Gödel’s Infinite Candy Store

[AshvinP]

Yes, I understand that. This is sort of like my back and forth with Jim on the other thread - after he said it does not matter for the scientific method-results whether one pursues it with idealist metaphysical assumptions (or non-materialist ones) vs. materialist ones, I responded with Goethe's example of just that occurring. Then he started saying, "ok but the idealist science is wrong". Switch "idealist science" for "spiritual science", and "idealist science is wrong" with "we cannot confirm whether spiritual science is true or false", and it's the same exact discussion. I am not asking you personally to verify the validity of the spiritual science claims, only whether you can acknowledge that they are, in fact, scientific claims which can be investigated.

They are valid claims, but claims of spiritual science, in other words idealistic blend of the metaphysical science, and not strictly natural science. Jim does not want to allow idealistic science to enter the arena of the natural sciences, even though he is ok with the materialistic metaphysical science.

Your illustration here is not contesting Goethe's archetypal metamorphic view but confirming it. Goethe did not naively believe that a "plant archetype" existed as something that looks like a primordial plant in the spiritual realm. So what you call "manifestation of Schrodinger equation" would be another way of saying "manifestations of the archetypal idea". We should be able to agree that Schrodinger equation (or whatever equation may reflect in abstract symbols how these dynamics occur), under idealism, cannot possibly be pointing to anything other than an archetypal idea. Whether we consider that archetypal idea instinctive, meta-cognitive, discovered, or invented is irrelevant to the scientific fact that an archetypal idea is responsible for the manifold forms we observe. Higher resolution, of course, will only be gained via higher cognition which can penetrate into the realm where the archetypal idea resides. So, your Reason has led to the same conclusion as Goethe's from a different (math) angle.

So, let's say the MAL had the idea (archetype) of the Schrodinger equation, but did not have the idea/archetype of Wave. The MAL only developed the archetype of Wave when it experimented with the idea of the Schrodinger equation and was able to observe the wave patterns occurring in the manifestation of it. So, a new archetype was "created" by the MAL at the moment of such discernment that never existed before. And this is also what all conscious being do. But of course once an archetype is discerned, it can be "passed around" and shared between conscious beings, and so become an "objective" (shared) ideal reality. This is how new archetypes come into existence as a result of spiritual/conscious activity in a non-Platonic idealistic paradigm. But alternatively, in a Platonic way, we can propose that the archetype of Wave always existed and was only "discovered" by the MAL during the exploration of the manifestation of the Schrodinger equation, and it is the archetype of Wave that was unfolding along with the unfolding of the Schrodinger equation to exhibit the wave patterns. Again, which paradigm is true - I do not know and have no way to tell, but I'm open to both.

I am not sure if you saw Cleric's post about "linear time" (I actually did not see it until SS quoted it), but that addresses this argument about "created at the moment of such discernment that never existed before". That is a physicalist way of thinking about it. Likewise, to say "MAL had the idea of the Schrodinger equation" is another physicalist way of conceiving it - that the Reality which gives rise to the phenomenal world is something akin to abstract mathematical equations existing in a void. How can that be so under a consistent idealism? Whatever the Schrodinger equation is reflecting in the noumenal Reality must be of qualitative essence, and a qualitative essence which gives rise to phenomenal manifestations is basically the definition of an "ideal archetype". This "other alternative" you keep saying is an option simply cannot be an option under a consistent idealism.

And I think the same applies to "spiritual science" vs. "metaphysical science" vs. "natural science", as if somehow those domains can remain separate from one another. Whether you call the spiritual reality "MAL" or anything else does not matter - it must be what gives rise to the phenomenal world of appearances which the "natural sciences" study (under physicalist method, not Goethe's method). So those sciences under the physicalist method are not actually studying the complete Reality - at the very most, they are studying one half of the Reality (probably much less) and confusing that for the totality. The only question remaining is whether we can empirically investigate the "excitations of MAL" or whatever we want to call it, in detail, and that is what I have been asking you.

[Eugene I]

I am not sure if you saw Cleric's post about "linear time" (I actually did not see it until SS quoted it), but that addresses this argument about "created at the moment of such discernment that never existed before". That is a physicalist way of thinking about it. Likewise, to say "MAL had the idea of the Schrodinger equation" is another physicalist way of conceiving it - that the Reality which gives rise to the phenomenal world is something akin to abstract mathematical equations existing in a void. How can that be so under a consistent idealism? Whatever the Schrodinger equation is reflecting in the noumenal Reality must be of qualitative essence, and a qualitative essence which gives rise to phenomenal manifestations is basically the definition of an "ideal archetype". This "other alternative" you keep saying is an option simply cannot be an option under a consistent idealism.

Yes, I saw that post. As we discussed in some other thread, there must be a sequential "change" in MAL in order to for the universe of forms to unfold. That "change" does not need to be the same as the dimension of time that we experience. There is also "changeless" aspect to MAL which is a property of formless aspect. But based on my experience the forms are only experienced as ever-changing. I have no experiential evidence that forms and ideations can have any changeless aspect, which of course does not mean that they can not. So, for me at least, the question whether the ideas/form have any changeless aspect or modality of existence is undecidable.

And I think the same applies to "spiritual science" vs. "metaphysical science" vs. "natural science", as if somehow those domains can remain separate from one another. Whether you call the spiritual reality "MAL" or anything else does not matter - it must be what gives rise to the phenomenal world of appearances which the "natural sciences" study (under physicalist method, not Goethe's method). So those sciences under the physicalist method are not actually studying the complete Reality - at the very most, they are studying one half of the Reality (probably much less) and confusing that for the totality. The only question remaining is whether we can empirically investigate the "excitations of MAL" or whatever we want to call it, in detail, and that is what I have been asking you.

Of course in MAL there are no separate "natural" and "spiritual" domains, the difference is only in the character of ideations it manifests. As an analogy: an artist draws on a paper. If she draws geometrical-kind of shapes following certain patterns/regularities, they may be perceived by someone else as "mathematical structures" and the perceiver with study them with "natural sciences" approach. But if the artist draws less regular pictures conveying different kind of archetypes, they may be perceived as "spiritual" or "aesthetic" or "metaphysical". So, it's the way how we perceive them that makes them belong to natural or metaphysical or spiritual domains, but it also depend on the kind of the archetypes conveyed. In any case, these "domains" are only epistemological and exists in our perception, there is no separation between such domains in MAL.

[AshvinP]

I am not sure if you saw Cleric's post about "linear time" (I actually did not see it until SS quoted it), but that addresses this argument about "created at the moment of such discernment that never existed before". That is a physicalist way of thinking about it. Likewise, to say "MAL had the idea of the Schrodinger equation" is another physicalist way of conceiving it - that the Reality which gives rise to the phenomenal world is something akin to abstract mathematical equations existing in a void. How can that be so under a consistent idealism? Whatever the Schrodinger equation is reflecting in the noumenal Reality must be of qualitative essence, and a qualitative essence which gives rise to phenomenal manifestations is basically the definition of an "ideal archetype". This "other alternative" you keep saying is an option simply cannot be an option under a consistent idealism.

Yes, I saw that post. As we discussed in some other thread, there must be a sequential "change" in MAL in order to for the universe of forms to unfold. That "change" does not need to be the same as the dimension of time that we experience. There is also "changeless" aspect to MAL which is a property of formless aspect. But based on my experience the forms are only experienced as ever-changing. I have no experiential evidence that forms and ideations can have any changeless aspect, which of course does not mean that they can not. So, for me at least, the question whether the ideas/form have any changeless aspect or modality of existence is undecidable.

I will never figure this part of your thinking out, it seems. You explicitly acknowledge the formless-form polar aspects of experience (including ideas/forms), but then say the question of changeless aspect (formless) is "undecidable". How do you reconcile those two assertions?

And I think the same applies to "spiritual science" vs. "metaphysical science" vs. "natural science", as if somehow those domains can remain separate from one another. Whether you call the spiritual reality "MAL" or anything else does not matter - it must be what gives rise to the phenomenal world of appearances which the "natural sciences" study (under physicalist method, not Goethe's method). So those sciences under the physicalist method are not actually studying the complete Reality - at the very most, they are studying one half of the Reality (probably much less) and confusing that for the totality. The only question remaining is whether we can empirically investigate the "excitations of MAL" or whatever we want to call it, in detail, and that is what I have been asking you.

Of course in MAL there are no separate "natural" and "spiritual" domains, the difference is only in the character of ideations it manifests. As an analogy: an artist draws on a paper. If she draws geometrical-kind of shapes following certain patterns/regularities, they may be perceived by someone else as "mathematical structures" and the perceiver with study them with "natural sciences" approach. But if the artist draws less regular pictures conveying different kind of archetypes, they may be perceived as "spiritual" or "aesthetic" or "metaphysical". So, it's the way how we perceive them that makes them belong to natural or metaphysical or spiritual domains, but it also depend on the kind of the archetypes conveyed. In any case, these "domains" are only epistemological and exists in our perception, there is no separation between such domains in MAL.

I am not denying different methods are employed between "natural" (which we should want to really start fading out now, even for practical application IMO) and "spiritual". But does that mean the "less regular pictures" cannot be perceived and studied rigorously? Or, instead of analogy, allow me to use your own very good illustration to Jim on the other thread:

Now, forget about idealism for a moment and suppose we stay within the physicalist scientific approach and clam that the base physical reality is the superstrings. Superstrings have they own intrinsic properties - the group symmetries. This is what reality "is" according to the physicalist model - just only superstrings everywhere with various symmetry properties and their regularities. Now, can any conscious beings ever perceive such level of reality "as it is", perceive the superstrings and their symmetries? No way. Our perceptions have nothing to do with what superstrings do on the microscopic level. But still, the regularities of our perceptions are indirectly related to the regularities of the superstrings on the micro-level: they are representations of the macro-level patterns of large groups of superstrings detected by our senses. For example, on the base level of reality there is no such thing as "temperature" at all. Temperature is an abstract property mathematically derived from the micro-level properties - an average kinetic energy of large groups of moving particles. The bio-organisms developed a sensing apparatus that measures the average kinetic energy of large groups of particles, and the outcome of it is sensed as "temperature" because measuring the temperature allowed them to avoid any damage to the body from "hot" objects (objects where the particles on average move too quickly) and therefore have better chances of survival.

If you simply extrapolate that illustration one level deeper, then you arrive at what we are saying about spiritual science. The major difference is that to go beyond superstring model is to voluntarily abandon abstract intellectual thinking-concepts, and that is the possession we prize most dearly in the modern age. It is also how most of us think, so everything gets really vague and fuzzy when we try to imagine what could be one level deeper. The idealist will then just leave it at "MAL", "archetypes of the collective unconscious", etc. Spiritual science claims we can get more resolution on those things. You say that you have no idea whether we can get such resolution, but I am still not sure whether, in addition to that, you are claiming no one has already attained higher resolution, i.e. you are extrapolating your own lack of knowledge in this area to knowledge of this area in general.

[Eugene I]

I will never figure this part of your thinking out, it seems. You explicitly acknowledge the formless-form polar aspects of experience (including ideas/forms), but then say the question of changeless aspect (formless) is "undecidable". How do you reconcile those two assertions?

I'm saying that:
- the formless aspect is changeless, we can know it from experience
- the forms (particulars), as we know them from conscious experience, are always changing. We can still hypothetically infer that they also may have a changeless/timeless aspect, but our (or at least my) experience does not support it with any evidence.

I am not denying different methods are employed between "natural" (which we should want to really start fading out now, even for practical application IMO) and "spiritual". But does that mean the "less regular pictures" cannot be perceived and studied rigorously? Or, instead of analogy, allow me to use your own very good illustration to Jim on the other thread:

If you simply extrapolate that illustration one level deeper, then you arrive at what we are saying about spiritual science. The major difference is that to go beyond superstring model is to voluntarily abandon abstract intellectual thinking-concepts, and that is the possession we prize most dearly in the modern age. It is also how most of us think, so everything gets really vague and fuzzy when we try to imagine what could be one level deeper. The idealist will then just leave it at "MAL", "archetypes of the collective unconscious", etc. Spiritual science claims we can get more resolution on those things. You say that you have no idea whether we can get such resolution, but I am still not sure whether, in addition to that, you are claiming no one has already attained higher resolution, i.e. you are extrapolating your own lack of knowledge in this area to knowledge of this area in general.

No, I agree that more rigorous study with higher resolution might be possible and should be attempted by all means. But it is just more difficult to do due to the lack of strong regularities and reproducibility in those "less regular pictures". We can apply experiments and math to regular pictures because they are strongly structured (which allows to apply math to model them) and highly reproducible (which allows to perform repeatable measurements/experiments with them). This is not possible with less regular pictures, so different methods of study are needed to approach them. Technically, in the absence of math and reproducible experiments, I do not know if such study would even qualify as a "science". We can call it something like "spiritual enquiry". As I said above, reason proves useful in such study but still insufficient. Subjective spiritual experiences may serve as strong experiential evidences from the subjective perspective, but they are rarely reproducible from person to person and often evade the criteria of objectivity. So, we can certainly explore the murky waters of less regular pictures, it's just that we are left with even more uncertainty as compared to natural sciences.

[AshvinP]

I will never figure this part of your thinking out, it seems. You explicitly acknowledge the formless-form polar aspects of experience (including ideas/forms), but then say the question of changeless aspect (formless) is "undecidable". How do you reconcile those two assertions?

I'm saying that:
- the formless aspect is changeless, we can know it from experience
- the forms (particulars), as we know them from conscious experience, are always changing. We can still hypothetically infer that they also may have a changeless/timeless aspect, but our (or at least my) experience does not support it with any evidence.

So if you start thinking about the "ideal archetypes" as formless living force, rather than changing "forms", then you must admit those sorts of archetypes exist, correct?

I am not denying different methods are employed between "natural" (which we should want to really start fading out now, even for practical application IMO) and "spiritual". But does that mean the "less regular pictures" cannot be perceived and studied rigorously? Or, instead of analogy, allow me to use your own very good illustration to Jim on the other thread:

If you simply extrapolate that illustration one level deeper, then you arrive at what we are saying about spiritual science. The major difference is that to go beyond superstring model is to voluntarily abandon abstract intellectual thinking-concepts, and that is the possession we prize most dearly in the modern age. It is also how most of us think, so everything gets really vague and fuzzy when we try to imagine what could be one level deeper. The idealist will then just leave it at "MAL", "archetypes of the collective unconscious", etc. Spiritual science claims we can get more resolution on those things. You say that you have no idea whether we can get such resolution, but I am still not sure whether, in addition to that, you are claiming no one has already attained higher resolution, i.e. you are extrapolating your own lack of knowledge in this area to knowledge of this area in general.

No, I agree that more rigorous study with higher resolution might be possible and should be attempted by all means. But it is just more difficult to do due to the lack of strong regularities and reproducibility in those "less regular pictures". We can apply experiments and math to regular pictures because they are strongly structured (which allows to apply math to model them) and highly reproducible (which allows to perform repeatable measurements/experiments with them). This is not possible with less regular pictures, so different methods of study are needed to approach them. Technically, in the absence of math and reproducible experiments, I do not know if such study would even qualify as a "science". We can call it something like "spiritual enquiry". As I said above, reason proves useful in such study but still insufficient. Subjective spiritual experiences may serve as strong experiential evidences from the subjective perspective, but they are rarely reproducible from person to person and often evade the criteria of objectivity. So, we can certainly explore the murky waters of less regular pictures, it's just that we are left with even more uncertainty as compared to natural sciences.

I cannot apply experiments and math to "regular pictures", Eugene, because I have no knowledge of that method and application. It would take me quite some time and effort to figure out how to pursue scientific inquiries in that way. Why do you assume it would be any different for spiritual science? Instead of going with the simple explanation that the "less regular pictures" are not "highly reproduced" because not enough people have learned how to experience-cognize them and experiment with them, you go with the much more epistemically pessimistic explanation that entirely different criteria apply and, furthermore, they are "subjective" (another physicalist-dualist way of thinking) and therefore they will always remain in some murky non-scientific domain. Yes, it is more difficult to do because of our own unwillingness to learn how to do it - not due to the structure of Reality itself, which, under consistent idealism, cannot possibly consist in two domains of "subjective" and "objective" inquiry.

[Eugene I]

So if you start thinking about the "ideal archetypes" as formless living force, rather than changing "forms", then you must admit those sorts of archetypes exist, correct?

They definitely exist at the event of their conscious experiencing. I do not know if they exist in any other way.

I cannot apply experiments and math to "regular pictures", Eugene, because I have no knowledge of that method and application. It would take me quite some time and effort to figure out how to pursue scientific inquiries in that way. Why do you assume it would be any different for spiritual science? Instead of going with the simple explanation that the "less regular pictures" are not "highly reproduced" because not enough people have learned how to experience-cognize them and experiment with them, you go with the much more epistemically pessimistic explanation that entirely different criteria apply and, furthermore, they are "subjective" (another physicalist-dualist way of thinking) and therefore they will always remain in some murky non-scientific domain. Yes, it is more difficult to do because of our own unwillingness to learn how to do it - not due to the structure of Reality itself, which, under consistent idealism, cannot possibly consist in two domains of "subjective" and "objective" inquiry.

As I said, these spiritual enquiries should be perused by all means. All I'm saying is that the scientific method used in natural sciences is not directly applicable to them in a full sense, but may be some aspects of that method can be applicable if modified accordingly. This is a new area and work in progress, and if you have motivation to do it then go for it by all means.

[AshvinP]

So if you start thinking about the "ideal archetypes" as formless living force, rather than changing "forms", then you must admit those sorts of archetypes exist, correct?

They definitely exist at the event of their conscious experiencing. I do not know if they exist in any other way.

I cannot apply experiments and math to "regular pictures", Eugene, because I have no knowledge of that method and application. It would take me quite some time and effort to figure out how to pursue scientific inquiries in that way. Why do you assume it would be any different for spiritual science? Instead of going with the simple explanation that the "less regular pictures" are not "highly reproduced" because not enough people have learned how to experience-cognize them and experiment with them, you go with the much more epistemically pessimistic explanation that entirely different criteria apply and, furthermore, they are "subjective" (another physicalist-dualist way of thinking) and therefore they will always remain in some murky non-scientific domain. Yes, it is more difficult to do because of our own unwillingness to learn how to do it - not due to the structure of Reality itself, which, under consistent idealism, cannot possibly consist in two domains of "subjective" and "objective" inquiry.

As I said, these spiritual enquiries should be perused by all means. All I'm saying is that the scientific method used in natural sciences is not directly applicable to them in a full sense, but may be some aspects of that method can be applicable if modified accordingly. This is a new area and work in progress, and if you have motivation to do it then go for it by all means.

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?

[Eugene I]

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

[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.

[Cleric K]

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?

First of all, in certain sense everything is objective. This is even easier to explain in materialism. Even if we hallucinate, this still corresponds to objective states of the brain. In a sense, our hallucinations inform us of the true state of the physical brain. We're in similar situation in spiritual investigation. The question translates to being able to discern what part of the World spectrum we're perceiving. We may call it subjective if we're fixated in our own etheric and astral bodies, yet this still corresponds to actual facts. When we move along the gradient towards processes that surpass our own organization, we're perceiving the general spiritual environment. It's important to note that our own organization still acts as prism and can severely distort our perceptions. So you concern is very well founded but doesn't need to cause us to capitulate before the possibility for clear perception of the higher worlds. Quantum computing has great trouble with noise. Yet scientists don't capitulate but search for the most ingenious error correction methods. It's similar in spiritual science. A large part of the science of Initiation is devoted to recognizing the sources of error. These can be of organic nature, of level of spiritual skills, but the most important are entirely the result of the level of our moral development. Yes, the most significant error correction method is we ourselves. This means the must love Truth more than anything, more than our life. Even if this truth should completely devastate what we have formerly believed in or what we feel sympathetic about. In the very same way as normal science, we can never tell if some isolated phenomena is 'true'. As said, every experience is a valid experience - in both physical and spiritual sense. When science speaks of truth it means that more and more experimental data must agree with the theory. In the context of spiritual science we're not trying to align experiences with some abstract theory but we're simply bringing the facts of these experiences into relations. There's something that holds true both for the sensory and the higher worlds - that we can call harmony of the facts.

When people cast doubt about spiritual matters it is usually the result of a prejudice which causes us to look upon the spiritual facts as lying in some completely remote domain, the seventh heaven, or God knows where, and that these facts have no relation to our life in the sensory spectrum. But this is simply not true. Every genuine observation that we make in the higher spectrum is related in the most intimate way to the sensory spectrum. As a matter of fact, we can only make sense of the sensory world when it is elucidated by the facts of the higher worlds. These facts don't stand as dogmatic assertions. They form an organic network of communicating vessels. That's why it's not really necessary that everyone should develop higher cognition for themselves. As long as one can think properly, the revealed facts of the higher worlds can be assessed by sound thinking because they form a harmonious and logical whole.

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.

An important distinction between ordinary and spiritual science is that the former holds true until proven wrong by experiment. In the latter we don't simply hold on to an abstract theory that exists entirely in or mind but we're led to expansion of our actual spectrum of experience. Let's take your question above. It would be a valid question if this oceanic experience stands isolated on its own. The real question is "can this experience become a real transformative force for our life?" Here things attain different hue. How do we discern between eating food and only imagining a tasty meal? How do we discern between plugging in our home appliances into the electric socket and only imagining them working? How does the poet know if he writes out of inspiration or not? Here again we reach the requirement for harmony of the facts. The same practical criteria work also for spiritual matters, although admittedly in certain cases it's more difficult to point to a straight demarcation lines. Nevertheless, if we find an inner method of connecting with the Sun Spirit and allow ourselves to become conductor of universal love, then we can expect that there should be practical difference over just fantasizing that love. If every morning we wake up grateful for the life we're granted and feel inspired to share our inner riches with everybody, if we continue to give without being exhausted, then we really are on to something.

So everything can be put to the test and this is what is demanded from us! No one benefits from instilling dogmatic beliefs in their heads. We need actual methods for work that can be put to practice and their fruits tasted. Genuine spiritual investigation doesn't aim to satisfy our vain curiosity but to reveal the higher order out of which we can extract the practical methods for work. Out of this knowledge of the true structure of reality must issue also the actual practical methods for work, which have the potential to transform individual, family, social life and put humans in harmonious and prolific relations with Nature and the Spiritual Cosmos.