<p>Is anyone else concerned that universities and the related grant making / tenure culture have served to stifle the quest for higher truth rather than encourage it, as is their presumed mission?</p>
<p>One colleague challenged fundamental assumptions about physics he was being taught at a very respected technological university. His professors laughed at him and gave him the same assumed answers that had been regurgitated for centuries. This individual dropped out of school and went on to create working technologies centuries beyond where we are today.</p>
<p>Another colleague has faced similar resistance in archeology, a field notoriously resistant to change, and is forced to bankroll his own research, which will probably meet with significant resistance because it will not have the stamp of a major university associated with it. </p>
<p>In my own explorations, I have experienced firsthand the unifying quantum force underlying the facade of ecological competition and, in so doing, was able to understand and experience firsthand the underlying unfying force accessible beneath the facade of economic competition. And yet, universities still teach ecology and economics as if it is a fact that they are intrinsically competitive.</p>
<p>I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Suffice it to say, my work has been rejected by the top universities in the country while far more pedestrian undertakings have been given the green light.</p>
<p>I understand that humanity has resisted change since long before Galileo. Yet I also understand that we are on the cusp of a fundamental renaissance in human perception of reality in which the boundaries between science and spirituality have the potential to collapse. Such breakthroughs require fundamentally new economic, political, and social models. I guess I would just expect the epicenters of higher learning and research to be leading that transition rather than most actively holding it back. </p>
<p>Have others experienced this culture of extreme resistance or do most on here still experience universities on the forefront of human ingenuity?</p>
<p>“Unifying quantum force”… yeah, no wonder they rejected you. I’m not saying that you’re necessarily crazy, just that it sounds like it and when you bring up a theory like that you better have some very good reasons for it.</p>
<p>btw - I didn’t mean to sound harsh there. It’s just that your response embodies the mainstream culture. Your immediate reaction is “crazy”, based perhaps on some assumption that we’ve pretty much got the world figured out. Perhaps I am crazy, but why should institutions resist knowing for sure? There’s enough evidence to warrent at least consideration.</p>
<p>applejack: Apparently the universities you were rejected by disagree. So, either everyone is horribly unwilling to think flexibly, or you’re just off the mark with your ideas. I tend to go based on numbers here, without significant evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Right. Universities are always right. Whatever universities say is absolute truth. I can’t believe I keep forgetting that.</p>
<p>You’re focusing on this rejection part as if it matters. I’m looking at the bigger picture of the role universities play in the advancement of society. I’m in tune enough with the Force (or whatever you want to call it) to know that even when I applied, the purpose of the applications were not to be accepted. I knew I was going to be rejected. The purpose was to open up new insights through the process of applying. That probably doesn’t make sense if you haven’t experienced it, but it’s a function above the level of competition.</p>
<p>Anyway - perhaps you’re not ready for this level of independent thought. Stick to the numbers of consensus. Listen to your professors. They must be right. They have Ph.D.s :)</p>
<p>Just look back over this little conversation and see if you see any fundamental difference between a devoutly religious person’s unquestioned adherence to the views of a church and those of your adherence to the views of the university.</p>
<p>There’s a book by journalist Lynne McTaggart called “The Field” that might a a good introduction to some of your misconceptions.</p>
<p>Well now you’ve got me interested. What do you mean by not “intrinsically competitive”? Are you saying that man (and other species) is not homo economicus and is not constantly calculating cost/benefit analysis? Are you saying perfect competition is an ideal that is never realized?</p>
<p>If so, your ideas remind me of Austrian economists. They are largely marginalized as well. I do get a sense that what you are exposing in academia is met with much resistance. Can you give a summary of your work please?</p>
<p>Peer review your theory or I don’t care. Peer review is not nearly as biased as universities, so if the evidence is clearly in your favor you should be fine.If you claim all scientists in the field are ignoring you JUST because you are innovative, then I have to call bull S###. Thats just absurd.</p>