--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Xeno in reference to your quote just below: is metaphysical indeed the same 
> as non physical?  I think meta means beyond so I think the word metaphysical 
> is quite different from non physical.  And is enlightenment truly non 
> physical?  IMO it is not.  Any more I don't even think of consciousness as 
> non physical.  Perhaps it's simply that our instruments for measuring such 
> are not calibrated to the needed level of subtlety.  This hopefully will 
> improve, especially given the advances in brain imaging, etc.  

One of the meanings of 'metaphysical' is 'transcending physical matter or the 
laws of nature'; a lot of people seem to use the word this way. For myself I do 
not think of consciousness as non-physical, since it seems to go away when 
certain physical parameters, say a bullet, change physical matter in  certain 
ways. Many people believe in all sorts of non-physical stuff that is 'beyond' 
the world we know, and there are also hypothetical other universes, that could 
be physical, that we cannot travel to.

Whether being or Being is non-physical is an interesting question to ask, as 
whether being is conscious or unconscious or preconscious, or even whether it 
is possible to meaninfully answer such a question. 
The LHC, in its now probable finding of the Higgs boson shows that excitation 
of the vacuum indicates that the vaccum, i.e., 'nothing' has physical 
properties. The idea of unity would support the concept that consciousness and 
being are physical; that is, there is nothing that is not being, that the only 
processes that know being are physical systems. The outlier here is 
self-realisation. While it is an experience to awaken, the experience is really 
a realisation of what experience is, a very peculiar state of identity when 
compared to other experiences, kind of like an eye seeing itself without a 
mirror. It cannot be adequately described, verbalised, and yet people have this 
happen. Yet the experience does not exist in any way outside of what has 
already passed before. Is it metaphysical? I am not sure the question is 
possible to ask.

However, to simplify matters, if everything is physical, science can 
investigate everything. If not, then people who say there are things that 
cannot be physically investigated, we have no way to prove what they say is 
true, except on the level of personal trust. 

So if I try to sell you a bottle of magical health syrup imbued with the 
spirits of great physicians and meta-physicians of the past, and enlivened with 
pixie dust from Tinkerbell and the breath of Deepak Chopra for $180.00 for 4 
ounces, will you trust me?

> Enlightenment, self-realisation, deals with a singular value of 
> experience which for the sake of argument we could say is metaphysical, 
> which automatically makes it impossible for science to investigate it 
> directly, as science cannot investigate anything that is non-physical.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:00 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A FFL Meditator Survey
>  
> 
>   
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> "Scientists have been conducting Transcendental Meditation (TM) research 
> since the late 1960’s and *340* studies have been published in 
> peer-reviewed journals."
> 
> "More research is needed to determine the therapeutic effects of meditation 
> practices and sources vary regarding their assessment of the quality of 
> research. Some cite design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor, 
> while others assert that the quality is improving and that when suitable 
> assessment criteria are applied, scientific evidence supports the therapeutic 
> value of meditation. Authors Canter and Ernst assert that some studies have 
> the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM 
> organization while TM researchers point to their collaboration with 
> independent researchers and universities as signs of objectivity."
> 
> In general, Buck, research on meditation in general, and on TM specifically 
> also, is in the larger field of science as being generally flawed, with few 
> high-quality studies that can pin down the effects with great certainty. Most 
> studies have too few subjects, and lack of good controls. It has been 
> estimated in the past that about 1% of the studies touted by the TMO are of 
> really good scientific quality. That is the 1% effect for you.
> 
> I find it interesting that prior to the 1950s, hardly anyone interested in 
> meditation thought that it was for medical purposes, or for social coherence 
> - it was for enlightenment. Religion was thought to be for social coherence, 
> as long as there was only one of those.
> 
> Enlightenment, self-realisation, deals with a singular value of experience 
> which for the sake of argument we could say is metaphysical, which 
> automatically makes it impossible for science to investigate it directly, as 
> science cannot investigate anything that is non-physical.
> 
> Transcending is a word that is applied to a range of experiences humans are 
> said to be capable of having. Many of these experiences may have 
> physiological signatures, but the experience itself cannot be directly 
> interpreted by those signatures. Transcending experiences are basically 
> signposts that can be indicative of eventual self-realisation, which is 
> evidence of the transcending process having finally exhausted itself, having 
> run down to zero; the seeking for more being impossible.
>


Reply via email to