Conference hydra::dejavu

    Re .0:  
    
    >	To me, this means that it is futile to try and explain a "psychic
    >phenomena" in scientific terms, and, it is futile to try to explain a
    >physical phenomena in terms of the mystic?
     
    Oboy!  First of all, one must understand "psychic phenomenon" means
    different things to different people.  Some would call telepathy
    as "psychic"; others as "merely" paranormal.  Words like "psychic,"
    "occult," andf the like have _all_ kinds of connotations.  
    
    So does "scientific."  To some, describing something in "scientific
    terms" means describing something in terms of known principles;
    to others, it means recording detailed observations.
    
    Suppose I come across someone who genuinely levitates.  If I recorded
    the height above the ground, the temperature, the magnetic and/or
    electric fields, etc., surrounding the subject levitating, plus
    erecording his or her maass, taking measurements, photographing
    the phenomenon, etc., I'd have reported the levitation in "scientific
    terms" while still having no idea how (or why) the person could
    levitate.
    
    Parapsychologists are making scientific observations of the paranormal
    all the time.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    The mystic senses the 'root' the psychic force underlaying creation
    and consciousness.  The scientist examines the 'branches', the 
    physical evidence of creation, and both strive toward consistent
    and predictable understanding of how to best live in the sensed
    creation.  The Bhagad-Vida says either scientist or mystic can
    reach salvation and understanding without benefit of the 
    other discipine, and the available comparisons are confusing.
    This makes the arguments to unify them all the more challenging.
    						MWR
    

    As both a Taoist mystic and scientist, I think Capra is trying too hard
    to be gnomic, and ends up being someone who tries to name the Tao. He
    often makes me wish his Zen master would rap his forehead against the
    coffee table a few times. 
    
    	Jon

    I think we are having a bit of vocabulary problem here:
    
    Psychic, as has been discussed before, has multiple meanings, but
    generally now refers to such things as ESP, PK, ghosts, poltergeists,
    etc.
    
    The contrast being made in this quote would better be desicribed
    as between the scientific (i.e., material) and the *spiritual*.
    As such it really says the *opposite* of how you were interpretting
    it.
    
    From their own world-views, both the mystic/spiritual and the
    scientific/material viewpoints are *complete*.  All phenomena are
    accounted for.  Psychic events, in the sense of phenomena which
    have some real effect on the world (i.e., someone is healed, something
    is found, something is moved) are of concern and within the scope
    of science.  It *must* strive to understand them, or it fails in
    its quest.
    
    Science attempts to explain the material world.  It does this, in
    part, by dismissing certain perceptions (e.g., the mystic perception of
    the oneness of the Universe) as delusion.  By so doing it can create
    a complete, consistent picture.  Sometimes a delusion is useful
    for self-manipulation to tap into abilities which are perfectly
    consistent with the scientific world-view -- but this does not mean
    that the delusion is "true" (materialist/scientifc meaning of truth).
    For example, singers are told to imaging such things as that they
    are opening up there throat wide enough to swallow a grapefruit
    whole -- needless to say they are not, but if it feels like they
    are, they sing better.
    
    Mystic belief systems, on the other hand, attempt to explain the
    spiritual world.  They do this also, in part, by dismissing certain
    perceptions (e.g., all external perceptions) as delusion (maia).
    By doing so they can create a complete, consistent picture.  Once
    again, they don't argue with the *usefulness* of the delusion, but
    insist that spiritual progress can only be had by recognizing its
    delusional nature.
    
    The quote says that both are complete unto themselves, but that
    neither is sufficient for people.  We need science for the body
    and the mind, and spirituality for the mind and the soul.
    
    					Topher

Isn't it something that every belief system seeks to deny the 
reality/validity of every other belief system?  For example "science"
denys "mysticism" by stating that for a phenomenon to be "real" it
must be observable and reproduceable.  Likewise with mysticism in
which everything "real" is maya or delusion except the Absolute
Oneness.  

We can even observe within these two "belief systems" denial and
ostracism..."If you don't believe what I believe, you're going to
a bad place". I think every major western religion says this and 
perhaps even *every(?)* religion?  And what about the "scientists"?
Don't they say things like "Well those physicists... they deal with
their own interpretation of reality, while us mathemeticians deal
in more precise terms..."

I think that it is the nature of the Relative existence that we 
*must* have these types of contradictions/paradoxes because if
we didn't, then us poor seekers after Truth would spend all of our
time leaping from one belief/value system to another.  Kind of
like spinning our wheels in cosmic (sic) sand.  We *have* to 
accept/believe in something in order to gain ground in our 
quest for enlightenment.  And once we attain it, nobody is going
to listen to us anyway, because they're still caught up in their
own struggle with their own beliefs...

Larry  /@.@\
       \ - /
    
    

    

Re: < Note 614.5 by SDOGUS::DEUTMAN "I'd Rather be INSANE DIEGO" >

> Isn't it something that every belief system seeks to deny the 
> reality/validity of every other belief system?  For example "science"
> denys "mysticism" by stating that for a phenomenon to be "real" it
> must be observable and reproduceable.  Likewise with mysticism in
> which everything "real" is maya or delusion except the Absolute
> Oneness.  

> We can even observe within these two "belief systems" denial and
> ostracism..."If you don't believe what I believe, you're going to
> a bad place". I think every major western religion says this and 
> perhaps even *every(?)* religion?  And what about the "scientists"?
> Don't they say things like "Well those physicists... they deal with
> their own interpretation of reality, while us mathemeticians deal
> in more precise terms..."
    
    If you enjoy believing stuff like this, go ahead.  But the above
    is not an accurate picture of the world view of most of science
    or religion or (from what little I know if it) mysticism.
    
    Scientists have as wide a range of opinions about spiritual matters
    as anyone else.  Some insist that nothing outside of science has
    any reality, some that a spiritual reality exists which science
    cannot reach, some that science itself is only a game involving
    appearances.
    
    And major western religions I know about emphatically deny that
    your beliefs alone will determine your afterlife.  I was raised
    a Catholic and we were emphatically taught that those who sincerely
    believed and practiced another religion could reach heaven.  
    Religious beliefs also cover a wide range.  Some do preach that
    beliefs will determine the afterlife.  Some say that even if you
    believe all the right things, you may not be part of the Elect.
    
    Some mystics do say that science is merely a delusion.  Some say
    that it is just part of reality.  And some say that it is all of
    reality, just like everything else.
    
    And scientists have taken over the scholastic tradition of saying
    rude things about each other.  But this is not serious, and if you
    get scientists into a serious discussion about the 'reality' of
    their work, you are likely to see the range of opinion mentioned
    above.  A NOVA on pure mathematics, which aired two days ago in
    Boston, described the wide range of opinions among mathematicians
    about the 'reality' of their subject.

    There is another book:  "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" that also discuss
    the differences between eastern Mysticism and Western Physics.
    
    Personally, I think that physicists and mystics are like blind men
    trying to explain the shape of an elephant.  One feels the leg and
    says it's like a tree, another feels the tail and says it's like
    a rope, another feels the trunk and says it's like a fire hose,
    another feels the stomach and says it's like a wall . . . .
    
    Dave
    

    re .6
    
    I guess what I was striving to say was that some of the more
    rigid belief systems (and their followers) seek to deny the
    reality/possibility of other belief systems.  They do this I
    think, in order to keep their followers on the path that they
    set out on. (Ever talk to a "born-again" Christian? Or a
    fundamentalist Baptist?) 
    
    The contradiction (to an outside observer) is that while the
    belief system they are espousing may lead its followers to
    "the goal" which they define, the followers *must* reject any
    other world view or belief system, even though other systems
    have just as much "truth" in them and are just as capable of
    leading *their* followers to "the goal".
    
    I'm not saying ALL belief systems are like this, but I certainly
    have run into quite a few...
    
    As far as science vs mysticism goes, yes, you are right - there
    are certainly "followers" of both systems who do not deny the
    possibility of the other system's truths.  That's great, but for
    the most part (my view) this doesn't happen very much.  And
    maybe this is good, because it allows each follower to concentrate
    on the path they have chosen, and not be distracted by other
    paths.  It seems that the "study of paths" will not lead to
    any goal other than understanding that there are many "valid"
    paths.  The "real" goal (again, my opinion) is enlightenment, that
    merger with the Absolute Oneness.
    
    Larry   @.@
            \-/
    
    

    
    To paraphrase Gibran from "The Prophet":
    
    "Think not that you have found 'the Truth', but that you have found
    'a truth'......."                      
                                                                
    And yes, I've been talked *at* by many a born-again Christian.
                                  
    Cindy

    
    Cindy,
    
> And yes, I've been talked *at* by many a born-again Christian.      
                                                
    As have I and many others. But then we've all been "talked at" by
    many people born-again or not. Born-again christians have all the
    same human errors and character flaws as everyone else. The only
    difference is a devotion to Jesus and the claim of salvation through
    Him. ( I feel that there is more to it than just a "claim" but this
    is not the place for such discussions.)
    
    Gil
    

    Re .9 & .10
    
    Yes, I'm probably just as likely to talk *at* people myself, because
    I believe I've found "The Truth". I have found though, through
    experience, that most people don't like to be talked *at*, but
    rather want information about "The Truth" ONLY when they are
    open and receptive and have enquired about it.
    
    Also, through experience, I have relegated "The Truth"
    to "a truth".  I just didn't know how to express this; thanks Cindy.
    
    Larry   @.-
            \-/