Science for the awakened

[Karl]

That is an intrincisist view point of course. I regard man as fallible in all respects. We can both deliberately and unknowingly act against our values bcause we have free will and we can institute new values at odds with our older versions. The intrincisist says to be still and listen and we will then be aware of the values that our written intrinsically within us.

 

We are not however, as the intrincisist and the subjectivists tend to agree, with egos as black as sin, that our nature is to grab at every piece of material in a frenzy of greed so that we must give up our liberty by contract to a ruler. We are also not-as an intrincisist will insist- that our values are written by God, or some other supernatural force without regard to our natural rottenness. That we should be ascetics and live a life of penury and abstinence as far as possible, to still our minds in order to get as close to God/or whatever faith we subscribe, as we can in order to liberate this intrinsic knowledge hiding beneath the corrupt outer shell.

 

That's the short version :-)

 

How would it be if you were completely in control of your values and that they were part of a process of sense precepts becoming concepts through integration ? Would it be an imposition in any way other than to move the responsibility firmly into your own mind. Would it matter if your values were good because you created them as concepts from all your combined experiences, that you could come to know reality directly and act with honesty, integrity and rationality ? That fallibility was always a necessity-a part of learning ?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Karl

[ilumairen]

So why we find ourselves following this strange and uncharted course we can never say.  It is the truth that is not recognised by the herd, so we aren't interested in whether it is irrational from their perspective.  

 

I could actually tell you how I got here, in great detail. But in this moment the common ground brings much contentment.

 

How's that for irrational?

[ilumairen]

I find your reasoning conflicted Des and that makes it difficult to understand where you are. If I had to guess I would think you are a Hobbsian nominalist-and of course, only a Hobbsian nominalist would say they weren't because everything is subjective right down to the philosophy :-)

 

What confuses me is that you don't appear to subscribe to the 'might is right' philosophy of Hobbs except in passing when you talked of the 'dog eat dog world' that you believe is the aim of objectivism.

 

I suppose if you are a true subjectivist, then even the label subjectivist is entirely an arbitrary nominalisation anyway ?

 

Are you mystic at all in your approach ? Do you have God or some other dogma which you follow ? I dont see evidence for it, but maybe you are at that odd halfway stage at which a deity/dogma becomes a plausibility over a King. You mentioned Locke and Hobbs so I'm guessing they were influential ?

 

Other than that bit of guessing I'm stumped. I would wish to know where you are philosophically, but I'm struggling.

Ok Karl, my non-conformity is denial of labels. I don't like them. Even as a child, I was seriously stumped and puzzled when asked to choose a favorite color. In one moment I'd like one color, and the moment would change and I'd like the new color set before me. Someone else chose the color 'red' for me, and eventually I developed an aversion to it. The philosophy you are trying to place me into, for the sake of your understanding, is the same thing to me. Edited December 15, 2015 by Des

[Karl]

Ok Karl, my non-conformity is denial of labels. I don't like them. Even as a child, I was seriously stumped and puzzled when asked to choose a favorite color. In one moment I'd like one color, and the moment would change and I'd like the new color set before me. Someone else chose the color 'red' for me, and eventually I developed an aversion to it. The philosophy you are trying to place me into, for the sake of your understanding, is the same thing to me.

 

That explains quite a lot. It's important though to realise that we adopt aspects of philosophies simply by exposure. They are all around us from adverts, to school books, well known sayings, political discourse and we can't avoid them and the spin they place on our understanding.

 

I would also be puzzled if asked to choose a 'favourite' colour :-) I would ask in what context. I like black for a night sky so that the stars are visible, but not black for my bedroom because I don't much like goth :-)

 

You display a lot of Hobbsian aspects-apologise if you don't like the label, but it has to be said that Hobbs also considered labels a quirk of human convenience that identity could not be found in anything. If one examined red and took away its attributes nothing at all remained. All you could do is the point at things and say nothing. That means you fit very neatly into the Hobbsian uncategorised fluidness if you see what I'm getting at-or maybe I should say as a convenient descriptor which doesn't prescribe anything in particular to anything at all. I just point.

 

This is why I said that those that subscribe to subjectivism would argue they subscribed to nothing at all, that they could not be labelled that they were just what they were and that's that.

 

In effect we can't get further in discussion, because no reason could ever penetrate that belief -a subjectivist would say reason doesn't exist either. We just look and see and that's how it is.

 

I could challenge you by looking at concept formation, but it's an arduous, complex path that I find pointless at this juncture. I accept that this is how it is for you and if it's working better than what you had before, then It's unproductive for both of us to argue.

 

I'm happy I went from interesting to charming-a definite sign of improvement.

[ilumairen]

That explains quite a lot. It's important though to realise that we adopt aspects of philosophies simply by exposure. They are all around us from adverts, to school books, well known sayings, political discourse and we can't avoid them and the spin they place on our understanding.

 

I would also be puzzled if asked to choose a 'favourite' colour :-) I would ask in what context. I like black for a night sky so that the stars are visible, but not black for my bedroom because I don't much like goth :-)

 

I don't much like goth either. My baby sister ascribed to it. She lives in a mental institution now.

 

 

I could challenge you by looking at concept formation, but it's an arduous, complex path that I find pointless at this juncture. I accept that this is how it is for you and if it's working better than what you had before, then It's unproductive for both of us to argue.

 

I could actually show you exactly where the concepts I am aware of came from. Most of them came from music, movies, and books. There is nothing to argue about. Haha

 

I'm happy I went from interesting to charming-a definite sign of improvement.

 

I've discovered that whenever I find another's words as I found yours that there is some aspect of myself that can be found. I don't like arguing with myself, so I watch.

[Karl]

I don't much like goth either. My baby sister ascribed to it. She lives in a mental institution now.

 

 

 

 

I could actually show you exactly where the concepts I am aware of came from. Most of them came from music, movies, and books. There is nothing to argue about. Haha

 

 

 

I've discovered that whenever I find another's words as I found yours that there is some aspect of myself that can be found. I don't like arguing with myself, so I watch.

 

the course of life rarely runs smoothly.

[ilumairen]

the course of life rarely runs smoothly.

 

Yes, which is why I continue to choose the moments that come, as they come - with as few filters as possible.

[Karl]

Yes, which is why I continue to choose the moments that come, as they come - with as few filters as possible.

 

That agrees with objectivist philosophy. Just enjoy the moment if you can.

[Nikolai1]

Hi Karl

 

That is an intrincisist view point of course. I regard man as fallible in all respects. We can both deliberately and unknowingly act against our values bcause we have free will and we can institute new values at odds with our older versions. The intrincisist says to be still and listen and we will then be aware of the values that our written intrinsically within us. 

I talked earlier about how our values (our heart's desires) are not just ethical but intellectual in nature.  When an intellectual value is very deeply held, it is called a 'truth' when shared with the majority, and a 'belief' when not.

 

As before, these intellectual values can be authentic and personally endorsed, or they can be inauthentic and largely foisted on us by society.

 

One of the deepest of these values is our sense of being an individual in time and place. In other words, we can come to see that this is an equivocal value statement and doesn't consititute absolute truth.  When we see this (and this is the vision that is so often called 'awakening') a former intellectual value loses its, let's call it, cash value.  It is not something that can be endorsed any longer.  It is part of the herd mentality...in fact it IS the herd mentality.

 

When our deepest identity is no longer seen, felt and understood to be individuated, all sense of inner and outer completely breaks down.  Such terms belong to a world view we no longer endorse.  You may call me an 'intrinsicist' but, for me, this applies no more than 'extrinsicist'.

 

You also talked about free will...

 

From the viewpoint just described, there is no place where either free will or determinism obtain.  Both are nothing more than quite nice tropes, more or less, for explaining the transformations that apparently happen in an apparently external reality.  There is nothing imposed upon me that I cannot view as being chosen, with a simple shift in perspective.  You may believe in your free will, but that to me is just a value that you uphold, and that is your prerogative.  

 

The Science of the Awakened, as I've said many times is a description of an investigative paradigm complementary to normal science.  You could call it a way of viewing things that is not commonly known about.  By it we can gain understanding on a whole raft of things that our formerly held values obscured from us.

 

I therefore pronounce it and endorse it.  It is the intellectual value that arises when a certain old value has lost its unequivocal value.  You've said that you have no wish to commit suicide and so shall not endorse this value.  This, again, is your prerogative and I do not wish to deceive you by sayng that suicide can be avoided.

[Karl]

Both the intrinsic and subjective views are ultimately about the primacy of consciousness. Both mean sacrifice (suicide) of the individual to some other ideal. Generally the intrincisist chooses some deity to other supernatural source, the subjectivist usually to a society/state/ruler.

 

Intertwined around these base philosophies are hundreds of mixtures and variations, but they boil down to the same thing in the final analysis. The primacy of consciousness vs the primacy of existence. I choose the latter.

 

Either we are capable of holding independently derived virtues that support the values to which we ascribe to hold and gain, or we aren't. Either man is capable of rational, independent, volitional active thought, or his mind has no purpose at all. We can either know reality directly or we are simply floating nothingness-puppets of some greater thing we can't know.

 

The only question for me-and it's unequivocal and straight forward-is, can I do business with this person ?

I don't mean just in the sense of traditional business, but in any form of trade. Would I trust a person that was committed to suicide to fly my plane ? Would I trust a person who's philosophy bid them to obey a dogma (such as a God), or who felt that my survival was secondary to the social good? No to both. I could not trust either of these people. On one hand a potential religious Jihadist and on the other a committed Nazi/Stalinist.

 

I will actively defend myself against such people. If they wish to expire peacefully in a quiet corner, then I certainly would not encourage such action, but that's a decision they must make for themselves.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Generally the intrincisist chooses some deity to other supernatural source, the subjectivist usually to a society/state/ruler. 

What about all those who 'choose' a higher self.  I mean the same essential identity but larger and wiser and capable of more far-seeking action?

 

Edit : sorry I see you probably answered that:

 

Intertwined around these base philosophies are hundreds of mixtures and variations, but they boil down to the same thing in the final analysis. 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Nikolai1]

The primacy of consciousness vs the primacy of existence. I choose the latter. 

Consciousness vs existence is no dichotomy.  Did you mean consciousness vs matter?

[Karl]

Consciousness vs existence is no dichotomy.  Did you mean consciousness vs matter?

 

Primacy of consciousness vs primacy of existence. The operative word here is primacy.

 

 

[thelerner]

Sorry if the conversations moved past this.

Its fuzzy, its not logical, its wrought with con men and can't be reproduced repeatedly or on demand, but I believe getting knowledge without direct contact is possible.  No idea of the mechanisms but in my travels, the people I've met, the stories I've heard, I believe.  There are people with some extra-sensory gifts, awakened and expanded intuition.  

[Karl]

What about all those who 'choose' a higher self.  I mean the same essential identity but larger and wiser and capable of more far-seeking action?

 

Edit : sorry I see you probably answered that:

 

Depends how you percieve a higher self.

 

Certainly to seek greater wisdom and therefore an action inspired by that greater wisdom can only be a good thing in my book.

 

The problem is in the knowing that you have achieved what you set out to achieve.

[Karl]

Sorry if the conversations moved past this.

Its fuzzy, its not logical, its wrought with con men and can't be reproduced repeatedly or on demand, but I believe getting knowledge without direct contact is possible. No idea of the mechanisms but in my travels, the people I've met, the stories I've heard, I believe. There are people with some extra-sensory gifts, awakened and expanded intuition.

Concept formation, abstraction, mental integration, imagination. These are purely mental processes. Ultimately they rely on sensory experience as perceptual knowledge, but are not bounded by it. The world is full of man made inventions that are a result of those inductive leaps-things that never existed previously. We did not need to have experienced a steam engine to create a steam engine, even the later scientific developments of thermodynamics were not created until after man had built the engine he had imagined.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Primacy of consciousness vs primacy of existence. The operative word here is primacy.

I'm sorry but I'm still confused.  I press you on this because I agree that this distinction is an important and fundamental one.  But I need to understand you first!

[Karl]

I'm sorry but I'm still confused.  I press you on this because I agree that this distinction is an important and fundamental one.  But I need to understand you first!

 

The problem is making the explanation concise enough without the context which outlines the ramifications of the two approaches. The difficulty is increased because you already accept the primacy of consciousness as your philosophical base line. I don't want to offer an argument as to which one is the right one, only to lay down both arguments and say 'choose'. You can have one or the other, but not both. Because these arguments sit at the base of all human knowledge, understanding, morality and ethics, then each alters all of them in direct contradiction to the other.

 

I can therefore only say directly that primacy of consciousness is the view that consciousness precedes existence and primacy of existence is the view that existence precedes consciousness.

 

The first says that mans mind is redundant for grasping existence because consciousness is the active creator of existence. The second that mans consciousness is the passive faculty for grasping existence.

 

 

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Yes I understand you Karl.  It's your use of the word existence that confuses me because one might say that consciousness is the evidence of my existence so the two aren't dichotomised.

 

But anyway,  I view the two positions as identical deep down.  I see only correspondence between the inner and the outer.  When I say that knowledge in the heart will be reflected in the outer reality I am not actually talking about a creative process, even though language can make it sound that way and, also, that 'knowledge creates reality' I view as a suitable metaphor for the world of time and space.

 

All talk of causality I view as metaphorical.  If we say that consciousness emerges passively out of material existence, I acknowledge the metaphor. I can see why people might talk in this fashion.

 

If I talk of consciousness creating matter, I also like the metaphor. 

 

I prefer the second.  Why? Because this was the new exciting insight for me.  It is the thing I have really had to work hard to see is the case.  My dissatisfaction with materialism drove me on...I knew there was more to it than materialism.  And then, with the help of certain experiences, I saw the complementary viewpoint and my mind was expanded!

 

I think you and I have been guilty of talking past each other much of the time.

[Karl]

I understand exactly what you are saying, but I fundamentally disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Obviously, because my perception of agreement is very much based on the premises we don't share.

[Karl]

Obviously, because my perception of agreement is very much based on the premises we don't share.

 

Exactly. Not a thing we can do about it either. That is where we began.For you science is anything that you think it is, for me it is a specific methodology based on Aristotlian philosophy. Yours is the pragmatist view. Kantian/Descartian subjectivism is very much the ruling philosophy today. I fear we will lose the scientific method completely at some point. That is already in evidence as some scientists are claiming consensus validates theory. That science is a social good in the way of Kant. This is why we have climate scientists that are driving political policy.

[Nikolai1]

.For you science is anything that you think it is, 

When I talk about heart's desire you must understand that I do no think these can be chosen on a whim.  What we love, what we value, we do not choose.  Rather, I say, they choose us.

 

This is the point at which I surrender.  It is the point at which I bow before what is objectively granted.  The scientific truth we all accept I see as a certain bewitchment.  The people are bewitched by something that is not necessarily the case.   The spell will pass; but the spell, for now, is real...it is objective.

 

I seek the spells that have been cast in my own heart and I wish to be enchanted by them, deceived even.   The spells that enchant others do not enchant me.  My quest has been for my own disenchantment hitherto.  Now I will allow the magic back...on my terms!

[Nikolai1]

Society and its science will throw plenty of its truths my way, but If my intellect can frame the argument against them, then they are not my spells.  I cannot be deceived because my intelligence is very broad, very immense.

 

And them some spells come my way.  Surely it is a meaningless folly to hit tennis balls over the net and inside the line? It's an activity fit for an ape!  But do you know what? I don't care! I don't care!

[Karl]

When I talk about heart's desire you must understand that I do no think these can be chosen on a whim.  What we love, what we value, we do not choose.  Rather, I say, they choose us.

 

This is the point at which I surrender.  It is the point at which I bow before what is objectively granted.  The scientific truth we all accept I see as a certain bewitchment.  The people are bewitched by something that is not necessarily the case.   The spell will pass; but the spell, for now, is real...it is objective.

 

I seek the spells that have been cast in my own heart and I wish to be enchanted by them, deceived even.   The spells that enchant others do not enchant me.  My quest has been for my own disenchantment hitherto.  Now I will allow the magic back...on my terms!

 

I understand precisely what your saying, but it makes no difference to me. You have admitted to volitionally surrendering your mind and that's all there is to it. I can only hope you don't succeed and eventually come to your senses. I wish you well Nickolai.