Yes, absolutely. I classify such utterances under "poetic ontology", "poetic epistemology", and other poetic suches. There's plenty of this in literature. It doesn't occur to me to think of the utterers of such utterances as having "mental health problems". — baker
See the beans in my hand in my avatar? I grow them. There is something absolutely transcendental to growing food and other plants. I'm just very careful about what I say about this to whom and when. There are other gardeners who understand very well what I'm talking about. And I know there are people (some of whom garden) who have no clue what I'm talking about. — baker
The florist feels no such need to convince others. — baker
Take a more down-to-earth example of a "private investigation": Recovering after an injury. You, with your particular injury, with your particular socio-economic givens, with your particular psychological and other givens are the subject of the investigation required for recovery. First you'll have to spend the time somehow when immobilized, and then you'll have to retrain the injured limb. Take care of all the changes in your life that have occured because of the injury. And throughout all this time and effort, you will have to think about things, act in very specific ways. You will have to investigate.I understand Baker's quote. It just seems to stretch the meaning of 'investigation.' The notion of 'Direct Experience' is an epistemic disaster. Think of the strong criticisms of sense-data empiricism. This stuff is private by definition, so it makes an absurd foundation for science, however initially plausible. Instead we have to start with (theory-laden) observation statements. — j0e
I think a big part of the problem is the trend toward general democratization, egalitarization: the idea that just anyone should be able to have access to just anything, on their own terms. Initiation (whether in religion/spirituality, or in the trades and other professional fields) serves some important purposes. It's not just about protecting the "secrets of the trade" or "keeping out the unwanted", it's also for the purpose of not confusing the uninitiated.Granted there are journeys into the interior, the self making sense of the self, we can still talk about what 'self' is supposed to mean here and how language works. I think the issue is trying to be philosophical and rational and at the same time gesturing beyond rationality. It's as if the mystic can't leave behind the desire to be recognized as some sort of scientist of the interior, hence metaphors like 'truth' and 'knowledge' for something that's also called 'mythos' or 'gnosis.'
Imagine what would happen to the economy if there would be no guilds (with all their functions of preserving and advancing knowledge of a particular field of expertise, making sure that their practitioners live up to the standards of the trade, and so on): it would collapse, or produce relatively low quality items.One issue is that a science of the the interior is only possible with the assumption of similarity, but such an assumption cannot be justified via Direct Experience.
Oh, the unenlightened florist who hasn't yet learned how to chop wood and carry water again.But what of the imperfect florist? The aspirant florist? I can imagine ego-battles at the florist convention. — j0e
Yesssss. I'm guilty of it too. But, in my defense, I'm aware of it, and taking credit for it.Is it a performative contradiction to try to defend/explain the esoteric in a 'neutral' or boringly, typically 'rational' conversation?
When one learns how to chop wood and carry water again ...Does 'nondiscursive knowledge' make sense ? I could live with 'religion as know-how' but that's not the claim, I don't think. 'The world is a purple rose' is a Higher Truth. No doubt it can function internally (all florist nod and repeat it) but if it's not for godless philosophers to understand, then why bring it to the table? Or how can one do this and avoid evangelizing?
It takes a while to get to that point where Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan is:Second point: I think people want recognition, sometimes (impossibly) for being beyond the need for recognition. I don't deny that some can temporarily truly be beyond that need. It's even an ego-ideal to transcend such a humiliating itch.
There's some taboo-violation there, right? — j0e
Does 'nondiscursive knowledge' make sense ? — j0e
The world is a purple rose' is a Higher Truth — j0e
Or how can one do this and avoid evangelizing? — j0e
Hence the relationship between perennialism and reactionary political movements. At least, it’s highly non-PC. — Wayfarer
Described as ‘non-conceptual wisdom’. Obviously a very difficult question as it can’t be conceptualised. Again it is related to that elusive idea of non-duality. — Wayfarer
Again, the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ - ‘religious awakening’ as akin to psychopathology or a best a edifying delusion. I guess that’s because from the outside there’s no way of telling whether ‘the florist’ is a visionary or a schizophrenic. — Wayfarer
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness... — Cor 1:23
Interesting question. ‘Evangalizing’ is usually specific to the propagation of the Bible. Commitment to there being a higher truth is a philosophical perspective. But it’s not a popular idea. Why ‘bring it to the table’? Because it’s an important philosophical question. — Wayfarer
Initiation (whether in religion/spirituality, or in the trades and other professional fields) serves some important purposes. It's not just about protecting the "secrets of the trade" or "keeping out the unwanted", it's also for the purpose of not confusing the uninitiated. — baker
Imagine what would happen to the economy if there would be no guilds (with all their functions of preserving and advancing knowledge of a particular field of expertise, making sure that their practitioners live up to the standards of the trade, and so on): it would collapse, or produce relatively low quality items.
It's what is happening to religion/spirituality. — baker
Oh, the unenlightened florist who hasn't yet learned how to chop wood and carry water again. — baker
Yesssss. I'm guilty of it too. But, in my defense, I'm aware of it, and taking credit for it. — baker
What do we make of elitist, esoteric 'knowledge'? — j0e
Knowledge is usually defined as true belief with sufficient evidence. So knowledge is an objectification of belief. But it is also possible to have true belief without sufficient evidence. — Pantagruel
Faith and reason have been separated out such that knowledge and reason have been tied together as concerned with merely objective facticity, logical coherence, and “merely” instrumental (as opposed to political) power on the one hand, and religion, values, and the interpretation of meanings has been tied together and cordoned off from the world of objective knowledge and political power, and given over to the realm of subjective personal freedom.
A lot turns on 'evidence' and what constitutes it. — Wayfarer
Religious/spiritual communities function like guilds. Religious/spiritual practices are intended to be taken up within the context of a religious/spiritual community.Note that you mention guilds. Those make perfect sense to me. That's peer review! That's not the isolated insight that doesn't communicated itself. That's skill recognizing skill. My criticism of Direct Experience is not that it fails to gesture at something vague but important but that any kind of sociality needs more. — j0e
I suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PratyekabuddhaThat's not the isolated insight that doesn't communicated itself. — j0e
It's, basically, what religion/spirituality is all about.What do we make of elitist, esoteric 'knowledge' ? — j0e
I suggest you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha
Do tell me what you think of it. — baker
"The idea of a Paccekabuddha … is interesting, as much as it implies that even when the four truths are not preached they still exist and can be discovered by anyone who makes the necessary mental and moral effort". — link
Rather, people have some vague interest in some type of religion/spirituality, they join a group, a community, there, they get instructions for practices, they do the practices, and then they have "direct experiences". Which they can then compare, if they feel so inclined, or not. — baker
Let's talk about the interpersonal aspect, peer to peer. Do I talk the other as an outsider who needs my secret? Or do I see the other as already essentially equal ? Is the sage a different kind of being, a father, or just a brother, older or younger perhaps, but some worth considering, engaging with?Why? Could you explain? — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.