The certainty of anihilation vs the certainy of eternity

[Dave casarino]

"But deep down they KNOW it's all bullshit" said my friend in regard to reform criminals turned christian, he is not a very philosophically inclined man and essentially sticking to the local underground punk rock scene as his sole reference point to humanity at large surrounding himself with nihilists that reject anything spiritual or religious as deceptive bullshit designed to console a politically exploited human living a pointless life distraught of all meaning. "But deep down we KNOW there is something more to this, it's there" said one of my fathers best friends in conversation about how his sister freaked out after apparently experiencing a kundalini charge up her spine during a yoga class where she saw a glowing egg blazing in her mind after a shoot of energy raced up her spine, which made her quit.

There is indeed two intuitions that contradict each other within the human psyche, one is this sense that one has always been, always will be and that the great story will continue, the other is that the clock is ticking until death, and you have been thrown this chance to temporarily exist out of the blue, but it won't return to the blue, it will fade beyond black, as though you never were. One thing that has always struck me is the certainty of both views, people seem damn sure they know either way, and that the person who holds the other opinion is just kidding themselves either not taking spiritual consequences seriously or singing lullabies to oneself as they steadily march into the night. In the sense religion used to be in the west, materialism and it's implications sure does seem to be shoved down ones throat, I have lived with materialism all around me as it seemingly took over lay comprehension in the 2000's, come 2011 any kind of spiritual discourse would be scoffed at, not in the halls of university but in pubs and sharehouses during pissups where serious thought in my opinion should be left at the door, lest drunk people get aggressive during argumentation. But there one wonders of the victory of materialism and the previous victory of religious thought, where is the proof? Religion relies on the mystic's insight and puts it's trust there and then, materialism relies on the image of the brain rotting after death to concur such a thing as the seat of experience certainly should not be experiencing. But one thing I have noticed about the materialist is his use of language, as though the dispute of consciousness and mortality has been settled, as though their is STRONG evidence to support their claim. So I ask is there truly some crack science where a bunch of people were killed for a time, revived somehow and reported nothing? Did such a thing ever happen? Is this a common knowledge materialists have that has gone ignored or unnoticed here?

[AshvinP]

"But deep down they KNOW it's all bullshit" said my friend in regard to reform criminals turned christian, he is not a very philosophically inclined man and essentially sticking to the local underground punk rock scene as his sole reference point to humanity at large surrounding himself with nihilists that reject anything spiritual or religious as deceptive bullshit designed to console a politically exploited human living a pointless life distraught of all meaning. "But deep down we KNOW there is something more to this, it's there" said one of my fathers best friends in conversation about how his sister freaked out after apparently experiencing a kundalini charge up her spine during a yoga class where she saw a glowing egg blazing in her mind after a shoot of energy raced up her spine, which made her quit.

There is indeed two intuitions that contradict each other within the human psyche, one is this sense that one has always been, always will be and that the great story will continue, the other is that the clock is ticking until death, and you have been thrown this chance to temporarily exist out of the blue, but it won't return to the blue, it will fade beyond black, as though you never were. One thing that has always struck me is the certainty of both views, people seem damn sure they know either way, and that the person who holds the other opinion is just kidding themselves either not taking spiritual consequences seriously or singing lullabies to oneself as they steadily march into the night. In the sense religion used to be in the west, materialism and it's implications sure does seem to be shoved down ones throat, I have lived with materialism all around me as it seemingly took over lay comprehension in the 2000's, come 2011 any kind of spiritual discourse would be scoffed at, not in the halls of university but in pubs and sharehouses during pissups where serious thought in my opinion should be left at the door, lest drunk people get aggressive during argumentation. But there one wonders of the victory of materialism and the previous victory of religious thought, where is the proof? Religion relies on the mystic's insight and puts it's trust there and then, materialism relies on the image of the brain rotting after death to concur such a thing as the seat of experience certainly should not be experiencing. But one thing I have noticed about the materialist is his use of language, as though the dispute of consciousness and mortality has been settled, as though their is STRONG evidence to support their claim.

I wouldn't call them both intuitions. Rather, I would call one a bright intuition and the other one its shadow. The shadow gets bigger and stronger as the intuition responsible for the shadow remains ignored. Just from the archetypal imagery, I am sure it goes without saying which one is which.

So I ask is there truly some crack science where a bunch of people were killed for a time, revived somehow and reported nothing? Did such a thing ever happen? Is this a common knowledge materialists have that has gone ignored or unnoticed here?

No, but that's hardly necessary for the materialist's conviction. They just need to look around the world and say, "see, there is no spiritual stuff going on here... it's all increasingly lifeless, mindless, and mechanistic interaction". And they will be right, because that's the general trend. They can appeal to what is concretely seen and desired and felt and thought, while the spiritual types can only weave more abstract webs of dimly remembered concepts. People will never consider that there can be a spiritual reality underlying this world, which influences this world and is important to consider, until they know it and see it, rather than merely believe it. That is how the real intuition's shadow is adopted into the family, grafted into the Tree of Life.

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and [d]fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

[Dave casarino]

but how does one truly know that they have seen it? Psychedelics seem to disrupt the spatio temporal setting of standard consciousness, often combining an experience of vast space in sync with a mathematical geometric format that appears to the user to stretch their consciousness throughout space time and beyond, but what is the authenticity of such experiences drug induced or not? Could it be the manipulation of serotonin in such states is making you feel so damn good that you mistake the feeling for the revelation of a fact?

[Eugene I]

but how does one truly know that they have seen it? Psychedelics seem to disrupt the spatio temporal setting of standard consciousness, often combining an experience of vast space in sync with a mathematical geometric format that appears to the user to stretch their consciousness throughout space time and beyond, but what is the authenticity of such experiences drug induced or not? Could it be the manipulation of serotonin in such states is making you feel so damn good that you mistake the feeling for the revelation of a fact?

It could be. There is never a 100% scientific prof. Stepping out from materialistic paradigm does require a leap of faith and adopting certain beliefs. It has to start with dismantling the materialistic beliefs, which by the way are exactly that: only beliefs. These is similarly no scientific proof whatsoever of the existence of the external material/physical world outside our consciousness. So, a rigorous critical analysis of the unconscious and unwarranted beliefs that we culturally adopted is needed first, and this is where the arguments such as "hard problem of consciousness" and the argumentation that Bernardo presents are useful. Basically, if we are to start from tabula-rasa of no beliefs, we have a choice to adopt materialistic beliefs, or idealistic, or may be some other, and here we need to carefully asses which beliefs are the most reasonable and sensible, free of intractable explanatory gaps and internal contradictions, as well as practically useful for opening opportunities for moral and spiritual development and growth leading to happier and more fulfilling life.

[AshvinP]

but how does one truly know that they have seen it? Psychedelics seem to disrupt the spatio temporal setting of standard consciousness, often combining an experience of vast space in sync with a mathematical geometric format that appears to the user to stretch their consciousness throughout space time and beyond, but what is the authenticity of such experiences drug induced or not? Could it be the manipulation of serotonin in such states is making you feel so damn good that you mistake the feeling for the revelation of a fact?

How do we know that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"? Reading a science textbook will never make that principle concrete knowledge, if it is not also experienced, known, and perceived in our interactions with the world around us. When we move from isolated experience to perceiving principles of experience, we are always reasoning through the experiences to the principles. The inner structure of that reasoning is what we call "logic". It is no different for spiritual knowledge and sight. These reasoning activities are one and the same, and what expands with focused spiritual (thinking) activity is the field of experience from which we can logically reason. It is true that my words here are like 2-D extracts of a 4-D reality, so we cannot simply expect the words to substitute for the experience itself, but nevertheless it is only our own lack of imagination which makes us feel these spiritual principles cannot be just as immanent and certain as those we discover within the physical world.