|
Post by Denethor on Feb 24, 2010 17:37:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I had to do it. That whole no free will thing. An acid-laced excuse at best, I know. But, since we're posting more today and all. So I'm going to throw this entity at you again. That is the big hang-up. I grew up without a separate, "inorganic" soul; spiritual experiences, for me, are interpreted as internal phenomena. If Spinoza is standing behind me with a shotgun, that is an internal reality only, due to that whole died-in-1677 thing. I've gotten over the idea that I must be crazy every time I report a funny dream or a "contact", largely because plenty of people who are able to hold down jobs, maintain relationships, and refrain from shooting up the high school without the benefit of any medications also report them. Plain experience tells me that everyone has internal perceptions; they are only "dangerous hallucinations" when they come unbidden, or at inappropriate times, or when their content is heeded without critical review. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that these "supernatural" things (I'm looking right at you, Mike ) have some kind of quasi-physical reality outside my own head; I know, after all, that our entire sensory experience is really just a construct of the mechanisms and chemicals in our brains, and that applies whether I am seeing an angel or a table. Hence the "supernatural" in quotes. It's a really lousy word, considering I don't rightly believe in a supernatural at all, instead I see everything as some variant of our subjective interpretation of the natural, with some "natural" perceptions being more common than others. Perhaps a factor included in my skepticism is that I don't normally perceive the "non-physical" in any way I would confuse with the physical. I don't see Gods or angels. I sense something, and use my wits - if there's anything in life I am eternally grateful for, it's the gift of wits - to decide whether and how to act upon it. I play hunches. I interpret dreams. I make educated guesses, more or less consciously as the situation merits. I even act quickly in emergencies and then wonder later what inspired me to do exactly the right thing. But I don't tend to see "figures" or hear "voices" or any like that unless either I am dreaming or I am in a deliberately induced ritual state; in short, unless I asked for it. Because that's part of my own notion of mental health, it is likely to stay that way. However, under my view, there's really no other reason it should; it's just a matter of perception, whether the thing perceived is part of the consensus or not. I view the subjective perception of separateness as a convenient shorthand, which is probably its (biological) evolutionary advantage. Just don't go to war over any of it, please. Now one of the issues is that mind-body duality appears to be a perception that is inborn to humans (Gawdz, I wish animals could post replies! ). Science views it as an illusion that we all have, this idea that we are not our bodies. (I hasten to point out that "being your body" does not mean being everything everyone else expects you to be based on your physical appearance, age, race, or apparent gender. By now we have plenty of evidence that that is not true; we at this point know nowhere near everything about how the brain constructs a mind, and can say very little about such matters). So, how about you? Do you tend to "go with" the feeling that the various phenomena are quasi-physical and outside of you? If so, why? Is it that you feel "internally real" is another way of saying "not real so I can ignore it", a common modern perception? (...and one you should be careful of. Ignore "internal" realities like signs of creeping depression at your peril). Do you reject that impression in favor of some other explanation? If so, why that? Is it that you think only nutballs "believe in" these things? (...which was the idea I was raised with, and thus one I have to be careful of.) How do you go about reconciling having a mythological figure kick your ass with your apparent normal mental functioning and the findings of science? For those who do insist on a reality that is quasi-physical (as oppose to unconscious or mythopoetic or like that), what is the nature of this reality? Of course, I haven't even touched the idea of an afterlife yet. Spinoza treaded carefully in that area, for reasons of his own. Right now I tend to say I'll cross that bridge when I come to it; I've been tempted enough to rush matters before, and might not be here had one or another thing not stayed my hand. So you see the dilemma. Feel free to reply; I won't jump on anyone just for disagreeing with me. This is weirdo speculation zone. Which is why I was unafraid to stick my tongue out at an Archangel in the fourth paragraph. Some would say I was lucky not to have it cut off; in many more superstitious centuries, such as Spinoza's, they'd have been right. Gotta love a free country.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 24, 2010 22:03:22 GMT -5
I do go with the idea that some things are outside of myself...in a sense. I'm in awe of the brain, of how it regulates our body without us. How if I were to fall in a cave without food or help, my brain would begin the process of having my body feed off itself, intelligently picking the organs and limbs I could best survive without. All 'we' do is think simple, shallow, greedy thoughts while underneath our brains are doing the real work. Even watching the Olympics, and imagining these extraordinary athletes being piloted by the grey matter inside...kinda weird. So I definitely do get the sense that I am not my body. My leg doesn't think, I never see things from the perspective of my arm... and who is my brain, that it can have thoughts hidden from me, motives removed from detection? It's me and it's not me. It's mystical.
But I also do like to give things a rational scientific explanation. I like to know the why of things, how they are possible, how they fit into what I know of how the world and universe works. I like to reconcile the religious to the scientific, the scientific to the religious. Not one or the other. And maybe I just don't 'get it', but physics, quantum physics, is way more fantastical then anything a mentally- challenged mind could ever come up with.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Mar 4, 2010 9:57:45 GMT -5
I had been working on a rather lengthy post, and the goddamnedable thing crashed on me! mother effing son of a whore! *sighs* *deep breath* Ok, the short version... While you have not touched on the afterlife, I fear I must start with it - at least in a way. I do believe in a seperation, but interconnectedness, of mind and body (though I generally prefer the mind/body/spirit notion, and am toying with my own model of mind/body/essence/spirit with spirit being the unifying force... but, anyway... ) One of the reasons why I believe in the continuation of the mind and/or the spirit beyond the body is because I believe in ghosts. I have believed in ghosts for as long as I can remember. And whether these ghosts are impressions - generally considered a sort of psychic imprint - or intelligent haunts - which are more aware - they 'prove', to me, that something can exist outside of the body. Even if the impressions are merely mental imprints, that still proves that the mind can have an effect on reality... that emotions and energy that you feel, internally, can be manifested externally. Thus, why should it not also be possible that that which is external can be experienced internally. Afterall, as you say, everything that we perceive is perceived internally. It does help when such perceptions can be shared, at least to a certain degree of commonality. (Afterall, even different people's perceptions of a physical event will differ. I don't see why we should hold perceptions of the unseen to a higher standard... ) Another reason why I believe that certain experiences are outside of myself is because they have differed from what I expected. Sometimes you hear people talk about their spiritual experiences, and they seem to follow a script, you know? I would be suspicious of my own perceptions if things went exactly as I expected them to be. But when things are different? When things seem to happen of their own accord? That certainly gives one pause... Besides, I'm not a fan of solipsism. Which is not to say that every experience is a reckoning of that which exists without. I clearly think that some people's spiritual experiences, and even some of my own, are little more than exercises in mental masturbation. Not every dream or coincidence is a sign or portent. And sometimes the voices in your head really do mean that you're insane. How to tell the difference? Well, therein lies the rub, doesn't it? I suppose it would be a cop-out to say that there's a certain feeling that seems to come with external contact... a feeling alien to your own self, but this, of course, assumes a familiarity with the many layers of your self. (Perhaps that is why the first step is always 'know thyself' because then you can better tell when you're tricking yourself... ) But easy answers? When psychology becomes hard and fast and doesn't make mistakes, then you can try to hold the occult world to the same standards. Until then, you're on your own. As for how I reconcile my beliefs in the 'unseen', both ghosts and gods and everything in between, with science - I do and I don't. I would try to rule out anything mundane before I would assume something... other. And I do believe that there is some overlap in old magical axioms and the ongrowing assumptions of quantum physics. But, also, there is the fact that I do not believe science is the end-all-and-be-all. It is not the absolute. It is, 'merely', a tool that we use to explore and try to understand and quantify the Universe. It is very good at dealing with things that are physical - things which fall into the realm of the hard sciences. But when you get to things like psychology, and branches of physics, and other soft sciences, you are often dealing with are much guess work and interpretations of perceptions as the mystics and shamans ever did. Don't get me wrong, I like science. I like technology and medicine, and I only wish that humanity was evolved enough to not misuse it... but... I also think that it is a tool and, like any tool, it is good for certain things and not others. I do not dismiss my perceptions simply because science can not measure it because to do so would be to say that science knows everything, and if science doesn't know it it must not be real, but this is clearly not the case. Perhaps someday science will discover ways to reach beyond the physically empirical. There are some pseudo-sciences which already try to (using EMF monitors to try and detect ghost activity, for instance.) There are places where the scientific and the spiritual overlap... and there are places where they do not. Which, again, is not to say I take every spiritual experience or ghost encounter or gods know what else at face value - not my own and not others. If I believe I experience something, then I put it through the paces: what else could it have been? What am I feeling, emotionally? Could my emotions be playing tricks? So on and so forth. I do believe that the scientific method can be applied to the non-scientific - it's just that the "testing" module is a bit more haphazard. *grins* More often than not I end up dismissing a potential experience... but, then, there are the times that I don't... Lastly, what is the nature of 'its' reality? Well, that's the million dollar question, isn't it? I have theories. I believe that things can exist as essence... as "energy", tho I know you hate that term... without being physical. But I also think that there are different types of 'things' out there, and that the answer might be different depending on which level of reality we're talking about. Of course, I don't think people can really even understand the nature of their own reality, even assuming that reality is primarily mental in nature, so how we're meant to understand the nature of everything else is a tricky proposition at best.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Mar 4, 2010 10:00:19 GMT -5
On a semi-related note, I was looking for a particular quote, but couldn't find it. I did find some other funny quotes by Sir Terry Pratchett, tho, which sort of relate:
"Everything starts somewhere, although many physicists disagree."
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. "
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head. "
"Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up. "
"It is often said that before you die your life passes before your eyes. It is in fact true. It's called living. "
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Mar 4, 2010 10:12:29 GMT -5
By-and-by, I thought I'd share a story. I'd meant to post in this thread when I first saw it, but I didn't have the time or mental energy to get to it at the time, so I shut down the browser with every intention of getting back to it the next day... or day after... and then promptly forgot all about it. And then last night I was driving back from the theater. (I'm in a new show, btw. I haven't decided, yet, whether this is good or bad - we'll see how it goes.) Anyway, on the drive back I passed this one section that I don't like. It's a section with an apartment complex and a train station. It's a little dirty, but no worse than, ya know, other parts of Philly... but I don't like it. I find it creepy and disturbing. I could actually park there for free, when I take the train to work, but I'd rather go to a different station and pay the $1 fee, because I don't like it there that much. And I found myself wondering - is this place creepy because of its energy? Like does it have an actual negative sort of energy that I just find disturbing... or is it more psychological? It wasn't emotional, because I wasn't feeling particular negative or anything. But the area does look unappealing, and it was dark... so I admit it certainly could be psychological. Also, there are power lines there... and it's said that high EMF fields can cause feelings of unease, etc. Usually this is after being around them for awhile, tho, not just passing by them. (The EMF thing is kinda tricky. It's theorized that EMF spikes can be produced by ghostly activity. However, it's also suggested that naturally occuring EMF fields (from badly insulated electrical lines and whatnot), can also cause the feelings that are sometimes associated with feeling a presence. Usually what is suggested is to try to remove the naturally occuring EMF thing and then see if the feeling go away or not... But there also the theory that the naturally occuring EMF can provide the energy that a haunt might need. It's all very intertwined. And, of course, it's all pseudo-science, anyway.) Anyway, I intend on asking some other people's opinions about this area, to see what their take is. It might help me narrow down the possibilities a bit... but I don't think I'll ever really know for sure. (Which is different from some areas, like that one place under the bridge... which is just a bad, bad place... for no discernable physical reason... and it's just icky... icky icky icky... ) But, anyway, pondering the nature of the area I passed through reminded me of this thread... so that's why I'm here.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Mar 4, 2010 10:38:55 GMT -5
I was talking about the Bicameral theory yesterday which sort of brought me back to this thread. Very simply put, bicameralism is the idea that primitive man's brain was divided in such a way that his thoughts would seem to come from an external source (a sort of schizophrenia), and that hearing these 'voices' was the beginning of belief in Gods and ancestor worship. And that, in fact, when the brain fused in such a way that ended these voices is when prayer and ritual and whatnot began to get the Gods back. So, we could argue that magic and religion arose from deep psychosis and schizophrenia, a mental state that all shared and that no one questioned. That the loss of these states of awareness created the acts of worship, the acts of prayer, whatever practices one uses, to gain connection with their deity. Which also pertains to the questions of mind-body duality; how do we KNOW things have an external reality. But I wonder if it should matter. Maybe we were the God/s, maybe our sub-conscious is still our God/s, why does God/s have to be external? Just because early man didn't understand his own voice, do we really need those kinds of restrictions that came from a people who didn't have any ability to know that they were their own deity? Or, have we actually lost the abilities to hear the gods? To hear those from the other side? Did the fusing of the hemispheres actually create the loss of the 'Great Yawning Void' from which all gods arose? And does that mean that a person, whether through mutation or disability, can be physically more suited to religion then someone 'sane'?
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Mar 18, 2010 19:26:27 GMT -5
I have to say I am still completely unsure as to any sort of afterlife. (Once again, it's that my reason has a boardinghouse reach: how, precisely, would this afterlife happen? I flat-out refuse to simply have faith; I'm still of the mind that gnosis, perhaps, is worthy of note but that "faith" is for simpletons.) Obviously, the body dies; many if not most esoteric/mystical teachings are that the "earthly ego", the part of one that is conscious in the normal sense and that most of us mean when we say "I", dies with it, and that what "survives" is something else - such teachings rather deflate religion as any sort of crutch, which is likely why most people reject real esotericism. It doesn't have those comforting elements. Partly because I'm a government certifiable philosophical asshole, I find religion that does not have such comforting elements to be far more palatable than the more common exoteric variety. My apologies to the post-metabolic community, most especially my Mom, if I'm wrong. But I have (most notably in that last case) watched egos dissolve while the brain generating them was still living, simply from the collapse of their chemical underpinnings, leaving no doubt that while the body was still basically functioning the person I knew was no longer there. So if something survives death I really doubt it is the ego in the sense that we normally recognize it. The "spirit" (once again my reason is raising its eyebrow and demanding a definition, like some unholy combination of Mr. Spock and the Energizer Bunny), I could deal with perhaps, or "parts" of the mind as it were (minds being in general pretty big and complex), if mind is defined in some way other than the way science tends to define it. But then we're back on the roof with our automatic weapons fending off the Attack of the Zombie Philosophers. Hm - do you "believe in" ghosts or have you seen them? (Somehow, blackrose, in your case it seems more likely the latter). Myself, I tend to avoid the words "believe in", since they seem so much to be something for giddy teenagers. "Geez, she believes in astrology! Geez, she believes in fairies! Geez, she believes in crystal magic!" (And yes, the stereotypical giddy teenager is always a "she" - the dude who seriously believes in little grey aliens who are coming to put a probe up his ass never seems to count). When I am thinking about something seriously I tend to say either I know or I don't know, and I otherwise have at best a hypothesis or a working theory. If you've seen (or otherwise experienced) something for which a good working theory is it was a ghost, or you've heard some other data that convince you, somehow that would seem a little bit better than just "believe in". Yeah, all this coming from the dude who believes in archangels. I know, I know. But at least they don't stick anything up your behind. (...yet...) Because, see, I just can't say that. Sure, I can call something up near daily in my home because it's "part of the ritual" and then be all surprised when it shows up. (Erm yeah, that's really sorta what happened...different post... ) But once I have sensed it is there, I don't believe in it...any more than I believe in the walnut tree in my backyard. I know it is there. I'm just not sure what these things are, yet. I know what they are not: physical or quasi-physical entities undescribed by science. (I'm with you on the pseudosciencey EMF sensors and whatnot). I also know they don't mean I'm crazy; if they're hallucinations, they are hallucinations shared by so many people that if they meant you were crazy we'd have to put Thorazine in the drinking water. Perhaps they are mental principles externalized (made to seem externally real but still really not) by a common or near universal internal process; perhaps there is a "collective unconscious" (Spinoza is already demanding to know how that would work); perhaps something else entirely. I agree that there seems to be more to it when one's own subjective impressions are confirmed by the separately generated impressions of other people. I've been seeing a bunch of that in my own life lately (again, different post). The hardball skeptics would say that such people undoubtedly contaminated one anothers' impressions without being aware of it, but I'm not sure I would go that far. (Such contamination is clearly the case with those UFO stories...is there a person on the planet over five years old who does not know what those are supposed to look like? But it may not be the case with everything.) If you're into that, the book you want is the Julian Jaynes book; it's the basic sourcebook on that theory. A lot of interesting points, and like most good books, guaranteed to offend nearly everybody. Assuming you haven't checked it out already, it's a good read, and it's been out a while so your county library almost certainly has access to it. I went wild about it myself a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Mar 19, 2010 7:52:09 GMT -5
Hm - do you "believe in" ghosts or have you seen them? (Somehow, blackrose, in your case it seems more likely the latter). Myself, I tend to avoid the words "believe in", since they seem so much to be something for giddy teenagers. "Geez, she believes in astrology! Geez, she believes in fairies! Geez, she believes in crystal magic!" (And yes, the stereotypical giddy teenager is always a "she" - the dude who seriously believes in little grey aliens who are coming to put a probe up his ass never seems to count). When I am thinking about something seriously I tend to say either I know or I don't know, and I otherwise have at best a hypothesis or a working theory. If you've seen (or otherwise experienced) something for which a good working theory is it was a ghost, or you've heard some other data that convince you, somehow that would seem a little bit better than just "believe in". I would say more the "otherwise experienced something for which a good working theory is it was a ghost... " as opposed to 'seen'. I have shit psychic visual skills, but very good essence awareness. (Maybe it goes with having such shit real life eyes. I don't think they make contacts for the third eye, or whatever. *snerks*) I get what you mean about the know, don't know, believe thing. I'm quite fond of the quote from Discworld that goes: "Most witches don't believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don't believe in them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman." And, on one hand, I sort of feel that way... I don't blindly believe in the gods, or ghosts, or spirits, because I have had experiences for which these work as good working theories, as it were. But I balk at saying 'I know', except in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way, because I also acknowledge that I could be misunterpreting data, for instance. So I'm most comfortable with 'I believe - with cause'. And, for what it's worth, I do also sort of believe in astrology... and faeries, of a sort... :> As far as I can tell, no one is. There are theories, working and otherwise, but no one really knows for sure, at least not in ways that are testible and verifiable enough for skeptics.
|
|