Why, yes.
So what are they and how can they be defined and discussed? A question that, in this thread, lacks answers.
And no, your references to mind-altering drugs, meditation, or music are not answers.
You're not saying what the relevance of art is to the debate here.
The relevance of art and spirituality is not to this specific debate, but to the discourse in general. This debate has simply exposed the incuriosity of some debaters.
I have to put some more time into a diary about it - time that I don't have right now. It is an important point, and one that has raised some polarising passion. I believe in convergence, not divergence. You can't be me, I'm taken
Why isn't anyone on the other side of the debate able to give me a brief description of what their ideas /concepts are? I got the point that they are outside of science, but can't they be described in a post here?
I've been asking questions, and I'm called incurious?
If you have information or something to convey, and I'm failing to get it, it is your failure as much as mine, you know. At least mine is acknowledged. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Now what was your point again?
See Vedic Mathematics. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
I really do not want to incur your wrath again. But I am simply trying to represent an alternative point of view that I believe to be important and, in the long run, contribute to defining what change should be - because I think we can all agree that 'changing the game' is what we are all about. We just disagree on the methods. You can't be me, I'm taken
I cannot spell it out. As several have argued, maybe you don't have to get it, but be it or do it.
Or maybe I can - in another frustrating manner. You insist on reason. I insist on poetry. You insist on boxing. I insist on wrestling. You insist on the external. I insist on the internal. You like sanity. I like insanity. You like logic, I like anomalies.
But the only real difference between us (the above are not real differences in the human scale of love), is that you are not me. You can't be me, I'm taken
art and spirituality
I'm questioning the relevance of art to this debate. Spirituality seems to me to be at the heart of it, since that's emilmoller's subject from his first comment.
Bringing in art seems to me equivalent to bringing in extra-sensory perception: it's a way of presenting the imo strawman argument that there are other approaches and science doesn't understand everything. No one is denying science doesn't understand everything. So what? That does not prove in any way that such a thing as a "spiritual dimension" (level, sphere, zone, whatever) even exists. And, when asked to discuss this by defining and explaining his idea of spirituality, emil just says there are tools, go away and use them for three years, and You Will Understand.
For me, that just won't cut it.
one has to have had first hand experience in order to say something sensible about it
I am not able to reveal anything resembling what I would be trying to describe
I can and did point to the consequences of engaging oneself re spirituality: Nelson Mandela in stead of Al Capone. I hope this makes readers curious re the qualities inherent in the domain I refer to.
I wonder why it is so hard to accept the fact that a specific domain demands other research skills than an other domain. When the differences in qualities and the possibilities to attain them does not persuade, I will not be able to do that neither.
Emil
