Prerequisites for Spiritual Knowledge

[S.A.M.]

Just as an aside, how hard is it to not obfuscate the discussion with linguistic gymnastics? Or is it a prerequsite of the student of philosophy to intentionally bury the thrust of a discussion under metric tons of semantic and linguistic diversion? Is that an indication of the weakness of your position?

No it merely simplifies matters to use the correct word to denote the concept under discussion. Since much of philosophy is concentrated on clarification of concepts, it behooves us to use the terms that most accurately represent the concept under review.

 

[superluminal]

No it merely simplifies matters to use the correct word to denote the concept under discussion. Since much of philosophy is concentrated on clarification of concepts, it behooves us to use the terms that most accurately represent the concept under review.

I understand the concept. It's also a good tool to deflect the valid points raised by others. I'm well aware of the subversive use of jargon.

On with the discussion...

 

[S.A.M.]

You are completely missing my point (deliberatly?)

Ignore the underlying "reality" of any phenomenon. It's all perceptual consensus. Fine. Can you demonstrate to me, unequivocally, the spiritual equivalent of the heat and light produced by a functioning 100W lightbulb?

If you cannot, and all you have is an internal result, you cannot rationally claim any consensus as to it's existence. The only rational explanation is brain chemistry. Right?

Can you?

I'll take any flippancy on your part as a complete and utter capitulation to my argument and a decisive defeat in this debate. Fair enough?

Only if you accept that you unequivocally reject anything that cannot be supported/demonstrated objectively.

 

[superluminal]

Since much of philosophy is concentrated on clarification of concepts, it behooves us to use the terms that most accurately represent the concept under review.

I'm laughing. Just a bit. More like chuckling...

 

[S.A.M.]

Regardless of its results?

Its only when results are considered that the system survives, otherwise it is assumed to be dis satisfactory and is eliminated through conflict.

Having beliefs and requiring satisfactory conclusions appear to be part of a different system themselves. Why not better understand human psychological needs and engineer something meet them that doesn't rely on magic?

It seems that valuing truth and human psychological needs might have historically been a one OR the other situation (i.e. having more of one requires having less of the other). Why not make it an AND situation?




If / when such a system exists, maybe the results will gain the meme popularity.

Again your definition of spirituality as magic meets your criteria of reality. Unfortunately, that criteria enjoys consensus only in those who share your belief systems.

Memes are fantasy.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Absolute Reality is imagination? How?

Absolute reality with personal name, eyes, nose, and a mouth is imagination.

But without any consensus, neither is any fundamental interpretation of any value

I am not saying consensus is bad. I am saying that it might lose alot of value if the interpretation is not grounded.

You get a cookie.

mmmmm... cookie... what raisins???

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm laughing. Just a bit. More like chuckling...

Its the result of a lack of knowledge of the ontology and epistemology of philosophical constructs that define spirituality. i.e. you lack the prerequisites for spiritual knowledge.

 

[S.A.M.]

Absolute reality with personal name, eyes, nose, and a mouth is imagination.

Not all absolute realities have a name.

I have a headache. Its an absolute reality to me, though it may appear as anything from an excuse to a fantasy to someone else. Until you get a headache, the concept of one is a fantasy to you. There is no way of knowing however if the concept of headache as defined by me is equal to the concept of headache as defined by you, except by mutually agreed symbolic representations of concepts, which are a consensus based on apparently shared perception of the phenomenon (headache).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Again your definition of spirituality as magic meets your criteria of reality.

It's not spirituality I am equating with magic. It is the fantastic claims often found amongst spiritual practicioners and their media.

Unfortunately, that criteria enjoys consensus only in those who share your belief systems.

The difference is that reality is part of the concensus. No matter what anybody says and how many people say it... reality has the final word.

Memes are fantasy.

Like Islamophobia?

 

[superluminal]

Only if you accept that you unequivocally reject anything that cannot be supported/demonstrated objectively.

No. Let me be as clear as I possibly can here.

I unequivocally reject the claim that anything that cannot be supported/demonstrated objectively is anything more than an internal brain chemistry generated state. As such, it still exists - as an internal state only. Hooray. Yes, I agree.

A powered 100W bulb will burn you. Your spiritual revelations and enlightenments after years of training will yield only internal insights to you alone. Their source cannot (yet?) be demonstrated as external. We cannot measure the heat or light emmanating from your "revelation" (unless you count the "lighting-up" of brain regions on PET scans during "spiritual" experiences. Clearly there is a brain chemistry component...).

If you disagree with this, can you not state your position clearly? Here:

Question:
Spirituality is an objective phenomenon with external sources. Yes or No?

If yes, please explain.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's not spirituality I am equating with magic. It is the fantastic claims often found amongst spiritual practicioners and their media.

A belief system which does not satisfy a personal criteria of correctness is fantastic to one who does not accept it.

The difference is that reality is part of the concensus. No matter what anybody says and how many people say it... reality has the final word.

Whose reality? Reality is what you choose to believe. It is wholly subjective.

Like Islamophobia?

Or any other political or social construct.

 

[superluminal]

Its the result of a lack of knowledge of the ontology and epistemology of philosophical constructs that define spirituality. i.e. you lack the prerequisites for spiritual knowledge.

Now that's funny! Thanks!

BTW, with no training whatsoever on your part, I can subject you to a voltage of 10,000V and observe and quantify the results. It will have required zero training or prerequisites for you to fully experience my physical knowledge of the electromotive force.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. Let me be as clear as I possibly can here.

I unequivocally reject the claim that anything that cannot be supported/demonstrated objectively is anything more than an internal brain chemistry generated state. As such, it still exists - as an internal state only. Hooray. Yes, I agree.

A powered 100W bulb will burn you. Your spiritual revelations and enlightenments after years of training will yield only internal insights to you alone. Their source cannot (yet?) be demonstrated as external. We cannot measure the heat or light emmanating from your "revelation" (unless you count the "lighting-up" of brain regions on PET scans during "spiritual" experiences. Clearly there is a brain chemistry component...).

If you disagree with this, can you not state your position clearly? Here:

Question:
Spirituality is an objective phenomenon with external sources. Yes or No?

If yes, please explain.

Spirituality, like any other perceptual experience is wholly subjective. The way it is communicated is the same way all perceptual experiences are transferred, through abstract constructs that define a personal interpretation of the experience. How does one "share" a spiritual experience? By attempting to repeat it. So is it identical for all? No it cannot be because there is no way to know the effects of a spiritual exercise. It cannot be objectively measured.

Brain chemistry is also atoms and molecules like the rest of the universe. There is no way of knowing whether brain chemistry is a symptom or a cause. i.e. do you have more adrenaline because you are afraid? Or are you afraid because you have more adrenaline?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Not all absolute realities have a name.

Not all absolute realities are anthropomorhphized either.

I have a headache. Its an absolute reality to me, though it may appear as anything from an excuse to a fantasy to someone else.

A key difference being there is evidence that headaches exist.

Until you get a headache, the concept of one is a fantasy to you.

Well no. My response is the same as above.

There is no way of knowing however if the concept of headache as defined by me is equal to the concept of headache as defined by you, except by mutually agreed symbolic representations of concepts, which are a consensus based on apparently shared perception of the phenomenon (headache).

I understand what you are saying and its not necessarily true. There are ways to measure the source, intensity, and quality of pain.

 

[S.A.M.]

Now that's funny! Thanks!

BTW, with no training whatsoever on your part, I can subject you to a voltage of 10,000V and observe and quantify the results. It will have required zero training or prerequisites for you to fully experience my physical knowledge of the electromotive force.

Wrong concept. You are telling me your experience, my experience is subject to my understanding of what is happening.

If I had locked you up at birth and released you just today, and tried to tell you that the wire in front of you had 10,000 V running through it, what would my words mean to you?

 

[S.A.M.]

Not all absolute realities are anthropomorhphized either.



A key difference being there is evidence that headaches exist.



Well no. My response is the same as above.



I understand what you are saying and its not necessarily true. There are ways to measure the source, intensity, and quality of pain.

I have a headache.

True or False?

 

[superluminal]

A belief system which does not satisfy a personal criteria of correctness is fantastic to one who does not accept it.

So, if I just accept the flat earth hypothesis, or the earth-centered universe, or the demon-posession theory of disease, they will make sense to me and seem "correct"? With no testing or analysis?

You seem to be descending into the absurd now sam.

Do you absolutely, 100% reject objectivity? In its entirety?

A belief system that does not satisfy the simple requirement of compelling evidence seems fantastic.

I intend no ad hom attack here at all, but your stance, coming from someone engaged in the pursuit of a scientific Phd still astounds me. I find it an extreme example of dichotomous or compartmentalized thinking. We should start a thread dedicated to analyzing your internal mental states. Seriously. I think it would be enlightening.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

A belief system which does not satisfy a personal criteria of correctness is fantastic to one who does not accept it.

In many cases this would be correct.

Whose reality? Reality is what you choose to believe. It is wholly subjective.

Reality is as objective as it gets. Your interpretation of reality is both objective and subjective.

Or any other political or social construct.

Meme's have those extra qualities of being infectious and resistant.

 

[superluminal]

Wrong.

If I had locked you up at birth and released you just today, and tried to tell you that the wire in front of you had 10,000 V running through it, what would my words mean to you?

Again, you miss the point entirely. The whole point of my statement is that my words or internal knowledge is irrelevant to the reality of the 10,000 volts! You have inadvertently supported my position! Voltage is a completely objective (strict definition) phenomenon and will fry you whether you "accept" it or not. Your internal beliefs, in and of themselves, can not be objectively proven! You have a headache? How am I to know? My point exactly!

You have spiritual enlightenment? How am I to know? Just like your headache. I have your word. That's it. Show me an external physical mechanism for the transmission of "spiritual" knowledge into your brain.

 

[S.A.M.]

So, if I just accept the flat earth hypothesis, or the earth-centered universe, or the demon-posession theory of disease, they will make sense to me and seem "correct"? With no testing or analysis?

You seem to be descending into the absurd now sam.

Do you absolutely, 100% reject objectivity? In its entirety?

A belief system that does not satisfy the simple requirement of compelling evidence seems fantastic.
.

And you fail to understand what I am saying.

Just because you are so blessed with reason and rationality and can immediately look at everything and all the codes in your brain inform you rationally what it all means objectively, is no reason to suppose that EVERYONE in the world is the same. What does a round world mean to someone totally bereft of any knowledge of science? Do they even wonder about it? What does the Milky Way galaxy mean to one who has never encountered the term (say some aborigine tribe in far Congo or something). Reality is based on what your perception is limited to.

If you accost this aborigine and question him about the flat earth hypothesis, it is not his rationality that will be questioned, but yours.

I intend no ad hom attack here at all, but your stance, coming from someone engaged in the pursuit of a scientific Phd still astounds me. I find it an extreme example of dichotomous or compartmentalized thinking. We should start a thread dedicated to analyzing your internal mental states. Seriously. I think it would be enlightening

The underlying implication being of course that I must be nuts.