Entangled atoms!

[path_of_one]

Carrying on from what CZ said (post 31)... I do not speak as an authority, just as myself, with my opinions. It goes without saying that I have some biasses, philosophical ones, ( I am completely straight ). I am interested in the psychology that drives people to religious belief, the practice of its rituals and its effects across societies. I do not look at religion through the same lens as you and where as you tend to focus on unifying principles I tend to see where it is used as an excuse for things that are wrong, or could be better.

Actually, though I may see unifying principles, I don't believe I have ever avoided seeing it also as an excuse for things that are wrong. I put government/politics in the same category. I think I am fairly ruthless in seeing how power and economic struggles, the fear and greed of the ego, are pretty much universal in their corruption of the good ideas people have... only exacerbated by state-level society and all its trappings. I'm not necessarily a proponent of religion, but neither will I ignore blatant evidence that religious systems have formed the foundation of some useful stuff socially, medically, ecologically. I see the bad and the good and try to acknowledge both, try to detangle myself from the stuff that causes suffering and embrace the stuff that spreads joy and peace. What I try to avoid, particularly because I do professionally study this stuff, is skewing my bias so far toward the "religion is rosy" or the "religion is a bunch of dangerous BS" view that I lose sight of what religion's functions may actually be and how it might actually function, both individually in the human mind (given personality difference and so forth) and collectively in broader cultures.

Quite frankly, if I didn't bother to attempt the balancing act, I'd be lousy as a social scientist, because I'd either put myself in a superior position to my "subjects" (a big no-no for both scientific and ethical reasons) or I'd be taken in by any and all systems without any capacity to compare them, note similarities and differences, and tie them in to larger cultural trends.

I think many mistake my own sense of spirituality for a wholesale acceptance of religion without criticism, which is not how I function in the least. I am a critic of most of modern society, to be honest, and my own sense of the usefulness of belief systems for myself do not prevent me from seeing the dangers that religious systems pose socially.

Balance. This is what I seek and what I also philosophically believe makes for a good point of reference for analyzing social and cognitive data. In many ways, it is balance between the emic and etic views in anthropology. It is seeking, as much as possible, the understanding of the insider (and hence the believer) while trying to analyze historical process, social integration, etc. from the understanding of the outsider (the skeptic and critic).

I question my own worldview and religious systems in general all the time, but there is a difference between questioning accuracy and throwing everything out without regard for usefulness.

I have a great respect for your effort on this forum. You have given me some of the toughest intellectual challenges I have faced here and enriched my understanding of some current thinking in the world of anthropology. You are one of my favourite reads here. But I could no more be you than you could be me.

Aw, thanks. And of course you can't be me, and I can't be you. That's life. What I am criticizing in this thread is not that people may not have the same beliefs- that is natural and to be expected. What I criticize is from the post-modern perspective, which notes the inherent biases of the supposed "objective" scientific point of view, and demonstrates that these, too, are culturally conditioned views and cloud our understanding of reality. What I criticize is the Western atheist or scientific tendency to devalue and often even mock other cultural ways of knowing and understanding our world, which are often hundreds or even thousands of years older, and have proven themselves through the greatest social experiment of all- long-term survival. This is an experiment that modern capitalist materialist culture has not yet completed, and so far we are failing miserably in sustainability, peace-building, and meeting basic needs for everyone. So I do have respect for the worldviews and cultures of those peoples who endured for much longer than my own culture, and I think they have something to offer. It is this respect that I push for in broader society and, yes, expect from all people whatever their beliefs. I am a proponent of respect for others, of openness to learning from all peoples and all cultures, and as much as some people may resist this their entire lives, I cannot do otherwise than promote it.

So please do not think I do not understand... really I do as much as I am able, but I have had my own university of life and give dialogue based on that. I think you underplay the basic psychological motives for belief, because belief is important to you. They are a tad uncomfortable when reduced to that after all.

LOL, Tao... I'll send you some copies of the articles and books when they're complete if you'd like. To be honest, I am the last person to underplay psych motives- my own focus is, after all, cognition and I've spent years pondering how the human mind constructs our world. But this is a forum for interfaith dialogue, not a forum on anthropology or cognitive studies. I come here to discuss my spirituality, and while sometimes my views on religion as a cultural phenomena come into play, I am mostly here to talk about my spiritual life, because that is the type of venue it is. Likewise, when I'm on a panel discussing cognition or sustainability or what have you, I don't find it compelling to discuss my feelings about God, conversations with trees, or life as a Druid. Studying religion is not the same thing as having a spiritual life for me. I have a life of my spirit and a life of my intellect, and the two overlap but they are not interchangeable.

The difference between you and I, so far as I can tell, is that you have determined that the psychological or cognitive underpinnings of the human mind drive an illusory reality that we can escape through materialism or objectivism. I have determined that these underpinnings drive an illusory reality that we will never escape, nor are we meant to, and it would not necessarily be useful. Materialism and objectivism are themselves just one more type of illusory reality that we fall into; we exchange one worldview for another, but we will always have a worldview. It is what makes us human. So rather than be alarmed at these worldviews, I study them with fascination, including my own... and enjoy the ride. I am far more interested in how worldviews contribute (or not) to sustainability, to peace, to happiness, to cultural longevity, than I am in proving the accuracy or superiority of one or another. I have no illusions that I can escape the world my mind creates, nor do I want to. What I wish is for the capacity to understand as many views as possible and to study their causes and effects, their integration with other cultural attributes, their capacity (or lack thereof) for enabling long-term social survival and environmental sustainability.

It is fairly irrefutable that modern materialist capitalism as a worldview destroys human happiness on a broad scale and also contributes to rapid environmental degradation.

So... I'm interested in what I can learn from other worldviews for a better way.

Sometimes my deepest criticisms are my simplest. And here it is almost as though the most objection comes from my simplest observations. People are more forgiving of long winded statements that can be dissected and obufusicated till the point is long forgotten.

I suppose I am just used to long statements, to dissecting and criticizing them. I rarely forget the point of what I am doing. I guess it's because this is what I do. Science is not done in soundbites, and most people I know who are scientists do not find the soundbite approach accurate or useful. It breeds misunderstanding and miscommunication by relying on too many assumptions. My brain naturally works to be as descriptive as possible, and this was refined through my methodological training. My statements here are attempts to summarize mountains of descriptions- from myself, from hundreds of varied cultural accounts I've read, from hundreds of conversations with others I have had, and thousands of observations. Even in my personal discussions about my own life, set up as summaries (as you see here, believe it or not- I have thousands of pages of notes, journals, partial manuscripts, etc.), I try for some sort of clear description and discussion. This requires more than a soundbite for me. It makes me easier to "nail," but that is as it should be. That is why we do not publish soundbites in science. You want to be nailed as a scientist. This is how you grow and learn.

This basic principle resonates with me and so I also use it in my spiritual life. I want to be challenged. I defend as a matter of course, because that is how I refine my thoughts and work through the experience of my life. I hope you understand that my criticisms of you are never with the aim of silencing, but rather with the aim of clarifying my own thoughts. Defense in debate is an opportunity to evaluate one's original description of data (whether it is experiential, observational, experimental) and one's analysis.

The kind of diffuse metaphysics you believe in is not alien to me. I was just leaving that kind of space when I first arrived on CR. But I did not leave it behind just to give integrity to my atheism. I left it because the models I had used to support it were found to be insubstantial wishfull thinking. Pretty, comforting and self-empowering too I agree, but without foundation none the less.

Again, I think you are more interested in the accuracy of your worldview (which I believe to be impossible, given the way human cognition works). I am more interested in usefulness.

I make no claims that my worldview is accurate. That isn't the point. Maybe trees can have conversations, and maybe they cannot. What I can know is that my experience that trees converse with me makes me happy and gives me a sense of connection to them. My worldview that trees are sentient means I don't use more wood and paper than I need, that I promote forest conservation, that I respect them as having a right to live not only as resources, but as beings. And this worldview, which is rather traditional to many animist societies, supported long-term social survival without deforestation for thousands of years in many locations. Whereas modern science-driven recycling and "save the rainforest" campaigns largely fail in the face of human greed and indifference toward anything beyond the immediate social circle. By making trees part of the felt, experienced social circle, this cognitive barrier in human decision-making trade-offs is thwarted.

I could care less if the sentience of trees is correct. There is no doubt, given the literature, of its usefulness.

I am a social scientist. I work on problems of sustainability and suffering. What I care about is the useful value of something toward these ends. And so far, my studies of human cognition make me deeply cynical about any capacity for a human being to ever have an accurate perception of reality for many reasons, which I suppose I could elucidate if you wish. So while you are skeptical of the value of belief systems in general, I am skeptical that any human can escape belief systems at all, and if they could, if they could then function socially, make decisions, and do other usual human behaviors. So far, evidence would indicate not. Our amazing capacity for sociality and rapid decision-making relies on a ton of learned pathways (that are then confirmed neurologically) that channel information in certain ways so we can weed through far more data than our brain is capable of analyzing and so we can rapidly make decisions all day with little cost. So, we can't leave it behind, and the question to me becomes what pathways contribute to long-term survival and happiness of our species.

Sometimes the reduction to fundamentals is threatening, it can make people feel stupid to have a glaring impossibility in their cherished belief pointed out to them in a few simple words. But sometimes the charge 'you oversimplify' is a false one. Sometimes the truth is easy to grasp.

Reductionism almost uniformly is considered poor science, because it simply doesn't work, especially with understanding emergent phenomena. I'm not against reductionism because I find it threatening, but because I don't find it useful or accurate as a methodology.

And I don't think anyone really grasps the truth. I think that's just one more illusion.

Personally, I am not much concerned with THE TRUTH. I don't need to know or understand everything; I am content to work on actual problems that could have real solutions. In spirituality, I am not after answers, but after becoming a more loving and joyful person, a calm and peaceful person. Whether it is my mind talking to my mind when I sit with the trees, or the trees talking to me, the results are the same. What I refuse to do is to assume that any individual's assessment of their own experience is without merit. When you say "my mind is talking to my own mind," that is fine with me. And what I ask for is that when I say "I experience the trees talking to me," you leave the door open that perhaps your own experience and even the state of Western science in this moment, is not the culmination of human understanding of truth... that there is a possibility that others might have something you (and science) does not. I realize, you may not be able to do this. But the reason I fight for this openness is because it is closed-mindedness and superiority that has often led to mistreatment and dismissal of indigenous peoples' cultures and worldviews all over the world-- cultures that proved themselves through long-term survival. And in the meantime, we do more damage than anyone has ever done.

 

[Dondi]

With "places of power" there is something that excites through no obvious external stimulus, and is entirely centred on the location. Something about the place feels different on an unconscious or even conscious level, and more than that, it is a feeling that others can share in.

I've posted before about the human body's bio electromagnetic field, and wondered if this could be serving as an underdeveloped sense - additionally, how we consider it perfectly mundane that cobalt particles on recording tape can capture audio-visual experience, yet somehow metallic minerals in everyday natural settings under certain conditions are not seen as being able to do anything remotely similar.

A personal theory is that humans can be unconsciously sensitive to electro-magnetic phenomena, and this can potentially account as a scientific mechanism for at least some psychic/spiritual experiences.

For example, we know that a lot of ancient spiritual sites can follow very exact lines, and these have been called Ley Lines. What if these actually followed major field lines in the earth's natural magnetic field?

I'm wondering if these 'power places' have a history to them, some kind of traumatic event or maybe a series of events in which the participants experienced intense psychological distress, or conversely bliss, and that the energy of their bioelectrical impulses from the brains were imprinted with the ley lines or perhaps EM lines of force from the earth's magnetic field (or whatever), thus creating an imprint, a taped noised of emotional energy so that when one bears near to such places one will experience those same emotions upon crossing these lines of force as these impressions enact with our own brains electrical fields with which we can empathize.

That would make sense in your battlefield example, Brian, but it could even be something a simple as an animal hunting ground (impressions of alarmed and frightened animals as a bigger prey closes in for the kill) or an ancient burial ground (as the emotions of mourning and sadness fill the area).

I'm wondering if Jerusalem is one such 'power place' given the enormaty of purpose across the history of three major religions and countless battles and spiritual practices assiciated with it.

I've never been to Israel. But could anyone here testify to being sensitive to the environment in the Holy Land?

 

[iBrian]

It's worth pointing out that there is superstition for superstition's sake, and superstition which has an underlying logic that science (at some point eventually) vindicates. There are plenty of common medicines derived from their "superstitious" use.

To myself both cover a spectrum with plenty of grey areas inbetween.

There are people who offer Tarot phone lines merely as a capitalist instrument to benefit themselves - then there are Tarot Card readers who can actually provide something revealing and unique.

The trouble is, as anyone who has read Tarot Cards will generally agree, the cards themselves do not tell anything - they act as a sort of lense from which to tap into something else - a process I think we'll find eventually described by science.

The trouble with a lot of spiritual and psychic phenomena is that they are often spontaneous, and not under conscious control. Therefore the process of studying these under lab conditions interferes with the process itself, because such study demands such phenomenon be under the user's direct conscious control.

It's kind of like sitting a cop in a laboratory setting, and telling them to "get a gut feeling", or a very good artist to sit down in the lab and create a great masterpiece. The conditions are too forced to allow much for spontaneity.

However, the inability to directly observe a phenomena under laboratory conditions does not preclude that such a phenomena does not exist, and as in my previous post, there are plenty of everyday observable events in ordinary life that until recently at least, defied known science for an explanation.

 

[iBrian]

I'm wondering if these 'power places' have a history to them, some kind of traumatic event or maybe a series of events in which the participants experienced intense psychological distress, or conversely bliss, and that the energy of their bioelectrical impulses from the brains were imprinted with the ley lines or perhaps EM lines of force from the earth's magnetic field (or whatever), thus creating an imprint, a taped noised of emotional energy so that when one bears near to such places one will experience those same emotions upon crossing these lines of force as these impressions enact with our own brains electrical fields with which we can empathize.

That would make sense in your battlefield example, Brian, but it could even be something a simple as an animal hunting ground (impressions of alarmed and frightened animals as a bigger prey closes in for the kill) or an ancient burial ground (as the emotions of mourning and sadness fill the area).

I'm wondering if Jerusalem is one such 'power place' given the enormaty of purpose across the history of three major religions and countless battles and spiritual practices assiciated with it.

I've never been to Israel. But could anyone here testify to being sensitive to the environment in the Holy Land?

I quite agree, but I also suspect two conditions are that the environment is able to "record" such an imprint - likely due to the surrounding mineralogy if my thinking is one the right lines - and also that the individual be sensitive enough to not drown out any subconscious stimuli with conscious noise.

Perhaps there really is no association with EM fields - perhaps it's just my rational side trying to rationalise. However, I've seen enough hints in the science literature to suggest this is certainly something worth exploring.

It's interesting you mention Jerusalem, though, as I don't think a place of worship necessarily demands that the place would have a feeling.

For example, I visited a number of ruined abbeys in Yorkshire, but Rievaulx Abbey is the only place I ever felt anything. As soon as I arrived, it was almost like you could feel the monks' singing - not as sound, but as an something felt.

Not far away from Rievaulx is Fountains Abbey - even bigger and more impressive - yet while a wonderful place to explore, never felt anything unusual there.

Wharram Percy is a deserted mediaeval village. Meaning that it's just a series of earthworks around a ruined church, with the residents evicted around 500 years ago - which means the site was never built over.

There's nothing immediately special about the place, other than it's built on one or more springs, and has seen human occupation since the neolithic period.

Not a place for any great religious gathering, so far is known, yet there was still something special enough there that we held a naming ceremony just among ourselves for each of our children by the recovered village pond.

About a mile away, or less, is an ancient burial mound older than the Pyramids of Giza. Going there, I could only feel a sense of remoteness, as if the place had been purposefully set up away from potential visitors.

One more place, for the benefit of Kim if she ever comes over to Scotland in the near future - Loch Leven to the west of Stirling. There's a small village on the western hillside from which you get a glorious view of the Stirling valley.

However, what I'll always remember most is feeling very surprised that I couldn't see neolithic people gathering along the shores. There was a powerful sense of it being a very ancient and an always occupied place again. May seem strange, but again, it was one of those places with feeling.

I've tried a couple of times to visit the Culloden battlefield, but not got any further than the car park as yet just because events transpired otherwise. It was the last battle on British soil, and from what I saw at the Royal Armouries museum, would have been pretty horrific - canons filled with lead shot to act like giant sawn-off shotguns, against attacking Highland clans that would have included children. Because I already know something about its history, if I do feel anything, then it would be possible to argue that expectation affected my feelings - which is why it's so interesting to visit somewhere and feel something without any understanding why.

Perhaps it really does take a place with a long tradition of occupancy, or a large number of extreme feelings, to imbue a place with a feeling. Either way, if it's something that I find myself feeling, and without expectation, then it is a very difficult experience to simply ignore.

I haven't travelled around anywhere near as much as some people here, but I have made a point of visiting a lot of local ancient sites wherever I've lived. Most are merely interesting. Some places feel unforgettable.

 

[iBrian]

Just to add something as well - the opening post of the thread was about how molecules could now demonstrate entanglement - a process where if pair particles are separated, then changes to one will instantaneously impact the other, regardless of distance. It's the only observed scientific process I know of which can be interpreted as sending information faster than the speed of light constant.

Does this mean molecules could not exhibit entanglement before it was observably measured by scientific experiment? What does this observation therefore imply for the macroscopic physical world?

There are too many instances to count where personal observation has been dismissed by scientists, not because it contradicted any particular theory, as much as that no theory yet accounted for the observation.

To myself this suggests that lack of an explanation does not mean lack of any such phenomena, as much as that no conclusion can necessarily be drawn - certainly not in scientific terms, without any corresponding scientific data. After which everything becomes interpretation, and therefore opinion.

2c.

 

[Tao_Equus]

The difference between you and I, so far as I can tell, is that you have determined that the psychological or cognitive underpinnings of the human mind drive an illusory reality that we can escape through materialism or objectivism.

!! OMG !! Trying to talk me into silence again!! (thats green with envy over typing ability... it maybe time I loaded that 'touch-type tutor disc I have kicking about somewhere)

Not that we can fully escape but certainly it is the best tool for the job of knowing what is real in a measurable/repeatable sense. As belief is a matter of faith rather than measurement It cannot be easily balanced for. It is too amorphous to control. And it often has the tendency to seep in despite ones best efforts to keep it out. Best to dispense with it altogether is my take. You believe I cannot really do that where as I think I can, maybe not always or comprehensively, but I can to the degree that it gives me meaningful advantage on my quest.
We are not just the sum of our knowledge, we are the sum of our interpretation of that knowledge. We each seek to extract some sort of objective rational from that sum but only by using objectively sourced data can you hope to be sure that data is not just wishful thinking or whatever. I believe a biological connection exists that unites all life on Earth. Communicating with trees or loved ones on the other side of the world may well be possible and real but rather than look for, (or more precisely stop looking for, as belief implies that search is over), explanations in metaphysics I prefer to concentrate on the mechanisms that might physically exist, be measurable, quantifiable and ultimately enhanceable.
We have only just begun to glimpse the quantum world and the heady magic it predicted and science verified may reveal levels of our existence that traditionally have been the realm of mysticism. Time and space are things which we only have tentative theories to describe, let alone explain. We are pretty sure of our temporal existence only as physical lifespan. Some physicists argue that this is only illusion. I have contemplated the question that naturally follows that belief, "if it is illusion what is super-reality ? ", at length. The process is mind-numbingly difficult. It is not merely the removing oneself from a human paradigm it involves trying to clear yourself of all mental perception and try to see things in the physical interaction of matter, space and time. Not being a physicist I cannot use equations so I developed my own symbolism to assign principles. I believe this is no different to what people, such as you, turn into your belief system. Each of us has an irrepressible need to understand our environment. Religious belief of your type boils down to a simple mechanism for labelling and thus having some power over unknowns and is labelled accordingly. I do not do that. I fully accept that I know nothing. I only have inevitably flawed opinions. (I would love to divert now to Chaos Theory but resist!). Despite how my posting may appear I think I manage never to forget that.
Our reasons for living the lives we live and the altruism we display are really a separate issue. I have been in jail and had bones broken for mine. I have set up two businesses that were as 'green' as green gets. I have been involved in, contributed time, effort and my own hard earned money into many charities working both locally and internationally. But I am still profoundly flawed and self-contradictory. I do make trade-off's and indulge in hypocrisy. So I could still do more. What I have seen is how, despite the free market propaganda, hard it is to make any difference. And what I have felt is that is always worth it anyway. What good we are for the world starts in our own hearts.

 

[Dondi]

Our reasons for living the lives we live and the altruism we display are really a separate issue. I have been in jail and had bones broken for mine. I have set up two businesses that were as 'green' as green gets. I have been involved in, contributed time, effort and my own hard earned money into many charities working both locally and internationally. But I am still profoundly flawed and self-contradictory. I do make trade-off's and indulge in hypocrisy. So I could still do more. What I have seen is how, despite the free market propaganda, hard it is to make any difference. And what I have felt is that is always worth it anyway. What good we are for the world starts in our own hearts.

That is a profoundly true statement, Tao, the basis upon which any religion worth its weight ought to abide by.

Thank you, you've made my day.

 

[Tao_Equus]

That is a profoundly true statement, Tao, the basis upon which any religion worth its weight ought to abide by.

Thank you, you've made my day.

Your praise warms me too Thank you.

 

[path_of_one]

!! OMG !! Trying to talk me into silence again!! (thats green with envy over typing ability... it maybe time I loaded that 'touch-type tutor disc I have kicking about somewhere)

LOL- sorry- I began typing at age 10 and was up to 80 wpm by high school, so I type about as fast as I can talk and think. LOL

Not that we can fully escape but certainly it is the best tool for the job of knowing what is real in a measurable/repeatable sense. As belief is a matter of faith rather than measurement It cannot be easily balanced for. It is too amorphous to control. And it often has the tendency to seep in despite ones best efforts to keep it out. Best to dispense with it altogether is my take.

I agree that materialism and objectivism has its usefulness, but only bounded by an understanding of its limitations. Otherwise, it becomes yet another trap of belief that one has a handle on things, when one actually does not. This is especially apparent because materialism and objectivism rely on our methodology and tools for measurement, and these change over time. All systems of thought must change as we learn; I advocate a maximally open mind so as to not lose out on something useful- from the past, from the present, and potentiality for the future. Thus, I don't think dispensing with anything that is inherently part of the human condition and past is the best idea. I suppose I liken retention of cultural diversity to seed banks- you never know when you might need to pull something out from the past to address the present. Diversity in evolution = better chance of survival when new problems arise.

Humans adapt primarily through culture. So cultural diversity = better chance of survival for humanity.

You believe I cannot really do that where as I think I can, maybe not always or comprehensively, but I can to the degree that it gives me meaningful advantage on my quest.

Yet I can claim the same thing- I cannot do it comprehensively or always, but it gives me meaningful advantage on my quest. And despite our disagreements on certain issues, neither you nor I can prove that our own way of doing this is more valid or gives us greater advantage.

We are not just the sum of our knowledge, we are the sum of our interpretation of that knowledge.

The two influence each other, and further... we are the sum of our ways of learning to learn knowledge. Some of these things are inherent limitations based on differences in how our minds work (personality, intelligence, learning styles) and some of these things are culturally constructed.

Communicating with trees or loved ones on the other side of the world may well be possible and real but rather than look for, (or more precisely stop looking for, as belief implies that search is over), explanations in metaphysics I prefer to concentrate on the mechanisms that might physically exist, be measurable, quantifiable and ultimately enhanceable.

How is that different from what I said before? I described the experience and offered the open-ended discussion that while we can't explain these things scientifically right now, I suspect these things are natural (not supernatural) and that one day we might be able to scientifically understand them. So I fail to see how that is metaphysical explanation. As Brian has been saying, we use metaphysical explanation because it's the best way we currently have for passing on the information about stuff science hasn't explained yet. But it's not like that is the end of explanation, which I fully acknowledged.

What I argued against is the idea that the experience itself (i.e., the observational data some people have of communicating with a tree or a loved one) should be dismissed outright as imaginary, simply because some other person has not experienced it. I was not arguing against the idea that these things are natural, to the contrary, I was arguing for a natural origin.

So I guess at this point, we must agree to agree. LOL

We have only just begun to glimpse the quantum world and the heady magic it predicted and science verified may reveal levels of our existence that traditionally have been the realm of mysticism. Time and space are things which we only have tentative theories to describe, let alone explain.

That was exactly my point (and I think Brian's, as well). Just last night I watched a show on time and black holes, and the physicists were saying that at one point, everyone thought those who believed in black holes were just making up imaginary things. Until they figured out a way to tackle the question scientifically.

Science generally proceeds out of creative thought, and then breeds further creative thought. It doesn't happen on its own. Mysticism also proceeds out of creative thought, but from a different kind of intelligence and learning style. But this doesn't mean that mysticism has no grounding in reality, as physicists are finding. And in fact, much of mysticism moves away from explanation altogether in favor of experience and practical application. While a scientist would ask how something works, a mystic might ask what we do with the understanding (or what the understanding does to us).

We are pretty sure of our temporal existence only as physical lifespan. Some physicists argue that this is only illusion. I have contemplated the question that naturally follows that belief, "if it is illusion what is super-reality ? ", at length. The process is mind-numbingly difficult. It is not merely the removing oneself from a human paradigm it involves trying to clear yourself of all mental perception and try to see things in the physical interaction of matter, space and time. Not being a physicist I cannot use equations so I developed my own symbolism to assign principles. I believe this is no different to what people, such as you, turn into your belief system.

I don't have much of a belief system, to be honest. I have approximate understandings of how things work, which I see to be faulty but the best I have at present until further knowledge comes available. I have ideas and practices I've found that are useful in ordinary life, that have some sort of practical application.

But I've put the same sort of thought into this stuff that you're describing. I just perhaps do it in a different way, which I suspect is due in part to different personalities and types of intelligence (i.e., following Howard Gardner). The intuitive person tackles information as a gestalt while the sensory person tackles information as little bits of data to be assembled more consciously.

What I think is funny about this part of the discussion is that you admit to having your own symbolism for communication, yet you insist that your symbolism is something like a science and my symbolism is a belief system. Hee. I have readily accepted and communicated that any beliefs I have, I see as imperfect and changing as I gather more experience and information, as my own mind expands. So how is this different from what you're doing? I think it is in choice of symbol and not in overall process... You are uncomfortable with my choice of symbol because it is open to religion, while you choose one that is not. But the process does not seem to be any different.

Each of us has an irrepressible need to understand our environment. Religious belief of your type boils down to a simple mechanism for labelling and thus having some power over unknowns and is labelled accordingly.

Really? A simple mechanism for labeling? Or my best approximation (as I have stated clearly) for communication? I think the stuff I experience is anything but simple to describe or analyze, but one must attempt to communicate something if one is not a complete hermit. And this communication comes in some form that will depend, in part, on the other person's interpretation of it. Just as you consistently tell me "atheism isn't what you say it is!" I am consistently telling you "mysticism isn't what you say it is!" Oh, and I don't think I have power over much of anything. That isn't the point of my life. It is to accept what is, the flows of the universe. The only thing I could perhaps have power over is my own response, and to that end I do try. I can have influence over many things, but power implies the capacity to use force, and I have little if any of that.

I do not do that. I fully accept that I know nothing. I only have inevitably flawed opinions. (I would love to divert now to Chaos Theory but resist!). Despite how my posting may appear I think I manage never to forget that.

Ditto. As my regular disclaimers should uphold. Yet, somehow you come across to me as believing to have found THE TRUTH. And somehow I come across to you as the same!

But I am still profoundly flawed and self-contradictory.

Who isn't? I mean, I suppose maybe Jesus and the Buddha if you believe they existed, but flawed-ness seems to be part of humanity.

What I have seen is how, despite the free market propaganda, hard it is to make any difference. And what I have felt is that is always worth it anyway. What good we are for the world starts in our own hearts.

I completely agree, again.

 

[Dondi]

Science generally proceeds out of creative thought, and then breeds further creative thought. It doesn't happen on its own. Mysticism also proceeds out of creative thought, but from a different kind of intelligence and learning style. But this doesn't mean that mysticism has no grounding in reality, as physicists are finding. And in fact, much of mysticism moves away from explanation altogether in favor of experience and practical application. While a scientist would ask how something works, a mystic might ask what we do with the understanding (or what the understanding does to us).

I happened to come across this just today which I find fascinating in relating to the thread, and which seems to bear witness to what you are saying here. I've highlighted points that I feel are pertinent to the discussion. Excerpts from an NDE of a Muslim woman:

...Ever since then, my whole life has changed. I began going for my dreams and ambitions in life without any fears to TRY new things out which has brought me very far in life and career achievements. But most of all I began sensing or reading people much easier, I could sense their pains, angers, frustrations, and sorrows, as well as their hopes. Sometimes when being close to people I could see visions of their past and sometimes if I concentrate hard enough...I could even see their futures. At some times I could sense what people called or deemed as 'restless spirits' or 'ghost' at places which some people deemed 'haunted' even before they tell me these places were considered 'haunted'.
Ironically, the emotional output coming from these 'restless spirits' seem very much similar to the emotional outputs which I could sense from 'living' people when it comes to seeing or sensing their futures.
This special 'senses' has helped me understand human beings, about life, God and creation. The more I understood about Human Beings, the more I understood about life and believed that there was a God, that He existed, and that there is a life after death and Angels. Today I try not to be racially or even religiously biased even though I do very much believe in my own faith, but I believe that doing good to one another as human beings is much more important as this is what God wants and I do believe that EVERYTHING in life happens for a reason and that I was given this...special 'gift' to HELP those around me.

Did you have a sense of knowing special knowledge, universal order and/or purpose? Yes That EVERYthing in LIFE here on earth happens for a reason, there ARE some amounts of Scientific Explanations for what we call the 'supernatural' but science has not yet fully discovered the body of knowledge required to unravel such mysteries. There are greater powers at play which moves our destiny...I believe in what 'physics' call 'The Butterfly Effect', which is how some things or events within our lives our put into motion. Some religions call it destiny or fate, while other's may call it Karma, but it is interrelated. There are even a set of rules on how 'hardships' happens in our lives as each tests given to us is normally targeted specific at our own behavioral weaknesses and the 'stakes' of these tests in life are normally high as the stakes are normally the things we desire, cherish, need or love in life where we have to make a 'choice'. The wrong choice and mindset causes us to suffer emotionally inside. The right choices makes us stronger and even much better and often 'changes' us as people along with our perceptions in life. The tests require patience, persistence, intelligence and courage most often to do what is right.

Did you have any psychic, paranormal or other special gifts following the experience you did not have prior to the experience? Yes Every time I walk around in public, all I sense is anger, sorrow, frustration, fears, hopes, prayers, regrets in life from the people around me. I could feel what some people described as 'aura energy' and each human beings aura energy signature is unique and connected to his/her heart. Women are much more easier to sense as they're more emotionally sensitive than men. Men have a lot of frustrations and anger while women have a lot of sorrows and fears, which is why I believe sometimes it's hard to communicate between men and women.
But every religion talks about these 'aura' energies...in Malay they call it 'Tenaga Batin', the Chinese call it 'Chi', while the Japanese may call it 'Chakra'. But these energies are very real and fluctuate a pattern according to a person's moods or experiences in life thus these energies in-fact tell a 'story' about one person's life coming from their hearts. Usually in times of fears or trauma, these bodily or aura energy emits a very strong wave which I believe somehow could transcend even time. For example when I was talking to my friend Linie over the phone...I told her to be careful, that her younger sister would take something very valuable from her table in the bedroom and she would become very angry. I tried calling her the next day to tell her not to be so angry. But 3 days later she confirmed to me that her 11 year old sister took her cell phone from her table without telling her and made a couple of phone calls. She got so upset that she told her mother...her mother slapped her sister on the face twice. What I sensed from the future in-fact was Linie's ANGER and her younger sister's TRAUMA and pain which echoed from the future. But these emotions which echo somehow seem very much familiar in their patterns which those from spirits which we call 'ghost' which also seemed 'trapped' in a particular place.

Source: Wan I's NDE

 

[citizenzen]

Maybe we should start a self-actualization movement where we first choke, then resuscitate one another in order to live better lives.

Look, everything she said is already common knowledge: live fearlessly, act with empathy, practice compassion. You don't need an NDE to know this. The hard part is to live it, to forgo merely indulging our sense pleasures and to search for something simpler yet deeper. But I don't mean begrudge you your source of inspiration. Mine was the Buddha, but if yours is this, then that's fine. Just use it.

People are so easily distracted. The most important problem in our lives is not divining other peoples pasts or futures, it's seeing ego for what it is, eradicating ignorance, cultivating wisdom and compassion in our thoughts and actions. Do that first and then tell me how important it is that you feel odd standing here, or there. Do that first and then tell me how important it is that my aura is blue or green.

 

[earl]

Maybe we should start a self-actualization movement where we first choke, then resuscitate one another in order to live better lives.

Look, everything she said is already common knowledge: live fearlessly, act with empathy, practice compassion. You don't need an NDE to know this. The hard part is to live it, to forgo merely indulging our sense pleasures and to search for something simpler yet deeper. But I don't mean begrudge you your source of inspiration. Mine was the Buddha, but if yours is this, then that's fine. Just use it.

People are so easily distracted. The most important problem in our lives is not divining other peoples pasts or futures, it's seeing ego for what it is, eradicating ignorance, cultivating wisdom and compassion in our thoughts and actions. Do that first and then tell me how important it is that you feel odd standing here, or there. Do that first and then tell me how important it is that my aura is blue or green.

Yes, cultivating wisdom and compassion is what it's all about whether one is following a set spiritual path to achieve such or not. What is interesting to read about certain NDE's is that for some it has the sort of far-reaching profound effects as noted here. It seems that we can intellectually agree that such insights into what's important are true, but the defenses of the human heart-mind are such that often no amount of "agreement" will move us out them and that it takes being catapulted "out of ourselves" to truly "get it." OK, now, Tao you inveterate skeptic, NDE's are always tough for your crowd aren't they? earl

 

[path_of_one]

People are so easily distracted. The most important problem in our lives is not divining other peoples pasts or futures, it's seeing ego for what it is, eradicating ignorance, cultivating wisdom and compassion in our thoughts and actions. Do that first and then tell me how important it is that you feel odd standing here, or there. Do that first and then tell me how important it is that my aura is blue or green.

I agree. However, I find that through sensing the sentience of many other beings and places, I recognize my own impermanance and smallness. I also expand my consciousness to include all beings. I did this long before I first could read the Buddha's writings.

So I think my point is that just because an experience like I describe is secondary for you, doesn't mean it isn't a pathway toward the very ideals you describe for me. I agree that working toward loving all beings, toward peace, toward joy... these things are the primary purpose of life as I see it. But I don't think my inherently mystical sense of reality is a barrier to this. Rather, it has led me to it and reinforced these purposes again and again. I fail to see how scoffing at another person's sense of reality and being-ness in the world, particularly if it has led to something of value in their lives, is useful, compassionate, or wise.

 

[Dondi]

Maybe we should start a self-actualization movement where we first choke, then resuscitate one another in order to live better lives.

Look, everything she said is already common knowledge: live fearlessly, act with empathy, practice compassion. You don't need an NDE to know this. The hard part is to live it, to forgo merely indulging our sense pleasures and to search for something simpler yet deeper. But I don't mean begrudge you your source of inspiration. Mine was the Buddha, but if yours is this, then that's fine. Just use it.

People are so easily distracted. The most important problem in our lives is not divining other peoples pasts or futures, it's seeing ego for what it is, eradicating ignorance, cultivating wisdom and compassion in our thoughts and actions. Do that first and then tell me how important it is that you feel odd standing here, or there. Do that first and then tell me how important it is that my aura is blue or green.

I don't need an NDE or another's testimony to know this. It isn't my primary source of inspiration, my relationship with God is. I desire to live with compassion and love for others, and as a matter of recourse, that relationship with God actually provides me with that sense of love that I so need to feel compassion for others.

What these NDEs do is to provide some insight into possibilities that may give some direction of how we can apply this love. The recurring theme in a majority of NDEs is that we need to love one another.

However, this particular NDE I posted because there is a scientific angle with we might possibily explore. If it is indeed true that mystical places have a scientific explanation we don't undertand yet, wouldn't it be in our best interest to try and discover it? It is intriguing to me that this person has gained a sense of empathy that enables her to feel these energies or emotions to people or places, apparently to used as a gift. What if through science we could find out what the mechanism is that enables one to do this? And that we can apply methods that will allow us to help others as well? Do entangled atoms play a part?

 

[citizenzen]

OK, now, Tao you inveterate skeptic, NDE's are always tough for your crowd aren't they? earl

I won't wait for Tao.

The problem that I have with NDEs is the first part... the "near" part.

Let me give you an example in the form of a little story...

I was walking in the middle of a road one dark night. Up ahead, in the distance, I saw two small lights. These lights increased in size and I could hear a faint roar which quickly grew louder. Soon I was blinded by the light and deafened by the sound. The ground shook and a great wind nearly knocked me off my feet as the car flew by me, missing me by an inch.

It was a Near Car Experience. Now I know what it's like to be hit by an automobile.​

 

[Tao_Equus]

OK, now, Tao you inveterate skeptic, NDE's are always tough for your crowd aren't they? earl

Yup, and we do not believe the film "Cocoon" was a documentary

 

[earl]

I won't wait for Tao.

The problem that I have with NDEs is the first part... the "near" part.

Let me give you an example in the form of a little story...

I was walking in the middle of a road one dark night. Up ahead, in the distance, I saw two small lights. These lights increased in size and I could hear a faint roar which quickly grew louder. Soon I was blinded by the light and deafened by the sound. The ground shook and a great wind nearly knocked me off my feet as the car flew by me, missing me by an inch.

It was a Near Car Experience. Now I know what it's like to be hit by an automobile.
​

CZ- as to any speculations of the "afterlife" based on NDE's, you're right that it is constrained due to the "near" part. On the other hand, for some possible reports for those who may have been there, done that, you might do a search of this site, (or the internet), for some postings I made regarding "Timestream." earl

 

[citizenzen]

On the other hand, for some possible reports for those who may have been there, done that, you might do a search of this site, (or the internet), for some postings I made regarding "Timestream." earl

www.timestream.com

www.timestream.net

www.timestream.org

Uhhh... a little more help here, please.

 

[earl]

Here ya go CZ, earl:
Netscape Search

 

[citizenzen]

Here ya go CZ, earl:

Thank you Earl.

"Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC), a term used to cover all the supposedly paranormal messages received through electronic media such as tape recorders, radios and computers, is a more objective way – in keeping with the modern technological age - of communicating with other levels of existence. However, it is not only its strong technological component that makes ITC more valid than other methods of communicating with these levels, it is because the proof it offers of their existence comes in a material concrete form that renders it particularly appropriate for our material physical world. We can say in fact that ITC allows those in the next world to communicate with us in a language that the majority of the people of this world – particularly the people of the Western world who have been taught by modern science to accept only material realities – can understand."​

Earl, I checked out the site and listened to some samples. Let's just say that I'm unconvinced and leave it at that.

I like how they say in the paragraph included above: "We can say in fact that ITC allows those in the next world to communicate with us..."

They certainly sound pretty sure of themselves.

I'll bet they've already prepared their Nobel Prize acceptance speeches. It's such an honor.