I'm glad you responded too Turq. There is so much in this material. I will have to think about the line between how we use tools for being confident in our knowledge in philosophy and how we use them in our personal belief systems. At first I thought I just disagreed with you about what we can be confident about in our knowledge from subjective experience, but then I felt like you were making a different distinction concerning how we form our own beliefs. It is quite a vigerous dance with a lots of stomped toes!
No one lives any pure ideal of though and even if they did, there are so many systems let alone people's personal mix of ideas. I'm just glad these topics are getting discussed outside thoughtful forums like this one. Of course people on this type of forum has given these topics a lot of thought, but Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan are broadening the discussion in society. I think we really need it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one > > of the few skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. > > The experience is real, and he has had them too. What he > > is challenging is what people conclude after the experience > > involving what the experience "means". > > Bingo. The experience itself is transcendent, > indescribable (if it *is* describable, it cannot > be classed as 'transcendent' in the sense in which > MMY uses the term). But how do you *interpret* that > indescribable experience and *describe* it mentally > and in words after the fact? > > There is a great deal of evidence within the study > of the history of religions and spirituality that > we ascribe 'meaning' to such experiences *as we > have been taught to*. Very, very few approach such > experiences (or interpret them later) with what > Harris calls a "clean glass." > > > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe > > doesn't give anyone the epistemological authority to claim > > that they "know" that Jesus died for their sins, or that > > the Vedic recitations contain the blueprint of creation. > > Actually, it does. In the sense that subjective > experience is pretty much All We've Got in this > domain. They have the "authority" to 'take a stand' > (which is what epistemology means) as to what their > experiences "mean" to them; that's a matter of > personal belief. It's just that they do not have > the authority to declare those beliefs cosmic truth > and impose them on others *as* cosmic truth. > > The exception to my last sentence above is...uh... > pretty much all of human history. People in every age > and every culture have *given* themselves the authority > to declare their beliefs cosmic truth and impose those > beliefs on others. That is precisely why it is so > difficult to approach one's *own* subjective experiences > with a "clean glass" -- we've been forced to drink from > Other People's Glasses since the day we were born. > > > He is advocating that we start our inquiry into the study > > of human consciousness with humility rather then as a "knower > > of complete knowledge." That we know the differences between > > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff > > we have heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract > > experiences as their meaning. > > A noble quest. If it were so, the study of the history > of religion and spirituality probably wouldn't be so > synonymous with the history of oppression and war. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <nelsonriddle2001@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "coshlnx" <coshlnx@> wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.tinyurl.com/38mf3l > > > > > > ++ It is not logical to say something is not so just > > > because you have not expierienced it. N. > > To follow up on what I said on this earlier, I don't > believe that "logic" has anything to do with it. I'm > a *huge* fan of subjective experience and basing one's > beliefs and assumptions about life on it. I personally > go so far as to trust my subjective experience more > than the theories about it or interpretations of it > from any external authority. *Any* external authority. > > However, I do not for a moment call my beliefs "truth." > I don't even know if they're true. And I probably never > will. They are just what this particular self chooses > to believe at a particular moment in time. They may > change tomorrow, or sooner. They have done so so many > times that I'm no longer particularly attached to the > beliefs. They're just things that come and go, like > leaves blowing by on the winds of autumn. You enjoy the > leaves as they pass, but they *do* pass. So what's to > be attached to? > > Having such an attitude towards my personal beliefs -- > that they come and go and that I have no way of declaring > any of these transitory beliefs "truth" -- is in a way > a *reliance* on humility. To declare any of them some > kind of eternal, cosmic truth would be the opposite > of humility. >
