It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spiritual Reorientation 10: The Art of Life

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: philosopheroftruth


The Buddha then goes on to explain each of the possible metaphysical "Wrong Views" of many mystics. I completely agree even after having had a number of the experiences listed by Buddha in the Sutta. Many people believe Buddhism to be just as "mystical" as Hinduism (some sects are, such as the Bon Religion), but the true Middle Way has virtually nothing to do with mysticism.


It's interesting to note that the Middle Way is sold as a path to Nirvana, but we can observe from the life of Siddartha that the Middle way was a philosophy of someone who lived life to the extremes. Living these extremes was the only way he could develop any insightful philosophy, including the idea of the Middle Way, which never would have developed if he didn't live life in the extreme paths, and thus extremes were necessary for his spiritual development.


edit on 25-7-2014 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule




But the fact remains, there is evidence there to be interpreted. You've only seen a tiny fraction of it because your lack of interest has mislead you. So at this point, you don't know how much you don't know. You think you know, but you don't.


From what I've seen, there is not much to know. It seems a lot of guesswork. But if the field makes any sort of advancement, it should claim its place as a legitimate science. It seems that much of it is science bashing, rather than science producing.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

Enantiodromia, yet again there in the life of the Buddha, eh?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism

From what I've seen, there is not much to know.


After more than a century of exploration there is much to know.


It seems a lot of guesswork.


That's because they are dealing with an anomaly that doesn't go away no matter how tight the experimental controls get.


But if the field makes any sort of advancement, it should claim its place as a legitimate science.


It IS legitimate. But just as there is more to seeing than the eyes, there is more to your place in science than your legitimacy. There is taboo.




It seems that much of it is science bashing, rather than science producing.


Well, I love science. It's materialism and all its variants I don't like. Science will get along fine after materialism is gone.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule




Well, I love science. It's materialism and all its variants I don't like. Science will get along fine after materialism is gone.


With thousands of years of suppression of materialistic schools and works, it doesn't seem that materialism is going anywhere.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule




Well, I love science. It's materialism and all its variants I don't like. Science will get along fine after materialism is gone.


With thousands of years of suppression of materialistic schools and works, it doesn't seem that materialism is going anywhere.



How would you know? Your interests don't include the fields of evidence that challenge it. Are you waiting for your friendly nieghborhood scientist to tell you when it's ok for materialism to go?


edit on 899Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule




How would you know? Your interests don't include the fields of evidence that challenge it. Are you waiting for your friendly nieghborhood scientist to tell you when it's ok for materialism to go?


Thousands of years of suppression and argument has only made it stronger. But your interests do not include the abundant evidence that supports it. While it's opposite, spiritualism and idealism, has nothing but the hopes of its adherents to offer.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule




How would you know? Your interests don't include the fields of evidence that challenge it. Are you waiting for your friendly nieghborhood scientist to tell you when it's ok for materialism to go?


Thousands of years of suppression and argument has only made it stronger. But your interests do not include the abundant evidence that supports it. While it's opposite, spiritualism and idealism, has nothing but the hopes of its adherents to offer.


I don't want to suppress materialism. I want to match foils with it, because it's fun.

My interests do include the evidence you interpret as supporting materialism. It's just that I interpret it as supporting neutral monism or idealism. It works out fine. There is no need to intpret evidence within a dogmatic materialistic philosophy.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule




My interests do include the evidence you interpret as supporting materialism. It's just that I interpret it as supporting neutral monism or idealism. It works out fine. There is no need to intpret evidence within a dogmatic materialistic philosophy.


I can agree with that. Materialism as an ontology is too ill-defined anyways. Determinism, behaviourism, and the mechanistic world-view is long gone. There is no watchmaker or super-engineer determining the outcome of the universe. Dogmatic materialism is essentially idealism.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule




My interests do include the evidence you interpret as supporting materialism. It's just that I interpret it as supporting neutral monism or idealism. It works out fine. There is no need to intpret evidence within a dogmatic materialistic philosophy.


I can agree with that. Materialism as an ontology is too ill-defined anyways. Determinism, behaviourism, and the mechanistic world-view is long gone. There is no watchmaker or super-engineer determining the outcome of the universe. Dogmatic materialism is essentially idealism.



Yes but there is a spectrum of human experience backed up by science and scholarship that defies materialism. Funny how materialists never seem interested in it.




edit on 917Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule




Yes but there is a spectrum of human experience backed up by science and scholarship that defies materialism. Funny how materialists never seem interested in it.


The opposite is also the case. Except the evidence is more than mere anecdote.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule




Yes but there is a spectrum of human experience backed up by science and scholarship that defies materialism. Funny how materialists never seem interested in it.


The opposite is also the case. Except the evidence is more than mere anecdote.



O-ho! That sounds like a challenge. I accept!

Show me a piece of evidence that you think defies neutral monism and idealism. Hit me with your best shot!



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


Show me a piece of evidence that you think defies neutral monism and idealism. Hit me with your best shot!


Go kick a rock as hard as you can.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule


Show me a piece of evidence that you think defies neutral monism and idealism. Hit me with your best shot!


Go kick a rock as hard as you can.



lol!

Seriously, is that the best you got?

Do you think that if I kick it hard enough, I will see it for what it really is?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule



lol!

Seriously, is that the best you got?

Do you think that if I kick it hard enough, I will see it for what it really is?


If you close your eyes you won't see it for what it is. But if you kick it you may feel it. Is that a no?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule



lol!

Seriously, is that the best you got?

Do you think that if I kick it hard enough, I will see it for what it really is?


If you close your eyes you won't see it for what it is. But if you kick it you may feel it. Is that a no?



There is more to seeing than the eyes, more to feeling than the toe.

What if I were to just close my eyes, and start kicking everywhere! Like a mule in a china shop.

Sooner or later, I would hurt my foot. Materialism predicts that I won't know before I do, because materialism says my body can't know the future.

But the evidence of anomalous anticipatory response defies materialism.

papers.ssrn.com...


edit on 999Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


There is more to seeing than the eyes, more to feeling than the toe.

What if I were to just close my eyes, and start kicking everywhere! Like a bull in a china shop.

Sooner or later, I would hurt my foot. Materialism predicts that I won't know before I do, because materialism says my body can't know the future.

But the evidence of anomalous anticipatory response defies materialism.


Until it is discovered that the scientific methodology is flawed, and when replicated properly, produces nothing:

Failing the Future



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule


There is more to seeing than the eyes, more to feeling than the toe.

What if I were to just close my eyes, and start kicking everywhere! Like a bull in a china shop.

Sooner or later, I would hurt my foot. Materialism predicts that I won't know before I do, because materialism says my body can't know the future.

But the evidence of anomalous anticipatory response defies materialism.


Until it is discovered that the scientific methodology is flawed, and when replicated properly, produces nothing:

Failing the Future



Unsuccesful replications here and there are not unusual in science. That's why no single experiment can settle anything. You have to look at the big picture. The big picture overwhelmingly defies materialism.


edit on 001Friday000000America/ChicagoJul000000FridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

How?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

How?



By showing that part of human nature transcends time and space and therefore matter. Materialism as I know it can't account for that, but neutral monism and idealism as I know them can.




top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join