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]

Hi Beto

I still receive notifications of posts. As you know I left the site because of the ways the rules are manipulated in favor of atheistic fundamentalism and in particular rule 5 which states:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

The thread that you mention does just that:

Intuition is a method of arriving at direct knowledge, not based on organized, rational thinking, such as logic, deduction or inference, and not based on the evidence available. It is also not a divine revelation, or truth learned from sacred texts.

It is not right for the debate forum. To make matters worse, the thread should be moved on to this board because of rule 3

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

There are no questions for debate and people will just assert that the author is preaching. Why has it gone on this long and such blatant violations openly tolerated?

I began this thread to demonstrate the necessity of developing our capacity to understand rather than just keep pouring facts where they cannot be put into perspective. Screaming "prove it" defends ones quality of understanding. It denies contemplation of what is not immediately knowable so inhibits the ability to develop the impartiality necessary for developing our capacity for understanding.

People like Dennett cannot understand consciousness since they assume that consciousness and the contents of consciousness are the same. Nothing can be built on this.

This type of manipulation defeats the purpose of discussion. Hopefully I will find another site that is not governed by victims of Provit's Disease and their skilled manipulation of rules for their own advantage so perhaps some quality exchanges will be encouraged to take place. As it is now this threat of "prove it" hangs over the head of those not atheistic fundamentalists.

Human intuition is difficult to describe. I believe it is related to instinct but since I believe human beings are dual natured (having both a lower and higher origin,) intuition is more than earthly knowledge we are born with but an instinctive awareness of our higher origin. In closing, just contemplate the following. Don't comment but just contemplate:

"Learning consists of adding to ones knowledge day by day;
the way of the Tao consists of subtracting day by day until one experiences reality as it is, not as it is named." Lao-Tzu

Now just think to yourself without being influenced by another: We call learning day to day conscious learning. Assuming Lao-Tzu is referring to something genuine, and consciousness is as described above, what is this quality of awareness of the Tao he refers to?

[bernee51]

I began this thread to demonstrate the necessity of developing our capacity to understand rather than just keep pouring facts where they cannot be put into perspective. Screaming "prove it" defends ones quality of understanding. It denies contemplation of what is not immediately knowable so inhibits the ability to develop the impartiality necessary for developing our capacity for understanding.

I think your miffed feeling is misplaced. On numerous occassions I have introduced speculative ideas which would fail the 'prove it' demand. I freely admit they are speculative and also freely admit the paucity, int he present time of any proof.

People like Dennett cannot understand consciousness since they assume that consciousness and the contents of consciousness are the same. Nothing can be built on this.

Dennett has a differnet view of consciousness - not an objectively incorrect one. Personally I agree that the contents of consciousness and pure can be viewed as seperate. it is however speculative and a theory which, in and of itself is a 'content of consciousness'.

This type of manipulation defeats the purpose of discussion. Hopefully I will find another site that is not governed by victims of Provit's Disease and their skilled manipulation of rules for their own advantage so perhaps some quality exchanges will be encouraged to take place. As it is now this threat of "prove it" hangs over the head of those not atheistic fundamentalists.

that sounds like 'sour grapes' to me. it is totally within a persons right of this forum to demand proof it that is waht theuy so demand. it is equally a right of a poster to deny that proof or to argue whty proff is not needed.

Human intuition is difficult to describe. I believe it is related to instinct but since I believe human beings are dual natured (having both a lower and higher origin,) intuition is more than earthly knowledge we are born with but an instinctive awareness of our higher origin.

This is an example of 'contents of consciousness'

"Learning consists of adding to ones knowledge day by day;
the way of the Tao consists of subtracting day by day until one experiences reality as it is, not as it is named." Lao-Tzu

Thus one arrives at an answer to the question I posed - "Who am I?"

[Nick_A]

I want anyone reading this thread to know the following is untrue:

that sounds like 'sour grapes' to me. it is totally within a persons right of this forum to demand proof it that is waht theuy so demand. it is equally a right of a poster to deny that proof or to argue whty proff is not needed.

When someone like me is threatened about breaking the rules by posting something that cannot be verified other than through inner empiricism, it should hold for all. It seems that this rule only applies concerning attitudes that question the conclusions of atheism and protect them in this manner.

Satori in Zen and gnosis in Christianity refer to a quality of inner experience that serve as a psychological guide for experiencing and verifying the triune truths and the source of 'meaning" incapable of comprehension by the dual mind.

Denial in this fashion makes understanding Christianity impossible. Many involve themselves in debate soley for the joy of attempting to tear apart what they do not understand. Atheism flourishes in this manner. It lacks the humility necessary to admit that a person must strive to develop their ability to "understand" in relation to "meaning" in contrast to self justification. It is not sour grapes to appreciate how people are taken advantage of regarding "evidence" and the denial of the qualitative relationship between need and evidence in relation to "meaning."

Your choice. I must insist though it is not sour grapes.

[Beto]

What exactly do you expect from us? You're in a debate forum arguing for something that isn't proved to exist, which reveals "truths" that you claim can't be argued upon. Funny, innit? Are you trying to legitimize to yourself, a perspective you think you obtained through "inner empiricism" (even though you probably read a bit about what other people obtained through "inner empiricism"... go figure), which according to you is inherently undebatable... through debate? I must ask, respectfully... what do you hope to achieve here?

[bernee51]

I want anyone reading this thread to know the following is untrue:

that sounds like 'sour grapes' to me. it is totally within a persons right of this forum to demand proof it that is what they so demand. it is equally a right of a poster to deny that proof or to argue why proof is not needed.

Your choice. I must insist though it is not sour grapes.

Perhaps not, though I did get your attention...

I
When someone like me is threatened about breaking the rules by posting something that cannot be verified other than through inner empiricism, it should hold for all. It seems that this rule only applies concerning attitudes that question the conclusions of atheism and protect them in this manner.

An example of this duplicitous moderation would be appreciated...

Satori in Zen and gnosis in Christianity refer to a quality of inner experience that serve as a psychological guide for experiencing and verifying the triune truths and the source of 'meaning" incapable of comprehension by the dual mind.

Yes - and some may have difficulty in either understanding this or accepting it as a 'given' and thus question the veracity of the claim. If their mind is strongly 'dual' they may even ask for evidence that there exists a state of 'satori' or 'gnosis'. They may want to know, if the experience is and can only be 'subjective' why then should your opinion be accepted over and above what they can see from their own POV.

Denial in this fashion makes understanding Christianity impossible.

In your opinion.

They may have an understanding of christianity as being nothing more than a human construct (which it is) based on, in their opinion, a desire to explain the unexplainable. You would appear to have an understanding that christianity is a human construct based around the human experience of the ineffable.

Many involve themselves in debate solely for the joy of attempting to tear apart what they do not understand. Atheism flourishes in this manner

True as that may be in some circumstances. That is a particularly negative view and does not allow for another's 'truth seeking'. It is also not a position solely the province of atheism. Have you peruses some of the more 'fundamental' christian attitudes expressed on this forum?

It lacks the humility necessary to admit that a person must strive to develop their ability to "understand" in relation to "meaning" in contrast to self justification.

Indeed

It is not sour grapes to appreciate how people are taken advantage of regarding "evidence" and the denial of the qualitative relationship between need and evidence in relation to "meaning."

So in terms of this topic 'inner empiricism' - did you raise it for dialectic or dialogue?

[Nick_A]

What exactly do you expect from us? You're in a debate forum arguing for something that isn't proved to exist, which reveals "truths" that you claim can't be argued upon. Funny, innit? Are you trying to legitimize to yourself, a perspective you think you obtained through "inner empiricism" (even though you probably read a bit about what other people obtained through "inner empiricism"... go figure), which according to you is inherently undebatable... through debate? I must ask, respectfully... what do you hope to achieve here?

Though debate and discussion have distinctly different connotations one is often confused with the other. When I signed on I underestimated how these three rules would be enforced differently depending on the point of view an individual is coming from:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

I've noticed a lot of personal attacks against me.

I see threads without debate topics.

Certain incidents have to be explored regardless of evidence if one is to come to understand Christianity. I've since learned that the desire isn't to understand Christianity but to express the joy of arguing over what isn't understood

Can I give evidence as to why I believe Simone Weil's first experience is genuine? No, though I understand the theory of it and the part her dedication to truth along with her extraordinary power of attention paid in it.. Tell me how you would debate this and expect anything meaningful to come of it? The following excerpt is from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

.....................There was a young English Catholic there from whom I gained my first idea of the supernatural power of the sacraments because of the truly angelic radiance with which he seemed to be clothed after going to communion. Chance -- for I always prefer saying chance rather than Providence -- made of him a messenger to me. For he told me of the existence of those English poets of the seventeenth century who are named metaphysical. In reading them later on, I discovered the poem of which I read you what is unfortunately a very inadequate translation. It is called "Love". I learned it by heart. Often, at the culminating point of a violent headache, I make myself say it over, concentrating all my attention upon it and clinging with all my soul to the tenderness it enshrines. I used to think I was merely reciting it as a beautiful poem, but without my knowing it the recitation had the virtue of a prayer. It was during one of these recitations that, as I told you, Christ himself came down and took possession of me.

In my arguments about the insolubility of the problem of God I had never foreseen the possibility of that, of a real contact, person to person, here below, between a human being and God I had vaguely heard tell of things of this kind, but I had never believed in them. In the Fioretti the accounts of apparitions rather put me off if anything, like the miracles in the Gospel. Moreover, in this sudden possession of me by Christ, neither my senses nor my imagination had any part; I only felt in the midst of my suffering the presence of a love, like that which one can read in the smile on a beloved face.

I had never read any mystical works because I had never felt any call to read them. In reading as in other things I have always striven to practice obedience. There is nothing more favorable to intellectual progress, for as far as possible I only read what I am hungry for at the moment when I have an appetite for it, and then I do not read, I eat. God in his mercy had prevented me from reading the mystics, so that it should be evident to me that I had not invented this absolutely unexpected contact.

Yet I still half refused, not my love but my intelligence. For it seemed to me certain, and I still think so today, that one can never wrestle enough with God if one does so out of pure regard for the truth. Christ likes us to prefer truth to him because, before being Christ, he is truth. If one turns aside from him to go toward the truth, one will not go far before falling into his arms.

After this I came to feel that Plato was a mystic, that all the Iliad is bathed in Christian light, and that Dionysus and Osiris are in a certain sense Christ himself; and my love was thereby redoubled.

I never wondered whether Jesus was or was not the Incarnation of God; but in fact I was incapable of thinking of him without thinking of him as God.

In the spring of 1940 I read the Bhagavad-Gita. Strange to say it was in reading those marvelous words, words with such a Christian sound, put into the mouth of an incarnation of God, that I came to feel strongly that we owe an allegiance to religious truth which is quite different from the admiration we accord to a beautiful poem; it is something far more categorical..........................

Simone was diagnosed with migraine headaches many people today suffer from and will validate their intensity. How does one debate her first mystical experience? All anyone with any degree of sincerity can say regarding this experience that allowed her to put her great intellect into an experientiual higher perspective is "I don't know." The logical question following admitting one doesn't know is "How to be able to understand?" Understanding is not the goal of debate. Expressing ones opinions to "win" a debate and justify oneself is the goal.

A chess game is a debate. It is the conceptions of one side against the other. Either one side wins or it is a draw. Debate as a concept is fine in chess but thre need to win or to justify oneself will never allow one to "understand" Simone's experience.

As I said, when the right people are allowed to attack the wrong people and when rules are created to protect the right people from the accepted lunacy of the wrong people, debate is meaningless in relation to Christianity

[Beto]

Please consider the following, Nick_A... For the sake of argument suppose I have no knowledge of theoretical relationships between conscious self-awareness, the subconscious, and brain physiology. Suppose further that I subscribe to this philosophy of "inner empiricism" (and the merit you attribute to it), and after years and years of "inner" study and self-reflection, what I "feel" and what my "intuition" tells me, is that nothing is outside the scope of scientific scrutiny, and that people will often resort to metaphysical constructs to explain what they can't admit to not fully understand, and in a way, excuse their own ignorance, as if it wasn't inherently human. Some people will always try to "fill" the "emptiness" at all cost, while others prefer to wait for something that doesn't defy logic or that is "beyond discussion".

Can my "intuition" be diametrically opposite to yours? No gods, no superstition, science can address everything, and thus even my "inner empirical experience" is debatable. If not, why not?

Before I discovered quantum mechanics, I was very much into the occult. I admit there was, in fact, something appealing in the occult "sciences" to me. A "void", of sorts, that classical physics were unable to fill. At that time, my "intuition" told me there had to be something more about the universe than what I knew. Something was missing. Some people will find "God" (or something conveniently "inexplicable") and look no further, content the "void" is filled. I discovered that in this universe, "something" can actually exist in several places at the same time (even if it's just a photon), and this rocked my world. My "intuition" began to tell me science knows no boundaries and all that is "magical" or "supernatural" has a very likely chance to be scientifically explained and verified. That is now how I "feel", and I can support that subjective perspective with a simple graph, one that shows the exponential growth of technological advancement, and how more and more "superstitions" become part of the "real world" as science explains and demonstrates how they happen.

And just so you don't forget the question...

Can my "intuition" be diametrically opposite to yours?

[Nick_A]

Beto

Now we are discussing something rather than debating. It will surprise you that I agree with most of what you've said.

First of all, I believe that the personal God of Christendom is the result of the imposition of the Hebrew God onto early Christianity. Christianity doesn't have a personal God. God in Christianity and the reason why we cannot fathom it is well described by Meister Eckhart:

"The mind never rests but must go on expecting and preparing for what is yet known and what is still concealed. Meanwhile, man cannot know what God is, even though he be ever so well of what God is not; and an intelligent person will reject that. As long as it has no reference point, the mind can only wait as matter waits for him. And matter can never find rest except in form; so, too, the mind can never find rest except in the essential truth which is locked up in it--the truth about everything. Essence alone satisfied and God keeps on withdrawing, farther and farther away, to arouse the mind's zeal and lure it to follow and finally grasp the true good that has no cause. Thus, contented with nothing, the mind clamors for the highest good of all."

We exist within the universe and function as participants within the interactions of universal laws. I believe that universal laws are the means for the expression of God's will but this isn't the point. the point is that universal laws can be eventually understood by science. From this perspective, isn't it possible that God ("I") can exist outside of time and space while creation ("AM") exists within time and space?" Just assuming the possibility before considering verification that this is possible, if it is true then there is no contradiction between science and religion. Scientific understanding benefits the essence of religion.

A minority of people explore this possibility. Simone did. Prof Needleman does as well as others. You have an interest in quantum physics. Basarab Nicolescu is a highly regarded man of science. You can read some of his credentials here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarab_Nicolescu

If you read his description of the Law of the included Middle and how it relates to particle physics, you'll get a glimpse of "levels of reality" that hopefully will unite science and religion 100 years from now if we don't blow ourselves up before then. When we come to experience ourselves as a microcosm consisting of levels of reality the idea of the higher being able to observe the lower within our common presence is not so absurd. It will be a long time before the believers in the classical logic of the excluded middle will come to see the importance of the included middle. However, since you have an interest in quantum mechanics, you may get something from this highly regarded Romanian scientist:

http://nicol.club.fr/ciret/bulletin/b12/b12c3.htm

A lot of what you refer to as intuition is awakening to this new direction of the "included middle" described by Dr. Nicolescu. I believe it is precisely this new quality of awareness that Simone Weil refers to as the "supernatural part."

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Debate cannot open one to this new direction implied by Simone and explained by Dr. Nicolescu. Science I believe will discover these laws but it is through the essence of religion that they can become inwardly experientially understood through inner empiricism

[bernee51]

What exactly do you expect from us? You're in a debate forum arguing for something that isn't proved to exist, which reveals "truths" that you claim can't be argued upon. Funny, innit? Are you trying to legitimize to yourself, a perspective you think you obtained through "inner empiricism" (even though you probably read a bit about what other people obtained through "inner empiricism"... go figure), which according to you is inherently undebatable... through debate? I must ask, respectfully... what do you hope to achieve here?

Though debate and discussion have distinctly different connotations one is often confused with the other. When I signed on I underestimated how these three rules would be enforced differently depending on the point of view an individual is coming from:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

I've noticed a lot of personal attacks against me.

I see threads without debate topics.

Some examples of these personal attacks, i.e. ad hominems, would help your argument.

For the most part threads without debate topics which appear in the 'Debates' are are moved when/if noticed by a moderator. If you happen to notice one please let a moderator know. Threads in the "General Discussion' area do not require a debate topic.

Certain incidents have to be explored regardless of evidence if one is to come to understand Christianity. I've since learned that the desire isn't to understand Christianity but to express the joy of arguing over what isn't understood

If there is an a priori view that christianity, like all religions, is a load of BS then this is often the approach taken - especially towards those who promote a literal view.

Many, however, are quite willing to discuss the more esoteric, no dogmatic aspects pf systems of belief.

Can I give evidence as to why I believe Simone Weil's first experience is genuine?

Not specifically. But you can speak from your own experience as to why you feel 'inner empiricism' is 'real'.

You have yet to do that. Have you no experience?

Do you understand the nature of being that leads to the realization that is 'inner empiricism'?

In the spring of 1940 I read the Bhagavad-Gita. Strange to say it was in reading those marvelous words, words with such a Christian sound, put into the mouth of an incarnation of God, that I came to feel strongly that we owe an allegiance to religious truth which is quite different from the admiration we accord to a beautiful poem; it is something far more categorical..........................

And the BG is essentially, from the POV of monotheisms, an atheist tract.

How does one debate her first mystical experience?

I cannot debate hers with anyone but her.

Your's however could be discussed.

Understanding is not the goal of debate. Expressing ones opinions to "win" a debate and justify oneself is the goal.

That may be how you define debate. I view it differently as one of the many paths in the seeking of jnana. My understanding has evolved in the course of debate.

As I said, when the right people are allowed to attack the wrong people and when rules are created to protect the right people from the accepted lunacy of the wrong people, debate is meaningless in relation to Christianity

Again you make accusations that you have yet to justify. Who are these 'right people' and how are they 'protected'?

[Beto]

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?