Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That question is likely forbidden, in that philosophers don't seem to give reasons for their philosophies If there's any branch of human inquiry where no question is off limits then it's surely philosophy. Debate about the practical application of philosophy has been part of it's fabric for it's entire history. The Greeks certainly regarded it as something that should inform one's life choices and I'm pretty sure t…
However, it seems like this is a discussion we're incapable of having here, which comes to the same thing.
Perennial philosophy
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: Perennial philosophy
#12Oneness is perennial because it is one of the most common aspects of a mystical experience -- indeed, it is one of the primary factors in validated measures of mystical experiences [1].
However, the concept of Oneness is uncomfortable -- so uncomfortable that it didn't even show up in the Aeon article! (For a different view, see Wikipedia [2])
Why is Oneness an uncomfortable concept? It is uncomfortable for theists, because it puts an abstraction ("the ineffable oneness") higher than any personality god ("god of Abraham"). Yet, even for atheists, it is an uncomfortable idea. Why?Perhaps it seems so similar to monotheism, to claim that the One is the origin of all things. While an atheist might accept that the universe originated from a singularity (i.e., the big bang), it may be uncomfortable to connect scientific ideas to spiritual awareness.
However, I think we should either reject spirituality as incompatable with science or put more effort in rational attempts to integrate them.
[1] Hood Jr, R. W. (1975). The construction and preliminary validation of a measure of reported mystical experience. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 29-41.
Re: Perennial philosophy
#13The appearance of this bit of information in the Hacker News Collective Consciousness RAM is likely linked to a recent discussion about a recent article that attempts attempts to define consciousness and whether it exists in everything all the time or is localized somewhere in space ("Consciousness Isn’t Self-Centered"). Quote: Why do folks present this idea like it's new and radical? It's literally thousands of year…
What's the point of this philosophy? What does believing it help one do or understand? That question is likely forbidden, in that philosophers don't seem to give reasons for their philosophies, but it's still important to ask, for the same reason it's always important to ask why someone is so enthusiastic about something.
For me the promise of philosophy is in examining the deepest assumptions that we use to interpret our experiences and guide our thinking. This is a hard task because just like sea creatures that are surrounded by water their whole lives and thus don't notice it, we don't notice these assumptions and they remain hidden and non-obvious.
Ultimately I feel that current philosophy falls short of this promise. It either descends into technicalities or regresses to a prescriptive "this is how you should think" manual. Probably I am not well-read enough.
Re: Perennial philosophy
#14The appearance of this bit of information in the Hacker News Collective Consciousness RAM is likely linked to a recent discussion about a recent article that attempts attempts to define consciousness and whether it exists in everything all the time or is localized somewhere in space ("Consciousness Isn’t Self-Centered"). Quote: Why do folks present this idea like it's new and radical? It's literally thousands of year…
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.0037...
Re: Perennial philosophy
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point of this philosophy? What does believing it help one do or understand? That question is likely forbidden, in that philosophers don't seem to give reasons for their philosophies, but it's still important to ask, for the same reason it's always important to ask why someone is so enthusiastic about something.
Not sure why you are being downvoted, because it is a valid and important question (even if stated in this somewhat adversarial manner). For me the promise of philosophy is in examining the deepest assumptions that we use to interpret our experiences and guide our thinking. This is a hard task because just like sea creatures that are surrounded by water their whole lives and thus don't notice it, we don't notice thes…
Once that is in place, philosophy can become much more valuable.
Re: Perennial philosophy
#16The key point in the perennial philosophy is the idea of Oneness -- that there is an ultimate oneness that is the source of all and the basis of the good. Oneness is perennial because it is one of the most common aspects of a mystical experience -- indeed, it is one of the primary factors in validated measures of mystical experiences [1]. However, the concept of Oneness is uncomfortable -- so uncomfortable that it di…
By what principle do we determine that there isn't room for both even though they might not integrate at all?
Re: Perennial philosophy
#17The key point in the perennial philosophy is the idea of Oneness -- that there is an ultimate oneness that is the source of all and the basis of the good. Oneness is perennial because it is one of the most common aspects of a mystical experience -- indeed, it is one of the primary factors in validated measures of mystical experiences [1]. However, the concept of Oneness is uncomfortable -- so uncomfortable that it di…
The paradox though is that scientific knowledge is knowledge acquired through observation and reason, both of which must present themselves to an observer. Specifically, it must present itself to an observer-beyond-quality (or present themselves within a field of observation) because if we find an observer that has qualities, those qualities would be perceived by something "earlier." That is to say, if a measurement or argument is made then to whom (or in what) is it made?
Science is always limited in scope. It can only describe that which is observable (or deductions made from observation). You could extend science to include philosophy (and consider even our discussion here as philosophy) and then the limits of reason allow you only to define its own limits.
This argument has been made in some form or another by Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Bohr, Godel, Susan Greenfield, Roger Penrose, and hundreds of others. The One (or the Zero) is the only way to solve any problem of hard consciousness, by allowing Knowingness itself to have modulations of experience within itself.
The proper integration of science and spiritualism would seem to be that each acknowledges the domain of the other. That is, if the discussion is about the observable or rational, it's in the realm of science and made more understandable by the methods and tools of science. If the discussion is about That, quality-free substratum in which observations or deductions are made, then it is an act of autotelic contemplation. That last statement is a bit absurd. It means one can contemplate the original substratum of the Self by just being without thinking, which is exactly what the various mystic traditions have taught.
It would be a treasure if someone were to articulate this simply for a modern, secular-minded audience, in a way that would convince them to keep quiet for a few minutes and let the experience of "zero-ness" become self-evident. Even this self-evidence appears in a substratum of course, but in that moment, there's a blissful aha that would put a lot of these long essays and discussions to rest.
Re: Perennial philosophy
#18The key point in the perennial philosophy is the idea of Oneness -- that there is an ultimate oneness that is the source of all and the basis of the good. Oneness is perennial because it is one of the most common aspects of a mystical experience -- indeed, it is one of the primary factors in validated measures of mystical experiences [1]. However, the concept of Oneness is uncomfortable -- so uncomfortable that it di…
> reject spirituality as incompatible with science or put more effort in rational attempts to integrate them The paradox though is that scientific knowledge is knowledge acquired through observation and reason, both of which must present themselves to an observer. Specifically, it must present itself to an observer-beyond-quality (or present themselves within a field of observation) because if we find an observer tha…
For another model, I see the way science and spirituality were integrated in the early days of the scientific revolution by folks like Kepler, Mersenne, Kircher, Descartes, Leibniz, Hooke, Newton, etc.
All adopted a spiritual frame of (roughly) "there is a universal harmony" and a scientific frame "I can articulate and understand this harmony through empirical data and mathematical modeling". The spiritual side deeply motivated them as individuals to conduct science. The data inevitably showed that their original ideas of universal harmony weren't quite right -- but that there was ample evidence for the real universal harmony, which were taken as both scientific and spiritual insights.
Re: Perennial philosophy
#19The key point in the perennial philosophy is the idea of Oneness -- that there is an ultimate oneness that is the source of all and the basis of the good. Oneness is perennial because it is one of the most common aspects of a mystical experience -- indeed, it is one of the primary factors in validated measures of mystical experiences [1]. However, the concept of Oneness is uncomfortable -- so uncomfortable that it di…
>However, I think we should either reject spirituality as incompatable with science or put more effort in rational attempts to integrate them. By what principle do we determine that there isn't room for both even though they might not integrate at all?
Re: Perennial philosophy
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reject spirituality as incompatible with science or put more effort in rational attempts to integrate them The paradox though is that scientific knowledge is knowledge acquired through observation and reason, both of which must present themselves to an observer. Specifically, it must present itself to an observer-beyond-quality (or present themselves within a field of observation) because if we find an observer tha…
That's good. This does seem to assume, a bit too strongly for my taste, that spirituality is only contained in the nothing/non-thought. For another model, I see the way science and spirituality were integrated in the early days of the scientific revolution by folks like Kepler, Mersenne, Kircher, Descartes, Leibniz, Hooke, Newton, etc. All adopted a spiritual frame of (roughly) "there is a universal harmony" and a sc…