From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri Mar 04 2005 - 18:04:29 GMT
Matt,
Matt said:
First, I can't see why you'd say that either materialism or immaterialism
could win out in an argument, particularly on the use of evidence, based on
what you've said about Darwinism being simply a "theory." I thought you
were saying in those passages about the metaphysical nature of certain
doctrines that the "world," i.e. evidence, couldn't force us to be one way
or the other.
Scott:
What I said (or meant) is that there isn't any scientific evidence for or
against Darwinism. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for immaterialism
(that is, for events or revelations that cannot be contained in a Darwinist
viewpoint). What one makes of that anecdotal evidence is another question.
My opinion is, unless it happens to me, not much. As in your example from
your roommate, for most any particular report there are other possible
explanations. Of course, since I do not consider time to be fundamental, I
have no a priori tendency to discount a report of precognition, (while a
naturalist will presuppose some other explanation), yet I do not consider
such reports to be any kind of proof.
Matt said:
But how am I supposed to receive first-hand accounts like that? Obviously
my roommate is no mystic, but it was a personal experience of "something
else" wasn't it? I told her that, though I don't believe for a second that
she suffered from precognition, or you could be more "with it," more
"connected," the one thing I couldn't do was tell her that she didn't
experience it. I could only give her alternate explanations of what it was.
But how am I supposed to take those personal experiences? Are we to take
any damn fool thing a person says seriously (assuming they say it
sincerely)? This is what I call the shibboleth problem.
...
How can we tell the
Buddhas from the Call-In Cleos?
The only answer I can figure is through conversation, but the end result of
that answer means that the only way we can tell a real mystic from someone
who hasn't penetrated appearance to reality is by behavior, which means that
they must be behaving according to the conventions of an established
tradition, a tradition that would deem them a mystic. The end result of
this line, I think, is that the only practical thing that matters, then,
isn't whether there was any penetration or not, but the results of the
conversation itself. The conversation is what matters, the inquiry is what
matters, not whether we say that they penetrated beyond appearances.
Scott:
Basically, I agree, about conversation, though one can be more detailed, in
saying that that conversation should be one of critical thinking, dialectic,
and open-mindedness. However, I do not agree that behavior is the only clue,
nor is belonging to a tradition that stamps them with approval. What
tradition did Merrell-Wolff belong to? His background was that of a son of a
Christian minister, educated at Harvard, but his main source for his theory
and practice leading up to his Awakening was the Vedantist Shankara. But he
also gave a lot of credit to his interest in philosophy (Western and
Eastern) and to mathematics. And then his second Awakening took him by
surprise, since all his reading had not said anything about it. Then he
found some references in Buddhism and in Eckhart that likely referred to it.
So what was his tradition?
And, of course, the only "behavior" of his that I can use to evaluate him
(he died in 1985) is his writing. Yet I find him very convincing, in part
because in his writing he explores his own experience critically.
Lessing said (roughly) "Revelation is not rational when it is revealed, but
is revealed so that it may become rational". All these reports, from Buddha
to Call-In Cleo, can be considered revelatory candidates. Reason (aka
conversation, critical thinking, dialectic, open-mindedness) must sort them
out. There are, of course, no a priori criteria for doing so.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 04 2005 - 18:46:46 GMT