First, let me preface my comment by saying that I was being facetious about only believing my senses. I do believe that there are things out there that are as yet unexplained (note that I didn't say things that can't be explained).
Science has yet to come up with a truly consistent theory that explains all aspects of reality. However, it does seem reasonable to use the our senses as the foundation of a belief system that models our reality. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that while some may look into a cloud of mist and see a ghost, I would tend to believe that the ghost is just water droplets being stirred around by the wind. I don't entirely reject the possibility that the ghost might in fact be a ghost. I just put the likelihood very low on my list of probable explanations. On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Fair enough, I don't feel much into reading about gnosis at this time > either! :) It was just a reference and one I derive little sense of > authority from in this case. It took me a while to get my thoughts collected > in just shabby form here but here it is for consideration, all IMO in > general. > > I can relate to feeling and thinking that way myself, however there are > aspects of materialism that are just unavailable to today's minds without > passing through some serious mind benders. In principle I do agree, but only > on the grounds that the potential depth of interconnections in our universe > should allow a linkage between any arbitrary thing and another. As a > principle of philosophy it could also be very beneficial to keep one's head > 'tethered', very practical and utilitarian. At times much of what I hear > sounds like five nines of BS, but that one thousandth of intuitive capacity > can read in real time what would take a very long time indeed to fully > expose in subordinate intuitive terms (or 'hard' sciences). That doesn't > mean it is an unworthy undertaking, but the opposite, very laborious but > even more important. > > There is an idea in various forms (out in the wild) which explains that the > varying sciences, arts and philosophies are not at odds as one would suppose > from studying them or being taught. As mental models or exercises to prepare > mental perception they are schools and arts to focus and approach problems > or questions. As imperfect representations of fact or truth they are tools > of navigating information and knowledge, landmarks, references. By > recombining approaches in various fields you could eventually reach > propositions and explanations in many others refining, reinforcing, > undermining. This includes the normal senses, and the institutionalization > of perception by our genetic makeup. I think it applies to all the domains > of experience and inquiry that can pass through our minds and can unlock > vast potential for free association of transmuting symbols. With the aim of > building better tools to comprehend and master what and where we are I > invite you to consider the (perhaps) one thousandth of valuable experiential > contributions that science is just beginning to explain. Just the potential > contributions, not the dogmas or interpretations. If for nothing else, > science without imagination is dead in the water, but I believe it will take > many millennia for science to make religion (or better the spiritual aspect) > obsolete. I think this would be an amazing Renaissance time for all areas of > human experience. >
