This is one way of partially understanding the matter:
Consider for a moment "Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture - Finale" as our Object.
There are several ways to perceive and process this Object--here are a few:
1. A high-quality digital recording of the Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra performing the piece.
2. The sheets of the original score in Tchaikovsky's own hand.
3. A live performance of the piece in Tchaikovsky Hall, Moscow.
4. A modern, commercially-printed book of the entire score.
5. A live performance of the piece by your local high-school marching band complete with fireworks.
6. A video of a sound level meter located at a performance of the piece, with no audio.
Consider that technically speaking each of these very different experiences is of the same Object, the 1812 Overture - Finale. They differ widely in
their approach, essence, and scope, yet, in a way of speaking they all point to the same reality -- the Object -- while not providing the definitive
experience of it.
I think that's what our different ways of knowing are like. Science, all the different religions/spiritual systems/etc, art, literature, etc. We can
argue whether 2 is more authentic than 4, or 3 is more satisfying than 5, but to PROVE it is a different matter altogether.
1. Prove which one is "best" factually, with no statements of value, belief, or aesthetics.
2. Explain what this Object is via an essay written in Braille to a person born congenitally blind that has never heard it.
3. Explain it via any method to a person born congenitally deaf.
That small exercise outlines a bit of my own complication in addressing the sense of the numinous force or rather the Object that is the subject of
edit on 9Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:49:48 -060014p092014166 by Gryphon66 because: Entropy and time, dude ... entropy and time.