Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:50 pmYou are exactly right in your first paragraph, I was also brainstorming this "epistemological measurement problem" a while ago. But this brings us back to the problem we already discussed but I don't think it was resolved. In the natural science it can be phrased like this: if the measurement procedures and instruments are abstractions, and if the logic and math we use to validate our theories are also abstractions, then what criteria do we have to distinguish abstractions from Reality? What can we possibly know about Reality in natural sciences if we can only operate with abstractions?AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:27 am Yes, we must be careful and sober about both spiritual science and "physical science". For the latter, we have come to believe in the modern age that we are observing phenomenon and testing their relations by way of 'measuring' devices and then comparing the measurements to derive the principles at work. The measuring devices are actually our own abstractions - we give meaning to what is a "pound" and what is a "gram" etc. so that they can be usefully compared to one another. I am not really well-versed in science so my examples will be pretty poor, but I think you get what I mean. So what we are really testing the phenomenal relations against is our own Reason. We create the abstractions of measurement and see whether the relations between the abstractions can be harmonized in a way that makes them useful to applied problems. And that is extremely useful to such applications - without the abstract reasoning we would never have the technology we have now. But it has never been telling us anything about essential relations. In the modern age, we came to believe that falsehood because the measurement abstractions were confused for the Reality itself, and it is a very difficult habit of mind to break. BK points this out often as well.
Why are the abstractions not the Reality itself? After all, they are based on 'things' we can see and measure. It is precisely because there is a spiritual Reality we cannot perceive. This conclusion every pre-modern culture came to and encoded in their various myths (and the farther we go back, the more directly this Reality was perceived). The invisible Reality is the only Reality and it is the source of all phenomenal appearances. So how do we go about distinguishing between our own fantasy (Coleridge uses "fantasy" to differentiate from "imagination" as the latter is fundamental to perceiving the Reality) and concepts which proceed from the shared spiritual Reality? With the exact same tool we use in physical science - our Reason. None of these can be simply accepted as they appear - not in the physical realm (sensible) or the spiritual (supersensible). We must test all of them against our Reason. Before we develop faculties of spiritual perception and higher cognition, it is true that we will not attain very high resolution on the supersensible Reality, but the intellectual concepts which also come from the spiritual world can and must be tested. All forms of thought come from the one and only essential realm, which is the spiritual. Eventually we can also test the images of that realm with Imaginative thinking.
We have accessible 'databases' of supersensible knowledge encoded in world mythology and esoteric traditions which comment on those mythologies. We cannot simply take those commentaries and state them as truths without first thinking through what they are saying and testing them against our experience of the mythic imagery by way of Reason/Imagination. Spiritual science tells us explicitly to do no such thing. Once we start taking a hard look at those mythologies, we will find a remarkable image of supersensible knowledge form within us. That has been my experience so far. Not just one or two mythologies, but every single mythology from every ancient culture, East-Middle-West. As long as we remember they are speaking from different spatiotemporal perspectives and modes of consciousness (due to metamorphic progression), which is difficult for the modern intellect to do, but must be done, then that larger image will emerge. The same can be done with aesthetics, as I have tried to show some through poetry and music so far in my essays. None of this is easy, as I am sure earning your engineering expertise was not easy, and neither was my law degree, but that is the only way to knowledge in any realm. Yet it becomes easier as we get in the habit of doing it. If we keep our minds always on the spiritual, try hard to see the spiritual in all that we do and feel and think, then it becomes a habit in the opposite direction of the modern age.
And exactly the same problem can be extrapolated to the spiritual realm. I agree that there is a lot of content in the mystical and esoteric traditions and mythology that may contains certain truths about the Reality. At the same time, they are undoubtedly full of human-made abstractions and products of human imagination and fantasy. So, how do we distinguish the former former from the latter?
Or let's say I had a certain mystical experience. Suppose its content is logically consistent and all makes sense from the point of view of Reason. How do I know if what I experienced has any relevance to the actual invisible Reality or if it's just my hallucination or a product of my subconscious mental activity?
These are great questions. I don't have much time to respond now but will just list a few things as markers for later discussion.
1. I would not call pure logic and math "abstractions" in the same sense as scientific concepts like "mass", "velocity", "force", etc.
2. I do not think we can "only operate with abstractions" - spiritual sight and higher cognition is precisely a move away from abstraction into more concrete experience.
3. When proceeding with intellect, I think it is very important to keep the overall "bigger picture" in mind. The metamorphic progression, for example. Clearly there is a really patterned development in human history and the scientific mode of consciousness in the last few centuries is a major part of that pattern. Does it serve any purpose? I don't mean "purpose" as in external agent dreaming up a plan for everyone, but rather the inner necessity of the evolutionary progression. If we recognize that exists, then this exacting mode of consciousness must have a role to play in spirituality going forward.
4. If things are logically consistent and hold together from the POV of your Reasoning, then we should consider them as emanating from the shared spiritual realm. All thinking activity and thoughts are truly transpersonal (I remember you stated before some are personal, but I think that gives rise to dualism again).