Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[godnotgod]

Which begs the question, what are these particles then? In your opinion, of course.

When you ask: 'What are these particles?', are you including the empty space between and around them?

Also, when we get into the sub-atomic level, we find 'particles' behaving like waves. So what is meant by 'particle' and ultimately 'matter', especially in light of the fact that atoms are over 99% empty space.

On the macro level, cutting edge theoretical scientists are now talking about the universe having come from 'nothing'. See Lawrence Krauss, 'A Universe from Nothing'.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, you can identify what the figure is, but the quesion is: what is it that allows you to do so?

Tangentially, would you agree that this question can and ought to be investigated scientifically? For example: let's give dust1n a sleeping pill, or a blindfold, or flash the picture very fast. Or let's show him the silhouette of an object he has never seen in his life before. These are the kinds of experiments that cognitive scientists do, and I can't see how we could make any progress without them. Apparently, judging by the results of such experiments (and common experience) we generally need eyes to detect the pattern of light from the image, and a brain in particular physical states to process the sensory signals. If I remember correctly, we need a functioning occipital lobe to have visual experiences while other parts of the brain can be damaged--apparently the occipital lobe is functionally like the brain's graphics card. I'm sure people more knowledgeable in the field will jump in to say that I'm oversimplifying, but the details are not important to us now. The relevant question for this thread is, at what point does mysticism come in and "surpass" these straightforward experimental results, and does it clarify or merely hopelessly confuse the issue?

 

[godnotgod]

Tangentially, would you agree that this question can and ought to be investigated scientifically? For example: let's give dust1n a sleeping pill, or a blindfold, or flash the picture very fast. Or let's show him the silhouette of an object he has never seen in his life before. These are the kinds of experiments that cognitive scientists do, and I can't see how we could make any progress without them. Apparently, judging by the results of such experiments (and common experience) we generally need eyes to detect the pattern of light from the image, and a brain in particular physical states to process the sensory signals. If I remember correctly, we need a functioning occipital lobe to have visual experiences while other parts of the brain can be damaged--apparently the occipital lobe is functionally like the brain's graphics card. I'm sure people more knowledgeable in the field will jump in to say that I'm oversimplifying, but the details are not important to us now. The relevant question for this thread is, at what point does mysticism come in and "surpass" these straightforward experimental results, and does it clarify or merely hopelessly confuse the issue?

Look. I'm not talking about all that. Let's just pretend it is the 9th century, and we have no scientific tools available to us, and I show you this image. Without any aid other than the image itself, what is it about the image that allows you to discern that you are looking at a human figure. Don't think about it. Just see. The relevancy of this question to the topic at hand will be made clear later.

You're not oversimplifying; you're overcomplicating!

 

[Windwalker]

When I provided this answer to Mr. Spinkles, I deliberately avoided including any mention of spirit. I only wanted to isolate that part of the question that had to do with atoms, matter, and separation on the level of prana itself. I was trying to establish the idea, quite simply, that the material world is not what it seems, either via perception, nor via formal analytical tools like science.

But more in answer to your question, if we look at prana itself, it has 'nothing to do with Absolute Reality', but is it not itself a manifestation of Absolute Reality?

Yes, thank you. I asked the way I did to clarify for myself Mr. Sprinkle's question that you might be going the path of saying mystical insight offers special scientific insights. You're saying what appears to me to be exactly what I am saying. I can now say with confidence that he is either not following what you are saying, or what I am saying since he sees a difference between us in this, where from what I see none exists, at least at this level.

I find it of great interest that the word 'prana' is connected to 'breath', and that in both Hindu and Christian world views, God 'spoke' the world into existence, the breath being the all-important life-force behind 'the Word'. I further suspect that this idea in Christianity has its roots in the East. In addition, the ancient Greek word for 'spirit' was 'pneuma', pneuma being the root in modern day usage for such words as 'pneumatic' and 'pneumonia', both having to do with 'air'. Unfortunately, modern science has eviscerated it of it's original meaning and intent. One of the connections between the Greek world and the Far East were the Theravada Buddhists, who became the Therapeutae in Egypt and Greece, spiritual healers who also are thought to have had connections to the Nazorean Essenes near Nazareth, the Nazarene sect Yeshu (Jesus) is thought to have been part of.

Yes again. I was just having this very discussion last night, and how strange it is by contrast the in the Near East you had blood sacrifices become so dominant, connecting life to the blood as opposed to something so obvious like breath. Breath is actually very nondual if you think about it. Air is external to you, into enters into you and gives life, and you exhale it back in return in the endless cycle of life. It seems little wonder that focus on breath became a fundamental part of the meditative path towards mystical realization.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes again. I was just having this very discussion last night, and how strange it is by contrast the in the Near East you had blood sacrifices become so dominant, connecting life to the blood as opposed to something so obvious like breath. Breath is actually very nondual if you think about it. Air is external to you, into enters into you and gives life, and you exhale it back in return in the endless cycle of life. It seems little wonder that focus on breath became a fundamental part of the meditative path towards mystical realization.

And this was the original pure practice of Yeshu. It was Rome that destroyed many of his teachings, with Paul superimposing (or rather overwriting) them with the pagan blood sacrificial doctrines of Mithra, as a means of converting pagans who had already had the promise of eternal life in Mithra. Breath control was difficult and esoteric and did not appeal to the masses. Blood sacrifice was easy and had wide appeal. All one had to do was to believe in the magic.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, thank you. I asked the way I did to clarify for myself Mr. Sprinkle's question that you might be going the path of saying mystical insight offers special scientific insights. You're saying what appears to me to be exactly what I am saying. I can now say with confidence that he is either not following what you are saying, or what I am saying since he sees a difference between us in this, where from what I see none exists, at least at this level.

Let me begin by saying that after reading many of your posts that I am truly impressed with your command of the subject matter, which considering the subjects is a bit of a pun, but whatever... What stood out in the above is "you might be going the path of saying mystical insight offers special scientific insights". From a mystic's viewpoint, I have no issue with what you folks are saying if indeed it is about "offering special scientific insights". I can live with that. Where I am more doubtful is in regards to the overall compatibility between mysticism and science. I guess I am just doubtful that there can be a bridge between non-rational apprehension and the cold hard logic of reason. The major problem would be to have science take mysticism seriously enough to consider its "special insights" worthy of closer examination.

 

[Windwalker]

Let me being by saying that after reading many of your posts that I am truly impressed with your command of the subject matter, which considering the subjects is a bit of a pun, but whatever... What stood out in the above is "you might be going the path of saying mystical insight offers special scientific insights". From a mystic's viewpoint, I have no issue with what you folks are saying if indeed it is about "offering special scientific insights". I can live with that. Where I am more doubtful is in regards to the overall compatibility between mysticism and science. I guess I am just doubtful that there can be a bridge between non-rational apprehension and the cold hard logic of reason. The major problem would be to have science take mysticism seriously enough to consider its "special insights" worthy of closer examination.

Thanks for your kind response. This is worth deeper discussion with you about. Where I see a certain disconnect that happens is in what seems to be in qualifying what we mean as "compatible". What does that really mean? Does in mean mysticism can be considered an extension or complement to the empiric-analytic sciences? I would say no. Nor should it attempt to be. It is addressing, investing a domain that the "hard" sciences are not about, anymore than they are about art appreciation or interpreting the meaning of Hamlet. But are they "compatible" in the sense that they do not violate each other? That they enhance the value of each other without intruding into category errors? Yes. Very much so, yes.

There something I want to add to this that's going to open this up a little wider and deeper, but let's see if what I just said sits correctly first.

 

[Windwalker]

I guess I am just doubtful that there can be a bridge between non-rational apprehension and the cold hard logic of reason.

In re-reading your thoughts I wanted to address this separately. Can there be a bridge between the non-rational and the rational in your life, just living as a human being? Obviously the answer is yes. You do it every day.

The major problem would be to have science take mysticism seriously enough to consider its "special insights" worthy of closer examination.

Why take it any less seriously than any other human experience? You are aware they do in fact investigate what goes on in the brain during mystical experience, and how that there are notable differences in the brain between experienced meditators and non-meditators? I could link you to several studies if you are unfamiliar. "Something" is going on, that much is for sure. But if you wish to understand the content of what that is, you have two choices; listen to the reports of those who experience it, or experience it yourself.

 

[godnotgod]

Where I am more doubtful is in regards to the overall compatibility between mysticism and science. I guess I am just doubtful that there can be a bridge between non-rational apprehension and the cold hard logic of reason. The major problem would be to have science take mysticism seriously enough to consider its "special insights" worthy of closer examination.

Apparently, the Austrian quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger does take mysticism seriously enough to seek conferences between his group of scientists and the Dalai Lama and his scholar-monks every several years as new information comes into being.

[youtube]Zjd26JSaq64[/youtube]
The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics 1/6 - YouTube

Zeilinger.. is currently professor of physics at the University of Vienna, and is also the director of the Vienna branch of the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information IQOQI at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Zeilinger has been called a pioneer in the new field of quantum information and is renowned for his realization of quantum teleportation with photons.

 

[YmirGF]

Apparently, the Austrian quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger does take mysticism seriously enough to seek conferences between his group of scientists and the Dalai Lama and his scholar-monks every several years as new information comes into being.

More accurately, they had met twice before 9 & 10 years apart. The point I was making is that, of course there is some collaboration, but such collaboration, if we can truly call them that, are very few and far between. BTW: The video was almost painful to watch. Communication at a glacial pace. No wonder their meetings are decades apart. :sorry1:

 

[YmirGF]

In re-reading your thoughts I wanted to address this separately. Can there be a bridge between the non-rational and the rational in your life, just living as a human being? Obviously the answer is yes. You do it every day.

OK, I can deal with that.

Why take it any less seriously than any other human experience?

Due to the level of quackery in the field, one would assume. It's not like all mystics are created equal.

You are aware they do in fact investigate what goes on in the brain during mystical experience, and how that there are notable differences in the brain between experienced meditators and non-meditators?

I have followed that for several years now. No need to sing to the choir.

"Something" is going on, that much is for sure. But if you wish to understand the content of what that is, you have two choices; listen to the reports of those who experience it, or experience it yourself.

I understand, having experienced that "something" for a good many years. I guess all I am saying is that I have grave reservations about some of the ideas being promoted in this thread and the level of certainty attached to said ideas. I'm concerned at possible exaggerations.

 

[Windwalker]

Due to the level of quackery in the field, one would assume. It's not like all mystics are created equal.

Well, yes. Baby and bathwater. I always love it when someone likes to try to lump what I am saying as "hippie new age", or something like that. It's like saying scientists are quacks because some believed in phrenology. There is in fact some system of checks and balances in mystic communities. It is in fact a science in itself, in the broad sense of the word. It is a science of the depths of the mind in mystical experience, and follows patterns in general models.

I have followed that for several years now. No need to sing to the choir.

So, as we see, it is deemed worth investigating by science. It's not just some fiction.

I think where people make the mistake is then to hear someone's interpretation of said experience as say, a direct encounter with Jesus Christ, and say this proves the Bible is God's Word. The reaction of the "skeptic" then is to conclude the experience is "woo" or nonsense, or some other such crazy knee-jerky reaction. They then extend that to any and all mystics. I find such "reasoning" unfortunate.

I do not deny anyway the magnitude of anyone's experience, but it cannot be used to then prove the form it took for them in their mind proves some mythology is fact. The fact is, they had a profound experience. How they translate that then is a matter of culture and where someone is at developmentally. In most cases, these things are life changing, and typically for the better. There are recognizable traits to these things, and are not just speculative nonsense.

I understand, having experienced that "something" for a good many years.

You have mystical experiences?

I guess all I am saying is that I have grave reservations about some of the ideas being promoted in this thread and the level of certainty attached to said ideas. I'm concerned at possible exaggerations.

I suppose it depends on how it is being either expressed, or heard. I'm curious if you've heard me express something that fits this?

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that, while mystics have had relatively rare experiences, they are as a group no better at interpreting their experiences than are any other people.

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that, while mystics have had relatively rare experiences, they are as a group no better at interpreting their experiences than are any other people.

Or, rather, no different.

 

[YmirGF]

There are recognizable traits to these things, and are not just speculative nonsense.

I do understand that and have written about it or alluded to it on RF several times. The bummer in all this is that, for the most part, not too many folks understand and the ones who do don't really need to hear it.

You have mystical experiences?

Once or twice, yes. BTW: I really loved your description of your first awakening. It certainly brought back memories. Such experiences certainly add meaning to the word cathartic.

I suppose it depends on how it is being either expressed, or heard. I'm curious if you've heard me express something that fits this?

I'd have to look to say for sure. No doubt you said a few things that had me rolling my eyes, but for the most part, your explanations are very high quality, much more so than others in this thread.

 

[dust1n]

Yes, you can identify what the figure is, but the quesion is: what is it that allows you to do so?

Um... a combination of light, eyes, brains, computer programming, electricity, money, food, willpower, and general awesomeness. I'm guessing here though. What is it?

 

[YmirGF]

It seems to me that, while mystics have had relatively rare experiences, they are as a group no better at interpreting their experiences than are any other people.

Or, rather, no different.

I agree with both of you and that is why I am feeling a caution here of not going too far over the edge in exaggerating aspects of mystical experience. I've been a mystical cheerleader on RF for a good many years now and if I am saying, "Whoa, back up the truck", there just might be some pretty good reasons.

 

[Windwalker]

It seems to me that, while mystics have had relatively rare experiences, they are as a group no better at interpreting their experiences than are any other people.

Rare? I experience this every day. But rather than say they are not better at interpreting their experiences, I'd say there just as good at describing their experiences as anyone. It's amazing how similar those descriptions are too.

Now interpretation really has to do with the symbolic frameworks that is ones 'normal' worldview. Within that worldview, the understandings will generally follow the same symbol sets. No surprises there.

 

[godnotgod]

More accurately, they had met twice before 9 & 10 years apart. The point I was making is that, of course there is some collaboration, but such collaboration, if we can truly call them that, are very few and far between. BTW: The video was almost painful to watch. Communication at a glacial pace. No wonder their meetings are decades apart. :sorry1:

The point is only that these scientists (note: more than one) respect the mystical view enough to consult with it, in spite of the communications barriers. They do not see it as poppycock.

 

[godnotgod]

Um... a combination of light, eyes, brains, computer programming, electricity, money, food, willpower, and general awesomeness. I'm guessing here though. What is it?

The image is composed of figure and ground. Can you make out figure without ground?