Gödel’s Infinite Candy Store

[Eugene I]

Cleric, good points. No matter how much our spiritual experiences are "noised" and distorted by our psyches and unconscious structures, a good verification of their validity is to what degree they convey universal moral truths and how much positive difference they make in our life and spiritual development.

[AshvinP]

Thanks for your blessings, but clearly that is not an issue for me. I am pursuing it because I am confident it is the only way to continue fruitfully pursuing these matters in the 21st century. I was just wondering whether you thought it was possible to pursue with scientific method, and, if so, whether you think it is necessary, since it cannot possibly be good to ignore an entire domain of our existence which gives rise to all that we experience as appearances, and only study the isolated appearances by themselves with "natural sciences". Do you not agree the goal of science is to penetrate into noumenal essence if that is at all possible? You say scientific method is "not directly applicable in a full sense", but "some aspects of that method can be applicable if modified accordingly". So it sounds like you have thought about this matter in some depth and can provide us the details of which aspects of the scientific method can be adopted so as to provide rigorous and objective inquiry into the spiritual domain, and perhaps what specific spiritual questions we can fruitfully pursue using that 'modified' method?

I think I said it all above. Science should never give up attempts to penetrate into the noumenal realm as much as possible. There is nothing wrong in attempting to apply math - that's what Hoffman is doing. Then, you are right, reason can and should be applied, as well as intuition and higher cognition, and this is also where intuitionistic approach to math might help (see Santeri's posts). Spiritual enquiry, spiritual experience, spiritual practice, connecting to the spiritual realms are necessary - this is what provide us with empirical and spiritual-sensual data. But the "murky" quality of the spiritual experiential data lies with its subjectivity and poor reproducibility. How do you distinguish between a valid spiritual experience of an objective ideal reality and a subconsciously-produced subjective hallucinations or spiritual experiences? People everywhere report wild spiritual experiences during psychedelic trips, psychotic hallucinations, deep meditations, "spiritually transforming experiences" (STE)? But how do you know, even just for yourself when you have such experiences, if these experiences have any relevance to objective ideal reality or if they are only produced by subconscious activity of your own individuated conscious activity? How do you discern subjective from objective in the spiritual domain?

Just take an example. Suppose you sit in meditation and suddenly have an "oceanic experience of unconditional love". How do you know if it is a product of your own subconscious activity or if it has any actual relevance to the objective ideal reality? You need to answer this question with certainty before you can apply your experience as a fact and an evidence for your spiritual science investigations.

I remember talking to a charismatic Christian and the guy was telling me about some "divine truth" that he allegedly knows about. I asked "but how do you know it is actually true?". His response was "God told me" and that was the end of the conversation

Ok we have at least circled back to the core issue here - how it feels to us when we approach qualitative, not strictly rational essential dynamics, as compared to more standard quantitative, rational phenomenal dynamics. A main point of my essays is to show this feeling is only that, a feeling, and it only takes a slight shift in perpspective to realize the qualitative scientific pursuit produces just as many results we can be confident in, and actually more such results which are easier to verify. Because we dont need high tech measurement instruments and access to a laboratory to test and verify/dispute those results, only the internal tools of experience and Reason, to begin with. I will circle back on this later and try to provide a concrete example.

So I am relaying below a scientific qualitative conclusion from my last essay which is also relayed in the Metamorphoses of the Spirit essays at the level of personal psychology (rather than collective mythos). Let's be clear, what is below is only a conclusion and not a very detailed one. However, it deals with the metamorphic progression of experience which is so foundational to any sort of higher level "qualitative science". This conclusion is only included for the purpose of beginning to explore this question you raised - "how do we distinguish between a valid spiritual experience of an objective ideal reality and a subconsciously-produced subjective hallucinations?" We don't need to stick with the specific conclusions asserted below.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=506

The 3rd to 4th transition marked a major change in the relationship of perceptions to thoughts. That blossoming inversion of perception to thinking, in turn, allowed the soul to begin asking questions about its own relation to the sense-world... In this transition, thoughts are still perceived as arriving to the soul from the 'outer' world - illustrated by Homer's epic poems beginning with the words, "Sing, O Muse..." - but not as vividly by way of images as they were in prior epochs.
...
For these souls, there was still an inseparable connection between the sense-impressions of the outer world and the ideal content perceived by thoughts more and more from within.
...
This dawn of ancient Western civilization marks the beginning of philosophy proper, as the latter can only be engaged when some inner thought activity begins to develop - when the soul senses itself as clearly distinct from its surroundings.
...
It is only during the Greco-Roman epoch when thought-forms began entering the spiritual 'threshold' between the soul's 'outer' and 'inner' worlds, and eventually crossed over into the latter...

We should sense this impulse crystallizing within 4th epoch soul as it began to discern a greater good which might come from its precipitous Fall. The infant Self could learn, by its own power, how to stand upright, speak, and think. From that natural transition to inner thought and the inner Memory made possible by it, all ancient mythology, philosophy, and theology of the 4th epoch was born.

I am well aware the above sounds like a mish mash of historical and mythological claims, which may or may not be valid. How could what is written above possibly be the object of empirical investigation which gives us supreme confidence in its validity? When we ask that question is precisely when we need to seriously consider Cleric's points made in his last comment here and in his recent Time-Consciousness essay. That is, there is no need to capitulate just because these sorts of assertions sound "subjective" and filled with "noise" prone to error, bias, etc. Of course they will sound that way - we can expect nothing less from the modern age if we are taking the course of its rationalist-dualist and increasingly abstract history seriously. How can we begin assessing their validity to at least the same level of confidence we have when we look at Schrodinger's equation (if we are math-inclined) and say it reflects a deep dynamic of reality to us?

Again, Cleric's essay on Time is of great value here - it comes down to learning to be comfortable with our own conscious experience and nothing else - forgetting every single abstract model we are accustomed to referencing for answers to our scientific questions. Clearly that must be done, under idealism, if we want to start dealing with essential relations rather than phenomenal appearances. It is quite literally inverting the approach of the modern age - we must forget the word "subjective" knowledge because there is no such thing. I am not even asking you to agree - only to seriously consider the possibility that this approach may be the most, and perhaps only, fruitful avenue to pursue going forward. Saying, "sure, whatever works, go for it", in my view, is not serious consideration. Basically, it is saying "you stick to your way and I will stick to mine". We can already sense how that attitude will never lead in the direction of integration of scientific and spiritual-ethical perspectives within the world.

Perhaps one may object - why should I try out your approach instead you trying out mine? The response is that we have all been trying the abstract modeling approach for most of our lives. It does not take any major investment of resources or even time to begin the basics of this qualitative science approach. We could start with the claim of metamorphic progression of consciousness and what that implies for science going forward, or any number of related questions. Really, the myth essays are about instilling more confidence in the centrality of that mythology which pertains to the Sun Spirit. But we could take it in any number of directions. What we should really stop and take notice of is when we are not curious to take it in any direction, and ask, why is that? Is it because the subject matter is inherently not interesting, because we think it can lead to no objective knowledge which is practically beneficial, or maybe some other reason?