Help me challenge my beliefs.

I am truly enjoying this thread ...the infinite scapegoat ...will there be a need for such a creature ? would it look like a tree ? I think once sin is completely gone from the picture, the dots are gone .it no longer will be either linear or cyclical but a new ..creation .I don't think my mind will ever get to the point of imagining such a state ....there are good indications that I may be correct in that statement both from science and from mystic perspective....peace

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

Who's this god person you talk about? (I really mean it, who's god for you? And I ask this as a self-proclaimed mystic :p)


Thanks

Well I don't see that force as a person. Yet you could be that person that stands in the breath of God. For me God is like the language of the hart . Your mind and will decides to act with hart-mind or brain. I love that person(me) when I act only by the hearth, and loose the ego in decision making.
Its difficult to explain I would like it to be that feeling, instead of defining it.

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
I agree that spiritual pride (holier than thou) is very ugly . but at the same time it might be necessary like Hypocrisy ...its a ugly sight on others but when it hits home ,look out ..kind of a move it or lose it situation .

You make a very good point. I should have known better not to forget to see this from different perspectives. I remember some cases where such these emotions/opinions I hate to see in others (pride, hypocrisy, judgement, ...) were either the nudge I needed to react, or the mirror to remind me of my own tares.

Thanks to remind me to not fall for the trap of judgement myself

Originally posted by BBalazs
btw: pondering the infinite is what its all about, it is the very essence of philosophy, and the path through science to know this infinity. a very spiritual journey, indeed.

Sounds infinitely right. But where can we start to ponder infinity when it has no beginning nor end?

It reminds me I have to ask my father to lend me the book I offered him so I can read it too; The Infinite book by John D Barrow. He told me he really enjoyed it.

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
That said I would really like to get your whole dogma as it pertains to this thread. I have a pretty intrinsically built dogma that's based upon m-theory, the 11-dimensions of the universe(s), scientific observation (and hypothesis) and about 8 years of constant questioning these thoughts.

Regarding your dogma based on branes and superstrings, I'm afraid I won't be of any help since I lack the physics skills to discuss such topics. My dogma is much more "K.I.S.S." and if I needed to define it as a set of physical and metaphysical laws, it would be something closer to the seven keys of the Kybalion, applied to my views of the world through the lens of my academic knowledge.

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
But the physiological only deals with the spirit's ego, and once we're free from our ego we're able to objectively look at the universe, it's systems and realize that the ego is a perceptual illusion that tricks us into believing that our body is sentient when in reality our body is a complex organism that houses millions of organisms all working together to coexist physically.

I totally share that view, even though I tend to forget it. Where are ecosystems evolving in always greater ecosystems, all fractally imbricated through different medias (nuclear, cultural, electromagnetic,...)
When all these boundaries start to disappear after their illusion has been understood, your not far from the buddhist or zen mindset

Originally posted by Evil_Santa

Originally posted by BBalazs
btw: pondering the infinite is what its all about, it is the very essence of philosophy, and the path through science to know this infinity. a very spiritual journey, indeed.

edit on 27-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

That's the first step. The next is pondering the infinite possibilities of the infinite -- or maybe that's the first step.

I believe the first step is to sit down and to belay oneself firmly. Unless you're brave or foolish enough to stand on the edge of the botomless pit and look it in the eye without fearing to fall, it's better to approach it cautiously. How did Friedrich put it? Oh yes, "and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you". Not everyone can look it in the face for long while remaining perfectly sane (I'm thinking about myself actually :p)

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
I am truly enjoying this thread ...the infinite scapegoat ...will there be a need for such a creature ? would it look like a tree ? I think once sin is completely gone from the picture, the dots are gone .it no longer will be either linear or cyclical but a new ..creation .I don't think my mind will ever get to the point of imagining such a state ....there are good indications that I may be correct in that statement both from science and from mystic perspective....peace

Eheh interesting straying thoughts. If you are into end times symbolism, I believe some adventists say Azazel (the scapegoat) is Satan, and that after the final judgement he would accredited for all sins and destroyed once and for all. This is close to what you say here.

May I ask why the image of a tree popped in your mind?

Why have you turned your back on Science?

What have you learned from Mysticism that you weren't able to learn from Science?

Why do you feel that Mysticism and Science are mutually exclusive?

Do you know what Science is?

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours

Well I don't see that force as a person. Yet you could be that person that stands in the breath of God. For me God is like the language of the hart . Your mind and will decides to act with hart-mind or brain. I love that person(me) when I act only by the hearth, and loose the ego in decision making.
Its difficult to explain I would like it to be that feeling, instead of defining it.

Would you say that for you God is that force that some call unconditional Love?

reply to post by Furbs


Who said I did?

I'm still a scientist. I work in a company building particle accelerators.

I never said both are mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
reply to post by Furbs

 

Who said I did?

I'm still a scientist. I work in a company building particle accelerators.

I never said both are mutually exclusive.

You said it here.

My perception of this world changed from agnostic scientist (I have a degree in business engineering), to liberal mystic

If you did not change one for the other, I am confused as to what this line means.

Originally posted by Furbs
Do you know what Science is?

I'm not sure what you have in mind here since you write Science with a capital S. Do you mean sciences or rather what some call the great Art?

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
reply to post by Furbs

 

Who said I did?

I'm still a scientist. I work in a company building particle accelerators.

I never said both are mutually exclusive.

You said it here.

My perception of this world changed from agnostic scientist (I have a degree in business engineering), to liberal mystic

If you did not change one for the other, I am confused as to what this line means.

In my mind, science (small s) is bounded, while mysticism isn't. By being a mystic I do not reject my former experiences, I incorporate them into something greater.

Further it's merely labels to describe me in a few words and won't really depict the complexity of one's (mine) story and beliefs. If you want me to develop some points, I can do that

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts

Originally posted by Furbs
Do you know what Science is?

I'm sure what you have in mind here since you write Science with a capital S. Do you mean sciences or rather what some call the great Art?

The Method, mate. The one that has been in use for 1000 years and has ushered in all of the advancements our species has had. You know, Science?

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts

Originally posted by Furbs
Do you know what Science is?

I'm sure what you have in mind here since you write Science with a capital S. Do you mean sciences or rather what some call the great Art?

The Method, mate. The one that has been in use for 1000 years and has ushered in all of the advancements our species has had. You know, Science?

The scientific method? Like I said, I don't reject it. Mysticism is practical experimentation too you know, contrary to theology.

reply to post by SpaceGoatsFarts


How do you accept something from the world of Mysticism that cannot be reproduced by the Scientific Method? How does your scientifically educated brain look at something esoteric and say, "That has to be right" even though there is no way to verify the claim?

What have you seen that has opened your mind up to illogical conclusions without empirical evidence?

Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
The scientific method? Like I said, I don't reject it. Mysticism is practical experimentation too you know, contrary to theology.

What is the mystical method of your experimentation? What have you done that can be verified scientifically?

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by SpaceGoatsFarts

 

How do you accept something from the world of Mysticism that cannot be reproduced by the Scientific Method? How does your scientifically educated brain look at something esoteric and say, "That has to be right" even though there is no way to verify the claim?

What have you seen that has opened your mind up to illogical conclusions without empirical evidence?

You seem to know the subject better than me, but I can assure you that the object of mysticism is something than can be theoritized and reproduced inside it's own framework. It's just that the frameworks of sciences are too small to be used to verify the validity of mysticism.

It's like you would ask me to use the tools of biology to test, reproduce and validate astrophysical theories.

The scientific methods can only prove the postulates edicted inside it's own framework.

But within the framework of mysticism (which seems very kooky I confess), its postulates can be tried, reproduced and validated.

reply to post by Furbs


Like I said above. I haven't done anything mystical that can be proved scientifically (by modern sciences), only some things mystical than can be proved mystically.

I'm sorry it all sounds so stupid and I know it, but since these things are about personal and internal experiences, it's very hard to communicate them efficiently with words. Poets can do it but I'm no poet.

Like philosophy, theology and psychology, mysticism doesn't really deserve the title of exact science and I'm totally fine with that.

It's just a field of study, trying to use the scientific method but bound by it's own essence to be impossible to prove mathematically. To prove its validity, one must accept to experience it first hand.

reply to post by SpaceGoatsFarts


you start exactly where you are sitting.