Inner Empiricism

[Nick_A]

[Nick_A]

Is this your experience? Have you ever needed love? If you have, has it been your experience that it has been satisfied by reading a text on biochemistry?

Choosing to "romanticize" life, indulging some of our feelings, and not dwelling so much on their origins is one thing. Another is to willfully ignore what we know is at the root of emotions, and attribute to any of them "divine" origins that "transcend" the human body.

Apparently we have this great question. We know that higher mammals are capable of our natural emotions. This level of emotional quality is normal for animal evolution.

Yet we have this additional possibility that higher emotions do not arise from the earth but rather enter us through emotional involution. Higher emotions compatible with higher consciousness devolves to our level of being. We become attracted to them and seek to rise to the source of their attraction much like a moth is attracted to the flame.

We have the experience of animal selective love but some are attracted to the love of life itself which is not normal or necessary for animal life and would be destructive for it. A lion loving the elk would soon starve.

So we have this question. How do we reconcile animal love with transcendent conscious love? We can debate it but what sort of additional knowledge will allow us to understand it?

The value of inner empiricism is it raises our realistic perspective. We don't need more knowledge for the question but rather the ability to put the knowledge we have into perspective. The contention is that it is through inner empiricism that we can raise our perspective and be able to reconcile these great questions of the heart.

It is useless to say "prove it' here. It is up to you to need to "Know Thyself." so as to raise your quality of perspective. Without perspective you may know a lot but understand nothing. Socrates understood this which is why he said "I know nothing."

[Beto]

Apparently we have this great question. We know that higher mammals are capable of our natural emotions. This level of emotional quality is normal for animal evolution.

Yet we have this additional possibility that higher emotions(...)

By using the word "higher" you're assuming some "emotions" cannot be explained biochemically? Provide example, please. What if there is empirical data showing otherwise?

[Nick_A]

Apparently we have this great question. We know that higher mammals are capable of our natural emotions. This level of emotional quality is normal for animal evolution.

Yet we have this additional possibility that higher emotions(...)

By using the word "higher" you're assuming some "emotions" cannot be explained biochemically? Provide example, please. What if there is empirical data showing otherwise?

By higher I mean part of a higher whole.

For example assume 1 as the lowest number. It exists within the cycle of 1-9. It exists within the next higher whole and 10 begins the sequence of the next higher whole that exists between 10 and 99. 100 is the beginng of the next higher whole that spans "being" between 100 and 999.

Assume Man on earth as a scale of being that exists between 1 and 9. It has mechanically evolved from the earth and its evolution is complete as it pertains to the evolution of the earth itself. The beginning of conscious evolution and the next step beyond mechanical evolution spans the cycle of 10 - 99. Completed conscious evolution exists between 100 - 999.

naturally then the quality of emotion that exists between 10 -100 and 100 - 999 is greater than that which mechanically arises from the earth spanning the wholeness of 1-9 since 1-9 exists within 10-99 which in turn exists between the higher whole 100-999.

I'm not denying the effect of higher emotion on biochemstry. I do not accept the idea that biochemstry creates it but rather biochemsity is a result of higher consciousness and emotion inititiatng from a higher conscious source, a higher degree of wholeness within which we exist.

Inner empiricism is the beginning with what we intuitively sense which not only begins such inner growth but provides the verification for its reality.

[bernee51]

Where debate is unconcerned with the quality of the seer, the quality of the inner experience of meaning is determined by the quality of the seer which develops through the practice of inner empiricism.

Indeed. How to determine the 'quality of the seer'. How to get out of the trap of identification of the seer with the instruments of seeing (the individual self). Attempting to determine the quality of the seer is treating it as an object. Anything that is an object is not it.

Thus my question...yet unaddressed..."Who am I?"

[bernee51]

Apparently we have this great question. We know that higher mammals are capable of our natural emotions. This level of emotional quality is normal for animal evolution.

Yet we have this additional possibility that higher emotions(...)

By using the word "higher" you're assuming some "emotions" cannot be explained biochemically? Provide example, please. What if there is empirical data showing otherwise?

By higher I mean part of a higher whole.

For example assume 1 as the lowest number. It exists within the cycle of 1-9. It exists within the next higher whole and 10 begins the sequence of the next higher whole that exists between 10 and 99. 100 is the beginng of the next higher whole that spans "being" between 100 and 999.

Assume Man on earth as a scale of being that exists between 1 and 9. It has mechanically evolved from the earth and its evolution is complete as it pertains to the evolution of the earth itself. The beginning of conscious evolution and the next step beyond mechanical evolution spans the cycle of 10 - 99. Completed conscious evolution exists between 100 - 999.

Is evolution ever complete?

naturally then the quality of emotion that exists between 10 -100 and 100 - 999 is greater than that which mechanically arises from the earth spanning the wholeness of 1-9 since 1-9 exists within 10-99 which in turn exists between the higher whole 100-999.

Quality of emotion is subjective and a value judgment. Emotions at any give time a response to the environment - even those which are raised as a result of 'inner empiricism'.

Inner empiricism is the beginning with what we intuitively sense which not only begins such inner growth but provides the verification for its reality.

And as such can only be a mental construct because the formulation of the verification takes place as an object in the awareness of the seer and as such is not the seer.

[Beto]

This is what I'm seeing, from you and another member... a lot of fancy names (be it "inner empiricism" or "intuitive proof") to describe what are merely "feelings" or "perspectives", hoping they will become, by their own merit (which undoubtedly exists), adequate in distinguishing what is real from what isn't. I'm still waiting to see you rise to this conviction and admit that you think a single human perspective (without comparing it to others, of course, or the final merit belongs to debate, even if you're just reading what others debated about) is ever enough to accurately describe any reality, such as the reality of "God". "Reality" as opposed to "fiction", something that exists regardless of individual perspective. If gods (or a god) exist, they exist to everyone, so your perspective that a god exists has to have more than individual merit, if it hopes to describe reality more accurately than the perspective that gods do not exist. Some people choose science, and can debate and discuss their experiences, to eliminate subjectivity and separate reality from wishful thinking, while others (choosing to remain ignorant of the objectiveness science provides) "meditate" or "pray", and accept their "feelings" at face value, because reality is either too boring or too frightening to embrace. Realize it or not, our perspective is always influenced by others' and our interaction with their experiences, and "inner empiricism", as such, does not really exist.

[bernee51]

This is what I'm seeing, from you and another member...

I'm not sure if I am the other member to which you refer...but will comment anyway.

...a lot of fancy names (be it "inner empiricism" or "intuitive proof") to describe what are merely "feelings" or "perspectives", hoping they will become, by their own merit (which undoubtedly exists), adequate in distinguishing what is real from what isn't.

The only function of these 'perspectives' is to bring some meaning and legitimacy to our sense of existence.

I'm still waiting to see you rise to this conviction and admit that you think a single human perspective (without comparing it to others, of course, or the final merit belongs to debate, even if you're just reading what others debated about) is ever enough to accurately describe any reality, such as the reality of "God".

There are as many perspectives as there are humans.

"Reality" as opposed to "fiction", something that exists regardless of individual perspective.

Can anything exist regardless of the perspective? A things existence is very much caught up in the meaning that thing conveys to the perceiver and this meaning is there as a result of 'conditions'

If gods (or a god) exist, they exist to everyone, so your perspective that a god exists has to have more than individual merit, if it hopes to describe reality more accurately than the perspective that gods do not exist.

God exists for Rusty and he acts and lives his whole life based on the reality of that existence. This despite tha fact that god may or may not exist. Or even the god he believes exists is not the 'true' god.

Some people choose science, and can debate and discuss their experiences, to eliminate subjectivity and separate reality from wishful thinking, while others (choosing to remain ignorant of the objectiveness science provides) "meditate" or "pray", and accept their "feelings" at face value, because reality is either too boring or too frightening to embrace. Realize it or not, our perspective is always influenced by others' and our interaction with their experiences, and "inner empiricism", as such, does not really exist.

The value of meditation, as I understand it, is to bring about an awareness of reality - not, as you seem to think - avert from it. Meditation is nothing more than attempting to exist in the 'now'. To recognize the influence of conditions on our actions (i.e. really reactions) and act to reduce, if not eliminate (probably an impossibility), the influence of these conditions.

The influence of meditation on my life has had the exact opposite effect to the one you suggest. 'Reality' is far from boring, not at all frightening, and I embrace it with gusto.

[Beto]

I'm not sure if I am the other member to which you refer...but will comment anyway.

I guess it's okay if I mention that I was referring to BeHereNow. He argues for "intuitive proof" much in the same way.

Can anything exist regardless of the perspective? A things existence is very much caught up in the meaning that thing conveys to the perceiver and this meaning is there as a result of 'conditions'

My point is pragmatic. A "red" apple will absorb the same wavelengths regardless of perspective. I can "meditate" (and I'll elaborate on my real understanding of the word) on why I see a green apple, all my life. Bottom line, I'll have a visual deficiency, and I'll never know this if I don't discuss the matter with other people (reading what another person wrote about apples is enough). I'm not implying much more. People can be happy with their perspectives. Passing them as adequate descriptions of "reality" (especially when they're claimed to be inherently undebatable) is what I find unwarranted.

The value of meditation, as I understand it, is to bring about an awareness of reality - not, as you seem to think - avert from it. Meditation is nothing more than attempting to exist in the 'now'. To recognize the influence of conditions on our actions (i.e. really reactions) and act to reduce, if not eliminate (probably an impossibility), the influence of these conditions.

The influence of meditation on my life has had the exact opposite effect to the one you suggest. 'Reality' is far from boring, not at all frightening, and I embrace it with gusto.

I have a tendency to use the word "meditation" erroneously, since it's almost defined like that, at least in western societies. Everyone goes "meditate on this" or "meditate on that". Those are actually oxymorons. One should say "concentrate on this" or "concentrate on that". To meditate is simply to empty the mind, and I should do it more often. "Emptying a busy RAM" to then focus on a specific "application". "Concentration" (even if it's on the meaning of life) is best preceded by "meditation", don't you agree?

[bernee51]

Can anything exist regardless of the perspective? A things existence is very much caught up in the meaning that thing conveys to the perceiver and this meaning is there as a result of 'conditions'

My point is pragmatic. A "red" apple will absorb the same wavelengths regardless of perspective.

Indeed - but the only reason we know it as 'red' is due to perception and mental construct. Even then how I perceive a given wavelength may differ from how you perceive it.

I can "meditate" (and I'll elaborate on my real understanding of the word) on why I see a green apple, all my life. Bottom line, I'll have a visual deficiency, and I'll never know this if I don't discuss the matter with other people (reading what another person wrote about apples is enough). I'm not implying much more. People can be happy with their perspectives. Passing them as adequate descriptions of "reality" (especially when they're claimed to be inherently undebatable) is what I find unwarranted.

Which is why we have discussions as to what exactly makes up 'reality'.

The value of meditation, as I understand it, is to bring about an awareness of reality - not, as you seem to think - avert from it. Meditation is nothing more than attempting to exist in the 'now'. To recognize the influence of conditions on our actions (i.e. really reactions) and act to reduce, if not eliminate (probably an impossibility), the influence of these conditions.

The influence of meditation on my life has had the exact opposite effect to the one you suggest. 'Reality' is far from boring, not at all frightening, and I embrace it with gusto.

I have a tendency to use the word "meditation" erroneously, since it's almost defined like that, at least in western societies. Everyone goes "meditate on this" or "meditate on that". Those are actually oxymorons. One should say "concentrate on this" or "concentrate on that". To meditate is simply to empty the mind, and I should do it more often. "Emptying a busy RAM" to then focus on a specific "application". "Concentration" (even if it's on the meaning of life) is best preceded by "meditation", don't you agree?

Concentration or samadhi is an aspect of meditation. As you suggest, the aim of meditation is not so much to empty the mind but focus it. There is the mindstuff itself, chitta in Sanskrit - it can be likened to an ocean. Then there are disturbances to the mindstuff - vritti. - waves on the ocean. The idea is to calm the waves. The majority would seem to prefer to learn how to surf.

The practice of meditation is meant to bring the practitioner into the 'now' - with the aim that this 'being in awareness' is transferred to everyday life. Acting in the moment rather than reacting to conditions. Very easy to intellectualize - difficult to practice.

[Beto]

Nick_A, QED made a very interesting comment on the "Intuitive proof" thread, and as you've gathered both philosophies seem equivalent to me. If you think they're distinguishable, please let me know. Anyway, here's what he wrote:

BeHereNow, I realise that you feel strongly about intuition being metaphysical in some way but many people are familiar with the unconscious processing that our brains are doing all the time. I'm sure you've seen me referring to Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" in which he brings together many psychological experiments designed to expose subconscious activity. The point is that our stream of consciousness can be somewhat clumsy when compared with out unconscious operations -- the classic example being running downstairs (don't try consciously thinking about what you're doing!).

This is a very serious point -- Dan Dennett's theory of consciousness likens it to a "virtual machine" implemented on unconscious operations in the same way that Microsoft Windows is implemented on "invisible-to-user" machine-code instructions. Virtual machines are possible over unlimited generations -- thus it is possible to run a Commodore 64 simulation on Windows, and then run a Windows simulation on the virtual Commodore (and so on). At each level the only cost is execution speed -- and Dennett notes the very slow reaction time for conscious action over reflexes.

Going back to the running down stairs example, the accuracy and speed of calculations based on force-feedback are astounding. Other senses and judgements have equally fine-tuned capabilities yet often appear in our conscious thoughts as humble "guesses". Dennett cites "blindsightedness" as a good example of this -- in blindsight cases the usual part of the cortex involved with vision is damaged such that the patient cannot see as we imagine seeing. But the same optical information is shared around other parts of the brain and the person with blindsight will report "guesses" (which can be fully accurate) about certain aspects of vision. Clearly then, there is much that goes on beyond our sphere of direct conscious awareness and typically all kinds of accurate stuff nonetheless "pops up" as guesswork. Knowing this, I think we should not be quite so zealous about recognising intuition as being metaphysical in origin.