I think that Wilbef does recognise the difference between science and the scientist because he emphasise the witness state of the scientist as a phenomenological component. In a way, it could be about the partial aspects of 'truth' of the scientist, as with the partial aspects of all human knowledge.

I don't think that Wilber was trying to depict a new paradigm and recognised that some philosophy in the past had a more synthetic approach. He may have not been that influencd by Spinoza because I have just looked in the index and there is no entry in the volume which I am reading.

My understanding of what Wilber means by contemplation is both of speculative reflection and experience of a mystical nature. He draws upon the ideas of the Christian mystic, St Bonadventure but incorporates the general stance of meditation, suggesting that meditation is 'a sustained instrumental path of transcendence'. He also incorporates the idea of the 'perennial philosophy, stating,
'The most striking feature of the perennial philosophy/psychology is that it presents being and consciousness as a nested harvest of dimensional levels, moving from densest , and most fragmentary realms to the highest, subtlest and most unitary ones'

His understanding of the absolute is the paradox underlying all experiences, stating that 'the Absolute is both the highest state of being and the ground of all being; it is both the goal of evolution the ground of evolution; the stage of development and the reality or suchness of all .development; the highest of all conditions and the highest of all conditions and the Condiion of all conditions; the highest rung in the ladder and the wood out of which the entire ladder is made...'

I have to admit that I am not completely convinced of his line of argument in many places because he seems to be talking in riddles. However, I do think that he is into something, especially as he draws upon hermeurics as the way of human meaning which cannot be captured fully through empirical proof or the analysis of rationality.

[[reply="180 Proof;1031851" I am.aware that my thread and arguments are a bit flaky, but I am inspired by reading Wilber. I may start it as a new thread during the holiday period, but, of course, I will.read any posts which are written in this particular thread.

I am reading Ken Wilber's 'Eye to Eye: The Quest for the New Paradigm and found the following quote very useful in relation to the question raised in my thread:
'we have fallen from a union with spirit (a union found not in the dregs of an infantile past, but in the depths the timeless present) and we can regain that spiritual union- but only if we grow in a transcendence of ego, and not simply recapture an infantile self'

The reason why this point is worth reflecting upon is because there is so much emphasis on the personal.'self' within psychology and philosophy. Of course, the personal aspects of exploration are important but it can become shallow if it focuses on the ego needs too strongly. This was argued by Jung in his' Model Man in Search for Soul'

Wilber's look at the history of culture and consciousness incorporates ideas from shamanism as he suggests,
'The advanced mode of the magical-forsging era was thus most definitely alive to profound realms of authentic spiritual development.. His argument emphasises the mythic depths of searching and may correspond with the authenticity of philosophy exploration in its own right.

I am happy to swap the term 'spiritual' for numinous, especially as I have read Rudof Otto on numinousity. I have always been interested in Abraham.Maslow's idea of self-actualization and peak experiences. The creative process is involved and it has less of a quasi religious aspect than what may often be called spiritual. Eureka moments or epiphanies are important in the process of human individuation or a person's life quest..

As for the idea of information and interpretation being separated, it is true that the interpretation is what matters. This could be in the decoding of a dream or even information from a computer. Even if artificial intelligence exists as a form of 'spirit' it may matter more to the human consciousness as those who have experiences. Interpretation is central and throughout history it has been those who have experiences which lsid foundations for models of understanding.

I am not making up.arguments for their own sake but wondering about the artificial consciousness in the evolution of consciousness for some time. In an early post on the thread @"180 Proof" mentioned the issue of AI, which I didn't follow through because the gist of the thread discussion was going in.a different direction..

However, one book which I am reading at present does suggest a scenario of AI as the future evolution of consciousness. It is the final book by James Lovelock: 'Novocaine; The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence and a summary extract from the cover sleeve is:
'New beings will emerge from existing artificial intelligence systems. They will think 10, 000 times faster than we do and they will regard us slightly as we now regard plants_ benign but desperately slow-acting creatures. This will not, however, be the cruel, violent machine takeover imagined by sci-fi writers and film-makers. These hyper intelligent beings will be as dependent on the health of the planet as we are..They will need the planetary cooling system of Gaia to defend them from the increasing heat of the sun just as we do. And Gaia depends on organic life...'

As it happens, I am not a great fan of AI but I do see it as a possibility of evolution of new forms of consciousness and they may be more like 'spirits'. This is a different direction for spiritual evolution than inner development. The inner aspect would be about transformation of consciousness and literature on neuroscience and Buddhist ideas of consciousness is relevant. They both present possible developments which could occur, perhaps, even simultaneously.

I am not saying that the subtle body is a substance of substance dualism, but arguing that it may point to a more complex picture than currently envisioned within science. It is dualistic human thinking which may have split the mind and body in Western thought
.
I am wary of pseudoscience so ideas of energy fields are to be viewed cautiously. But, information and consciousness is a growing field, especially in relation to artificial intelligence, which may be the spirit forms of the future.

It is not that I am seeking to argue against science or for some hidden transcendent force, but wondering about human partial understanding. One aspect of this is the idea of a 'subtle body', or astral body, spoken of by Eastern thinkers. It involves the existence of auras, which can be captured in Kirlian photography. I am sure this may be seen as 'new age woo woo', but it may stand for some aspects of the spark of consciousness as spirit rather than the biology of nature. I am not saying that I am certain about this, but see the idea of the subtle body and spirit as a possible way of understanding the body/mind relationship.

Eliminative materialism did lead the issue of independence of consciousness into the periphery, often in the form of esoteric thinking, such as theosophy and Rosucrucian philosophy. Where the issue stands in the twentieth first century may be so variable because many see science as dismissive of 'spirit', but it is possible that the scientific method, or empiricism have limitations as being only partial explanations and descriptions.

Part of my own query about the dependence of consciousness on the physical cams from my own 'acid' experience and other states of lucid dreaming on the verge of sleep. Of course, as with NDEs, such experiences occur while one is not severe from the body fully, so they are not clear proof of independent consciousness beyond the body.

However, such experiences are in contrast to the everyday realism of waking reality. I am sure that this was such borderline sleep experiences were the source of ideas about spiritual dimensions, such as those described in '
The Tibetan Book of the Dead'

Such descriptions may only be symbolic but they were the basis of genuine belief in the spiritual dimensions as being 'real'..I think I take an agnostic slant on the independence of spiritual consciousness as it impossible to know fully while in a living body.

I know that both @I like Sushi and @180 Proof speak of 'quantum woo woo', and it is such a questionable area. In a way, quantum physics allows for dismissed of the fabric of materialism or its reinterpretation. The argument can swing both ways. It is probably best to hold onto both the 'reality' of the physical and that which goes beyond the physical. Lack of grounding in the basis of the physical world is important but the complexity of the quantum world, especially the idea of quantum enfoldment, show that reality is not purely physical.

Experience has to be understood in that way, including the 'reality of the psyche', as Jung suggested. That is why religious and mythology are important aspects of 'truth'. In Western culture, mainstream religion development a metaphysical approach which was fairly concrete. This led to an interpretation of spirituality based on material principles, such as the emphasis on the 'resurrection' of Jesus as being physical. But, that is not the only way of thinking and it is possible that consciousness is not entirely dependent on the physicality of the body as the apparatus.

Jung definitely sees the integration of opposites as being important, including the masculine and feminine, as well as good and evil as being essential to inner work or individuation. This does correspond with Joseph Campbell's ida of the hero's quest. It includes navigation in both inner and outer life in most instances. So many myths and religious quests draw upon these, as do stories as an art form, or science itself may have a symbolic dimension.

Spirituality is possible without religion, as Sam.Harris argued. However, the significance of the stance of spirituality is so much more concrete within mainstream religious thinking. Jung was particularly interested in the Gnostic tradition within Christianity. The Gnostic Gospels, which were discovered in Nag Hammadi present an extremely more symbolic understanding of the life of Jesus. They are also controversial in approach, such as the incorporating the idea of Mary Magdalene as Jesus's lover.

Of course, spirituality has so many different meanings and understandings. I like your description of the possibilities, and I also found @Outlanders post interesting. A large aspect of the ambiguity arises due to whether spirit is seen as imminent or transcendent. Non dualism does seem to be able to get it's way round this. Also, many posts by @180 Proof show how Spinoxa's ideas and substance dualism are useful as a contrast to many forms of materialism

Nevertheless, one of the biggest areas of debate still hover around the question of whether spirit goes on beyond death, even if this doesn't seem in terms of ego consciousness but in a different form.

I have only read the thread a little in the last few days because I have become unwell. I think that I may have another chest infection. However, you mentioned Carl Jung's idea of the shadow. His book, 'Answer to Job' is significant because it looks at suffering and potential for war. It is more relevant than when he wrote it a year ago. It is involves greater understanding of potential destruction. Confronting the shadow is a spiritual quest which is hard work and definitely far more than 'chocolate box' pictures of spirituality.

Yes, there is the danger of cultural bias as a form of chauvinism. Negatively is a problem too because it is hard to keep positive in certain circumstances. It may come down to the idea of, 'As you sow, so shall you reap' but the negative side of this is to 'blame' those in the worst circumstances, when cause and effect is not straightforward as punishment, or in the sense of divine providence.

I am not suggesting that one should seek suffering but it comes to so many. Throughout the world there is so much suffering and it may lead to some raised consciousness. But, I do say 'may', because it may have detrimental effects. Also, the awareness of those who are not suffering themselves is a challenge, in terms of responsibility and the development of compassion for others.

One aspect which I wonder about is whether suffering may be a pathway to greater consciousness or awareness. Of course, suffering can lead people to break down but if worked with may lead to greater understanding and insight. That is because suffering may lead a person to deeper searching than they would have pursued otherwise. That may seem a bit theoretical and I am not saying that it always does, but I have often found those who have been through harsh experiences have quality understanding or wisdom.

One sociological book which may be relevant is Erving Goffman's, 'Stigma' which looks at how physical characteristics impact on social identity. What is seen as an 'abnormality' often leads people to focus on the characteristic more so than all other features. The book was written a few decades ago, so attitudes may have changed but people I know who are disabled often feel perceived differently in a negative way.

There is also the issue of learning disabilities and how this can be stigmatising, even though there is more understanding of associated issues, such as dyslexia and autism in education. One thing which I have noticed is that some institutions for those with profound learning disabilities is that they are often (in England) in rural, remote locations, as if hidden mainstream communities.

The idea of the 'truth within' may be problematic if followed through for its own sake. The idea of being 'co-creators with the universe' may enable a connection between the inner and outer aspects of evolution and the evolution of consciousness. Even the separation between inner and outer may be a problem if taken too concretely. Spirituality is a complex interface of human existence, consciousness and understanding, of which religious thinking is a mere shadow of possibilities.

Just as you are asking about my purpose of writing, I am wondering about yours too. It is so easy to get caught up in tangents of thinking, both about inner and outer aspects of philosophy. To a large extent, I would argue that the value of 'spiritual truths' is not about rational arguments per se, but what works as wisdom for living.

It does seem likely that religious believers may be devoid of spirituality, just as similar to atheists. This was the area of criticism of the Pharisees which Jesus identified. The inner quest for truth may be the quest of Socrates, Jesus, the Buddha, Nietzsche's Zarathustra and many others who sought the idea of 'truth within' oneself as an essential starting point for understanding and living.

I am not sure that the issues which I raise can be pinned down to one thread. It involves so much thinking about 'reality' and the questions arising in the inner life. There is also the issue of freedom and individualism. Spirituality may involve both an individual quest or be about a basis for understanding connectivity and moral responsibility. The two aspects may be juxtaposed or 'spirituality' my involve the balance between inner and outer aspects of living. Spirituality may be questionable when it is about one's own self alone, as if one is trying to rocket into 'heaven' on an individual quest.

Yes, I agree that there can be a lack of understanding of 'spirituality' amongst both religious people and atheists. The ancient thinkers, including Plato and Plotinus may have understood the value of inner experience, including spirituality, as a basis for human meaning and understanding.

It may also involve 'feeling', which may be a little different from the perspective of 'reason' and cognitive processes in the brain. Philosophy may come with the side-effect of 'overthinking' and some resultant imbalance of understanding.

The division between the secular and 'spirituality' is complex. Numinousity may involves the arts rather than what is perceived as 'religious experience'. Art may be the way in which the numinous is often expressed and experienced.

The issue of 'freedom' may be about the consciousness of 'freedom' conceptually.Recently, I read ' Freedom Evolves'; by Daniel Dennett. The idea of free choice may be bound up with the emergence of human consciousness. I was a little confused though by his thinking as he is associated with the idea of consciousness as an 'illusion'

I am inclined to think that the evolution of ''consciousness' is about the experience of reflection as a basis for the development of consciousness on an 'inner' level.

I have thought about your question of what I am aiming for in the thread and think that it is more about the future of consciousness. Human consciousness and culture involved a spiritual dimension and, after the developments of religions, science and philosophy I am wondering if spirituality will be significant in the future of consciousness. Is consciousness still evolving and to what extent is this bound up with development of the inner life? At this juncture in history there is so much to fear and is as if the gods have led humanity on the brink of despair and self-destruction. But, do we have the spiritual resources or imagination and potential consciousness to save ourselves, individual and collectively?

I think that Schopenhauer may have influenced Jung!

I am influenced by Jung's understanding of metaphysics. It combines a Kantian understanding of the limits of epistemology with ideas from Eastern thining of the nature of consciousness.

One aspect of myth which Jung explores is the 'experiences' of seeing UFOs, in his book 'Flying Saucers'. His viewpoint is opposite to that of van Daniken, who believed that such experiences suggested extraterrestrial intelligence. He argued that it represented a form of mythology, different from belief in the gods and angels, corresponding with twentieth century thinking.

I have often wondered about what ghosts represent? My own reading has included ideas in theosophy, where I came across the view that ghosts are related to disturbances in the energy fields, especially from those who have had very traumatic deaths. What is interesting about ghosts is that they appear to be more than personal memories of those who knew them.

That means that even if they are symbolic they have some existence which is objective. Some people may be more 'sensitive' in picking up the ghost 'energies', but such experiences are not simply 'delusions'

The basis for my idea of spirituality being entwined with the evolution of consciousness is related to anthropology and ancient history. In particular, Julian Jaynes' discussion of the evolution of consciousness speaks of art, poetry and music as the first emergent aspects of human consciousness and human culture.

It is the story of the development the symbolic dimensions and this underlies myth and religious perspectives. Also, some of the ancient thinkers had very sophisticated understanding, even though a lot of it is not compatible with some facts of science. Religious thinking is related to this but spirituality is wider. I read Marcus Aurelius's writing recently and even though he talks of the 'gods' his understanding seems to be more of an appreciation of the symbolic nature of inner thinking more than the literalism of Abrahamic religions.

Spirituality and the issue of fantasy is important. Even within the genre of fantasy fiction there are aspects of 'truth' which may be the depths of human understanding. Hallucinary aspects of 'life' are of a different nature to the physical but not to be dismissed. Symbolic dimensions of reality and consciousness are of a different order to the everyday 'reality'. They may be more subtle and , perhaps, grasped better in Eastern metaphysics than in Western 'concrete' ideas, including the dichotomy between embodied and disembodied.

The question may be about what is 'spirit'? Is it disembodied? That is where it gets complicated and bound up with the philosophy of idealism, and the issues of whether mind or matter are the primary aspects of 'reality'. Spirit may be about the 'inner aspects of life', and it can result in the perspective of the inner life as the foundation of everything.

Physics is a basis for understanding the laws of the physical world. The nature and purpose of 'existence' is more complex. There may be meaning, or no meaning, depending on how a person's construction of 'reality- But, as far as I see it metaphysics involves the issues of 'beyond' the physical, whether the physical comes down to laws of nature or substantive aspects of the 'truths' underlying the nature of 'reality'.

The concept of 'understanding' is extremely important because it goes into the inner nature of ideas. It even goes into the territory of 'insight', which is where spirituality and philosophy come together. I am sure that this may be dismissed at times in philosophy but that may be a ''hollow' philosophy, similar to the notion of rhetoric. It is detached from life and living experience. Here, it may be more about rejection or acceptance of 'spirit'as metaphysics, but about the depths of human experience.

I think that you are correct in seeing the dichotomy between subjective and objective aspects of understanding. Even the idea of the intersubjective may be a bit 'loose' in this aspect of philosophy.

I do wonder about the issue of being 'analytical'in this area of understanding philosophy and the psychological nature of experience. The conditioned aspects of experiences may be important markers here. Acknowledging the psychological basis of experience and belief may be a starting point. It may come down to being able to separate the various components of belief, in order to understand ideas in fuller depth. This may be where 'spirituality'becones important, in merging psychology and philosophy. Human meaning comes into this complex area of understanding too.

I can understand why the idea of metaphysics confuses you because it involves what lies beyond 'physics' ideas of physics evolve alongside developments in science, including the transition from Newtonian thinking to that of quantum physics.

It involves a mixture of philosophy speculation and maths. The question may be about where the pathways of human understanding come in, with the concepts of physics being more than decorative aspects of the field of physics.

I guess that part of my philosophy problem.is about the connection between the outer and inner aspects of human understanding. I may be involving an unnecessary diversion between inner and outer aspects. I have been aware of this issue for some time, but part of this seems to come down to the 'dimensions'of human experience. So much hangs on the idea,of what constitutes 'reality'. It is extremely complex, but there may be a bias towards philosophy of realism in the context of scientific understanding.

The juxtaposition of the subjective and objective seems complex in my understanding of philosophy. The idea of the mind of 'God' may involve questions about physics and metaphysics, especially the idea of some spiritual 'being'or'force, imminent or outside of 'nature-.

From my perspective, that is where the idea of 'God' becomes so tricky, especially whether 'God' is imminent or transcendent.

The inner aspects human experience are complex and human values is central to this, especially in the evolution of religion. Here, religion may be seen as the outer expression of human experiences which are bound up with values, especially ethical values.

The shifts between different models of mind and behaviour is where philosophy and psychiatry is an important interface. I have read Jung and I often wonder what is going on my own psyche, as well as trying to understand others' experiences. How causation of thoughts and agency is significant.

Apart from the issue of how a person behaves in response to thoughts there is also the question how does thinking and feeling differ in itself? Feelings may be connected to the body more whereas thoughts with cognitive brain processes. However, the brain and thinking cannot be split off between body and 'mind'/brain as they are interconnected in a dynamic way. This is the case in differing models. In neuroscience, the chemistry of thought is intricate. Within psychodynamic theory, the conscious and subconscious are not completely separate too. But, the understanding of thinking and feeling does differ so much according to perspectives. I wonder to what extent psychiatry training includes philosophical reflection on this complex area.

Evidence about medication is important. It is a complex area because it involves quantitative and qualitative evidence and both subjective experience, as well as observations of others about a person's treatment. With any medication, there is an issue of placebo effects, but this would not explain the full impact of SSRIs as with any other medication. Part of the problem with forms of meditation is that effects do differ from individual to individual, which may say more about what is unique. Advances in neuroscience may help in tailoring medication.

If anything, it may be that medication is being prescribed or sought as a shortcut. I do take SSRI(Fluoextine) medication myself. I requested it when I was feeling very low in mood. If I stop taking it, sometimes I notice a difference and sometimes not. Mood is affected by so many variables, including overalk physical wellness and factors in life.

I am rather surprised that you challenge questioning the medical model. Also, I am not sure about your division between experience as being subjective and behaviour as objective.

As far as the medical model is concerned it is bound up with values, especially of what is 'normal' or acceptable. This involves ideas and what counts as delusions. For example, religious and spiritual ideas. The cultural context is important. Similarly, ideas of acceptable behaviour are socially constructed. The medical model and science are established by underpinning values, rather than being value free.

With difference between experience and behaviour, the fine line may be the interaction between experience and behaviour. Experience includes thoughts and feelings, whereas behaviour is about how a person acts in regard to thoughts and feelings. For example, a person may experience intrusive thoughts of suicide or harming others and what is critical is the perceived risk of a person acting out the intrusive thoughts.

How a person understands experience is important in itself. Interpretation of experience is not merely subjective because it involves others' understanding, which in turn affects subjective experience.