Note: this came in as I was finishing the previous post. I toned the last one down a bit, believe it or not. Much of this stuff was addressed there so I will only hit the high points since it is very late here. Krimel
dmb said: "This sort of scientist would need to be well trained and highly competent just like a physicist or biomedical researcher but they'd be skilled in their own area of study, of course." Krimel asked: What is that supposed to mean? Trained in what? What are they studying? What would it accomplish? Where are the new bits of information to be evaluated? How has the scientific enterprise been expanded through these techniques? dmb says: We're talking about mysticism. They would be trained to achieve, observe and report on mystical experiences. I wasn't trying to be vague by describing in in terms of the scientific method, which is a very specific model. And was trying to be even more specific by describing the limits of the traditional form of scientific empiricism, a.k.a. sensory empiricism because it excludes such areas. [Krimel] What you keep parroting about sensory empiricism is simply not true. I mentioned some of the various branches of science devoted to the pursuit of it. What you want is exemption from the rules. You claim mysticism is somehow sacred ground. Like it deserves its own Special Ed classroom for the "gifted". If you think it warrants study, and frankly I agree, then quit complaining and look at how it has been studied. Figure out what is specifically wrong with current approaches and propose improvements. Techniques are coming on line that James and Wundt couldn't even fantasize about. The time is right the field is ripe. Whining that you should not have to play by rules you clearly do not understand is pathetic. [dmb] This was what I was also getting at in talking about the dif between reading the EEGs and actually having the experience. [Krimel] Just what is the dif? If there is something special about the experience it will be reflected in the EEG and the MRI and PET scan. How does understanding the neurology of the experience detract from having the experience? Wouldn't knowing what is going on during such an experience help facilitate producing it in others? Wouldn't it help to validate the claims of those who say they are having such experiences? If you aren't willing to be specific and rigorous don't complain about unfairness and not being taken seriously. The only reason there is a problem with getting with the program, is your inner fear that all this transcendent Over-Soul business is a bunch of hooey. [dmb] Flatland excludes these interiors as merely subjective and so focuses on physical objects, like brains. The purpose, of course, is to learn something further about these states of consciousness. Except for the adaptations needed to accommodate non-sensory experience, the scientific method is not altered. The same basic rules apply. [Krimel] Perhaps "Flatland" does exclude this but since "Flatland" exists only as one of Wilber's bogeymen, so what? If all you are proposing is that Tibetan monks have a weekly tea to compare notes, well Buddha bless them. What's stopping them? Should we pass out Bill Nye the Science Guy T-shirts so they can pretend to be in the club? [dmb] Its just that "observation" takes on a broader meaning and in describing the observations we ought not expect the kind of mathematical precision that we use to describe "objects". [Krimel] I know of nothing inherent in science that limits the nature of observation or of what can be observed. But you must have a note from your mother to be excused from tests. Science studies all manner of purely interior states. People have personal experiences of the color green. This experience is impossible to describe to anyone who has not had it. It transcends our ability to communicate. And yet science has a lot to say about the conditions that produce the experience; the skills needed to identify it; the cultural factors that influence it and on and on and on. But you think mystics should be exempt from the final. [dmb] At this point we're just talking the philosophy of science, not describing a tradition that we can point to. This is just being born as we speak. [Krimel] Just being born? My God man accounts of mysticism are older the writing. Read Campbell's account of the cave bear cults. If it is just now bearing fruit, I'd say that's a little late. [dmb] I mean, the scientific method already has a good track record as a technique and the meditation techniques developed in the East are reliable enough that various systems have a long history of success. The idea here, is to get those kids together and see how a marriage works out. [Krimel] It is not the experience that is in question. It is the meaning of the experience. Why are the 2000 year old explanations offered by mystics regarded as sacred to you? I think you have the note from Mama tucked in your pocket because you don't want to hear the answers. Krimel said: Titchener, in what is generally regarded as a distortion of Wundt's methods, began a school of research in the United States that did something like you suggest. Practitioners went through extensive training at recognizing and categorizing their self observations. The results of their efforts were just about zilch. It was a confused mass of nonsense. dmb says: Sounds like Cartesian phenomenology, not mysticism. I don't think that's quite the right idea. [Krimel] Actually, it sounds like you have the faintest clue what you are talking about. dmb says: It looks like the vocabulary will come from the East, from the systems they've already developed and where they already talk about such things all the time. [Krimel] I have heard Wilber talk. He slings nonsense syllables around like they're hash at an all night Denny's being set upon by a tour bus full of high school jocks. [dmb] And the peers who will scrutinize his reports and who will try to repeat the experience based on those reports will have to be trained in the vocabulary. [Krimel] So we would have this room full of blind men who have an experience of en'light'enment arguing about whether to call it green or blue. Like I said, it's been done. [dmb] Finally, if we knew what conclusions could be drawn we wouldn't need to experiement. The point is to learn some things about consciousness. Some people think that's interesting and otherwise worth exploring. [Krimel] It sounds like this has been going on for millennia. What new conclusions do you expect to result? You want to learn something new about it? Use the new techniques. Measure it. Alter it. Poke at it. Scan it. Ask what it feels like. But if you just want validation for the answers you already have, shoot you don't even need the note from Mom. Krimel said: You persist in this "flatland' rubbish but have yet to say anything to address my previous statements on this subject. Oh wait, there was a post that demonstrated your total lack of knowledge of Abbott's book from which Wilber lifted the title of his meaningless distortion. dmb says: Oh, so now you're admitting that I'm not just making it up, this problem with flatland. [Krimel] I think I said Wilber made it up, you aren't even doing a good job of parroting him. [dmb] And so what if I haven't read Abbott's book? I never said I did. Its obvious that Wilber is only using the term as an analogy for his criticism of scientific materialism. Do you really expect me to have read Wilber's sources because I quote Wilber? Is that even possible? That is a ridiculous standard. All I can do is try to understand the stuff I read and to be coherent in making my assertions. [Krimel] Actually I think, if you think someone Wilber quotes is interesting enough to quote, then yes you should look at what they say. Check out their Wiki. Find a paper on or by them and look at the context of their writing. And yes it is possible; entirely due to the radical expansion of consciousness facilitated by the internet. As for your understanding and coherence... I think I have been clear about that. Krimel: But to address your final question: Do this make sense? Seriously, Dave, not even a little bit. dmb says: Well, I think that the solution makes no sense to you because you don't understand the problem. You just deny it, call it meaningless, a subjective fantasy. Ironically, this forum is dedicated to discussing a book that lays out this problem in great detail and another that spells out a solution to it. So I don't know what your problem is. I don't expect you've read everything written by the people mentioned in Pirsig's books. In fact, you should have a pretty clear idea of what the problem is with SOM (aka flatland) just from reading Pirsig's first book. Does that make sense? A little bit? [Krimel] I don't think I am the one lacking understanding here. You seem pretty clueless. You whine for special treatment without even know what you would be treated too. You claim this field has not been treated fairly without a shred of information about how it has been treated or why it has received the treatment it has. You claim science ignores inner states but don't even know what sciences are actively involved or to what extent or how what they say relates to the problems at hand. You pooh pooh research that you have not looked at and do not comprehend. And you have the nerve to say. "All I can do is try to understand the stuff I read and to be coherent in making my assertions." Then fail on both counts. I can tell you this I have not read everything written by the people mentioned in Pirsig's books but I don't talk about them unless I have made an effort to read some of what they have written and something else written about them. I'd be hard pressed to think of an exception. If I didn't think it was worth the trouble, I would not just drop their name. And you expect anyone to take what you say about Pirsig seriously? You are supposed to be playing in the Big Show now, Dave. It doesn't matter if I think you are making even a little bit of sense. You need to ask yourself that question. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
