Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Mysticism is subjective while Science is objective
Jeffrey
Veteran
I've been seeing arguments relating to this. One intereting bit I learned was about mirror cells in autism resulting in some of the behaviour. Mirror cells cause one to regard another being and feel their pain. So if you are boring other people or whatever you are aware of that. Autistic people sometimes go off on their own stuff without considering another.
So I think subjective experience is the foundation of mysticism and objective is science.
For example I can know all this stuff about Becks beer. It's brewed in germany with these hops and these malts. I can know something about the chemistry of carbon dioxide. I can know about the marketing and surveys of people. I can know the history of the style.
But I don't know the mysticism of Becks beer until I taste one. That is a subjective experience and it is wordless in some sense yet any person can talk about their experience 'refreshing' or whatever. The amazing thing is that sages can guide you in these journeys of the mind. A beer critic is kind of like a sage in that he can bring you through an experiential journey.
Both mysticism and science are of value.
So I think subjective experience is the foundation of mysticism and objective is science.
For example I can know all this stuff about Becks beer. It's brewed in germany with these hops and these malts. I can know something about the chemistry of carbon dioxide. I can know about the marketing and surveys of people. I can know the history of the style.
But I don't know the mysticism of Becks beer until I taste one. That is a subjective experience and it is wordless in some sense yet any person can talk about their experience 'refreshing' or whatever. The amazing thing is that sages can guide you in these journeys of the mind. A beer critic is kind of like a sage in that he can bring you through an experiential journey.
Both mysticism and science are of value.
0
Comments
99.9 % yes. ( 0.1 % being the rate of subjectivity in science)
"But I don't know the mysticism of Becks beer until I taste one. That is a subjective experience and it is wordless in some sense yet any person can talk about their experience 'refreshing' or whatever."
Sensation is subjective...and objective at the same time. You can feel (for yourself only) that the beer is sour ( just an example) , meaning that your whole body, the whole process of biochemical reactions that takes place in the neurons, tells you the beer is sour and there is no way that it can be sweet. On the other side, senses aren't that perfect and there might be a little tiny microscopic bit of sweet taste in that beer, but it's so insignificant, that the only taste you feel is sour.
"A beer critic is kind of like a sage in that he can bring you through an experiential journey. "
He shows the way of proper beer tasting, not the actual taste of the beer.
"Both mysticism and science are of value."
There has to be something that transcends both . :wtf:
P.S. : A'ight, my explanation isn't that good, but I tried.
It all depends on the moment...so you cannot always trust that the result is an accurate one, and as such, can only be taken as a specific experience at that particular moment.
...Or have I got that completely jingo'ed...?
Qualia: from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to refer to subjective conscious experiences as 'raw feels'.
The knowledge argument
Main article: Mary's room
In an article "Epiphenomenal Qualia" (1982),[12] Frank Jackson offers what he calls the "knowledge argument" for qualia. One example runs as follows:
Mary the colour scientist knows all the physical facts about colour, including every physical fact about the experience of colour in other people, from the behavior a particular colour is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a colour has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the colour red the first time she sees it — specifically, she learns what it is like to see that colour.
This thought experiment has two purposes. First, it is intended to show that qualia exist. If we agree with the thought experiment, we believe that Mary gains something after she leaves the room—that she acquires knowledge of a particular thing that she did not possess before. That knowledge, Jackson argues, is knowledge of the quale that corresponds to the experience of seeing red, and it must thus be conceded that qualia are real properties, since there is a difference between a person who has access to a particular quale and one who does not.
The second purpose of this argument is to refute the physicalist account of the mind. Specifically, the knowledge argument is an attack on the physicalist claim about the completeness of physical truths. The challenge posed to physicalism by the knowledge argument runs as follows:
1.Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about color experiences of other people.
2.After her release, Mary learns something about the color experiences of other people.
Therefore,
3.Before her release, Mary was not in possession of all the information about other people's color experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.
Therefore,
4.There are truths about other people's color experience that are not physical.
Therefore,
5.Physicalism is false.
First Jackson argued that qualia are epiphenomenal: not causally efficacious with respect to the physical world. Jackson does not give a positive justification for this claim—rather, he seems to assert it simply because it defends qualia against the classic problem of dualism. Our natural assumption would be that qualia must be causally efficacious in the physical world, but some would ask how we could argue for their existence if they did not affect our brains. If qualia are to be non-physical properties (which they must be in order to constitute an argument against physicalism), some argue that it is almost impossible to imagine how they could have a causal effect on the physical world. By redefining qualia as epiphenomenal, Jackson attempts to protect them from the demand of playing a causal role.
Later, however, he rejected epiphenomenalism. This, he argues, is due to the fact that when Mary first sees red, she says "wow," so it must be Mary's qualia that causes her to say "wow." This contradicts epiphenomenalism. Since the Mary's room thought experiment seems to create this contradiction, there must be something wrong with it. This is often referred to as the "there must be a reply" reply.
"....if you don't already know about it."
I knew it was a mistake trying to get into this....
Another example is getting rid of suffering. Until we FEEL the suffering it is just a game. Might as well learn opening moves of chess as overcome suffering.
It just mean that not all physical information can be transmitted through words.
In no way does this implies that the information she was missing wasn't physical.
This is just one of the arguments used in favor of qualia. There are certainly those who argue against it and they are included on the wiki page I linked to and pulled that from.
I simply copied that argument because it was similar to Jeffrey's OP.
but i don't believe there is anything else than science. It's just that science is limited therefore there are things outside of the scope of science.
the way i see it (and i may get off track a bit, sorry) is that:
our science base its study on objects that are observable by two different people.
Therefore science doesn't have the tools necessary to describe objects that are not observable by two different people.
it is limited in this way.
In meditation, you observe objects that are only observable by you, and draw conclusions, realize things (self-realization) based on your observations.
exactly what science do.
if science (and philosophers like Sartre) could observe, quantify, analyze... these objects, they would.
If philosophers had developed the mental ability and skills (tools) required to observe the things that Buddha or whatever other master meditators have observed, they would have come to the same conclusions as Buddha (or some other interpretation of the objects but it certainly seem like everyone who do observe those objects and phenomenon all arrive to very similar interpretations...)
But then you say there is nothing else than science. So then what is the meditation in 2 which you say only has objects observable by you?
Here's what I see in a formulation more logical
1 science is defined as what is observable by two people
2 meditation is only observable by one person
3 everything is science
From this I would conclude that meditation is science, but then 1 and 2 can't both be true.
Does that make sense?
i mean to say that there are no two different worlds.
just the stuff that science can describe and the stuff that it can't.
but one or the other are the same, are part of the same world.
just that science is too limited to be able to observe and describe all of it.
sorry, can't do any better. Anyone can help me phrase my thoughts better?
need sleep, can't think anymore...
but we can generally agree on certain things to be somewhat stable and consistent in their different interpretations, for practical reasons
i guess it wasn't clear once again..
sorry, i seem to have polluted your thread with confusing and useless posts..
i'd be my pleasure to delete them all if only there was a "delete" button.
and anything else other than that becomes pure abstraction based on assumption.
wisdom not as knowledge, but as a completely transformative realization.
so in that sense two buddhas will agree with the same symbolic language describing such realization. (objective meeting objective).
lol i have so much fun with these topics.
well the thread is good it's worth a try, though I did make it seem like mysticism was just a dream and didn't have any technique or science to it the yin in the yang (that little dot).
Nama-Rupa = Name-and-Form, Naming-and-Forming!
The mind is that, which knows the object! The object is that, which is known!
These two processes always arise and cease together simultaneously...
Neither inside, within, nor apart from, outside these two is any observer agent,
person, I, Me, or other assumed entity as a hidden variable, ever involved!
The mind is immaterial, formless and invisible. The object may be designated
or named 'material', 'physical', 'formed' and even 'visible' only and exactly
to the extent and in so far as it is experienceable by the mind!
No same, constant, lasting 'real', 'actual' or 'substantial substance' has ever
existed 'out there' independently or separable from the mind, that right then
momentarily perceived and thereby apprehended, displayed, manifested and
designated it! This core dual pair of mentality (nama) and materiality (rupa),
is thus one united yet dual continuum, like the two ends of the same stick!
They do never emerge, nor do they ever exist, nor can they ever be observed
separately, in and of themselves, but they can only arise in mutual dependence,
like two thin creepers can only arise & stand up if intertwined with each other.
Mentality & materiality thus arise and cease simultaneously in each moment!
They are thus the most basic, fundamental and primary pair on the bottom of
the dynamic ever-changing process of any being in any existence...
What is called 'matter' is delimited, defined, characterized, conceptualized,
compartmentalized and even named by mind! Therefore can matter never be
separated from mind, like if one tries to break the dual-ended stick in order
to separate the ends, then one always gets two sticks, still each with 2 ends!
Therefore one unambiguously always ends up with observing a pair-wise new
event of mentality & materiality! The basic founding, yet often unnoticed,
unspoken and maybe even sometimes actively denied assumption underlying
all Western science that: The naked, inert, objective observation is possible!
'Matter can be observed and analyzed objectively, independently of mind!'
is therefore utterly false, futile and even somewhat childish... No observation
can ever be independent of mind! Why not? What is observing IS the mind!
The naive physicist who postulates: 'Independently of Mind, "I!" will observe,
describe and evaluate matter!' extending out of his range of understanding,
thus speaks folly false and is thereby later ultimately enforced to introduce
'mysti-phystical' entities as 'hidden variables' into his explanations, in order
to reach completeness, coherence and internal consistence...
He seems to be in complete oblivion of the dry fact, that even before one even
thinks of, even speaks of, or experiment with any 'matter', mind have indeed
been long and hard at work! The basic hidden, yet always present, factor in
any observation, is naturally mind itself!
However, this factor is not so hidden, that it cannot be observed & analyzed
and that even without any laboratory or even a single 'instrument' apart from
a pillow to sit on!
Everyone, without even a single exception, who sits down with closed eyes, will
instantly be overwhelmed by a veritable storm of mentally created distractions:
This is the Mind! This is mental activity knocking your door... Undeniably real!
When this dynamic self-sustaining duality of mentality-materiality, this self-
sustaining perpetum mobile, cease to evolve, consciousness thereby ceases to
establish itself on an object! This - only this, in and of itself - is the very final
End of all Suffering...
Have a nice & noble day!
Friendship is the Greatest!
Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_
http://What-Buddha-Said.net
Mentality and Materiality is Naming and Forming!
Nâma-Rûpa = The Core Duality!
http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Core_Duality.htm
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/4998/daily-dhamma-drops-part-2#Item_795
My question came at the end of taiyaki's post, nama-rupa, in looking at the mind during meditation. It seems that here is 'only mind' so you have just one end of the stick while sitting?
which is either the projected absence of thought, thought, or the emptiness of thought.
that would be non symbolic consciousness or rather non dual consciousness. but only in the realm of thought or mentality. as there are 5 other senses as well.
not sure this makes sense.
this is speaking of just thinking.
and even no mind is dropped.
and the fat ass buddha walks around in the marketplace.
Mind links independent sound to another independent sound and does it so fast it becomes music or a flow of sounds we project music onto based on karma.
sound and silence = mind
sound/silence is undistinguishable from mind.
sound/silence lacks inherent existence thus empty = no mind.
sound/silence dependently originated = appearing yet empty. unlinked and ungraspable. = letting go of no mind.
noise arising and falling. where? no where. here? not here. there or here? don't know. vivid in appearance (luminous nature) yet completely devoid of inherent existence (, unfindable, ungraspable, unsupported).
mind that rest in this vision of knowledge, realizes reality as it is. always so. nothing to attain just this just this.
fuck sound.
there is a part that bothers me a bit.
all that he describe is that everything is ultimately subjective. (as "person" pointed to earlier)
This has been something talked about in philosophy and science since forever.
It is something that goes without saying to most scientists and philosophers.
But then he goes on saying something like this: which implies many assumptions from himself in regard of the scientific community, almost like he is trying to compete with them, and to ridicule them.
anybody else have this feeling?
if it is the case i believe that it may be unnecessary.
But perhaps it is a effective strategy used purposefully in order to satisfy a hunger from the students, to reassure them?
a camera takes an objective shot at reality. well as objective as possible. there is still the focusing of lens and specific composition or point of view. but take away all of that and there it is. the objective capturing of reality.
the vision captured is neither same, different, both same and different or neither same or different.
all subjective points of view occur after symbolic projection. example: i think this is etc.
but then there are things we can agree on like the grass is green and the sky is blue. so in that sense if the picture was a picture of just that it would be an accurate projection. kind of like sky is blue = 1+1 = 2. this is universally agreed on.
but then what makes the sky blue? also what makes blue? certain points of light reflected back towards the eyes and we get blue. but where is blue located? it isn't in the sky, nor the eye, nor the mind. thus the appearance of blue is completely empty of inherent existence but vividly appearing.
it appears based on the causes and conditions. we are forced to see dots of colors and based on karma we project blueness onto these parts.
so blah blah blah
subjectivity is a projection of symbolic thought.
prior to that projection is the objective.
but not as an actually existent thing, but as a process.
i'm asserting that it isn't a thing, but a process. thus "objective" is a projection onto a process. being a process it is divisible, thus lacking inherency.
maybe in some sense it is trying to describe the peanut butter sandwich. the objective would be the pure experience of eating the sandwich. the subjective would be the interpretation which is always symbolic.
zen zen zen zen cake!
"Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing. As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on."
We assume there is something objective because gravity is always the same. But we don't have any EXPERIENCE to confirm that objective as an adjective exists.
When we say "I will be objective." Say when listening to a dispute it means 'fair', but it doesn't really mean that we are having an objective experience. Because definitively all experience is subjective.
I'm basicly asking if you can experience something outside of mind. With mind experience outside of mind.
Ok so I have a table made of wood. I experience the table subjectively. And objectively from my memories I know: that is called 'wood'... 'wood' comes from a 'tree'.
And so forth.
Is this correct?
If there is anything objective, it can only be the fact that nothing is objective. Can two persons perceive the same thing? I can't see how this can be so.
Or perhaps I should say yes and no. It's a false dichotomy, I say.
what makes something subjective? the assertion that there others who also have subjective points of view, which from our point of view is completely unknowable.
but because the other serves as a reference point, we can assume that there is a subjectivity.
but throwing that out.
the subjective is the only point of view we can access when looked at from a dualistic standpoint.
but when looked at from the non dual, there is absolutely no subjectivity. why? because it is an abstract assumption based on interpretation that we assume the other to be a reference point in relation to the subjective.
the objective is what is perceivable at this very second and it is luminious/empty.
the subjective is the projection of any symbol after the initial objective experience.
even to call it an experience would be a subjective assertion. same with calling it anything or even looking back at it.
in direct experience there is no subjective, objective, or anything.
so we can view subjectivity as our point of view in relation to another, there is only our point of view which comes from us, and the subjective only has a relation to some objectivity.
in my opinion the objective is the emptiness/luminosity of all things/processes. since emptiness is the lack of inherent existence, it is the unconditioned. thus to see the lack of inherent existence is to see the objective. not as a thing but a lack of a thing/process.
but such seeing is only possible with the direct experience.
after the direct experience it is just thinking thinking thinking or subjectivity.
oh well just more shit to swallow.
prior to all the projection is just the complete non dual seeing. form completely empty and luminous. can't even call it form really, because again projection.
we can call that the objective seeing and then the projection as the subjectivity. but then there really is only projection. what is there when there is no projection?
and if we call that the objective. again that is projection. objective in relation to what? again duality.
so subjective/objective are both projection that are based in many assumptions.
reality has neither but contains both.
TIME FOR PIZZA!!!! ITS PIZZZA TIME!!!
again imputation based on karma.
empty of inherent existence.
what the fuck is here anyways?
as seung sahn sunim would say DUNNO BRO.
yet everything appears so vividly and magically!
think of this.
movies = frames going really fast to give the illusion of motion.
motion only exists in relation to a mind that links one frame to another frame.
but imagine if such link was severed. then motion could not exist.
that which moves only appears to move because the mink links point a to point b. see reference points.
without reference points there is no movement.
in direct seeing where are the reference points. we can only see one thing at a time. the single frame has absolutely no connection to the other frames.
so illustrate this further.
there is a zen koan that says go where the heat will kill you.
where there is heat then there is only the arising of HEAT. nothing else.
go where the cold will kill you.
and the arising of COLD. nothing else.
cold isn't even cold as that is a projection of COLD onto a phenomena that we karmically are forced to project and interpret as COLD.
thus to experience fully COLD is to experience the non dual. where there is absolutely no subject/object. JUST sensation.
no links. because the linking is only projection/assumption,.assertion based on karma.
not sure if any of this makes sense. i've been stewing this stuff for a couple days.
@taiyaki, I think we have a lot of contexts flying around. There is kitchen sink level where objective means we think we are always right and subjective is when we think there is no right and wrong - moral relativism..
Sometimes a kitchen sink view gets the job done. Sometimes you really have to analyze something and that can be beautiful and useful. You talk to children and adults and animals, and bosses all differently
i hope everyone is okay with me hijacking the thread.
everything that i am typing points to the original topic. it just might not be obvious.
also i write it so it makes sense to me. none of my senseless expression may make any sense to you.
different karma, different interpretations?
hope all goes well.
how can something arise? when was the exact moment that such a thing arises. if such moment as a beginning, middle and end then even that beginning of the moment has to have a beginning, middle and end. ad infinitum.
so nothing can literally arise. no "thing". yet everything dependently originates. sexy!
but i think i get what you're saying.
let dependent origination do its thing.
tickle that bodhicitta tickle tickle hehe