Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Willamena]

That's not what I said. However, maya and Reality are One, as maya is projected from Reality, making them seem as two.

You just said it again: reality is what maya is projected from.

What would it take for you (or anyone) to empower maya in its reality?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm still working on what you wrote earlier, but I need more time.

I don't depend on them

I know. That's why I said

But that's hardly here nor there. Whatever problems there might be with Wilber's approach are irrelevant, as you don't depend on them (from what I gather, you use what you find useful there).

So "art" in fact Legion, is indeed actually much more appropriate when moving up and beyond domains of seeking Answers in theories and models.

I meant the quote to be a contrast between two extremes
1) saying a lot with little substance while using lots jargon, esoteric terminology, erudite vocabulary, and complex clausal or sentence structure.
2) saying something of use or of importance.

I don't mean that one cannot say something valuable using everything on the list in number 1. I'm so used to reading technical/specialist literature that not using those things takes work, and often enough I'm lucky if my lengthy, unnecessarily complicated have any "matter" at all.

Something interesting, something telling I discovered at glancing over that paper in the link you provided.

It was the only free edition of this:
Ramos, J. M. (2010). Movements toward holism in futures inquiry. Futures, 42(2), 115-124.
I could find (if you have access to the ScienceDirect database, the articles/papers from the journal Futures can be found there). Among other things, future studies includes "an emerging domain of futures studies – integral futures. This field tends to valorise the spiritual and The East, drawing heavily from the work of Ken Wilber. Such figures as Sohail Inayatullah, Richard Slaughter, Chris Reidy, Marcus Bussey and myself can be said to be influenced by, or actively involved in this field"


The link I gave you was hosted on Sohail Inayatullah's site Metafuture.org.

I addressed much of my critique of this thinking above.

You aren't the only one, and this reply to Wilber's critics is quite similar (I think) to your own:

"Here is a clue to both of the extreme reactions to Wilber's book--that is, the claims that it is one of the most significant works ever published as well as the chorus of angry indignation and vitriolic attack. The angry criticisms are coming, almost without exception, from theorists who feel that their own field is the only true field, that their own method to knowledge is the only valid method. To my knowledge, Wilber has not been criticized for misunderstanding or misrepresenting any of the fields of knowledge that he includes; he is attacked, instead, for including fields that a particular critic does not believe are important or for goring that critic's own ox (Have I offended animal-rights activists with this metaphor?). Freudians have never said that Wilber fails to understand Freud; they say that he should not include mysticism. Structuralists and poststructuralists have never said that Wilber fails to understand their fields; they say that he should not include all those nasty other fields--and so forth. The attack always has the same form: How dare you say my field is not the only true field....

How ironic that the book that just might include more truth than any book in history may make the most enemies."

from "What should we think about Wilber's method?" (I apologize for not being able to supply a full text of either, but I couldn't find one that didnt require access to an academic database).

In short, what modernity and postmodernity, like all those epics before them; mythological, magic, etc, each thinks how they think is the correct way of thinking and argue against one another.

An interesting yet important (I think) aside. I'm not sure how far back you mean when you say "epics before them", but the term mystic and mysticism comes from the Greek mystery "religions". The reason this is interesting (IMO) is because what characterized not just the mystery cults but basically all religious practice in antiquity was at best correct practice (orthopraxy), rather than belief (orthodoxy). "Religion" was cultic practice, rather than a set of principles, beliefs, cosmology, etc. Received myth was freely adapted, altered, or otherwise changed without a problem.
This, I belive, is common to a great many modern mystic traditions ("believe" in the sense "I think I get it but I'm not sure"). As you put it, different tools (e.g., meditation vs. ritual) described differently but with the same basic goal.

I personally think this entire "That can't be true, because this is true" mentality is some hangover from the authoritarian, top down view of Church Authority. "God's Word". It's the search for the Absolute, imposed into science and philosophy and religion.

It's human nature. Throughout history, what defined "absolute truth" wasn't a church or even religion but communal identity and opprobrium. "This is right because it is, and this is wrong because it is, and that's that." Authority wasn't constructed so much as organically produced.

This remains true today in ways that one might not expect. For example, I have irritated more people than I care to remember during a conversation in which someone made a statement like "but morality is all relative so..." or "we can't say what's right and wrong about..." It's not that I disagreed, just that I asked e.g., if genocide, rape, and murder are neither right nor wrong. The irritation is usually because they really do not believe all morality or truth is relative, because they do believe that things like genocide are wrong. However, as this conflicts with their stated worldview, and I produced that conflict, frustration turns into irritation directed at me.

I empathize, because I got it (the habit to engage in socratic dialogue and/or play devil's advocate) from my father, and it irritated me.

my personal way to describe all of these models of his, or any other system of thought is that they are 2 dimensional tree-like structures that allow us to hang the ornaments of Spirit upon in order to see and marvel at them

By "any other system of thought", are you including non-spiritual systems? It would seem that because you talk about Spirit you aren't including those, but I just want to be sure.

It doesn't matter if that is a magic, mythic, modern, postmodern, etc view. They are ways to extend the reach of the mind into the world, and upon which the ornaments of spirit are hung, regardless of the age we live in.

I am the only member of my family who isn't Catholic. Nor is my family Catholic only in name, as they all go to church every week, 2 of my siblings went to Catholic University of America, and my brother is the only "fundamentalist Catholic" I have ever met. If I'm understanding you correctly, then for believing Catholics the structure is, or is partially made up of, the Church. The structure is specific to one universal Church, and the Absolute can be reached only through this Church.

The same is true (albeit not in the same way and certainly not as frequently) for some mystics I have encountered. So when you say:

People are too focused on the branches and shapes of these structures, not seeing they are not permanent, that they are not "reality". These arguments of who is right and who is wrong is arguing over non-reality. Pity we argue over barren branches.

You are saying more than that people are too focused on the structures. You are saying that certain people are simply wrong. Intrinsic to certain belief systems is (to quote Chariots of Fire) "One right, One wrong, and One Absolute Ruler". For others, there are many branches, but only one Tree (e.g., some mystics who incorporate mysticism into a religion like Christianity or Islam).

 

[godnotgod]

You just said it again: reality is what maya is projected from.

What would it take for you (or anyone) to empower maya in its reality?

To act upon it as if it were reality. But most are already immersed in it and acting upon it without being aware that they are doing so. It is called 'Identification', in which one thinks the character one is acting out is real. One also thinks the world it acts upon as an individual ego is also real. When illusion is treated as if it were reality, suffering ensues as consequence. Hence, the 'human condition', which is further compounded when the consequences are further acted upon in an attempt to 'fix' the world. The only way out of this dilemma is to awaken to the true nature of Reality.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not so easy man. The manifest language/word is preceded by ordered thought by which words could be placed into relationships.

I was responding to the other part of your question:

Now what is language? What is the source of language that has already decided as to how the wave function collapse will be described?

QM is very much a statistical theory, whatever else it is or is not. And as the descriptions of wave functions are found in multiple languages, I'm not sure what you mean about the source of the language for the description about "collapse".

As for this:

And even before that, there had to be the inherent grammatical structure of ordered thought by which words could be placed into relationships, right?l

I propose, as I've hinted at a few times recently, that "God" is the rules and structures of grammar itself - the essential structure of language by which all things are categorized, given meaning and related to, including my own sense of self identity (the "I am" at the center of the universe of my experiences, relating to it all).

I am not sure how to respond. For me, grammatical structure and words refer to things which have to do with linguistics. I see the above in terms of theories about language, grammar, syntax, lexemes, etc. So I apologize for what follows, as it is not only lengthy, but is perhaps totally missing the point.

The first problem I see is the notion of "inherent grammatical structure" which orders words. The second is the equating of categorization to linguistic units ("the essential structure of language by which all things are categorized").

The idea that grammar or syntax are "rules" that organize "words", and that the two are seperate (one being the rules and structures which allow certain words to combine in certain ways, the other being the words) is not really how language works. There is no inherent "grammatical structure". In fact, the divide between grammar and words is not at all clear. Certain combinations of words have structure that is unique only to that particular combination: "once upon a time", "all of a sudden", "what's up?", "on the other hand", "kick the bucket", "birds of a feather flock together", "then again", and so on.

Other combinations aren't so strict, but they aren't like traditional grammatical rules. For example, English has a number of ways to start statements/sentences which are impersonal: "it's raining", "there's John again with that weird hat of his", "though this be madness, yet there's method in it", "there's plenty for everyone", "it is as it has always been", etc. Other examples of this kind of semi-grammar include "the X-er, the Y-er" (the more you study mysticism, the less you'll understand it/the higher you climb the harder you fall), which has incredible diversity (as opposed to "birds of a feather..." which can't be "birds of a feather flocked together"). But it only applies to the parallel structure of 2 clauses which idiomatically use the article "the" and a comparative form (e.g., "higher", "harder", "more valuable").

Finally, grammatical structure is heavily influenced by frequency. There was a time when "I'm going..." meant only movement such as "I'm going to the store". Not only do we now have a totally different use ("I'm going to need more time") in which "going to" is a way of talking about the future, but frequency effects have changed the structure of this already changed structure: "I'm gonna need more time".

The same is true of "will", which is almost never used as a verb except as a "helping verb" or future tense ("I will do it tomorrow", "I'll get to it eventually"), "shall", and a host of others. As a verb, "will" used to mean want/wish. Over time, it became semantically bleached through usage and now we have only faint remnants of this former use. This process is called grammaticalization.

The basic point is that we think of language often enough in terms of words and grammar, but in reality both exist on a continuum. Even fundamental grammar, such as the future tense in English ("I will do it later") emerged through usage.

One of the reasons that this happens is because words are neither like dictionary entries in the brain, nor do they correspond to thought in straightforward ways. The reason words in various languages once had verbs meaning "to want", "to lack", "to move/go", etc., which end up being more "grammar" than "words" is because they don't correspond readily to thought or concepts. The idea of "want" (what the verb "will" used to mean) expresses something that hasn't yet happened. Over time, this "hasn't happened" part becomes emphasized until "will" as a verb means nothing other than to indicate the future.

Linguistic units (words, phrases, collocations, etc.) have ranges of meaning. More physical notions are extended metaphorically to the abstract: "I see your point" doesn't have anything to do with vision, and "but I don't think your argument holds" has nothing to do with gripping. Same with "If want to build a better argument, you'll have to set it on much firmer foundations than the one you used to construct the argument you just made".

To summarize:

The manifest language/word is preceded by ordered thought by which words could be placed into relationships.

The manifest language is preceded by concepts, which are extended, combined, related, etc., in order to create linguistic structure.

John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Where do we find Her?

I don't know what you mean by her, as ho logos is masculine, as is theos. I'm also missing the connection (as usual).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's all your take on it, which is OK, but makes it just about impossible for me to have a discussion with you, because I see you as being bogged down in tons of 'knowledge' that for me is just excess baggage and in the way.

It is one thing to believe that approaches within academia or the sciences are just baggage. It is another to use the work of these academics and scientists and refer to their theories as evidence for what you belive, when you neither understand what it is you are claiming is evidence for something nor care if your use is a distortion.

When you state that quantum physics, for example, is evidence of something, or demonstrates something, or is evidence for something (which you have here), but do so by misrepresenting, distorting, or in some other way inaccurately representing quantum theory, then the "excess baggage" is called honesty. Or integrity.

People disagree with one another all the time. They disagree over interpretations of "evidence". They disagree over whether various things (from research to hearing the Word of God) are evidence. All that boils down to is for the most part different worldviews. I don't mind that, as it is just human nature.

That's not what you've done. You have repeatedly taken ideas from sciences and from academia and cherry-picked whatever it is you like, ignored what you didn't, and distorted whatever you felt needed it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see your general view as being one that requires complexity and 'explanation' at every step in order to have validity.

My view could be completely wrong and it wouldn't have any relevance here. It wouldn't change the fact that you pick and choose what pieces of particular sources within academia you like, and present these as evidence. That's not what people mean when they refer to mystical knowledge, received wisdom, divine inspiration, and other sources of knowledge outside of the empirical/perceptual. It's just plain manipulation and dishonesty.

I see the situation as being exactly opposite, with simplicity being the key.

Simplicity may be the key. Making claims about physics or history based not on simplicity but on a limited and distorted understanding is not the key.

When you talk about quantum physics, and claim that particular studies, conclusions, and theories mean this or that, you aren't just relying on "simplicity". You are relying on the work of generations of brilliant people over the centuries who were instrumental in making it possible for quantum physics to exist, let alone for you to have heard about it.

Distorting this work, misrepresenting these theories, and rearching conclusions based on such manipulation isn't "simplicity". It's this:

That's very simple. It has nothing to do with mathematics, but it's simple. When you do the same with research and theories, it is simple. It's also wrong. If you want simplicity, then don't rely on complicated theories that you don't understand and (consciously or not) misrepresent.

 

[atanu]

Creator, Maintainer, Destroyer, and Observer are all concepts. In reality, nothing is ever created or destroyed. That creation and destruction occur is maya. It's just a dream.

That is true. But the dream happens. The drama happens.

 

[atanu]

To summarize:
The manifest language is preceded by concepts, which are extended, combined, related, etc., in order to create linguistic structure.

Okay.

I don't know what you mean by her, as ho logos is masculine, as is theos. I'm also missing the connection (as usual).

I just followed up on Bohr, wishing to show that he indirectly suggested what Schrodinger directly indicated.

(But I am a bit careful that I should not get dragged into a wordy duel).

 

[Windwalker]

I'm still working on what you wrote earlier, but I need more time.

Please bear in mind what I shared is personal. It's not some academic or theological debate. It's a description of deeply personal experience.

You aren't the only one, and this reply to Wilber's critics is quite similar (I think) to your own:

"Here is a clue to both of the extreme reactions to Wilber's book--that is, the claims that it is one of the most significant works ever published as well as the chorus of angry indignation and vitriolic attack. The angry criticisms are coming, almost without exception, from theorists who feel that their own field is the only true field, that their own method to knowledge is the only valid method. To my knowledge, Wilber has not been criticized for misunderstanding or misrepresenting any of the fields of knowledge that he includes; he is attacked, instead, for including fields that a particular critic does not believe are important or for goring that critic's own ox (Have I offended animal-rights activists with this metaphor?). Freudians have never said that Wilber fails to understand Freud; they say that he should not include mysticism. Structuralists and poststructuralists have never said that Wilber fails to understand their fields; they say that he should not include all those nasty other fields--and so forth. The attack always has the same form: How dare you say my field is not the only true field....

How ironic that the book that just might include more truth than any book in history may make the most enemies."

I'm not sure I would word my thoughts quite so boldly as this. It assigns a lot of personal motives without knowing intentions. Nor would I make that last statement that is bolded. I think that's a little zealous myself.

It's human nature. Throughout history, what defined "absolute truth" wasn't a church or even religion but communal identity and opprobrium. "This is right because it is, and this is wrong because it is, and that's that." Authority wasn't constructed so much as organically produced.

I agree in principle with this, but I believe rather the notion of, or position of an absolute truth mentality is something that itself was evolved as a system of logic out of an inherent need to have some sort of basic structure in place for functioning in a society. Absolutist thinking is ideological, not natural. I do not believe the need to have absolute truth, is inherent in humanity. But I agree it was organically produced. I for one believe how we believe in turn shapes how our brains become wired to think, and that wiring can be changed. Say hello to your cognitive behavioral therapies, and such as one example.

This remains true today in ways that one might not expect. For example, I have irritated more people than I care to remember during a conversation in which someone made a statement like "but morality is all relative so..." or "we can't say what's right and wrong about..." It's not that I disagreed, just that I asked e.g., if genocide, rape, and murder are neither right nor wrong. The irritation is usually because they really do not believe all morality or truth is relative, because they do believe that things like genocide are wrong. However, as this conflicts with their stated worldview, and I produced that conflict, frustration turns into irritation directed at me.

You are of course referring to the performative contradiction of extreme postmodernist thought, where it declares "all views are of no greater truth than all others.... except of course for this truth itself!"

By "any other system of thought", are you including non-spiritual systems? It would seem that because you talk about Spirit you aren't including those, but I just want to be sure.

Any system of thought about how things work, or what they mean, or any such cognitive model whatsoever, which includes both thoughts about the spiritual, and the non-spiritual alike.

You are saying more than that people are too focused on the structures. You are saying that certain people are simply wrong.

"Wrong" is too strong of a word. It's not a black and white, "I'm right and you're wrong" equation. It's not that sort of thought at all. To say "I'm right" would itself be referring to a mental model of truth. It's not playing in that field at all actually. I am saying that models are fine, but they are fingers pointing to the moon, not the moon itself.

Think of them like the launch tower for a rocket and the various booster stages of the rocket itself. Or think of them like training wheels on a bicycle. As the rocket leaves the pad and is now in flight, or you are riding the bike under your own sense of balance, such structures are no longer what defines reality, you are not tied to them - and in fact, to be tied to them hinders you. That last sentence hints at what I am talking about. You use them, but they are tools only. They are not tied to reality. They are scaffolding around the building, not the building itself inside it.

Intrinsic to certain belief systems is (to quote Chariots of Fire) "One right, One wrong, and One Absolute Ruler". For others, there are many branches, but only one Tree (e.g., some mystics who incorporate mysticism into a religion like Christianity or Islam).

Yes, that mentality mistakes the structure as reality itself. It mistakes the finger for the moon.

When I say these systems are tree like structures upon which we hang the ornaments of spirit, I am saying they have value. If you did not have them, how could someone see these? It would be like trying to see a white object against a white backdrop. If the mind wishes to "think about" spirit, it must use some system of thought, some structure. But to tie spirit to that structure is to err in apprehending spirit, by using mind alone. Spirit is free of all structures in itself, so to speak, and is experienced "in the spaces of the text", as OM puts it, or altogether beyond all structures themselves as spirit to spirit, not mind to spirit. The latter requires structures, the former requires moving beyond structures, beyond thoughts.

 

[Willamena]

That is true. But the dream happens. The drama happens.

:yes: It really does.

 

[Willamena]

To act upon it as if it were reality.

Which is to say it isn't reality. Which is to disempower it.

 

[Willamena]

The first problem I see is the notion of "inherent grammatical structure" which orders words. The second is the equating of categorization to linguistic units ("the essential structure of language by which all things are categorized").

The idea that grammar or syntax are "rules" that organize "words", and that the two are seperate (one being the rules and structures which allow certain words to combine in certain ways, the other being the words) is not really how language works. There is no inherent "grammatical structure". In fact, the divide between grammar and words is not at all clear. Certain combinations of words have structure that is unique only to that particular combination: "once upon a time", "all of a sudden", "what's up?", "on the other hand", "kick the bucket", "birds of a feather flock together", "then again", and so on...

What structure do you refer to, that is unique only to that particular combination of words?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now use your head: your notion of a uni-verse that is 'Two' (or more) is totally ridiculous. The universe cannot be 'not-One', 'uni'-verse meaning 'All', and that is Absolute. There is no 'other'. The notion that the Milky Way and Andromeda are separate cannot be the case. Space connects them together, as it connects all galaxies together, and no, you cannot have solid without space. No matter what concept you can come up with to suggest separate universes, the reality is that, when taken altogether, they remain One.

This is the Argument from Lack of Imagination. I'm sorry if you can't imagine multiple separate universes, but some of us can. Furthermore, anyone who invokes Einstein and quantum mechanics as often as you do ought to appreciate that what seems ridiculous to us when we "use our heads" has sometimes turned out to be true nevertheless, when we focus on the evidence provided by Nature. Now which view is more narrow?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The practice of "mytics" co-opting scientific concepts and theories in an attempt to gain validity has a long history, and I'm sure will continue to happen for a long time to come. This is often effective because the mystics themselves, along with much of the general population, don't actually understand the scientific concepts and theories that they're attempting to hijack.

 

[YmirGF]

This is the Argument from Lack of Imagination. I'm sorry if you can't imagine multiple separate universes, but some of us can.

*shrugs* Beats me, Spinkles.

Multiple separate universes, aka Multidimensional universes, is pretty much the core of my worldview. Maybe some of us just have more mental dexterity than others. It was the advent of String theory and M-Theory, through the popular media, that helped me to realize that perhaps I wasn't as crazy as I had once thought I was. I'd never be bold enough to suggest that my understanding of "multidimensional reality" is the same as String Theory or M-Theory set out, but there are some rather striking similarities. And that's about as far as I'm would dream of taking the comparison. It would never occur to me, for example, to state that my apprehension of reality was "higher" than that of the scientific establishment, as intellectually speaking, that is getting several levels above my intellectual pay grade.

Furthermore, anyone who invokes Einstein and quantum mechanics as often as you do ought to appreciate that what seems ridiculous to us when we "use our heads" has sometimes turned out to be true nevertheless, when we focus on the evidence provided by Nature. Now which view is more narrow?

It is always helpful to remain grounded in reality, as it is generally conceived, rather than attempting to move the goal posts to some internal subjective reality that few agree on.

 

[YmirGF]

The practice of "mytics" co-opting scientific concepts and theories in an attempt to gain validity has a long history, and I'm sure will continue to happen for a long time to come. This is often effective because the mystics themselves, along with much of the general population, don't actually understand the scientific concepts and theories that they're attempting to hijack.

I live on my island paradise surround by aging hippies and more than a few New Age ninnies. For example, I opened the local rag a few weeks ago and came across an add that offered "Quantum Message Therapy" and another for "Quantum Psychotherapy". You know, folks can take this holistic thingy a bit too far... Just sayin...

 

[Willamena]

*shrugs* Beats me, Spinkles.

Multiple separate universes, aka Multidimensional universes...

Do you think that multidimensional universes, when you say it, means the same thing as multiple separate universes when Spinkles says that?

 

[godnotgod]

This is the Argument from Lack of Imagination. I'm sorry if you can't imagine multiple separate universes, but some of us can.

I did'nt say I could'nt imagine them. I can. No problem. multiple, OK. Separate, OK. I am aware of the basic theory.

Question: How do you know they are 'separate'?

 

[godnotgod]

Furthermore, anyone who invokes Einstein and quantum mechanics as often as you do ought to appreciate that what seems ridiculous to us when we "use our heads" has sometimes turned out to be true nevertheless, when we focus on the evidence provided by Nature.

So what? I never said science was useless, but you still don't understand the nature of the universe. You have facts and theories about the universe. You are further away from that understanding than ever. QM is a paradox, and physics is having a nervous breakdown:


[youtube]tH5xYvUsd8o[/youtube]
Science v's God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube.flv - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

Which is to say it isn't reality. Which is to disempower it.

To act upon it is to actualize the illusion into being. The general misery of the world as consequence from acting on it are immense. That is to disempower it? What disempowers it is awakening to the reality that it is illusion. That you have been living a fiction all along, firmly believing it to be real. Only when you see it for what it is does it become benign. That is when you can appreciate it without causing harm.

 

[atanu]

This is the Argument from Lack of Imagination. I'm sorry if you can't imagine multiple separate universes, ------

I see that imagination of multiverses is taking place in the universe -- in the awareness about which scientits know nothing.