The Game of Opposites

[Aaron]

Here goes my opposite argument:

 

One can know the true nature of reality, through direct intuition. The scientific method is fine, for wrestling tiny details, but true spiritual knowledge can bypass things like repeatability, rigorous testing, etc. This is not just belief I'm talking about here; this surpasses belief and viewpoint, and goes straight to a deeper space. It is like a sudden window opens up, and reveals the hidden truth. How do I know? Because I heard it from my original mind, and it's never wrong. How do I know that? Because I heard it in an out-of-body-experience, and its never wrong. How do I know that? Because every word that arises from my OBE is in complete agreement with (my understanding of) the words of the Buddha. How do I know that my understanding of the Buddha's words are correct? Because when I read those words, there is an icy chill of recognition that goes through my spine, and I am suddenly transported into the collective mind, I feel larger than I have ever felt before, and I see that part of the Buddha is alive in me, so I see what he sees. How do I know that these assertions are true? Because when I am one with the universe, everything is clear, and the scales fall away. (Etc. ad infinitum).

 

 

 

 

(Anyone with an opposite opposite view want to challenge my ironclad argument?)

 

 

I might not agree with it, but I liked how you explained it. I do appreciate the references to one's experience determining their faith in the indescribable. I would agree with that aspect.

 

Aaron

Edited June 11, 2011 by Twinner

[Birch]

my opposite view in response to Otis' opposite view.

obviously only a scientist using the scientific method(especially ones from the western world) could be expected to define the one absolute truth.

after all the scientist's senses are keener, his brain faculty far superior,

his experience and thoughts about his experiences certainly have a higher quality than anyone else's. even if they are philosophers or from any spiritual group.

i wont even mention poets or artists as they are obviously inferior to the scientific mind.

to think that someone could catch even a brief glimpse of some spiritual truth

by listening to their own inner thoughts , or mind, or even a collected conscious

is quite absurd. how can one trust themself anyways? unless they are a scientist!

besides scientist never hold any personal bias that would cloud their vision.

edit> oops sorry about the edit but i would like to add that it is certain that discerning the one absolute truth or the many truths is well within the capabilities of the scientific method.

 

 

My opposite view to yours ZerosTao.

 

'Scientists' must go through extraordinary (re)conditioning in order to practice the scientific method purely. Unfortunately, as some of us with qi-gong and meditation practice may have figured out, it's extremely hard to break previous conditioning in a way that ensures no remanent will persist to bias the desired approach. In fact, because of this inherent difficulty, many scientists are doing no more than allowing their previous biases expression in more subtle ways. So while reaping the benefits of the method, they are doing it a disservice.

Poetic or artistic practice does not attempt to resolve bias but express it and make it visible so we can't compare these types of thinking and expression with any success. As a consequence, value judgements of the type you suggested, have to be couched again in bias.'

[zerostao]

My opposite view to yours ZerosTao.

 

'Scientists' must go through extraordinary (re)conditioning in order to practice the scientific method purely. Unfortunately, as some of us with qi-gong and meditation practice may have figured out, it's extremely hard to break previous conditioning in a way that ensures no remanent will persist to bias the desired approach. In fact, because of this inherent difficulty, many scientists are doing no more than allowing their previous biases expression in more subtle ways. So while reaping the benefits of the method, they are doing it a disservice.

Poetic or artistic practice does not attempt to resolve bias but express it and make it visible so we can't compare these types of thinking and expression with any success. As a consequence, value judgements of the type you suggested, have to be couched again in bias.'

-K-

before i reply to yopur opposite view of my opposite view, thus making it an opposite view cubed Otis was right this is tricky.

let me say i do feel the scientific method and scientists do a great service to our community. do i think it has limits? yes, i do.

 

ok my opposite view to your opposite view of my opposite view ;

if one believes anything sincerly then it is easy to be coldly objective.

and there is little chance that our selective view or biases could not be hidden in the unconscious.(subconscious)

to know, understand, or interpret the universe is solely achievable by the scientific method. and here i will deviate a bit and add that it is within the grasp of any science with the 2 exceptions of quantum physics and psychology.

is biology a science?? anyways....

the status of intuition, creative insight, imagination, and self experience would play no role in advancing this knowledge/understanding.

 

of course i do not have any scientific studies in my background but i did stay at

a holiday inn express last night.

 

edit> i wanted to add this.

Edited June 13, 2011 by zerostao