The only thoughts that I have had recently is that science has not been around that long and so it would seem to me that for most of human existence one had to rely upon a subjective means of gaining knowledge. Studying the stars and constellations was certainly a form of scientific investigation, and some good knowledge came out of that. But having read some of the eastern (Vedic texts) as you probably have, I am struck by some of the detailed descriptions of our body and also our environment that could only have been gained by a subjective means.
The other thought I had, is that gaining knowledge by a subjective means is certainly a short cut to learning. Yes, if there is no means to validate it, then you can't present it as a fact. But if you are soley dependent on what science comes up with, then you must wait each day to see what new fact comes out. And that fact that may contradict a fact that came out the day before. Of course, this is how science progresses, but some people may be impatient, and want some answers right away. What might be an example of this? Well, an easy one might be matter and fields. I think many ancient text have referred to this concept, of matter arising out of fields, or vibrations, and now it seems to be something embraced by modern physics. That seems to be how it works generally. Someone has a cognition of sorts, whether it be about gravity, or electricity and then then they set about trying to prove or document it. And of course I go by my own experience and the small cognitions I, and probably most people have on a daily basis - some big, and mostly small. I would call this the faculty of intuition, and over time, I have come to rely on this faculty as a pretty reliable means of gaining knowledge, and on which I may base my actions. But again, I suspect you operate in much the same way. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > snip > > > > > There is nothing to defend about these subjective experiences unless > > they are claiming that they are more than that. I am not trying to prove > > that there is no other world. I don't know. But I am saying that we have > > not learned something new from this type of experience that should make > > us more confident about an afterlife than the dreams we may have enjoyed > > before waking up this morning. > > > > > > Sure. What I have noticed, for me lately, is that the subjective means > > of gaining knowledge seems to be picking up steam. And of course, it is > > subjective. It so happens that it seems to also have applications in > > the practical world. But for the most part, I am happy to keep my mouth > > shut about it, and let it develop as it may. > > We may not be so far apart on this as it might appear. We may just be drawing different lines. I am also a fan of subjective knowledge, it is where art comes from. Even in scientific knowledge development the parts of the brain working on problems often need channels for the creativity to flow out. So there is a dance between conscious and unconscious that I believe art accesses to help us use our full creativity. > > You may or may not believe there is a trans-personal component to this process and I definitely don't see any reason to believe it yet. But it may well turn out to be a reality in some form. > > Allowing better access to the inner intuition through creative arts is my biggest interest in education right now. Although my goals are not spiritual, inner is still inner and I am trying to facilitate it expressing itself. So if there is a God in there too, he will have a nice superhighway to roll out pimp'n large with the spinner chrome wheels on his Escalade. > > Or not. > > But either way there are usually ways to test our knowledge that helps us fool ourselves a bit less. That seems important. > > > > > > > > > > > >
