Prerequisites for Spiritual Knowledge

[lightgigantic]

Supe

So, what you are saying LG, PJ (I'm not sure what you think) and others, is that you can not and will not use reason and simple observation to make reasonable judgements about the world. Ok. Or , you will rely on philosophy to yield your answers. And therefore, the debates.

no
i am saying that having a greater skills base allows for the greater penetration of reason - for instance, amongst people in general, police have a greater application of reason to determine the evidence of a crime scene - and amongst police, forensic detectives etc etc

“
I addressed this earlier - you are not actually making me perceive electricity when you electrocute me - even though I may experience great pain (if I don't die before hand) by such an experience, I do not actually gather any substantial knowledge about electricity
”
Can anyone support me on this? I'm not particularly stupid. Is this some kind of linguistic free-for-all? We can assign (or deny) meaning to any words we like just to suit our argumant?

So, without knowledge of physics you are not percieving the wind? The sunshine? Why are we associating simple perception with the gathering of "substantial knowledge"?

if all I have to go by in determiningthe phenomena of electricity is a wire (and you with a knob in your hand saying "Ok are you ready for this") I have a very minimal understanding of it - like for instance suppose a person comes to install lights in my house and says "I am going to have install electricity for these things to work" I could shriek in terror and scream I don't want electricity in my house

Can you percieve sunshine without knowledge of photons? It's just called sunshine because we need a label. It has some distinct characteristics.

you can of course, but knowledge of refracting light that explains the redness of sunsets and the blueness of sky and the suitability of green for plants to photosynthesize would probably be beyond me - BTW - a key element of knowledge of anything is knowledge of its source, so to see sunshine and the sun planet enables quite a degree of knowledge (unlike electricity the source is obscure - like I might think the knob is the source, the wire is the source or you are the source)

Can you percieve the phenomenon known as "wind" without knowledge of molecules?

perhaps a little bit more obscure than the sun becasue the source of the wind is not so easily perceivable

Can you percieve the pain-causing phenomenon I choose to call "electricity" without knowledge of electrons?

yes, but if all I have to go by to determine electricity is supe, a knob and a wire = intense pain my knowledge base of electricity is not so grand

I can make you feel the same painful sensations in exact degrees everytime I apply my "electricity" to your arm. You will (I assume) eventually come to accept that I have some real, predictable powers under my control. Based purely on your empirical experiences.

and therefore I don't understand much about electricity except pain - compare this to if I get an education and got built up in the fundamental theories that underpins scientific knowledge

Let me anticipate your argument that I might have duped or hypnotized you into only "thinking" you're feeling this pain. If this is the case, then there is nothing to discuss because every argument about the reality of anything (existnce itself) can be ended by this device. Let's not. Fair enough?

i agree it is a stupid argument and for a second there I thought you were advocating "nothing is objective - everything is subjective"

So, can we agree that I can demonstrate the existence of some pain causing phenomenon I call "electricity" that causes a sensation distinctly different from most other phenomena? One that I can control precisely and predictably based on the position of my "knob of pain"?

electricity is a whole lot more than tat - and the knowledge you transmit is highly imperfect - like for instance cows that get trained up by empirical experiences with electric fences don't go near them even when they are turned off for weeks at a time

What I am trying to get at here is the simple recognition that there are no requirements of advanced knowledge of many phenomena to percieve their basic existence. Is this in any way disputed?

the format that experience exists in requires a bit more background, as evidenced by the cows with electric fences

Now. Let us assume there are "prerequisites" to spiritual knowledge. What is the empirical reason that drives you to the gedankens of spirituality? Is it simply that you cannot believe in a universe that works on demonstrable, physical processes and must rationalize this in your mind?

if the physical processes could demonstrate commonly held contemporary theories of the universe there would be no curiousity
Curiousity comes in at number two in terms of the best reasons to approach god
the third is the desire to accumulate wealth/power and the last is the desire to be free from a suffering condition of life - the first is to desireto know the nature of the absolute

these are the four initial premises given in BG by which a person begins to take to spiritual life

So. Can you give me an experience of "spirituality", like my "electricity" that would cause me to want to investigate it further? To gain the advanced spiritual knowledge, equivalent to becoming an electrical engineer?

you are getting it in the material world at virtually every moment - sufferings caused by ones own body and mind - sufferings caused by the body or mind of other living entities - sufferings caused by natural phenomena

Just as you label the intense pain I feel as electricity, a theist labels the inescapable pain and suffering of living (birth, death, old age and disease in an atmosphere of attachment to an (apparently) ephemeral existence) as the result of being ignorant/incomplete/imperfect in one's practice of spiritual life

Your argument that to percieve the effects of god requires advanced spiritual knowledge is exactly the same as saying that unless you are a physicist or engineer, you will not feel anything by touching a live wire. Only with "engineering enlightenment" will you recieve a shock.

an electrician (and not really a physicist, who probably couldn't even change a light bulb) touches a wire and knows how to turn of the power so he doesn't get shocked again - an ignorant person gets zapped repeatedly - similarly the theist knows how to address the nature of suffering in the material world while the atheist gets kicked repeatedly in the face like a he-ass chasing a she-ass for sex all day (and thinking "life is very sweet" the whole time)

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That is exactly what I don't like about memes. They ascribe physical properties to philosophical constructs. Misleading and specious.

Well, a unit of information in someone's brain is quite physical. The process to communicate that information is physical. The resulting behavior of being exposed to that information is physical. I'm not aware of anything that isn't physical.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, a unit of information in someone's brain is quite physical. The process to communicate that information is physical. The resulting behavior of being exposed to that information is physical. I'm not aware of anything that isn't physical.

how about your 'awareness'

 

[superluminal]

an electrician (and not really a physicist, who probably couldn't even change a light bulb) touches a wire and knows how to turn of the power so he doesn't get shocked again - an ignorant person gets zapped repeatedly - similarly the theist knows how to address the nature of suffering in the material world while the atheist gets kicked repeatedly in the face like a he-ass chasing a she-ass for sex all day (and thinking "life is very sweet" the whole time)

Well, LG, As I said, I'm really not up for this level of miscommunication. I understand exactly what you are saying but you seem to be unable to acknowledge my position.

As for the sources of suffering in this world being a mystical/spiritual thing, I think you're wrong. You ascribe some mechanism beyond the physical biochemical processes that make up the psyche. The "spiritual" practices you are involved in simply cause neurotransmitter feedback loops that either enhance your psyche and modify your behavior accordingly, or not. Those who practice zen meditation (myself included) for instance can find that it results in a better ability to calm oneself in times of stress or free the mind to visualize or conceptualize things more clearly by the discipline of reducing self-generated mental "noise".

The mistake is in thinking that this is anything more than the amazing mechanism of positive neurological feedback.

My only point in this entire discussion is that. Every scrap of evidence points to a purely materialistic root for all of the spiritual and mystical phenomena you can describe.

Also, your characterization of atheists (above) is wrong. I understand the sources of suffering in the world. Most of us heathens have looked in some detail at the different ways that this suffering is addressed. Our solutions (yours and mine) might be suprisingly similar, but your approach is far less likely to ever be a benefit for the masses. My approach (empirical) is more likely lead to a far deeper understanding of the root causes of, and relief from, this suffering at it's biochemical base.

That's really all I have to say about it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, LG, As I said, I'm really not up for this level of miscommunication. I understand exactly what you are saying but you seem to be unable to acknowledge my position.

unless I am wrong, you are saying that here is no necessary prerequisites for an experience - I would agree with that. However when it comes to developing reason on the basis of that experience (ie perceiving evidence) a further foundation of knowlegd is required.

the example is that despite cows getting zapped by an electric fence, their understanding of the evidence of electricity is faulty (becasue they shy away from an electric fence for weeks on end after it has been turned off - in other words they perceivethe evidence for electricity where there is no evidence)

As for the sources of suffering in this world being a mystical/spiritual thing, I think you're wrong.

suffering is not mystical/spiritual - it is material - the cause of it is ignorance of the spiritual (and when one is no longer on ignorance about it, it is no longer 'mystical')

You ascribe some mechanism beyond the physical biochemical processes that make up the psyche.

that wasn't quite what i was on about - I was advocating in that particular example that there is an ultimate cause that exists outside of current reductionist paradigms (at the very least there is no unified field theory)

The "spiritual" practices you are involved in simply cause neurotransmitter feedback loops that either enhance your psyche and modify your behavior accordingly, or not.

actually my point was not so much about the subjective experience of suffering in the material world - I was more on about the frequency of occsssions of suffering

Here is an example - it is becoming increasingly obvious that the frequency of natural disasters (or irregularities in weather conditions) bears a relationship with our contemporary industrial lifestyles. You never find a scriptural refernce for the opening up of vast industrial complexes that threaten to make varieties of species extinct and reduce the mental and physical well being of humans all in the name of securing enough economic development to have a place to sleep and food to eat (which BTW moden industry cannot deliver anyway). So when such activities are engaged in (activities contrary to natural laws that govern/establish the necessary framework for economic development to function) we get irregular weather patterns which disturbs not only our attendence to a stadium to get a personalised autograph by Paris Hilton but also such important activities as agriculture (hence famine, etc etc). If we examine this, the ultimate cause is not the forces of nature (which are deputed agencies of god - although I am sur e you would disagree) but the way people are acting in this world - and the reason is lust and greed (which has the tendency of covering one's intelligence) - hence you find statements like these about who is the ultimate enemy and casue of all suffering

BG 3.37: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world.

so if you want to determine what is the most effective way to solve causes of suffering, you have to examine what is the most effective way of dealing with lust (and unfortunately its not as simple as saying "Don't do it")

Those who practice zen meditation (myself included) for instance can find that it results in a better ability to calm oneself in times of stress or free the mind to visualize or conceptualize things more clearly by the discipline of reducing self-generated mental "noise".

this is one way of dealing with lust - the only problem with it is when one finishes one's meditation one resumes lustful activities

(BTW I hope you don't suffer from any hang ups regarding the word lust that makes communication impossible - lust is simply the pushing of one's senses (touch taste etc) that drive one to fulfill them in the name of happiness, however the result of such fulfillment is that the senses push one even harder after they are satiated - thus a person who is making $200 is not satisfied unless they make $800, the person making $800 is not satisfied unless they make $5000 and the person making $1 000 000 is not satisfied unless they make $100 000 000) - thus the pursuing of happiness under th e influence of lust is actually the pursuit of misery

The mistake is in thinking that this is anything more than the amazing mechanism of positive neurological feedback.

how does understanding one's neurological feedback help deal with lust (and why aren't current understandings of neurological feedback helpful in dealing with the problem of lust?)

My only point in this entire discussion is that. Every scrap of evidence points to a purely materialistic root for all of the spiritual and mystical phenomena you can describe.

It may be apparent - but there is a difference between things that appear apparent and things that are actually real (ie evidential) - at the very least there is no body of empirical evidence to back up your statements (if consciousness is a material phenomena they are yet to produce or observe life coming from inert matter)

Also, your characterization of atheists (above) is wrong. I understand the sources of suffering in the world. Most of us heathens have looked in some detail at the different ways that this suffering is addressed. Our solutions (yours and mine) might be suprisingly similar, but your approach is far less likely to ever be a benefit for the masses.

therefore the masses are less intelligent - it is a rare person who is capable of dealing with lust - ideally they should be the leaders in society (unfortunately this is not the case - on the contrary you have people who advocate that one should satisfy lust, and thus secure the support of the masses by appealing to their lesser intelligence).

As for atheists solving the problem of suffering, no doubt there are very resourceful proposed solutions to the problems of lust, but they are like a doctor that very expertly deals with the symptoms while encouraging the cause to flourish

My approach (empirical) is more likely lead to a far deeper understanding of the root causes of, and relief from, this suffering at it's biochemical base.

Yiu may do a lot of work, you may even secure the admiration of people in general and receive lots of grant money, but you will not be able to approach the problems of lust by a molecular reductionist paradigm

 

[Crunchy Cat]

how about your 'awareness'

If awareness is an effect as reality seems to indicate then it would be physical.

 

[superluminal]

Well light, your post is a clone of all your others and bypasses my points neatly. Like I said, I really have nothing more to say about it. Your certainty:

...but you will not be able to approach the problems of lust by a molecular reductionist paradigm

is reassuring. You obviously have the answer we all want. Pity you can't present it without the curtain of deep philosophical obfuscation you drape over every post.

You really are just an eastern philosophy evangelist. PJ and sam like discussing with you. That's nice. Have fun.

 

[superluminal]

If awareness is an effect as reality seems to indicate then it would be physical.

How so CC? What is reality? What is physical? How can you quantify "awareness"?

 

[lightgigantic]

Well light, your post is a clone of all your others and bypasses my points neatly. Like I said, I really have nothing more to say about it. Your certainty:



is reassuring. You obviously have the answer we all want. Pity you can't present it without the curtain of deep philosophical obfuscation you drape over every post.

You really are just an eastern philosophy evangelist. PJ and sam like discussing with you. That's nice. Have fun.

[insult deleted]

as for presenting lust - its quite obvious - its more difficult to not present it - you can hardly go 2 metres in any city with out encountering some media enhanced exhibition of it

 

[Crunchy Cat]

How so CC?

Neurons, dendrites, electrons, etc. are all physical components and the effect of awarness would be a physical effect (assuming that awareness is an effect of the brain of course).

What is reality?

As far as I can tell its the presence of information and its relationships.

What is physical?

What is.

How can you quantify "awareness"?

I don't recall there being a method of doing this yet.

 

[superluminal]

CC,

Your post is frought with dubious assumptions, hollow statements, and reductionist dogma.

What am I going to do with you my child?

*forces CC to chant "reality is the illusion" for 24 hours without a pee break*

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, a unit of information in someone's brain is quite physical. The process to communicate that information is physical. The resulting behavior of being exposed to that information is physical. I'm not aware of anything that isn't physical.

Sorry Gandolf, I had no idea you were using the Pensieve to store your "physical" memes.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

CC,

Your post is frought with dubious assumptions, hollow statements, and reductionist dogma.

What am I going to do with you my child?

*forces CC to chant "reality is the illusion" for 24 hours without a pee break*

Eek! Bladder... going to... burst...

 

[superluminal]

Sorry Gandolf, I had no idea you were using the Pensieve to store your "physical" memes.

Good one sam. I too ridicule and laugh at the clearly senseless idea of a "physical" basis for anything to do with the mind. How silly.

 

[superluminal]

Eek! Bladder... going to... burst...

Bladder ?!?!

*smacks CC upside the head*

What bladder? Have you learned nothing? Your bladder is an illusion and if you had paid any attention in metaphysics 433 you would know how to treat it as such.

I'll go get a mop.

*whacks CC another one on the noggin*

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sorry Gandolf, I had no idea you were using the Pensieve to store your "physical" memes.

It's called a brain sam... *bites lip at the temptation of oodles of ad hom*

 

[S.A.M.]

Good one sam. I too ridicule and laugh at the clearly senseless idea of a "physical" basis for anything to do with the mind. How silly.

Philosophy 101:

What is mind?

What is meme?

Mind=meme?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Bladder ?!?!

*smacks CC upside the head*

What bladder? Have you learned nothing? Your bladder is an illusion and if you had paid any attention in metaphysics 433 you would know how to treat it as such.

I'll go get a mop.

*whacks CC another one on the noggin*

I tried to pay attention in metaphysics 433, but my teacher kept on trying to lobodomize me + the swiss cheese spirits of udderna still want to lather my purple apocolyptic eating pony with felt sausage puppies... eep! Did I just say that? Hey my edumication is finally paying me minimum wage!

 

[S.A.M.]

It's called a brain sam... *bites lip at the temptation of oodles of ad hom*

Ah, your pensieve is your brain, explains why your brain appears to reside separately from the rest of you.

 

[superluminal]

Philosophy 101:

What is mind?

What is meme?

Mind=meme?

The temptation to make a string of hilarious nonsense syllables here is almost beyond my abilities to deny.