When tools for domains are confused, threads like this and other non life serving phenomena appear.
'models' are tools from the intellectual domain. These can be used to give hints of results of investigations in the spiritual domain, but no more
I'll grant you the interpretation of experiment but this...
'falsifiable' = when those who have gone before one see one's still in flatland. Unfortunate detail: the rest of the world suffers from the consequences of one's inability to see a larger picture. That is: a picture from the next domain [the domains are nested: material is transcended & included in the intellectual and the intellectual is t&i in the spiritual]. That's the point in my 1st posting
'papers in the etc' = same story: condensates in the intellectual domain of experiences in the spiritual domain are futile when seen in the light of the insights they contain.
Since there is an increasing recognition of the up to now presumed other (car, tree, dog, person) as being fundamentally the same as oneself. Differences are there, can be celebrated and are required for the play we enact on our Planet, but are secundary.
When experiencing this, energy technology or a listening ear for your neighbour becomes self evident. Rather than something you do because it should be done and/or depleting your good do account.
Up to the time some % of people (here are some interesting issues) reach a higher level of awareness, efforts to reach significant/sufficient developments re sustainability are futile.
This is so, given the chaotic structure (or lack of structure) of our world society. The intellect + current structural/institutional arrangements are unable to properly use the technologies that can set us free.
Reading newspapers, blogs like this one and an occasional structure-exploring book suffices to illustrate this.
'Chi' (life force) is a by product of following your Tao, Wu Wei wise. Perhaps we could set up an experiment and see what works.
'Those that have gone before' = those who know their trade (like mathematicians) and can judge the proper usage of the tools of the trade by anyone claiming something in the field of mathematics. Not: judge all possible outcomes. This belongs to a proper usage.
Thus: authority in the sense of being an authority re a specific field (ranking higher in knowlewdge): yes. Being authoritarian (repressive): no.
Writing here is my investment in a group of intellectuals in order to probe the potential for a transcend and include of the intellectual domain.
A fixation on this domain muffles humanity's potential for growth / reducing of suffering.
Emil
ps: really guys, where's all the resistance coming from re ideas that indicate our common potential to overcome the usual dead ends?
Up to the time some % of people (here are some interesting issues) reach a higher level of awareness, efforts to reach significant/sufficient developments re sustainability are futile. This is so, given the chaotic structure (or lack of structure) of our world society. The intellect + current structural/institutional arrangements are unable to properly use the technologies that can set us free. Reading newspapers, blogs like this one and an occasional structure-exploring book suffices to illustrate this.
What is a higher level of awareness? Awareness of what? How do I know a person with a higher level of awareness when I see them? We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
Limited, closed-circuit thinking:
meditation = not measured, not interested, not valuable.
chi = not measured, not interested, not valuable.
´spiritual/metaphysical..............´ = not measured, not interested, not valuable.
Amazone curative plants known by natives = not measured, not interested, now science finding valuable.
Person = Body of scientifically measured, material parts with a lot of other strange, undiscovered, unexplained parts. What´s so difficult about that?
ROUNDED self-development helps one and all in society, AFAIK, (otherwise why education-for-all, science included) therefore it will improve social well-being and progress of all sorts. That´s pretty much what my sig means. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
But until you can apply the scientific method to your claims (which I'm still not sure I have seen, beyond "we don't knoweverything", which nobody contests), these will remain in the realm of belief rather than in that of empirical fact.
That may be enough for you, and that's fine. But don't claim it's a fact when you refuse to follow the steps that can convince others that it is so. Or it's just proselytism. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
don't we have anything more fulfilling to do than to spend Earth's valuable resources on much ado about nothing?
who on earth could benefit from these discussions?
admittedly not a strictly scientific approach, but after reading all the presumed or otherwise scientific stuff here I think little persuasive power is being generated to bring out the best in all of us
and this is precisely what I see as the responsibility of the intellectual elite, us. See GB Shaw: http://www2.bc.edu/~anderso/sr/gbs.html
for your information: the Planet is having a bad case of humanity and the cure might be a good sneeze
get a life
the Planet is having a bad case of humanity and the cure might be a good sneeze
You seem to be hinting at the destruction or expulsion of a great number of humans. Is that correct? And because they don't fit with your notions of a higher plane of consciousness?
I suggest you're every bit a part of the snot as everyone else, emil. Pretentions to higher consciousness aside.
As stated before, the main issue is: are we as a species able to shift our center of consciousness up. Become more compassionate, visionary, loving.
If we continue using the intellect-sec, we will remain stuck in -ever partial- perspectives and not be able to shift up [note: I'm a PhD researching 'Decision making processes in a transition towards a sustainable energy regime']. Consequence: involution, collapse. Alternative: abundant clean energy and other resources for all. And a platform to address other pressing issues.
Consequence: involution, collapse. Alternative: abundant clean energy and other resources for all. And a platform to address other pressing issues.
You overstudy every word to nitpick it to death, but you won´t even read a single link from emil. Shame for what ET wants to represent because it´s a huge waste of education to resort to THIS, or to ´not understanding´. Elitist puke. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
Emil has shown that under his talk of compassion and higher consciousness there is a reservoir of hatred for humanity. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
All, as asked before: how many times should one / I repeat myself?
How much discipline re reading someone's postings, asking for clarifications, setting out from benefit of the doubt can be asked?
Why do all of the readers implicitly comply with Migeru's interpretation? These words would make quite a ripple irl in the social circles I live in.
No reply.
Now it's elimination of the lower orders of humanity that he's implying.
I'm not going to get emotional, but this is not elitist puke or other that I'm giving you, metavision. I have suffered enough in my life from religiously-minded people who always end up by:
If that's the best he can do, (on the positive side, because the negative is pointed out just above), then it's no good.
Sorry for the bold.
It's an image arising from studying patterns of men thinking they're free, thinking science will deliver solutions or whatever. Perhaps I'm blind to the happy ending that awaits us on the horizon, but my best knowledge and intuitions tell be otherwise. Call me to an ethically dominated stance.
What does one do after reading contemporary media and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed http://www.amazon.com/States-Denial-Knowing-Atrocities-Suffering/dp/0745623921 http://books.google.com/books?id=vP0dAAAAMAAJ&q=ISBN+0-8164-9358-8&dq=ISBN+0-8164-9358-8& ;ei=5wF0R4XwA4HGiQGQiuF2&pgis=1
Blog?
re 'unless the right spiritual path is taken': see my previous wonder re the suggestive tone implied here.
re the 2nd point: wrong. When you would have read my previous postings & links, you wouldn't have brought this up. Redundantly (again): I'm not in the cursing business and your suggestion I am calls for a correction.
I claim no other status re being snot for myself, except that I am somewhat aware and try to do something about it.
Again: why this animosity, this not being curious re motives or the subject matter I try to convey, this focus on non-essentials?
The point here, I think, is that while meditation (for instance) is a valuable piece of technology, the fact that we don't really understand how it works doesn't mean that a pile of woo-woo pieced together from bits of QM, ancient texts and whatever else you're having explains anything at all.
Poetry is a dialogue between the writer and reader, or hearer, or, in a wider sense, observer. The subjective is part of the equation. This does not mean that poetry, art or even the spiritual, cannot be analysed. But in the end, the power in it is how your total experience interfaces with the symbology of the creator. There can be no mismatches. However you 'feel' about the experience of the dialogue is true for you. You can't be me, I'm taken
Same with the myths and stories associated with meditation, physical culture, martial arts and so on where what they're doing is communicating ways to trick your mind and body into effectively doing something. It's when you move outside that and start claiming that the stories have something to do with reality that the problem arises. So chi as an imagined feeling of energy flow that assists in getting your body and mind to co-ordinate to do something is fine. Chi as a unifying force which you can use to affect people at a distance is, uh, less than proven ...
I presume you have never taken heroin, opium and possibly no other external mind-altering drug beyond the low-level endorphin experience of alcohol. I also assume you have not undertaken a rigorous 3 years of constant meditation. But you may have experienced the sublime transcendantal euphoria of hearing a particular piece of music (for example) in which your world suddenly seems perfect, unending and, for just a moment, you become at one with everything.
Is this a change in mind equivalent to hearing the voices of a schizophrenic or the irrational fears of a paranoid, or the narrow-minded blind conviction of the fundamentalist Christian? All of whom believe they are right.
These experiences or states may be 'tricking' the mind and body, but, like poetry, it is the 'tricking' that becomes part of the experience and if rewarding, affects the future interpretation of experience.
There is a tendency to equate science with reality, and everything else is fiction. That seems to preclude the possibility of art also being about reality. That which is not fully communicable by numbers and words, but must be experienced without them, is indeed hard to convey in scientific terms:-)
The fact that often the discussion of science, and the use of science in discussion, pass through the medium of words and numbers puts the arts lot here at a disadvantage sometimes. That is why some of us like to put up pictures and videos.
I think 'll get me coat.... You can't be me, I'm taken
the arts lot
Please... :-(
There is a tendency to equate science with reality, and everything else is fiction. That seems to preclude the possibility of art also being about reality.
Look, if the newagers were talking about art, or poetry, or even literature, I'd give them a shrug and a pass. But they are not. They are talking about medicine. They are talking about quantum mechanics. They are talking about crime prevention. And so on and so forth. Those are all serious real-world issues, and fucking around (you should excuse my French) with nonsensial babbling about spirit planes when faced with real and serious issues is doing humanity a severe disservice.
The Pope doesn't suddenly become entitled to immunity from criticism for his genocidal policies on reproductive health just because he claims that the BS he spews is an art form or should be interpreted artistically (not that he even goes as far as to acknowledge that, but that's for another diary). Neither does Chopra. Or anyone. Reality is not a matter of taste, or subject to popular vote, or revealed through divine intervention. Superstition kills people every day precisely because too many people fail to grasp this simple fact of life.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Poetry doesn't 'explain' anything either. It is not intended to. It exists in another domain.
Poetry certainly may explain things. That is, it may be explicative, or more suggestive... There are many kinds of poetry, but essentially, it's a form of concentrated, reflective, possibly embellished, linguistic communication.
Unless you can explain what the "other domain" is.
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.
