Peer-review and exposure to criticism lets inferior ideas die by exposure. — hanaH

Damned! Sounds like the inquisition! Inferior ideas? What are these? Who are the so often quoted peers that review? They are people too. Who says their own ideas are not "inferior"? You mean scientific ideas? Other non-scientific ideas about the structure of reality,usually dismissed as non-sense and not corresponding to the scientific reality, which is just one among many. Now I don't care if these kinds of scientists consider their own ideas superior to those of others but they have the power to kill those other ideas. They wanna rob other people, with non-scientific ideas, from the very ideas that give meaning to their life. You can see people like a highly organized collection of elementary rishons, or like light and shiny undivisible forms of blueish elf-stuff, to name something. If one has the last perception of reality, then who are scientists to say that they fool themselves? Xenophanes still rules suppreme, so it looks.

There is always the possibility that self-anointed spiritual masters don't compete. That self-anointed spiritual masters aren't known. — James Riley

I grant that possibility, and personally I'd find something like a transcendence of rationality more plausible in those who had transcended the need for their "arguments" to be recognized by irreligious humanists.

To me scientific knowledge is finally or potentially practical ability, demonstrable and reliable power in the world.

Critical thinking takes more than being a critic. It takes analysis. Too many critics jump the gun. — James Riley

If this just means that critical types are slow to believe religious claims, I don't see how that's jumping the gun (in fact it looks like the opposite.)

I'm all for analysis. Let's count. Let's compare. Set up controlled experiment. Sift for correlations in data. Let's circumvent our cognitive biases, use our network nervous systems to learn about and improve those nervous systems with traditions of mutual criticism and education, etc.

Damned! Sounds like the inquisition! Inferior ideas? What are these? — GraveItty

"Hey guys, I can cure cancer. Just drink this goo!"

Harry M. Hoxsey had no medical training yet made millions hawking quack cancer “cures” to desperate patients for more than three decades, until FDA was able to help remove the products from the market in the 1950s. Hoxsey’s herb extract cancer treatment had no scientific basis, and while the legal case against Hoxsey unfolded, to help warn consumers, in 1957 FDA issued this poster and placed it in post offices around the country.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/products-claiming-cure-cancer-are-cruel-deception

In early Egyptian[8] and Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account from the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods."[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

There are some strange, dangerous and disturbing myths about HIV. Having sex with a virgin will not cure HIV, it will just put them at risk of the virus. There is no 'cure' for HIV, but taking your ART medicine every day will allow you to manage the virus and live a long and healthy life.

https://www.avert.org/infographics/sex-virgin-will-not-cure-hiv

They wanna rob other people, with non-scientific ideas, from the very ideas that give meaning to their life. — GraveItty

Xenophanes still rules suppreme, so it looks. — GraveItty

Personally I don't evangelize, nor do I expect religion or conspiracy theory to go away. FWIW, I've also read The Conquest of Abundance. Good stuff but not the last word.

Hi Wayfarer. Are you able to deconstruct for us "al-arif bi'lah"? Not to translate, but if possible to lay out what it means? — tim wood

I know next to nothing about Islamic terminology and philosophy. But from a general perspective, the key term in respect of the esoteric spiritual traditions, of which Sufism is one, is 'realisation'.

Realisation has several overlapping meanings. One is to comprehend something - 'I realised that...'. Another is to make something real - 'The construction company realised the vision of the architect...'

In this context, 'realisation' has both aspects. The 'realised being' both comprehends and exemplifies the Supreme Being. That is the culmination of the spiritual path, or 'self realisation'. Casting around for references, I found a published dissertation, The Sufi Journey towards Nondual Self Realisation which explains the topic in contemporary terms. Also an Interview with Henry Bayman.

I'm all for analysis. Let's count. Let's compare. Set up controlled experiment. Sift for correlations in data. Let's circumvent our cognitive biases, use our network nervous systems to learn about and improve those nervous systems with traditions of mutual criticism and education, etc. — hanaH

:100: :up: I agree. Let's do that.

Once upon a time there was X. He came down from the hill stop and said “I have created cold fusion!” Everyone raised an eyebrow, and rightly so. Some of the stupid people said “Prove it, X!” to which X replied “There is no way in hell I can prove anything to you, my child. For science knows full well that if you want to know something, you have to convince yourselves. That is why I have provided my protocols to the real scientists, who are already back at their labs, trying to replicate and satisfy themselves that I am either FOS, or that I might be on to something. That is how science works.”

On another mountain sat Y. A scientist crawled up the mountain and asked “What do you know that I don’t know?” Y responded, “To know what, if anything, that I might know that you don’t know, you will have to become me. Or, barring that, you must do what I do.” And the scientist said “Fuck that! I’m not going to sit up here on a sharp rock, freezing my ass off, starving and thirsty!” And Y just smiled and said “That is a good thing. For if you were to come here looking, you would not find. If you want to find, quit looking.” And the scientist crawled back down the mountain, smug in his knowledge that Y is FOS.

Two observations:

1. Both sides of this equation can be smug.
2. Science is not always willing to put in the work, replicate, and run the test.

Two questions:

1. What is science afraid of?
2. Has science ever had anyone go off the reservation and then return? If so, what did the returnee have to say about what, if anything, that Y might know that they didn’t know before he/she left? What are the numbers? Scientific minds might want to know.

He came down from the hill stop and said “I have created cold fusion!” Everyone raised an eyebrow, and rightly so. Some of the stupid people said “Prove it, X!” to which X replied “There is no way in hell I can prove anything to you, my child... — James Riley

Cold fusion matters because we want a better deal on energy than we have now. So the proof for the masses is that the lights stay on without anyone having to burn coal. Similarly, a correct(-enough) theory of aerodynamics is there in the plane that safely and reliably transports passengers over mountains and lakes.

1. Both sides of this equation can be smug.
2. Science is not always willing to put in the work, replicate, and run the test. — James Riley

Sure, humans are vain, smug, etc. And science doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's part of an economy. The incentive structure in academia could use some adjustment perhaps. Figuring out how to do so is probably something a scientist would be good at. But nobody was promised a utopia. If things are still flawed, they were even worse before (generally speaking.)

1. What is science afraid of? — James Riley

I think science boils down to the practical. A fake "cure" for cancer might lead to the death of person who should have trusted an actual treatment. More on your theme, though, a desperate person might spend the dregs of their bank account on spiritual seminars when their problem could be solved by diet, exercise, and a puppy. In my view, economy is central. Resources, including time, are finite. So it's not only about avoiding disaster. It's also about avoiding wasted motion.

More on your theme, though, a desperate person might spend the dregs of their bank account on spiritual seminars when their problem could be solved by diet, exercise, and a puppy. — hanaH

My theme appears to have missed it's mark. :smile:

Anyway, I tried to create a parable about scientists who pretended to intellectual curiosity, and not a desperate person. The need for me to work on my writing is proven once again. :sad: :smile:

Anyway, I tried to create a parable about scientists who pretended to intellectual curiosity, and not a desperate person. — James Riley

But why assume that those with scientific attitude aren't curious about religion, for instance?

Imagine a person who tried various spiritual fads and classics in their 20s and found them all wanting. Or we can think of a mundane spirituality that doesn't even need a fancy word for itself. She loves her mate, her pets, quality in all the little objects and tools in her life, mountain paths, good stories on TV, etc.

For me a scientific attitude is something like doing more with less, staying with the undeniable basics, working and thinking from there. Perhaps it's elitist in its way, like riding a bike with no hands. It annoys people who can't do it or just don't want to.

Two sentences:
1) I know God.
2) I know by (via, by means of) God. — tim wood

A reasonable distinction; but you cannot know that you "know by God". unless you know God, or?

What's in a preposition? The by makes all the difference. The wisdom and importance of little words, oft neglected by people who think they have big ideas, but don't. — tim wood

Yes. Some people attribute their own personal intuitions & instincts to a mysterious outside (extrinsic) source. When someone says he "trusts his gut", he's probably simply referring to the emotional heart rather than the rational head.

However, some literally believe that they are in communication with some spiritual realm : god, or jnana, or "inner knowledge of dharma", or Akashic Record, or spiritual gnosis. But most Western educated science-based thinkers simply assume that subconscious instincts & intuitions are the result of eons of incremental Darwinian programming into perpetuating genes. Which is more Believable, depends, I suppose, on innate or acquired individual preferences. Which is more True though, remains debatable on philosophical forums. However, there seems to be an interesting parallel between Paranoia (unwarranted feelings) and Intuition (gut feelings). :cool:


Trust your gut… That’s God speaking through you
http://hannahebroaddus.com/trust-your-gut-thats-god-speaking-through-you/

Difference between paranoia and intuition :
Paranoia is defined as: Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification. And here's the definition of intuition: The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intuition+vs+paranoia+cheating

Carl Jung on Gnostic, Gnosis, Gnosticism :

Imagine a person who tried various spiritual fads and classics in their 20s and found them all wanting. — hanaH

That right there is closer to what I was talking about, especially if they replicated in the experiment. That, of course, might be defeated if part of the replication involved not trying. On other words, those who go outward in search of what is inside, or those who go inward in search of what is outside, may not be replicating in the experiment. But I'd like to know if science has studied this, or at least logged some data points for future study.

For me a scientific attitude is something like doing more with less, staying with the undeniable basics, working and thinking from there. Perhaps it's elitist in its way, like riding a bike with no hands. It annoys people who can't do it or just don't want to. — hanaH

With all the time and money dumped into long-term scientific studies, in the field and in the lab, I find that an unwillingness to follow some simple protocols from a simple person to be indicative of fear, laziness, insecurity or snobbery. Annoying? Only when they put on their critic shoes, sans analysis. It's not like it takes a lot of time or money to go off the reservation and up the river for a year or less.

Hi Wayfarer. Are you able to deconstruct for us "al-arif bi'lah"? — tim wood

Pardon my intrusion, but I googled it, and this is one explanation :
"This Man is the one who has fulfilled his 'reason to be'. He has purified himself in readiness to receive the supreme mystic knowledge . . .:
http://www.almirajsuficentre.org.au/qamus/app/single/168

Imagine a person who tried various spiritual fads and classics in their 20s and found them all wanting. — hanaH

When I was young I spent 15 years respectfully trying to understand revealed wisdom and higher consciousness, spending my time in the company of theosophists, self-described Gnostics, Buddhists, devotees of Ouspensky/Gurdjieff, Steiner, etc. What I tended to find was insecure people obsessed with status and hierarchy who had simply channeled their materialism into spirituality. There were the same fractured inter-personal relationships, jealousies, substance abuse and chasing after real estate and status symbols that characterise any secular person. I have since taken the view that the nature of human beings doesn't change, no matter what their professed metaphysics.

:up:

I think the definition I offered accords with that.

When I was young I spent 15 years respectfully trying to understand revealed wisdom and higher consciousness, spending my time in the company of theosophists, self-described Gnostics, Buddhists, devotees of Ouspensky/Gurdjieff, Steiner, etc. What I tended to find was insecure people obsessed with status and hierarchy who had simply channeled their materialism into spirituality. — Tom Storm

That sounds so predictable. And it highlights what seems to me to be an oxymoronic (emphasis on moronic) problem with the idea of being "in the company of" whilst pursuing what the OP referred to as "personally revealed wisdom". It's like the distinction between spirituality and religion. In my limited experience anyway, personally revealed wisdom was totally personal.

There were the same fractured inter-personal relationships, jealousies, substance abuse and chasing after real estate and status symbols that characterise any secular person. I have since taken the view that the nature of human beings doesn't change, no matter what their professed metaphysics. — Tom Storm

That is true not only for those with professed metaphysics, but professed physics, science or what have you. Of course you allowed for that with your inclusion of secular people. In other words, people is people. If you want personally revealed wisdom, you might want to put some distance between yourself and other people. It's also been my experience that many folks don't want to do that because they can't stand having themselves around.

It's very curious. I haven't seeked wisdom in East as it were. But I do know some Buddhists, who were kind enough and not in-you-face like many Christians, who can be really freaking' annoying.

But, I've also met a few of them who did try to show me stuff that supposedly led to enlightenment, or something like this. When I looked at the material, as it was, it looked to me like pretty low quality thinking. When I said this in a nice manner, they would take this attitude of "I have access to something you won't get". I did not like that.

On the other hand, people who practice Zen or who read classical figures seriously, don't bother me at all. They seem to me to be respectable enough. It's when others (less talented) try to ram it down your throat that it becomes a problem.

It's also been my experience that many folks don't want to do that because they can't stand having themselves around. — James Riley

That's so true. Good line.

On the other hand, people who practice Zen or who read classical figures seriously, don't bother me at all. They seem to me to be respectable enough. It's when others (less talented) try to ram it down your throat that it becomes a problem. — Manuel

I have nothing against people who follow contemplative paths. Who am I to get in other's way? And naturally there are sincere and good people involved. But I have noticed some of these folk do enjoy (if that's the correct verb) looking down on secular folk as unsophisticated yokels. That's what I would expect from the more strident atheist apologists for scientism.

The one figure I found interesting was Jiddu Krishnamurti who was likely no freer of base instincts, lust, materialism and celebrity worship than anyone else. But he dispensed some good ideas.

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth.”
― J Krishnamurti

We live in a culture of the 'tyranny of the ordinary'. Not for nothing did Alan Watts call his last book 'The Taboo against Knowing who you Are'.

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth.” — Krishnamurti

Had a big impact on me, that speech. No path, maybe, but a mountain nonetheless. From a few paragraphs further down:

Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. — Krishnamurti

But I have noticed some of these folk do enjoy (if that's the correct verb) looking down on secular folk as unsophisticated yokels. That's what I would expect from the more strident atheist apologists for scientism. — Tom Storm

Yes. It's rather strange. It's as if the ends meetup in the same place. The hard line scientistic sides and the really far gone (vulgarized, popularized) Eastern types end up looking at you either as a lover of woo or as a dry closed-minded nim wit, respectively.

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth.” — Tom Storm

He was interesting in several ways. He has a few good lines and spoke reasonably well. Sure, there's something to gain from most things.

It's not like it takes a lot of time or money to go off the reservation and up the river for a year or less. — James Riley

What you are missing here, it seems to me, is the wild plurality of ways of going off reservation, and the wild plurality of error. There are far more wrong ways to do something than right ways.

How did you find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How was your experiment with Scientology? Did Jainism live up to your expectations? Have you done your "research" on the claims of Q?

Do you see my point?

We live in a culture of the 'tyranny of the ordinary'. Not for nothing did Alan Watts call his last book 'The Taboo against Knowing who you Are'. — Wayfarer

I do understand this point but Alan Watts is a great example of physician heal thyself, hey? Anxiety ridden, addicted to booze. Really he was a mess. God love him. His book on Zen started me thinking about higher consciousness and different ways of seeing decades ago. I always wished I had met him on his big boat. Did you even meet him?

Anxiety ridden, addicted to booze. Really he was a mess. — Tom Storm

Well aware of that. Back in the day, early twenties, I used to drive a cab. I picked up some ultra-cool American dude to take him to the airport. Trying to impress him, I talked about Alan Watts for a bit. Silence. Then, 'did you know he died an alcoholic?' I didn't know that, and was shocked by it. Later I read Monica Furlong's book, sold here under the title Genuine Fake. So, yes, he was dissolute, sexually promiscuous, with a terrible alcohol problem. Unlike me, who has lived on a remote mountain top subsisting on nettle soup and owning only a blanket for my whole adult life.

We live in a culture of the 'tyranny of the ordinary'. Not for nothing did Alan Watts call his last book 'The Taboo against Knowing who you Are'. — Wayfarer

That sounds absurd to me. Look around and see the profusion of healers and gurus and visionaries now available without leaving your home. I doubt that the world has ever offered such a spiritual buffet to the average person, along with the lifespan and leisure to enjoy such things.

The "tyranny" that troubles some may be the absence of tyranny, namely the freedom of others to be unimpressed by their claims of spiritual status or insight.

Consider also that irreligious humanism is likely at least as rare as "spiritual but not religious."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-04/spiritual-supernatural-realities-australians-weig-in-this-easter/100046122

Also:

Across the 34 countries, which span six continents, a median of 45% say it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values. But there are large regional variations in answers to this question.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/07/20/the-global-god-divide/

What you are missing here, it seems to me, is the wild plurality of ways of going off reservation, and the wild plurality of error. There are far more wrong ways to do something than right ways. — hanaH

I'm not missing that at all. In fact, I think science is somewhat like that. There are more misses than hits. In fact, some even try to intentionally exhaust the misses first, in order to explore the remainder. Why would science expect to be exempt from one area of enquiry, but not another?

How did you find The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How was your experiment with Scientology? Did Jainism live up to your expectations? Have you done your "research" on the claims of Q?

Do you see my point? — hanaH

The point I'm not getting is the link between LDS, Scientology, Jainism (or any other religion) and "personally revealed wisdom." See OP. Or, as I said a few posts up: "And it highlights what seems to me to be an oxymoronic (emphasis on moronic) problem with the idea of being "in the company of" whilst pursuing what the OP referred to as "personally revealed wisdom". It's like the distinction between spirituality and religion. In my limited experience anyway, personally revealed wisdom was totally personal.

Look around and see the profusion of healers and gurus and visionaries now available without leaving your home. — hanaH

All very appealing to the consumer. It's the 'spiritual supermarket'. Try typing 'mindfulness' into the Amazon search bar. But that doesn't obviate the critique, although I don't know if I want to try and spell it out in detail right at the moment.

What I tended to find was insecure people obsessed with status and hierarchy who had simply channeled their materialism into spirituality. There were the same fractured inter-personal relationships, jealousies, substance abuse and chasing after real estate and status symbols that characterise any secular person. I have since taken the view that the nature of human beings doesn't change, no matter what their professed metaphysics. — Tom Storm

I like that you stress professed metaphysics and looked at how these "spiritual" types actually lived. There's a place reserved in my heart for something like the true mystic or the true saint...but I've only ever met flawed human beings in pursuit of the Cure rather than in possession of it. To be fair, the sense that one is on the way to the treasure is itself a form of treasure. Beginnings are sexy, but they don't last, hence the next big thing, the mutation or guide that/who finally gets it right. I mention "Cure" but I don't even accept that there's a disease. We did get smart enough, after centuries of work, to suspect that we didn't come with instructions from some perfect father-creator writ large.

But that doesn't obviate the critique, although I don't know if I want to try and spell it out in detail right at the moment. — Wayfarer

You and @baker both seem to be echoing Nietzsche's disgust with the last man.

The Last Man is the individual who specializes not in creation, but in consumption. In the midst of satiating base pleasures, he claims to have “discovered happiness” by virtue of the fact that he lives in the most technologically advanced and materially luxurious era in human history.

But this self-infatuation of the Last Man conceals an underlying resentment, and desire for revenge. On some level, the Last Man knows that despite his pleasures and comforts, he is empty and miserable. With no aspiration and no meaningful goals to pursue, he has nothing he can use to justify the pain and struggle needed to overcome himself and transform himself into something better. He is stagnant in his nest of comfort, and miserable because of it. This misery does not render him inactive, but on the contrary, it compels him to seek victims in the world. He cannot bear to see those who are flourishing and embodying higher values, and so he innocuously supports the complete de-individualization of every person in the name of equality.

https://academyofideas.com/2017/10/nietzsche-and-zarathustra-last-man-superman/