Why the bias against materialism?

[Zero]

*braces for new round of being called close-minded*

 

[Another God]

I did address the third complaint in my original post that was lost, but didn't feel like bothering to reply in my post take 2, because well, admittedly now, I didn't understand it quite the way you meant it, and on that fact, I thought it was not a point worth discussing.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But this statement, "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" is just plain wrong. You are doing just what I have complained about, studied only that which supports your belief system.

The correct statement would be, "no other investigative method produces useful results for understanding the material universe than empiricism." That you only find material processes useful is your thing, but to a lot of others inner contentment, happiness, wisdom mean more . . . to some of us, a hell of a lot more.

Materials, and understanding their physical laws, have contributed very little to my contentment, happiness, and wisdom, and I am pretty well off materially and understand the physical side of things better than most people. Now if all YOU value is materiality, and all YOU want is that, and all YOU pursue is matter, and all YOU study is how to understand, manipulate, and acquire it, then of course you might arrive at the conclusion that "Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does" because that's all you care about.

Perhaps you don't understand how my beliefs work. I don't deny happiness, I don't deny wisdom, or contentment...I do not deny the psychich phenomena (psychic as in psychological), in fact it is the first and foremost thing that I am/have. Everything that exists, after the fact of its existence, is experienced from the psychie. The psychie exists. Thats what I am. I am a psychological phenomenon. So are 'you' and so is zero. The difference between me and al of the idealists out there though, is the fact that I am like galileo and they are like the church. Where they could only see the universe from the perspective of the earth, and so claimed that it must have been the center, Galileo saw that perspective does not dictate fact. Just because our perspective is a psychic perspective does not mean that psychic is all there is, nor that psychie is the origin of the universe. Instead, we have to look outside our perspective and understand that the universe exists without us, exists in its own right, and it is because of its existence that this psychological phenomena may have come about.

There is a good chance that we will never be able to figure out how Objective facts are translated into experiences, but I'll guarantee that we will be able to figure out how Objective facts of the brain etc, are correlated to the mental phenomenon. And as such, we will be able to control many aspects of experience, life, and all the rest.

It's not because I say that "Material*" is all that exists, but more importantly: Material* is all that exists in an absolute sense, which gives rise to all of these phenomenon which make life rich and interesting. I don't deny the phenomenon, but instead accept, and explain them. Idealists and various other philosophies just accept them and claim higher idealic ground for those phenomenon, claiming they are 'special' and can never be explained. How arrogant. To think that an experience of a human is above the objective nature of everything else in the universe.

(* Where material is expressing of the existence understood by the philosophical definition of Materialism)

But to project your personal tastes and preferences onto the entire universe, and then suggest to those who want something more that there is nothing more and therefore materialist philosophy is suited best for everyone, well . . .

Materialism is Precisely the opposite of projecting personal tastes and preferences. It is the absolute removal of personal tastes and preferences (well, the attempt to, as best we can), and the expressing of what is left over. And then, it is claimed that this is how the universe IS, whether people like it or not. Materialism isn't about what people like, or what they want to believe, or what sounds good, or nice, or pleasant. It is about how things ARE. It isn't about telling you how u are supposed to experience it, or how you are supposed to reach contentment or anything like that. It is only about objective description of how things are.

I think this is vitally important to know if you are ever going to meaningfully decide what you 'should' do. For without a solid understanding of how things are, your decision of should starts from something unknown, and so you have no standard on which to judge it.

I know for a fact there is something more. Thirty years of meditation has not been to torture myself, but because it has been so rewarding to do so. You can sit on the sidelines, having never practiced to that extent, and pooh pooh it, call it narcissistic, say it reveals nothing (because, after all, there is nothing more is there?), but in the end you really don't know what such a dedicated inner effort reveals do you?

I like meditation. I believe mediation is a great thing to use to access your mind, to calm the noise that accumulates in your mind, a great way to let you rmind sort itself out etc... I have nothing but praise for meditation. But that doesn't change the fact that I can look at meditation from both a subjective and a materialistic point of view. In fact, being able to look at it from both points of view, in my opinion, gives me a greater understanding of it than someone who says simply: Oh, its something from within the mind, and that makes it special.

Here's a bit of an analogy for you. In biology there are phenotypes and genotypes. We have always dealt with phenotypes in the past (because they are obvious), and throuhg phenotypes much has been speculated, including evolutionary relatedness etc. Now that we have Molecular Biology technology, we can sequence the Genome,we can comment on the genome relatedness, we can look at individual gene relatedness etc. We are now able to do both phenotypic analysis and genotypic analysis. And for this fact, we are in a better position to claim understanding. The genotypic level is a much better level to use (Because of its digital nature, the definant yes no aspect of it, and the definate logical connections made between it and phenotype), but that doesn't stop the phenotype level from existing.

So too with the objective universe and the subjective experience of that universe. Just because we are starting to understand the objective, doesn't mean we deny the subjective, it just means we are starting to understand the cause of the subjective.

You could study the Buddha in depth or Meister Eckhart, or Rumi, or Kabir, or Teresa, or the Baal Shem Tov, or Nanak, or Joshu, or the Desert Fathers, or the early Greek Orthodox monastics . . . and then you might actually gain just an inkling of what they'd managed to learn to experience after many years of dedicated practice.

But no, you won't do that. Yet you and the rest of the self-assured materialists still have no qualms about stating in a public forum, in front of the entire world, that ""Materialism produces consistency, and useful results. Nothing else does."

I renew my complaint about half-assed educations.

I won't go study Bhudda etc, not because of materialism, but because I simply have other things to do with my time which I believe are more important. I really don't appreciate the way you have assumed so much about 'Us materialists' based on your straw man cariacture of materialsm.

I stand by my claim that Materialism produces consistency and useful results. I will take back the 'And nothing else does' part, because I do accept that having someone internally content is important, and 'useful' for various reasons. But having someone internally (psychologically) content/happy/wise, is of little impact on the objective reality of the universe. And that is all materialism is really concerned with. The truth.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zero
This statement seems to be the exact opposite of what you mean, isn't it? You know for a 'fact'?? I think you mean you have an emotional certainty, don't you?

Agreed.

Yep, an inner effort yields inner knowledge.

Agreed.

They experienced themselves, and lots of it.

How can looking at your belly button give you any knowledge besides the geography of your navel?

Agreed and agreed.

The point of our posts combined ( i think) is that Materialism is the only way of finding 'THE TRUTH', the one, the only, the absolute unique OBJECTIVE truth, because that is what it concerns itself with.

Above and beyond the Objective truth, subjective truths may exist (as a consequence of THE OBJECTIVE), and materialism may not be able to tell each of us what to think, or how to think etc, but that's fine...Materialism is the puruit of THE ACTUAL truth. Not personal truth.

The great thing about knowing 'The Truth' is that it is foreseeable that one day, from the objective knowledge we will gain, it will be possible to not only predict what people are thinking, but also be able to control it. Where will the idealists and pure introspects be then? I think they will all quickly be converted (by choice, or by force [9)])


I am not denying the existence of personal truths...i am just denying that they need to have any bearing on the truth, or that their 'truth' is even anything special. Its just an opinion, a preference, an emotion.

 

[Zero]

I don't like using the word 'truth', AG, because it in itself sort of defies the skepticism that I feel underscores the reak search for knowledge. I fully believe in being open to new ideas, after all, but I also feel that we need to compare those ideas to what we already know, and see which fits better into the overall objective knowledge.
As far as 'personal truth', I believe that is exists, and that it is personal, and exists in the way that my likes and dislikes exist. I can say 'peas are bad', and it is true for me, but it has no effect on the objective existence of peas. You may like them, but my dislike doesn't make the peas any different.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't like using the word 'truth', AG, because it in itself sort of defies the skepticism that I feel underscores the reak search for knowledge.

Yeah, i do agree with this, but I have spent enough time looking into this stuff now, that I have sort of self-defined a lot of stuff to make a shorthand.

Really, I don't think Science/humans will ever find The Truth, because we are subjective creatures, and The Truth is Objective. But because of that fact, I have decided to just acknowledge that, and use the word 'Truth' as meaning "Accepted by humans for the moment because denying it just isn't reasonable".

I do think of science in a pepperian sense: Temporary acceptance of postulates until they are shown to be wrong/incomplete. And so, of course we can't ever know the truth under that model.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
Yeah, i do agree with this, but I have spent enough time looking into this stuff now, that I have sort of self-defined a lot of stuff to make a shorthand.

Really, I don't think Science/humans will ever find The Truth, because we are subjective creatures, and The Truth is Objective. But because of that fact, I have decided to just acknowledge that, and use the word 'Truth' as meaning "Accepted by humans for the moment because denying it just isn't reasonable".

I do think of science in a pepperian sense: Temporary acceptance of postulates until they are shown to be wrong/incomplete. And so, of course we can't ever know the truth under that model.

I can agree with this, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Ok, here's something else I have a problem with: claims that only some sort of special experience can lead to 'truth'. That is something us materialists like about empirical data; EVERYONE can share in it, and it can be displayed whether you believe in it or not. The flaw, at least for some IMO, is that empirical data doesn't make anyone special. The only work you have to do is library work, and you can know about the material universe. You can't claim special enlightenment, or to be in touch with magical forces. Actually, science is the opposite of special experience, something that I'm sure bothers the priests and gurus.

I can appreciate your concern . . . it seems sincere. You are correct about empirical data of course; in fact, an important part of the empirical standard is to make claims demonstrable. You are not alone in liking that, I think most intelligent people know one can trust anything genuinely confirmed by science, and so it becomes the first place searched to get the facts about something.

But it seems to me you have several very distinct issues all mushed together into one big messy pile. There is the physical world, which science exposes; there are (and from your perspective, “may be”) people who have legitimately developed some inner experience; and there are people who pretend to have “special” knowledge or experience, but who really are just either deluded or deceitful.

We can easily agree to discount the deluded and deceitful, so let’s consider the possibility of someone who might legitimately develop an inner experience.

You seem to imply by saying “You can't claim special enlightenment, or to be in touch with magical forces,” that because there are people who go around representing themselves as having special knowledge (like a couple of eccentrics at this site) that one cannot develop consciousness in any way but along intellectual lines.

But the delirious rantings, visions, prophesies, nonsense wisdom, and imagined pronouncements of spiritual clowns who do their best to garner attention do NOT represent how the best and most dedicated inner practitioners have behaved. You are unfairly concluding that because of them, all such efforts are bogus, and that is not true. This is what I mean when I say most materialists are half educated. There is an entirely different variety of inner practitioner than the pretenders.

At the old PF, there was this guy who posted several new threads every (or so it seemed) day. I forget his name, but he boldly posited new theories on every aspect of science. Once he responded, after some of the more serious science types suggested he was a crackpot, that he was “like Einstein,” except not quite as versed in physics (or something like that). Now, do you think he’d be justified getting upset at being expected to do his homework before claiming to be a science genius? Is it elitist for people who’ve studied and worked their butts off to learn science, to tell him he does not really comprehend physics, and needs to study to understand? And if this guy were to go to some planet who never heard of science, and represent himself as an expert, and if the planet came to judge the value of science based on his behavior, would they have an accurate picture of what science is capable of?

There, in that situation, I am sure you can clearly see knowledge does not come without work. Well, the same goes for the inner expert. Those claims by individuals that they’ve seen the “truth” in a flash, and now are enlightened, they are very strongly disputed by the history of past experts who to a person worked their tails off, often for most of their lives, to attain it. And so what if you can’t have it without work? If you don’t want to work for it, that’s perfectly fine, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t those who have done the work and now are capable of seeing something you can’t because you chose not to pursue it. That does not make them elitist or special, just skilled.

 

[Zero]

Les, I understand your position, I think. I would still say that your inner truth, while valid for you, makes little difference to the rest of us, except in the perfectly possible instance where you figure out something about the himan condition.

 

[Another God]

there are (and from your perspective, “may be”) people who have legitimately developed some inner experience;

I didn't get what the value of this inner experience was...?

We all have inner experience. It is who we are. Without inner experience, without subjectivity, there isno perception of a self. Even the materialist, seeking out the Objective that exists, is stuck with only their inner experience. They just try to keep their inner experience in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their collected data on the 'Objective' that they are trying to understand.

But of course, once they have this datam, their inner self runs rampant with it. Everything we do is inner.

Hmmm... am I wrong in thinking that the difference here, is that the people you are talking about Les, are the people who try to keep their empirical data in a nicely defined region, so as to not contaminate their inner experience?

Does that seem like a nice summary of the two contrasting regions?
A: Materialists to keep their inner experience in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their collected data on the 'Objective'.
B[/]: Idealists to keep their empirical data in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their inner experience.

But even I do the second option. When I try to understand certain aspects of certain things. Things like "How is my subjectivity created?" and "How is the universe here/where did it come from/whatever way you want to phrase the question". Those sorts of questions, I sometimes consider them by removing all empirical knowledge, so that I can get that particular angle on the subject.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Les, I understand your position, I think. I would still say that your inner truth, while valid for you, makes little difference to the rest of us, except in the perfectly possible instance where you figure out something about the himan condition.

It is totally, radically, intensely personal . . . it makes no difference to anyone but me. I love it -- what you love is your business.

If you knew me, and suspected it brought contentment, happiness and wisdom to my life, and if you asked me if I recommend it for those reasons alone, I would say yes. Otherwise, I would not think it appropriate to go so far as to recommend it without being asked, or at least sensing your interest.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It is totally, radically, intensely personal . . . it makes no difference to anyone but me. I love it -- what you love is your business.

If you knew me, and suspected it brought contentment, happiness and wisdom to my life, and if you asked me if I recommend it for those reasons alone, I would say yes. Otherwise, I would not think it appropriate to go so far as to recommend it without being asked, or at least sensing your interest.

Whatever works for you...I am happy, content, and (dare I say?) wise without beliving in things that can't be measured. To each his own, I suppose.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Another God
I didn't get what the value of this inner experience was...?

We all have inner experience. It is who we are. Without inner experience, without subjectivity, there isno perception of a self. Even the materialist, seeking out the Objective that exists, is stuck with only their inner experience. They just try to keep their inner experience in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their collected data on the 'Objective' that they are trying to understand.

But of course, once they have this datam, their inner self runs rampant with it. Everything we do is inner.

Hmmm... am I wrong in thinking that the difference here, is that the people you are talking about Les, are the people who try to keep their empirical data in a nicely defined region, so as to not contaminate their inner experience?

Does that seem like a nice summary of the two contrasting regions?
A: Materialists to keep their inner experience in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their collected data on the 'Objective'.
B[/]: Idealists to keep their empirical data in a nicely defined region, so as to not let it contaminate their inner experience.

But even I do the second option. When I try to understand certain aspects of certain things. Things like "How is my subjectivity created?" and "How is the universe here/where did it come from/whatever way you want to phrase the question". Those sorts of questions, I sometimes consider them by removing all empirical knowledge, so that I can get that particular angle on the subject.

AG . . . the problem is you are underestimating the inner thing I am talking about. You are not going to comprehend it so leisurely. I have been at it 30 years, both as a pratitioner and as a scholar, and I still consider myself a student. But then maybe I am just dimwitted and that's the problem.

You have the objective part nicely figured out, and as far as "normal" subjectivity, you seem on target there too. I am talking about certain individuals who found a way to develop subjectivity in an entirely different way than you would ever have heard of unless you take the time to investigate it. One of the most famous people for this, and someone the least contaminated by religious hyperbole, is the Buddha. But there are lots more too.

My only point really is not to make you interested in or convinced of anything, but rather to try to get you to be more careful with your statements about what sorts of consciousness disciplines have been effective. If you are unaware of an entire realm of consciosness development, then how can you speak so assertively about science and material philosophy being the only effective avenues to knowledge?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
AG . . . the problem is you are underestimating the inner thing I am talking about. You are not going to comprehend it so leisurely. I have been at it 30 years, both as a pratitioner and as a scholar, and I still consider myself a student. But then maybe I am just dimwitted and that's the problem.

You have the objective part nicely figured out, and as far as "normal" subjectivity, you seem on target there too. I am talking about certain individuals who found a way to develop subjectivity in an entirely different way than you would ever have heard of unless you take the time to investigate it. One of the most famous people for this, and someone the least contaminated by religious hyperbole, is the Buddha. But there are lots more too.

My only point really is not to make you interested in or convinced of anything, but rather to try to get you to be more careful with your statements about what sorts of consciousness disciplines have been effective. If you are unaware of an entire realm of consciosness development, then how can you speak so assertively about science and material philosophy being the only effective avenues to knowledge?

Can you site any objective evidences of these approaches showing some sort of measurable insight? Or is it just the general wisdom of anyone with some common sense, with or without spending 10 years eating treebark and sleeping in a cave?

 

[Pyrite]

Personally, I've found myself situated right smack dab in the middle, between Materialism and Idealism. I think that many here are saying that all Materialists believe that only material things exist. this is not true, or so i gather from Zero and Another God's posts. What i think they are saying, and what i am saying, is that we cannot state, as a fact, what is or is not real. And we cannot assume that something is real. We also cannot assume that it is not.

I agree with Zero's post that meditation can help you find things about yourself.

I further go on to say (without interpreting anything from them) that in my opinion, nothing can ever be proven to be real, and it might not matter anyway. What is most important is finding out what does matter. for me, and many others, it is hapiness. there are many ways this can be achieved, and it also seems that it cannot last forever, for without the lack of it, there would be nothing to give it definition. but if it turns out that there is something more to it, (gods will, understanding, Kharma, whatever) then that is what we need to strive to achieve. This exists completely separate from, as Zero put it, "The way things are."

Once we have figured out the meaning to our life, knowing how the universe works may help us achieve it. or not. It may be that understanding the universe will not allow us to be happy. (or insert whatever other meaning of life here.) but it also may be that it helps us in a great way. but we cannot know, and I am unwilling to assume.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pyrite
Personally, I've found myself situated right smack dab in the middle, between Materialism and Idealism. I think that many here are saying that all Materialists believe that only material things exist. this is not true, or so i gather from Zero and Another God's posts. What i think they are saying, and what i am saying, is that we cannot state, as a fact, what is or is not real. And we cannot assume that something is real. We also cannot assume that it is not.

I agree with Zero's post that meditation can help you find things about yourself.

I further go on to say (without interpreting anything from them) that in my opinion, nothing can ever be proven to be real, and it might not matter anyway. What is most important is finding out what does matter. for me, and many others, it is hapiness. there are many ways this can be achieved, and it also seems that it cannot last forever, for without the lack of it, there would be nothing to give it definition. but if it turns out that there is something more to it, (gods will, understanding, Kharma, whatever) then that is what we need to strive to achieve. This exists completely separate from, as Zero put it, "The way things are."

Once we have figured out the meaning to our life, knowing how the universe works may help us achieve it. or not. It may be that understanding the universe will not allow us to be happy. (or insert whatever other meaning of life here.) but it also may be that it helps us in a great way. but we cannot know, and I am unwilling to assume.

I think I can 9reservedly) support the viewpoint of this post. While I am all for looking into possibilities, the only things I can feel confident about are those which have some sort of empirical data to support them. "The way things are" is very important to me, and to suggest changing them based on wishful thinking on the way "things should be", to me is a dangerous viewpoint.

 

[Another God]

Les, we seem to have covered each of our understanding of the universe etc a little better now, do you wish to go back to the ethics thread, and see if we can sort something out there?
(PS: if you want a greater insight into my view of ethics, then two great threads have just been discussed through by myself, Russ and a couple of others. Check them out too if you are interested. (Is it wrong to kill, and the Where is morality going))

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Zero
"The way things are" is very important to me, and to suggest changing them based on wishful thinking on the way "things should be", to me is a dangerous viewpoint.

This is interesting, and is possibly worth a whole new thread on its own actually (depending on what you actually mean).

Obviously, there are certain things which 'are the way they are' and we can't really change them, but we can subjectively pretend they aren't they way (which obviously, both you and I are against). But then there are things, that 'are the way they are' because some people believe that they should be that way, and so it has come to pass that they are. (Ethics, laws, social structure, language etc) Are you opposed to changing them to the way 'they should be'? (immplying of course, that someone has a new better concept of how things should be, over what the person in history believed it should be)

Zero, did you participate on those two ethics threads I just mentioned (I have forgotten already! )?

Do you think there is a 'Should' at all? And how do you think of it?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Another God
This is interesting, and is possibly worth a whole new thread on its own actually (depending on what you actually mean).

Obviously, there are certain things which 'are the way they are' and we can't really change them, but we can subjectively pretend they aren't they way (which obviously, both you and I are against). But then there are things, that 'are the way they are' because some people believe that they should be that way, and so it has come to pass that they are. (Ethics, laws, social structure, language etc) Are you opposed to changing them to the way 'they should be'? (immplying of course, that someone has a new better concept of how things should be, over what the person in history believed it should be)

Zero, did you participate on those two ethics threads I just mentioned (I have forgotten already! )?

Do you think there is a 'Should' at all? And how do you think of it?

Well, I try to isolate 'should' from 'is', if that makes any sense? Because 'should' arguments lead to a lot of the strawmen we've seen in this thread so far, and many others that aren't specific to this thread. For instance 'materialism leads to amorality' or 'evolution is a racist idea'. I feel that the 'facts' lead to what they lead to, regardless of social problems that may arise. In fact, I believe(pure faith on my part!) that a more materialist viewpoint is socially positive, in that it beings us all to a consistant understanding of reality, and leaves little room for religious-type strife.

As far as ethics, well...that is a debate better left in the other threads, in which I have lurked more than posted, not because I don't have a deep level of ethics, but because I find it surpremely difficult to articulate those thoughts. I have a certain reputation outside PF for almost a 'religious' sense of ethics, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[rocket art]

Originally posted by heusdens
Selfishness and greed have nothing to do with philosophical materialism.

Materialism does not claim that matter only exists in visible form, and the exploration of nature through science is proof of that.
Nobody has "seen" electrons or protons or magnetic fields and such.

What mystery and essence are you speaking of here, please reveal us that mystic concept of your thought so we can explore that "truth".

Originally posted by heusdens

For an inidividual to insist on materialism as the only path, I believe it is inevitable for such individual to succumb to greed and selfishness, for other than the abstract concepts of morality or values, that is the only thing he sees for survival.

For an individual to insist that only materialism is the practical path to "truth", already is a subjective bias to materialism.

When I refer to "seen", figuratively I included those that can be analysed, electrons or protons, although in quantum mechanics it even shows the capability of even a mere "observer" to affect subparticles, and the inevitability when attempting to define one part, the other part hides(position, momentum).

If I define the concept of mystery or essence for others, then they cease to become what they are. Preferably let it be exploredwith subjective approach (not subjective definition) by each individual. Even when they were neither revealed by analysis or definition, or even when its abstract concept may only be felt, but then it inevitably is present in the reality that human beings experience.

Consider then such concepts as mystery, whether the undefinable, as part of the big picture of Truth. To deny itwill render such "Truth" incomplete, and to insist that this incompleteness is what truth is merely because it was analyzed or explored or defined, then it may become a lie.

To find real truth, we may as well explore freedom. Matter sets boundaries. Materialism may be a tool, but to insitutionalise it would render humanity to boundaries and lack of freedom.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by rocket art

Originally posted by heusdens

For an inidividual to insist on materialism as the only path, I believe it is inevitable for such individual to succumb to greed and selfishness, for other than the abstract concepts of morality or values, that is the only thing he sees for survival.

Good for you...that is why only us higher-types can handle being materialists!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Zero
Can you site any objective evidences of these approaches showing some sort of measurable insight? Or is it just the general wisdom of anyone with some common sense, with or without spending 10 years eating treebark and sleeping in a cave?

I went through this at the old PF with DT Strain where no matter how many different ways I put it, he never seemed to hear what I was saying. I say that because if you only knew how much this statement -- "Can you site any objective evidences of these approaches showing some sort of measurable insight?" -- does not make sense.

In another post I said that the standards for knowing (and evaluating) the material world and the inner world are very different. An objectifying method is totally appropriate for studying objects. But how are you going to apply an objective research method to something that is not an object, and can only be experienced inside a person? The best you might do is notice someone's body and brain waves are running calmer, but then you will miss what people are really doing because that part of the inner experience does not register on anything (as far as I know).

What you are doing is applying your intellect to this, and the intellect doesn't work with it. It has absolutely nothing to do with thinking and intellectual understanding. What it does have to do with is . . . hmmmmmm, finding a term that won't be misinterpreted . . . let's call it sensitivity.

It is possible to learn to become very still, so still one’s mind is utterly quiet. Achieving that alone can take years, but that’s just the beginning. In that silence and stillness one can, if one feels and listens “inward,” detect an inner brightness and pulse which does not seem physical. If one can follow it without disturbing it in any way (another skill that takes a lot of practice), something can happen which traditionally has been called union in the West, or samadhi in the East. It is a sort of merging of consciousness with that bright pulse, and once merged one experiences something very lovely indeed. The merging only lasts a short while, especially at first, but with practice one can stay with it for longer and longer periods.

I absolutely love it, am addicted to it, and look forward to it every morning first thing. The effects aren’t just during actual union; afterwards everything seems so clear, and I feel happy and content inside. (Now, that’s practical don’t you think? Think how much insanity goes on because people are discontent and unhappy.) Also, and this is how I think it contributes to wisdom, the experience unifies consciousness so that one becomes acutely aware of the “whole” view of reality. When I debate here, I am always relying on that view to help me think about the various “parts” of reality we all discuss. Having that contrast is invaluable to me.

Now imagine practing union for decades, feeling that day after day, until some part of you becomes convinced of certain things from what that experience has shown you. How are you going to “prove” it to others? It is impossible, and so I would never try. What I will do however, is point to the long and distinquished history of it, and how some of the worlds most esteemed people have recommended it.

So when you and others say “there is no effective system for acquiring knowledge than an objective method,” I have to dispute that. That may be all you know about, and maybe all you care about. But I know for a fact that there is a subjective method, practiced in a VERY precise way, which is every bit as rigorous as sound objectivity is, and that produces significant results with one’s own consciousness. If you opt to ignore it and it’s long history, choosing instead to participate only in material study, then you will certainly become informed about material processes won’t you? But you will know nothing about union and its benefits, and therefore ethically should refrain from blanket statements about inner practices, as well as claiming material study is the only effective kind of study.

 

[heusdens]

LW Sweeth:

Please tell me what is the use of finding "truth" in staring at one's navel for years..

What good is it? What will it solve?

 

[Zero]

But does it DO anything? Are you claiming it does anything? Apparently you are only making the claim that it makes you feel happy and whatnot, right?!?

 

[Iacchus32]

What is Prayer?

Well you guys, you can't judge a book by its cover -- which, is exactly what you're doing. Hmm ... Is this all that materialism has to offer? ... A superficial "exterior" explanation to things?

I'm afraid if you want to find anything deep, you're going to have to "go inside."

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." (Matthew 6:5-6).

 

[Zero]

Bring us back some sort of proof that there is an 'inside', and get back to us!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Zero
But does it DO anything? Are you claiming it does anything? Apparently you are only making the claim that it makes you feel happy and whatnot, right?!?

I've watched this discussion go on. Let me add a few words to see if I can muck it up good. Actually I would like to tie what AG, Zero and LWS have been saying together.

AG has recognized that all experience is subjective. Even our experience of the objective is subjective. He claims this to be a reason why we may never know the complete truth. If we think about our own conscious experience we all know that it is not perfect because some days things just look different than other days. That's part of being human. So we try to objectify things by verifying results in multiple subjective experiences. IOW, we have other people make the same inquiries. So in a way we can think of our subjective nature as a filter of objective reality. And as AG said, we try to control it so that it doesn't interfere with our gaining knowledge of the objective world.

Now I will risk making Les gringe. I will admit I know practically nothing compared to Les on this experience that he speaks of so my point here will be completely intellectual to try to connect with the opponents of it. If you don't agree Les, please say so.

We all know that consciousness has many levels ranging from deep sleep all the way to running for your life. The higher the level of conscious, the more accurate the subjective view of the objective world is likely to be. I hope we all can agree on that. When you're asleep and dreaming, many times you don't even know your asleep and dreaming. WHAT IF... the experience that Les is speaking of is a way to tap into the "reality" of a higher level of consciousness? It does not give him any answers. It doesn't "do anything" as Zero put it. It only allows him to remove more of the filter and see more clearly objective reality. So perhaps he has an even better view into "the way things are"! Science is currently trying to understand consciousness. Is there any evidence to suggest that 1 million years from now, evolution wouldn't provide for an even higher level of consciouness? Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for us ape-like creatures to reach this level? Our brains are not fully developed for it yet. The problem then is that we cannot objectify this clear view of reality because no one who would be in a position to objectfy it is willing to consider it as a possibility. Tsk tsk.

Sometimes I think like this... Imagine you exists before life ever happened, witnessing everything around you in nature. Could you have ever imagined of such a thing as consciousness? Forget about the obvious flaw that it would take conciousness for you to do this exercise(Don't miss the point). I could never have imagined of such a thing. So how can I be too sure what nature has in store in the next million years?

I don't think we even understand our current level of consciousness, let alone make any statements about anything higher. I do agree with Zero's approach, however. So it follows that all we can do is continue to study and explore consciouness and be open to the possibilities.

Bottom line: I think Les has a point. A being at a lower level of consciouness making statements about consciouness as a whole is like trying to hammer shingles on a roof from the basement.

A sleeping person can rant on about all kinds of irrational stuff until they "wake up" and then they realize how foolish they were. Makes sense that this same thing could happen at any level of consciouness.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Bring us back some sort of proof that there is an 'inside', and get back to us!

So where does the "depth" of meaning come from anyway? If not through "our soul?" And how does one develop "depth in character" if one relies exclusively on the edicts of science? ... i.e., an "external" answer which, for all intents and purposes has no meaning (according to science anyway).

Maybe you're just too lazy?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
Please tell me what is the use of finding "truth" in staring at one's navel for years..

I did not say one stares at one's navel.

If you read my last post, you should be able to understand why it bothers me to have people speak inaccurately and carelessly about what a serious inner practice really is. If I came to PF and acted goofy, made claims about being enlightened, argued in favor of supernaturalism, prophesied, etc., then I could understand being lumped in with those who do. But I participate here as a philosopher, not a bodhisattva or guru or sage or prophet or anyone else who’s supposed to be spiritually accomplished. And I dare say I hold my own when it comes to logic and reason and citing supporting evidence.

I am really quite conservative when it comes to calling something the “truth.” I only believe what I experience, and even after all the years of inner experience, I am not sure what it is (I do have some pretty strong opinions). I know I like it, and I believe it has made me wiser. That last claim, that it has contributed wisdom, is because of gaining the ability to look at things with a quiet mind. Without one’s mind constantly going, it easier to see things without bias. Such stillness also, as I stated in my last post, accentuates the “wholeview.” That I find to be incredibly useful to understanding things.

But in the end, I just love the feeling of it, and I personally don’t need any other reason beyond that to practice.

Originally posted by heusdens
What good is it? What will it solve?

It is good for me, and it solves nothing. So what? We already have a wonderful tool for solving things, and that is science. What more does one need in the way of that kind of tool?

This is a tool for feeling good and seeing more clearly. One can love it and one can love science . . . there is absolutely no conflict unless, that is, you are determined to say only one is to be allowed. To me, that is exactly what a materialist does, and that is exactly what an idealist does. Both are precisely the same as far as I am concerned: biased.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fliption

Bottom line: I think Les has a point. A being at a lower level of consciouness making statements about consciouness as a whole is like trying to hammer shingles on a roof from the basement.

A sleeping person can rant on about all kinds of irrational stuff until they "wake up" and then they realize how foolish they were. Makes sense that this same thing could happen at any level of consciouness.

Not to ba a nag(ok, I'm being a nag), but you are making the assumption that there is a higher level than we are at now! It is like sitting in a basement, and trying to guess how many floors the building has...or more like sitting in a closed box, and speculating on whether or not there is anything outside of it at all.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So where does the "depth" of meaning come from anyway? If not through "our soul?" And how does one develop "depth in character" if one relies exclusively on the edicts of science? ... i.e., an "external" answer which, for all intents and purposes has no meaning (according to science anyway).

Maybe you're just too lazy?

And maybe you are imagining that there is such a thing as a 'soul'.