--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hyperbolicgeometry"
> > > <hyperbolicgeometry@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Religion & Paranormal
> > > > The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the
> > > > Paranormal
> > > > by Paul Kurtz. Published by Prometheus Books.
> > > <snip>
> > > > The first part of the book comprises of a solid explanation and
> > > > defense of both skepticism and the scientific method. There
are, on
> > > > the one hand, people who defend a practical stance towards
> > > > knowledge and belief - people who are usually called empiricists,
> > > > rationalists or skeptics. But on the other hand are people who
are
> > > > not content with mundane reality and who are susceptible to
claims
> > > > about deeper mysteries and truths which require faith for
> > > > acceptance.
> > >
> > > Or which stem from direct personal experience.
> >
> > Which is a middle ground -- "personally empirical". Not yet
> > universally empirical.
> >
> > But personal skepticism is also called for along with personal
> > empiricism. We "experiece", but also interpret that experience. We
> > need to question  our interpretations. Is "this" the only possible
> > interpretation of the experience? It appears to me, a lot of
> > interpretations of experiences are based on faith / "scripture" / peer
> > practice / magical thinking, etc.
> >
>
> +++ You stand out in the rain- you get wet- some expieriences have a
> very limited range of interpretation and require little faith.
>     Some would rather overlook the obvious and, others don't see what
> they are looking at.  N

But you seemto be leading quite a simple life if it primarily involves
standing in the rain. :)

Do you "experience" the sun rise? I do. Its personally empirical, but
not consitent with what is scietifically empirical. My interpretation
is limited.

And are you really standing in the rain? And not some primordial
quantum soup? On one level, that IS what is happening. As or more
correct than your interpretation.

And if "you" is only a construct, "you standing in the rain" is a
weak, if not false interpretation.

What if you know (primarily) the rain is IT and much as IT is within.
Its then "IT standing -- which is the act of IT -- in IT"

But my point is that some have an experience and interpret it as
shakti, prana, kundalini, love, fear, pain, Brahman or CC or whatver.
It may be. It may not be. Labels may be irrelevant. But labeling an
experience by some name found in some scripture somewhere smells of a
bit of "faith". If not wishful thinking.

Some will claim the "self-evident" defense. But as we have recently
discussed, many have claimed things as  self-evident when later we see
they were false. The "self-evident" defense seems to me to be  a
spiffy "faith-based" defense in many cases.









To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'




SPONSORED LINKS
Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to