Hallo Michael, I may be running on assumptions here and you appear to me to be running on some assumptions, but I do realize that assumptions are only that and nothing more and may be false. Perhaps it is just a matter of definitions or perception. I will give both of us the benefit of the doubt. :o)
I was born into, raised as and am presently a member of a mystical religion, that being Friends (Quakers). We had a schism back in the early 1800's here in the states and my family ended up on the "Hicksite" side of the thing. Outwardly conservative and inwardly liberal. Hicks once stated the following: "Now I want these things to sink deep into the heart of every age, sex and condition. Be willing to investigate for yourselves; don't mind what I say, or what any one else may say, but bring things home to the truth in your own bosoms; turn them over and over, and see if there is not something in them worthy of preservation--and if there is not, leave them. I say, I want you to investigate for yourselves; for we have that liberty, in this land of liberty. We have a right to think for ourselves, about what we know to be the truth in ourselves, and nothing but the truth...Oh! then, that we may become willing to turn inward to what the light makes manifest...Whatsoever is wrong is reproved by this light, and all things that are reproveable we know, for they are made manifest by the light; clearly so. And it is reasonable to conclude that without light, nothing can be made manifest. But when we come into the light of the Lord, all things will be made manifest, when the mind is willing, and the heart is disposed to receive God in the way of his coming. I feel earnest in my desires for us, that we may this evening lay these things properly to heart. I hope you will take these things home, my friends, and not be hasty in deciding, but turn them over in your minds, and if you can find any thing in them, well, and if not leave them." (Gould 1830) If this isn't the mystical equivalent of the scientific method then I will eat my hat (either straw or felt). It uses operational terms, allows for experimental duplication and repeatability, calls for emperical observation and induction, uses analytic-synthetic thinking, allows for prediction and falsification and the conclusions come from a "scientific" public consensus of truth. While all of this is not readily observable from the small paragraph above, it is if one takes the time to get acquainted with Friends beliefs (or those of other branches of mystics). You should be able to get the sense of it from the paragraph above though. But brother, we haven't defined out terms. You claim mystical experience is unverifiable but it is verifiable to anyone with the right tools and interest. If I were to tell you that the existence of atoms is unverifiable you would tell me that I just don't have the right tools and expect me to accept that. Same same mystical experience brother. Goose, gander. Because a person does not pursue one particular path does not obviate the existence of that path nor does it make that path irrelevant. And you can "analyze, criticize, or accept anything pertaining to it, including its existence" IF you care to take the trouble to examine it thoroughly. But one size does not fit all and if a person doesn't have the interest then there will be no investigation. I would urge caution however to those making pronouncements about something they have not investigated thoroughly and I would also not dismiss something solely because it was subjective. Headaches are subjective brother. :o) And again, mystical experience can be verified if one has enough interest to take the time (and it is a long process) to investigate. Now brother, for this bit: "It is possible to have knowledge which comes through a route other than the senses." This is where the time comes in in the investigation. It is not "magical" at all. The concept of truth is associated with wisdom and facts with knowledge. Truth never changes but facts do. In order to understand how one comes by knowledge through routes other than the senses requires a persons time and experimentation. It is not demonstrable by another and there is no equation I know of which will show it. It is entirely subjective. Once one has had the experience however it can be spoken of with others having had the same experience rationally and intelligently. To simply discount it because one has not had the experience is an error akin to discounting snow because one has never seen it. Since the mystical experience is subjective (as is the headache) it is not incumbent on mystics to "prove" anything. There is a great body of literature out there which can get very "technical" about the mystical experience but it only really hints at the thing. Real knowledge comes from the actual, subjective experience of the thing and that requires time, interest and effort. Because most folks are neither willing to nor interested in putting forth the effort does not make the experience irrelevant or false. Religion and science should walk hand-in-hand. It would keep both more honest. Happy Happy, Gustl Friday, 06 October, 2006, 20:13:22, you wrote: ...snip... MF> "If you had ever had a mystical experience you would MF> not ask this." MF> Mystical (unverifiable) experience can only be MF> relevant to the person who experiences it. If another MF> claims such experience, I can't analyze, criticize, or MF> accept anything pertaining to it, including its MF> existence. If I had such an experience, I can't MF> expect anyone else to acknowledge it in any way. It MF> is a purely subjective phenomenon that is completely MF> irrelevant to all but the one who claims it. MF> Note that I do not have to doubt the reality of the MF> perception of a mystical claim; i.e. I do not have to MF> consider someone who claims to have had a mystical MF> experience to be lying. I simply cannot verify or MF> know anything about its reality outside of the MF> perception. MF> "It is possible to have knowledge which comes through MF> a route other than the senses." MF> If so, then how is this other way not a sense? What MF> meaningfully differentiates it from our "ordinary" MF> senses? If I could perceive through some new MF> "magical" way, wouldn't it simply be just another MF> sense regardless of how extraordinary? How would what MF> I perceived through it be anything other than reality? MF> By whatever way (sense) I am able to perceive MF> something, if it is verifiable, then it is reality. MF> If it isnt verifiable, then it is irrelevant to all MF> but me (and is truely of limited use). MF> We have also grandly blundered by it. Don't forget MF> this fact. The fact that others do not compete with MF> this grandiose assumption does not mean that there is MF> nothing outside the box. MF> Blundered in what way? By how weve used the fruits MF> of science? Such is outside of the realm of science. MF> Science is merely a tool of investigation. What we do MF> with our knowledge is of another domain. By mistaken MF> conclusions? This is a normal & unavoidable part of MF> the scientific method, let alone any investigative MF> effort. The grand beauty of science is that it MF> possesses built-in self-correcting machinery that MF> allows it to automatically correct itself in time. MF> Thats the key. Where less formal thinking fails for MF> lesser or dogmatic thoughts, science prevails-in MF> time. MF> The bottom-line is that this grandiose assumption MF> works while nothing else we know of does. This does MF> not mean there isnt anything outside of the box, MF> although if there is something outside of the box it MF> will be in the box once discovered. MF> Although your mind may require proof for your MF> acceptance, does this mean that TRUTH depends on proof MF> for its existence? In an ultimate sense is it absolute MF> or is it always relative? MF> Any meaningful truth depends solely upon the evidence MF> available. The concept of objective or absolute MF> ontological truth is meaningless for we have no way of MF> verifying, let alone recognizing, such a thing. It MF> stands upon nothing demonstrable. For this reason, MF> nothing is more relative than a claimed MF> objective/absolute truth. Essentially, there are as MF> many absolute truths for any one question as there are MF> persons alive who accept the concept. Nothing is more MF> relative. Worse, nothing is less conciliatory. At MF> least these relative truths discovered through MF> verifiable experience are claims tangible to all of MF> us, thus allowing for real discussion, understanding, MF> & compromise, as well as further investigation. MF> Frictions between verifiable truths are easily MF> alleviated; frictions between absolute truths can MF> only be tolerated. ...snip... -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. ******** We can't change the winds but we can adjust our sails. ******** The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters" ******** Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen, daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. ******** Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin ******** The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
