not be confused (or should it? is it?)with (step two) as designated at the beginning of this post.

    • Yes, because the only reason I would have a “step two” would be because other people have similar titles for things they’ve written . . . (hint that was sarcasm). Did you even bother to read my post or did you just do the bare minimum required for you to troll? My patience is running low. I have lots of things I’d like to do today. So unless you’d actually like to have a legitimate discussion, I’m going to leave you to talk to yourself.

  4. So i’m getting… based on your statements, that your proof of my fallacy was sarcasm about your own sources. Sarcasm makes a great word to use when you are in a pigeonhole, doesn’t it?

    As for wanting a legitimate discussion, I have no desire for anything of that sort. If you want a legitimate discussion, then you will talk to yourself in earnest.

    • No the source is legitimate. But the source uses sarcasm in his own writing to point out fallacies. Since you don’t want discussion, I’m going to stop wasting my time. This will be your last comment on my blog. Have a great weekend.

  5. Nancy says:

    LOVE!!!! So perhaps what bridges science and philosophy, possibility and cognitive dissonance, constriction and expansion, is Play…. play, courage, humility, and a willing heart… (and you hold all of the above!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s