| |
|
Ev_G: That's not necessarily inconsistent with magic, mysticism, or spirituality.
The process of hypothesis, test, and conclusion isn't what of the Scientific Method I find to be inconsistant with spiritual practice. It's the principal of objective measurement, where subjective perception from direct experience is not considered reliable. One of my favorite filks about science says "Nothing is Science unless it is quantified - just try to measure a thing that's not there."
The big difference between soft sciences like Psychology and hard sciences like Chemistry is that very issue of measurability - obviously they all have the method of testing aspect in common. Spirituality, when treated as a science, comes out as Anthropology and Psychology, which sounds wonderful to me as far as it goes. But that's the difference between describing the experience, and having the experience.
Since I find spirituality to be essentially about direct experience, which is necessarily subjective, and generally immesurable, I percieve an incompatibility there. Not such that I find them mutually exclusive, mind you. In fact, I find them complimentary. I often (almost habitually) apply the basic philosophy behind the scientific method to my spiritual practice - but I leave the objective measurement standard out, because it's simply inapplicable. Now, logic is a process I have no issue with applying to everything (much to my therapist's chagrin), but you can head awfully far in the wrong direction there if you start with an inaccurate premise.
I am unaware of any mechanical objects we have been able to manufacture that measure Chi, so it can't be said to have existence demonstrable by Scientific standards. Nevertheless, the concept is not intended as a metaphor within the context of its application - though perhaps it's now treated as such, I don't know. I think there's at least a third category in there, somewhere. I don't think Chi is meant to signify the same kind of "thing" as, say "anger" (which is neither metaphor, nor material), but I honestly haven't any idea how Chi would fit into a physiological description of the human body - I don't think it does.
That's a reasonable argument when you're talking about, say, subjective experiences like enlightenment. But it seems less reasonable when you're talking about things with real-world material effects like, say, psychic healing.
That I can agree with.
Quantum: You're missing my point there
Ah. So it's not so much what they said, as the lack of understanding behind why they said it. Gotcha. Yeah, that would bug me too.
Let me put it this way. If I'm feeling weak, I will first examine my recent memory to see if I've eaten, slept and drunk enough BEFORE examining whether or not etheric parasites are devouring my soul.
The mundane is not only sacred, it's likely. 
Ghost of Tom: Around 3 AM DMT presence is at its highest and so Strassman speculates this is why UFO abductions occur near this time.
Does it not matter what time you went to bed?
I think it'd be interesting to look at when these words began to be used in regards to both science and the occult.
I agree, though in most cases science, math, and whatever occult studies started out as forms of philosophy, so it's not so much a chicken/egg question as one of common ancestry.
--Ember-- |
|
|
