Nice discourse guys!
If I can start back with the notion about words, thoughts and actions as energy in motion and us describing things in labels the grammar we use 'signify' pointers
in that nouns are 'naming' words - labels we have to come to agreement as 'being' a thing.
Verbs an agreement of 'doing' and adjectives describing the experience in 'feeling/bias/comparison'.
And ask any second grade kid how 'mysterious' and magic this all is but they were likely using the words pretty much correctly without knowing anything about 'grammar'.
Real is not something like a thought. There is no judgement, no right or wrong. No decision. It is just Real.
Right. I agree. We can't depend on knowledge or theories or beliefs.
'can't' means can not as in its impossible, and that's not totally correct because we can if we choose to.
What do you choose to depend on?
People depend on what they know, and what they know they've learnt through experience, wherever and however that experience comes from. It's not static, it changes with the experiences.
Resisting that knowledge or making a 'religion' of any it may be a way for people to be comfortable with it being what it is, to make sense of it, or to be able to share the essence of it with others.
That one might find 'spiritual' energies in the expression and prefer 'scientific' energies in the expression makes not a blind bit of difference to what it IS that is experienced. 'Spiritual' and 'scientific' are labels that may or may not be experienced by two people in the same way with the same knowledge and understanding.
A deaf, dumb and blind person still knows what they know through their experience of the energies of life.
To negotiate agreement on 'what shall we call this' is very different to denying the experience of 'this'.
Faithless knowing is 'in' the essence, and we can be at peace with that, without naming.
It's only when we have to start negotiating meaning that perspectives come to 'matter'. In both uses of the word it is and is not of importance / does and does not matter that there are different perspectives, and it brings its energies into form (matter) to be observed, tested, labelled etc
If we are BEING we are accepting what is NOW. It needs no spiritual or scientific 'knowing' or labeling or agreement to BE.
Reason and intuition both have their place in guiding us. Intuition is the awareness of the arising 'now' energy, reason is the explaining, making 'sense' of the expression of energies and is used both before and after the 'factor'.
While in the 'reasoning' state, one can still BE in the intuitive state in the sense of experiencing the energies either in harmony with the 'factors' or in a discord in some of the factors.
Not knowing everything is a given. We 'choose' that which we focus on and 'reason' according to our knowledge.
A toddler I knew for whatever reason had his own words for things, 'bondont' was I don't want to, and 'bandan' was ice cream. He otherwise had a perfectly good and quite advanced vocabulary. Initially when we tried to negotiate with him to use 'I don't want to' or 'ice cream' it was hilariously funny. He could say the words individually, so we would have him say them
say 'I' - I
say 'don't' - don't
say 'want to' - want to
say "I don't want to' - bondont
say 'ice' - ice
say 'cream' - cream
say 'ice cream - bandan
That we had no sense of where this came from we could still do two things, understand his meaning, and translate it into our understanding of those things. In the end it was more convenient for him to come to use the more widely agreed words, but what he was experiencing in his immediate interaction with energies arising was 'bondont', and 'bandan'.
Whether its 'science' or 'spiritual' matters not.