Inner Empiricism

[Nick_A]

Hello All

I thought best to post this thread here so as to invite discussion and not be limited to debate.

I've learned that trying to understand the meaning and purpose of the essence of religion requires more than the intellect but requires the whole of ourselves as well as a degree of conscious attention. As we are, we are as the old story of the four blind men having touched different parts of a camel, trying to argue over what it looks like. This is what is normally called debate. It tries to understand a higher whole through examining its parts by the associative mind. It cannot be done.

So for those that need more than mental stimulation but the ability to nourish the heart that is a natural calling for man, what do we do? We know there is a lot of self deceptin out there but is there truth at the bottom of it. Is Rumi right when he says:

Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi.

Perhaps the reason that there is so much BS is because there is actually something genuine and of great value for humanity we've become blind to.

Jacob Needleman is one of these rare men that are able to unite religion and science. He shows that science tries to understand the external world but for us to come to understand human meaning and purpose that the great teachings like Christianity seek to serve, requires our knowledge of the inner man: ourselves. This knowledge he calls here inner empiricism. I invite anyone with the need for the "heart" of philosophy in contrast to the joy of argument to read the following article so that we can discuss it in a more satisfying manner than debate?

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

For example: does this make sense to you?

As it happens, I believe there is a growing number of younger philosophers who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter--about what we mean by "reality" and the central role of experience. What draws them, and what originally drew me, to the whole area of philosophy is a quest for meaning. I discovered that the mind by itself cannot complete the philosophic quest. As Kant decisively argued, the mind can ask questions the mind alone cannot answer. For me, this is where the juice of real philosophical investigation begins to flow. I believe it is precisely where intellect hits its limits that the important questions of philosophy start to come alive.

Mainstream academic philosophy has for a long time tried to answer these fundamental questions with that part of the mind we call intellect. Frequently the difficulties encountered were so great, the logical tangles so confusing, that many philosophers decided such questions were meaningless, and some even began to ridicule anyone who dared ask "What is reality?" "What is the meaning of life?" "Is there life after death?" "What is the soul?" "Does God exist?" Yet these are the questions of the heart. These are the questions that matter most to people--not whether the syntax and deep structures of our language can ever truly represent real knowledge. The meaningful questions, these " questions of the heart", rise up in human beings because of something intrinsic to our nature, an innate striving which Plato called Eros.

One aspect of this is the striving to participate in a reality greater than ourselves. It is a yearning, a hunger, a force we may recognize as love. This drive is as much, if not more, a part of our nature as the sexual, physical and animal desires which psychoanalysis and mainstream psychiatry have identified as parts of our essential nature. Our drive for understanding, for participation in a higher reality, shapes our psyche as much as anything else.

But what can the mind do with this deep participatory urge? Even at its most brilliant, the intellect alone can only ask questions that skim the surface of Eros; it cannot answer these questions. Yet such questions--the meaning of life, the nature of the soul--need to be answered. If intellect is not up to the job, how can we penetrate these mysteries? The solution, I'm proposing, is that we can only extend the reach of intellect through experience. There is a certain type of experience that opens up the mind, expands our consciousness, and allows us to approach answers to many of these fundamental questions.

[Nick_A]

Bernee, look at the following thread for example:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7579

Here is the OP asking what is God?

I require, in specifics, exactly what God is. I find the phrase 'God is Love', for instance, to be highly suspect: it refers to an unstable, nebulous inner passion as if it were a Platonic Form. So instead I'd like something a bit more concrete - what is the ontological nature of God? Is it a being or Being? Does it live as we do? Is it sentient in any intelligible sense? Is it static or permeable? What, if any, is its purpose? And, most importantly, what does it feel like to the believer, who supposes himself to have direct contact with it through the mediation of the Holy Spirit?

Please, no romantic semantics (lulz, rhyme). 'God is Love', 'God is Triune', and so forth will not do. In short, I want a daseinalysis of God. What is its Being?

What is God is not a debate? There is no question for debate. It is a discussion which I of course do not mind.

D asks what is "being?" This is a very necessary question and whenever the relativity of being is understood, it clarifies a great deal of what is incomprehensible without it. He also asks what it feels like to touch the higher. He should read what I posted here by Simone. These are good and necessary questions but not debate.

Mc posted:

In Atheism: The Case Against God, George Smith wrote:
Defining the concept of god is not an optional chore to be undertaken at the theist’s convenience. It is a necessary prerequisite for intelligibility. Assuming that the theist does not believe his theism to be nonsense, he has the responsibility of explaining the content of his belief. Failing this, to state that “god exists” is to communicate nothing at all; it is as if nothing has been said.

.
This is also a relevant for someone like me with a chess mind. I appreciat3e the logic of the position. That is why I like Simone. She was schooled in critical thought in France by Emile Chartier. It is wrong though to assert that a simple person intellectually is incapable of the knowledge of the heart which grasps the objective essence of religion. This is a very nasty form of elitism. But still no debate.

Rusty enters the discussion and Mc asserts that he is wrong, pontificating. He then writes this priceless gem:

Having Ignored the debate Rusty launches into More Preaching

There is no debate. D asked what it felt like and Rusty answers with his understanding of feeling as best he could. So in one sentence the obvious violation of rules 5 and 1 are demonstrated. There is no debate yet a person is accused of both preaching and not debating. It is an attempt at intimidation. Does this make sense to you?

[Nick_A]

Nick_A, you didn't answer my question.

Can my "intuition" show me the diametrical opposite of what yours shows you? And if so, why would it be any less valid, since they can't be validated against each other? This is how I "feel". I "feel" you're wrong. How can you be sure that it isn't my "intuition" that portrays reality more accurately?

I wasn't clear. I define intuition as an expression of instinctual knowledge. In contrast we are discussing a particular form of rapid thought not requiring consciousness. It is the intelligence of a mechanical calculator. How could Reshevsky play chess at eight years old at such a high level of playing strength? He wasn't playing by instinct but by his grasp of the position as a whole and the interactions of expressions of the laws of chess: it's "gestalt." However our ability to perceive the religious truths and put our knowledge into perspective is clouded by our egotism which makes what we believe to be our intuition highly suspect. From this perspective we could both be usuing what we believe to be our intuition and both be wrong. I believe a real experience of intuition bypasses egotism but since our egotism is such a large part of us, real intuition is a rarity.

This brings us back to the premise that if someone sincerely needs the experience of truth, they have to be willing to confront the lies of their personal egotism. In Christianity this is part of carrying ones cross. The battle is with ourselves.

The whole idea of conscious work as in meditation or inner empiricism is to acquire a degree of attention that replaces the deeper egoism that denies real intuition.

[Nick_A]

Beto

I appreciate your aversion to the occult and your desire to rely on science for verification of reality. I'm even against the highly regarded "Course in Miracles." Its followers are unaware that Benedict Groeschel, a priest and psychologist, was close enough to Helen Shucman, its founder, to be asked to give a eulogy at her funeral in 1981. Benedict writes: “This woman who had written so eloquently that suffering really did not exist spent the last two years of her life in THE BLACKEST PSYCHOTIC DEPRESSION I have ever witnessed." I believe this is a severe result of becoming captive of imagination so much of New Age theory is based on..

If I am right you believe that intellectually verifiable knowledge leads to verification of higher reality if it exists. I, on the other hand, believe that verifiable intellectual knowledge can never mature into a quality of understanding that could explain human purpose and meaning if it does exist. Where you assert the importance of WHAT to KNOW, I assert the imortance of learning HOW to UNDERSTAND so as to put knowledge into an objective perspective the intellect alone is incapable of.

Since I need to avoid exponents of Provitz Disease, the chief symptom of which is saying "prove it" when at a loss of what to reply, deny speculation as to how to understand since it requires attempts at inner empiricism, we could debate head to head:

Resolved: Intellectual knowledge is sufficient for providing answers to the questions of the heart addressed in ancient times by art, philosophy and religion.

You can be free to argue the affirmative that it has been only the lack of access to modern intellectual knowledge that forced people into art, philosophy, and religion to serve the need for "meaning." I would argue that genuine impartial contemplation of art, philosophy, and religion stimulate a quality of reason that begins where intellectual knowledge ends.

It could be an interesting experiment to see if we could come to appreciate the different perspectives we begin from. So watcha think? Is it worth a shot?

[Beto]

Beto

I appreciate your aversion to the occult and your desire to rely on science for verification of reality. I'm even against the highly regarded "Course in Miracles." Its followers are unaware that Benedict Groeschel, a priest and psychologist, was close enough to Helen Shucman, its founder, to be asked to give a eulogy at her funeral in 1981. Benedict writes: “This woman who had written so eloquently that suffering really did not exist spent the last two years of her life in THE BLACKEST PSYCHOTIC DEPRESSION I have ever witnessed." I believe this is a severe result of becoming captive of imagination so much of New Age theory is based on..

If I am right you believe that intellectually verifiable knowledge leads to verification of higher reality if it exists. I, on the other hand, believe that verifiable intellectual knowledge can never mature into a quality of understanding that could explain human purpose and meaning if it does exist. Where you assert the importance of WHAT to KNOW, I assert the imortance of learning HOW to UNDERSTAND so as to put knowledge into an objective perspective the intellect alone is incapable of.

Since I need to avoid exponents of Provitz Disease, the chief symptom of which is saying "prove it" when at a loss of what to reply, deny speculation as to how to understand since it requires attempts at inner empiricism, we could debate head to head:

Resolved: Intellectual knowledge is sufficient for providing answers to the questions of the heart addressed in ancient times by art, philosophy and religion.

You can be free to argue the affirmative that it has been only the lack of access to modern intellectual knowledge that forced people into art, philosophy, and religion to serve the need for "meaning." I would argue that genuine impartial contemplation of art, philosophy, and religion stimulate a quality of reason that begins where intellectual knowledge ends.

It could be an interesting experiment to see if we could come to appreciate the different perspectives we begin from. So watcha think? Is it worth a shot?

*pout* Not if you're gonna argue for me.

Should we compare our understanding of "intellectual knowledge"? I keep sensing you impose some restrictions on the concept that I don't. I never said "intuition" isn't a valuable tool to acquire knowledge that everyone can agree upon. I just don't think there's any reason to push the subconscious into the realm of metaphysics.

[Nick_A]

Beto

I'm sorry but the only ones allowed to pout are cute females.

Should we compare our understanding of "intellectual knowledge"? I keep sensing you impose some restrictions on the concept that I don't. I never said "intuition" isn't a valuable tool to acquire knowledge that everyone can agree upon. I just don't think there's any reason to push the subconscious into the realm of metaphysics.

Good idea. Perhaps we should define first. By intellectual knowledge I mean knowledge obtained by intellectual registration of incoming impressions leading to their classification and associations. The expression of Intellectual knowledge is related to our memory of these classifications and associations. No conscious self awareness is necessary for this since acquiring these classifications and associations is a mechanical process. Would you agree or do you have a different definition?

Could we agree that we do not understand the relationship between the subconscious and metaphysics if there is one. For example, metaphysics is defined as:

Metaphysics (Greek: μετά (metá) = "after", φυσικά (physiká) = "those on nature", derived from the arrangement of Aristotle's works in antiquity) is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the nature of the world. It is the study of being or reality.Geisler, Norman L. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

The subconscious is defined as:

just below the level of consciousness
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I don't see any reason to conclude that the subconscious doesn't deal with the nature of the world in its own way. Perhaps the reason for the ancient effort of pondering the deeper questions is to connect the subconscious with the conscious. Maybe the shock of this connection sometimes produces the famous "Aha" experience where we understand something new. This is also something that must be verified through inner empiricism and our efforts at pondering. Do you agree with me then that though we cannot prove the connection between the subconscious and the metaphysical, we cannot disprove it either so it is best to retain it as an open question that rattles around in our subconscious?

[Nick_A]

For those of you that have been reading this thread, I'd like to show you something interesting. As you know people have been forever debating how to know that God exists. Of course nothing can come of it since arguments are always over external proof. Even with the fact that mathematics is consistent indicating intelligent design, It can never be proven so everything so the nsame arguments just keep recirculating.

So the question becomes if inner empiricism can reveal the truth. If we have a genuine need for meaning and not just the desire to argue our personal frustrations, can a person develop the attitude and the ability to be able to learn if God exists?

When Simone Weil was fourteen she needed to understand "meaning" more so then the great majority of people. she wrote:

"At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth."

So her critical thought and advanced powers of attention developed an attitude that allowed her to experience the proof of God. Of course it is just for her but for those that need, it is all that is necessary. She wrote:

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Not that many need to know or have the ability to sacrifice their delusions to become vulnerable enough to verify for themselves if God exists. Granted Simone is an exception. Since most cannot do it, people prefer to argue instead as compensation. If it is a suitable compensation, all well and good. But for those that need more, it requires an honesty the way of the world struggles against so only a few can have such experiences from being able to learn on the inside: inner empiricism.

[bernee51]

So her critical thought and advanced powers of attention developed an attitude that allowed her to experience the proof of God. Of course it is just for her but for those that need, it is all that is necessary. She wrote:

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Not that many need to know or have the ability to sacrifice their delusions to become vulnerable enough to verify for themselves if God exists. Granted Simone is an exception. Since most cannot do it, people prefer to argue instead as compensation. If it is a suitable compensation, all well and good. But for those that need more, it requires an honesty the way of the world struggles against so only a few can have such experiences from being able to learn on the inside: inner empiricism.

Your Simone Weil quote above is redolent of the 'negation' employed by early mystics such as Plotinus or Dionysius the Areopagite. They stripped away what as not god in order to arrive at what was god. They arrived at the Absolute, the Nothing. In my own seeking - through meditation and self inquiry I seem to have arrived at the same conclusion.

You started this discussion of 'inner empiricism' and have quoted from your favourite sources. You have yet to give a personal account of your own venturing into 'inner empiricism' - do you have one?

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Simone's refusal to believe in false gods was not to discover God but to create a void free of imagination. She sought the experience of the Platonic truths and not the worship of idolatry. It was this purity of attention that allowed for a void to be created in her psych normally filled with imagination the energy of the Holy spirit became able to fill.

The stripping away you refer to is not to find God but to reveal the seed of the soul and allow it to mature. We simply cannot arrive at the Absolute since we were not created by it but rather the origin of Man on earth is much lower in creation. This is why the beginning of Genesis has two accounts of creation.

I know you believe in this idea of severing the I from the Am. I believe this is the worst thing someone can do. The idea of inner empiricism isn't to deny the physical but rather to consciously experience it. This is why inner empiricism begins with conscious bodily awareness like habitual muscle tension for example. These needless muscle tensions drain the body of the energy necessary for serious efforts at inner empiricism. So the first step is to consciously experience them and learn how they arise and what sustains them. The idea is not initially to change them but to consciously experience them.

This negation that you describe IMO will only leave you with your ego's ego without first having come to "Know thyself." When Simone says not to believe in false God's it doesn't mean to ignore them but rather to see them for what they are. This requires an impartial detachment that takes a long time to acquire. It is the basis of karma yoga well defined here:

Karma yoga is the science of action with non-identifying. It must not be changed into "the science of action without identifying." The essence of the idea of Karma Yoga is to meet with unpleasant things equally with pleasant things. That is, in practicing Karma Yoga, one does not seek always to avoid unpleasant things as people ordinarily do. Life is to be met with non-identifying. When this is possible life becomes one's teacher; in no other sense can life become a teacher, for life taken as itself is meaningless, but taken as an exercise it becomes a teacher. It is not life that is a teacher, but ones relation through non-identifying makes it become a teacher.............................

Life can become our teacher when we can remain consciously impartial to it. But relishing in debate for the joy of argument, ridiculing others, and expressing ones partiality denies acquiring this impartiality necessary to acquire the understanding that leads to the experience of the quality of "meaning" a person searches for at the depth of their being.

My experiences can only have meaning for me. All I can do is present an option for people who need more than debate. This is not to nullify the value of debate but only to suggest that a person has to sincerely ask themselves what they are looking for. Developing critical thinking is essential to protect the emotions from misguided attachments. However, when it has served its purpose as it did with Simone allowing her not to believe in false gods, it must get out of the way for the sake of impartial experience.

If the objective is to be right, win debates, prove others "wrong," then the best alternative is to reinforce ones partiality. However if someone sees as did Simone that all this is much ado about nothing and the human essence is drawn to something much deeper, then a person has to acquire the ability for detachment and impartiality so as to experience both inner and external reality. In order to do it one must begin to "Know Thyself" so as to discover how we lose our conscious awareness.

[bernee51]

Simone's refusal to believe in false gods was not to discover God but to create a void free of imagination. She sought the experience of the Platonic truths and not the worship of idolatry. It was this purity of attention that allowed for a void to be created in her psych normally filled with imagination the energy of the Holy spirit became able to fill.

This 'void' is known to many traditions - for example the Tibetan "One Taste". Do you beleive the 'Holy Spirit" fills all such voids - regardless of the tradition?

The stripping away you refer to is not to find God but to reveal the seed of the soul and allow it to mature. We simply cannot arrive at the Absolute since we were not created by it but rather the origin of Man on earth is much lower in creation.

My experience, drawn from jnana and raja yoga holds the exact opposite. We can arrive at the Absolute because we are the Absolute - or rather the Absolute is an aspect of being. The origin of man on earth is as a result of evolution - as is our consciousness - the Absolute.

This is why the beginning of Genesis has two accounts of creation.

Oops - gotta go will return to this - sorry

[bernee51]

The stripping away you refer to is not to find God but to reveal the seed of the soul and allow it to mature. We simply cannot arrive at the Absolute since we were not created by it but rather the origin of Man on earth is much lower in creation. This is why the beginning of Genesis has two accounts of creation.

And most likely a contributing factor in the many many other creation myths.

I know you believe in this idea of severing the I from the Am.

What I speak of is a realization thet the subject 'I' is not the same as the object that comes after the 'Am'

I believe this is the worst thing someone can do. The idea of inner empiricism isn't to deny the physical but rather to consciously experience it. This is why inner empiricism begins with conscious bodily awareness like habitual muscle tension for example.

As do many of the 'body awareness' techniques to which i have been exposed.

These needless muscle tensions drain the body of the energy necessary for serious efforts at inner empiricism. So the first step is to consciously experience them and learn how they arise and what sustains them. The idea is not initially to change them but to consciously experience them.

And...?

This negation that you describe IMO will only leave you with your ego's ego without first having come to "Know thyself."

The 'neagtion' of whic I spoke was in undertaken by its propnents in orde to know god.

When Simone says not to believe in false God's it doesn't mean to ignore them but rather to see them for what they are. This requires an impartial detachment that takes a long time to acquire. It is the basis of karma yoga well defined here:

Karma yoga is the science of action with non-identifying. It must not be changed into "the science of action without identifying." The essence of the idea of Karma Yoga is to meet with unpleasant things equally with pleasant things. That is, in practicing Karma Yoga, one does not seek always to avoid unpleasant things as people ordinarily do. Life is to be met with non-identifying. When this is possible life becomes one's teacher; in no other sense can life become a teacher, for life taken as itself is meaningless, but taken as an exercise it becomes a teacher. It is not life that is a teacher, but ones relation through non-identifying makes it become a teacher.............................

This topic is covered beautifully in the Bhagavad Gita. Meeting the unplesant equally with the pleasent is rquanimity.

Life can become our teacher when we can remain consciously impartial to it.

Impartial yes but not detached. Rather unattached.

But relishing in debate for the joy of argument, ridiculing others, and expressing ones partiality denies acquiring this impartiality necessary to acquire the understanding that leads to the experience of the quality of "meaning" a person searches for at the depth of their being.

It can - but debate can also lead to jnana. Riducile, however, is not ahimsa and is the result of aversion.

My experiences can only have meaning for me.

Ultiamtely yes. However decribing techniques and results of a seeking of 'inner empiriciism' can benefit the search of others.

In order to do it one must begin to "Know Thyself" so as to discover how we lose our conscious awareness.

Thus the seeking of an answer to "Who am I?"

The aim, I believe is to see through the 'contents of consciousness' and become fully aware of consciousness.