Inner Empiricism

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Inner Empiricism

Post #1

Post by 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
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #51

Post by Nick_A »

Bernee
As I said previously I am aware, both through jnana and experience, of satchidananda and metta. This brings with it what you appear to be describing as the experience of grace. I do not believe this is a ‘higher consciousness’ as in non-human. It is, I believe, our natural state, a state, however to which we are usually blind due to the delusion of self that manifests due to identification with and attachment to the contents of consciousness.
How do you see this in relation to the enormity of our universe? If there is no God and no higher consciousness permeating the universe at different levels of reality, it means that this phenomenon you call our natural state is alone in our solar system and in worlds we can see with our telescopes. Which seems more probable; that there is this isolated growing consciousness or that conscious pervades the universe and our experience of it is a beginning of a higher conscious understanding. It seems that consciousness pervading the universe is both more probable and logical to me anyhow.
Consciousness is an evolutionary development based in the nervous system. An examination of the human brain shows its clear evolutionary pathway from irritable cells through brainstem, reptilian brain and on to the complex neocortex. Is it coincidental that an increasing complexity of the nervous system seems to go hand in hand with a ‘higher’ level of consciousness?
Consciousness is not a static state but a continuum. I heartily suggest Nicholas Humphrey’s Seeing Red.
As you know I read him defining the means for creating contents of consciousness which is not the same as consciousness.
Is your position to take the 100-year-old musings on sub-atomic particles of ‘three’ unknown mystics as ‘fact’?
Of course! The very fact that science can only document vibratory frequency to a certain point does not deny its existence beyond that point. This would be like sound not being detectable up to a certain point so therefore these vibrations no longer exist. The higher the vibratory frequency, the finer the materiality. The fact that we cannot document it doesn't deny its existence.
Just as I find fascinating the ancient rishis who ‘sensed’ the specific ‘vibrations’ of the various chakras as sound and came up with Sanskrit.
And how was this verified? Was it done so through arguing or inner empiricism? The intellect can just reveal so much and then one must switch gears.
“If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru chinks of his cavern.”
Yes, this is life in Plato's cave. I can see a country song in this: "I'm Back in the Cavern Again." :)

That doesn’t make you right. It makes you believe.
True, but not attached to the belief. It seems to me more probable but if not so, that's the way it is.
What is a cause in one moment is an effect in the next, and a cause of the next effect.

True, but I see them as a string of effects. I agree with maistre:
"How can we be so willfully blind as to look for causes in nature when nature herself is an effect." MAISTRE
This is why choice is impossible without consciousness. Being part of nature we are an effect causing effects rather than an initiating cause producing effects.
Isn’t imagination a wonderful thing! What are those shadows on the wall?
Its wonderfulness is determined by your goal. If your goal is conscious attention and the reality revealed through it, then imagination is to be transcended. if your goal is feeling good and the joy of distraction then why not enjoy imagination?

You think I should try and explain things like working towards the attention of the heart but in a post I can only mislead you. For example, consider some excerpts from "Lost Christianity:"

http://godnix.wordpress.com/2006/08/20/ ... -the-soul/
What we need to learn is that merely to look at things as they are with bare attention can be a religious act.

The principal power of the soul, which defines its real nature, is a gathered attention that is directed simultaneously toward the spirit and the body. This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning. God can only speak to the soul, Father Sylvan writes, and only when the soul exists. But the soul of man only exists for a moment, as long as it takes for the question to appear and disappear.
To approach this degree of impartiality and to question in this way is very difficult but an essential part of inner empiricism. If a person doesn't do it though attention of the heart degenerates into egoistic emotion which defeats the purity and purpose of the efforts.
Indeed – the soul, as I understand it, is the conduit between mind and spirit. The soul evolves with experience aiding the evolution of spirit.
So a question appears. Prof Needleman speaks of the soul in relation to the spirit and body and you say mind and spirit. How can we begin to understand this?

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #52

Post by bernee51 »

Nick
Nick_A wrote:Bernee
As I said previously I am aware, both through jnana and experience, of satchidananda and metta. This brings with it what you appear to be describing as the experience of grace. I do not believe this is a ‘higher consciousness’ as in non-human. It is, I believe, our natural state, a state, however to which we are usually blind due to the delusion of self that manifests due to identification with and attachment to the contents of consciousness.
How do you see this in relation to the enormity of our universe?
Why should the size of the universe have any bearing?
Nick_A wrote: If there is no God and no higher consciousness permeating the universe at different levels of reality, it means that this phenomenon you call our natural state is alone in our solar system and in worlds we can see with our telescopes.
And...?
Nick_A wrote: Which seems more probable; that there is this isolated growing consciousness or that conscious pervades the universe and our experience of it is a beginning of a higher conscious understanding. It seems that consciousness pervading the universe is both more probable and logical to me anyhow.
Given the obvious evolutionary nature of existence it is more logical that consciousness itself is a phenomenon of evolution.

Consciousness, it would appear, inflates a persons metaphysical self worth. Higher level cognitive processes and neural system complexity which obviously correlate with higher levels of consciousness inevitably generate (in those that can describe it) a self/world model containing the strong intuition (inner empiricism?) that the self and its experience cannot simply be the body, cannot just be a bit or 'world suitably organised'.
Nick_A wrote:
Consciousness is an evolutionary development based in the nervous system. An examination of the human brain shows its clear evolutionary pathway from irritable cells through brainstem, reptilian brain and on to the complex neocortex. Is it coincidental that an increasing complexity of the nervous system seems to go hand in hand with a ‘higher’ level of consciousness?
Consciousness is not a static state but a continuum. I heartily suggest Nicholas Humphrey’s Seeing Red.
As you know I read him defining the means for creating contents of consciousness which is not the same as consciousness.
I disagree - he describes the evolution of the 'tool' that allows the contents to be noted and stored. That is qiote clear in the text. If you believe he is saying otherwise please post the passage.

Nick_A wrote:
Isn’t imagination a wonderful thing! What are those shadows on the wall?
Its wonderfulness is determined by your goal.
The 'imagination' i was rteferring to was the imagination thet invented your 'trinity'. And you are right - the goal of this particular piece of imaginative construct (the trinity) is an attempt to expain and give substance to the unexplainable.
Nick_A wrote: What we need to learn is that merely to look at things as they are with bare attention can be a religious act.
Sounds like a meditation.
Nick_A wrote:
Indeed – the soul, as I understand it, is the conduit between mind and spirit. The soul evolves with experience aiding the evolution of spirit.
So a question appears. Prof Needleman speaks of the soul in relation to the spirit and body and you say mind and spirit. How can we begin to understand this?
The soul is a product of the mind. As the mind incorporates and transcends teh physical, so the soul incorporates and transcends the mind. Without a body/mind soul cannot exist.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Post #53

Post by Nick_A »

Bernee

I don't understand the logic here. It doesn't seem odd to you that you suggest that consciousness could be exclusive to us within the limits of our awareness of the universe. The size matters because the larger area we consider the more absurd it seems to become that conscious self awareness is exclusive to man on earth. This seems improbable to me almost to the point of being impossible. I don't see the attraction of this opinion.
Given the obvious evolutionary nature of existence it is more logical that consciousness itself is a phenomenon of evolution.
True, but it makes even more sense to consider that evolving consciousness is the result of involution and involving consciousness. Then you have the natural relationship between yin and yang where yin becomes the blank slate resulting from involution and yang is the evolutionary movement arising from it in the attempt to return to its source.
Consciousness, it would appear, inflates a persons metaphysical self worth. Higher level cognitive processes and neural system complexity which obviously correlate with higher levels of consciousness inevitably generate (in those that can describe it) a self/world model containing the strong intuition (inner empiricism?) that the self and its experience cannot simply be the body, cannot just be a bit or 'world suitably organised'.
These are affects of consciousness. It doesn't explain what consciousness is.
As you know I read him defining the means for creating contents of consciousness which is not the same as consciousness.

I disagree - he describes the evolution of the 'tool' that allows the contents to be noted and stored. That is qiote clear in the text. If you believe he is saying otherwise please post the passage.
The means for and the tool are the same. Consciousness creates intelligent design. We see its effects but the effects don't explain the nature of consciousness.
The 'imagination' i was rteferring to was the imagination thet invented your 'trinity'. And you are right - the goal of this particular piece of imaginative construct (the trinity) is an attempt to expain and give substance to the unexplainable.
Knowledge of the Trinity is innate because it is part of our construction. We are composed of head, heart, and body. They represent at a lower level of vibratory quality the three forces that that comprise the great Trinity. That is how we are in the image.

The soul is a product of the mind. As the mind incorporates and transcends the physical, so the soul incorporates and transcends the mind. Without a body/mind soul cannot exist.
Do you deny those that claim that the heart is the seat of the soul?

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #54

Post by bernee51 »

Nick_A wrote:Bernee
I don't understand the logic here. It doesn't seem odd to you that you suggest that consciousness could be exclusive to us within the limits of our awareness of the universe. The size matters because the larger area we consider the more absurd it seems to become that conscious self awareness is exclusive to man on earth. This seems improbable to me almost to the point of being impossible. I don't see the attraction of this opinion.
I made no claims to it being exclusive to humans - merely that it is a product of evolution. It may very well be the case that somewhere in the universe other beings have evolved in a similar fashion. I haven't met them yet. Have you?

This 'consciousness in the universe' bears all the hallmarks of 'shadows on the wall of the cave'. The cave and its shadows are contents of consciousness - as is your theory of 'universal consciousness'.
Nick_A wrote:
Given the obvious evolutionary nature of existence it is more logical that consciousness itself is a phenomenon of evolution.
True, but it makes even more sense to consider that evolving consciousness is the result of involution and involving consciousness.
How does it make sense? Give me an example of 'involution' other than your theory that consciousness has 'involved'
Nick_A wrote: Then you have the natural relationship between yin and yang where yin becomes the blank slate resulting from involution and yang is the evolutionary movement arising from it in the attempt to return to its source.
'Yin' and 'yang', support/challenge etc are dualities that compete within evolution. Maximum growth (evolution) occurs at their border.
Nick_A wrote:
Consciousness, it would appear, inflates a persons metaphysical self worth. Higher level cognitive processes and neural system complexity which obviously correlate with higher levels of consciousness inevitably generate (in those that can describe it) a self/world model containing the strong intuition (inner empiricism?) that the self and its experience cannot simply be the body, cannot just be a bit or 'world suitably organised'.
These are affects of consciousness. It doesn't explain what consciousness is.
OK...fit the obvious correlation of levels of consciousness and complexity of neural systems into your theory.
Nick_A wrote:
As you know I read him defining the means for creating contents of consciousness which is not the same as consciousness.

I disagree - he describes the evolution of the 'tool' that allows the contents to be noted and stored. That is quite clear in the text. If you believe he is saying otherwise please post the passage.
The means for and the tool are the same.
The description is of how consciousness evolves - not the contents.
Nick_A wrote:
The 'imagination' i was referring to was the imagination that invented your 'trinity'. And you are right - the goal of this particular piece of imaginative construct (the trinity) is an attempt to explain and give substance to the unexplainable.
Nick_A wrote: Knowledge of the Trinity is innate because it is part of our construction. We are composed of head, heart, and body.
We are composed of atoms and molecules, suitable powered by a biomechanical system that has nervous system with enough sophistication to produce a self aware consciousness. Other species also have this 'trinity' yet their consciousness would not appear to have evolved to the same level as that of homo sapiens. How do you explain that?
Nick_A wrote: They represent at a lower level of vibratory quality the three forces that that comprise the great Trinity. That is how we are in the image.
Imagination = contents of consciousness.
Nick_A wrote:
The soul is a product of the mind. As the mind incorporates and transcends the physical, so the soul incorporates and transcends the mind. Without a body/mind soul cannot exist.
Do you deny those that claim that the heart is the seat of the soul?
Do you mean 'heart' in a physical sense or 'heart' in a metaphorical sense?
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

Post Reply