Kevin's Watch

Let us share new ideas about new ways of life ~ In alignment with Universal Love, Truth, and Oneness. This is an Experiment in Expeditious Expression into a new reality of being!!

Ugh, the alliteration

What is this "spirit science" and what do I have problems with it? It essentially seems to be this strange spiritual cocktail that is one part hippy, one part Eastern, and several parts "let's talk about thins out there! Spirit is all! Spirit is one!"

Mix this with the complete poverty of creativity that internet culture, and you have this "spirit science" that many of my friends are starting to get into... I bring it up here because you guys can take it

First, it seems like this is a sort of counter-culture against "science" and how it does not have all the answers/is actively repressing studies that prove the power of crystals and meditations.

And yet...

A major aspect is a reliance on actual science to prove their points and mine for terms to misinterpret so that their world view seems legitimate.

Why is that? Which is it? Is established science the "repressive Vatican of reason" or is it "proof of the spirit and related phenomena"?

Some more thoughts to follow.

Interesting topic, Orlion.

I think some of this arises from the very human need to be believed. Science offers a certainty that is comforting and so, desirable. However, one of the essential things about most spiritual/alternative theories is that they operate on a different plane or in a supernatural manner. Thus attempts to 'prove' them scientifically are usually doomed to failure and often actually lead to the undermining of the theory. The effects of the spiritual can sometimes be measured (as Vraith stated above), but the causes (being non-material) shouldn't be measurable.

Ironically, it may be that believers in the spiritual/alternative need to have more faith in their theories and experiences

u.

Vraith wrote:I mean, take meditation:
It is known, demonstrable, practicing meditation makes you a better person. Not just "how you feel," but measurably. Objectively. And some methods are demonstrably better than others even with the limited science data.
That's something "spiritual," Scientifically measured, but not explained [yet...there are hints/directions]...

Gonna need some definitions for this discussion. Heh. What is "spiritual" about learning how to relax; focus; become disciplined; quite the mind? I have called myself spiritual. But, when asked what was spiritual if we don't have a spirit/soul, I answered "The humand spirit. The striving, learning, experiencing." I don't think that's what you're saying here.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I will leave questions of "universal truth" to the side even though I think some things are "universally" true--murder is wrong, etc.

For a given definition of murder...

--A

Fist and Faith wrote:

Vraith wrote:I mean, take meditation:
It is known, demonstrable, practicing meditation makes you a better person. Not just "how you feel," but measurably. Objectively. And some methods are demonstrably better than others even with the limited science data.
That's something "spiritual," Scientifically measured, but not explained [yet...there are hints/directions]...

Gonna need some definitions for this discussion. Heh. What is "spiritual" about learning how to relax; focus; become disciplined; quite the mind? I have called myself spiritual. But, when asked what was spiritual if we don't have a spirit/soul, I answered "The humand spirit. The striving, learning, experiencing." I don't think that's what you're saying here.

I think it is what I'm saying, just only part of it. Yea, the mechanics/techniques are just that. But the purposes/paths that many [but not all] are on is considered to be "spiritual." And the gestalt of it is, for many but not all, a spiritual sense/awakening/openness/awareness.
Your answer on "what spiritual is, lacking a soul" is pretty close to mine in a general way.
All I'm saying is both science and spirituality agree that it is effective.
Science doesn't have all the answer on why yet...maybe will someday, maybe won't. So the practice can be, and is for many, very spiritual...but it is going to far to then say the experience of spirituality is due to and/or proves an actual spirit exists.
And just because it is helpful for almost everything we do, and can answer/fill some question/space for many, doesn't mean it would solve all the problems, pain, and suffering if we'd all just sit down and aum together for a while. [Heh...though it would be helpful, I bet].

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Like I said, there is no universal truth even though many people would like for there to be. Well, except for the laws of physics--those are universally true. We know they are universally true because they would still be true even if we all stopped believing in them. They were true even before we discovered them and found a way to describe them.

Which is why I like to differentiate between "truth" and "objective facts."

--A

Avatar wrote:Which is why I like to differentiate between "truth" and "objective facts."

--A

Precisely. All objective facts are truths but not all truths are objective facts.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Avatar wrote:Which is why I like to differentiate between "truth" and "objective facts."

--A

Precisely. All objective facts are truths but not all truths are objective facts.

I generally go the next step in that: True/Truth has no noun form. It is only a modifier.
[though I don't consistently use it only that way...a bad habit/tradition].

That's why I don't call that sort of mathematical expression a "truth."

It's an objective fact. When we use the two interchangeably, that's where the problems come in.

--A

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:No, "truth" (or "the truth") can definitely be a noun. It is The Truth that when dealing with real numbers and the operation of addition that the statement "a + b" is exactly equal to the statement "b + a". However, this sort of truth exists only when dealing with math or physics (or any other science whose fundamental rules are based on either math or physics). When the subject is objective, "the truth" exists.

nah...that's just the commutative property of addition.
I'd say when the subject is objective, statements can be shown to be true statements or false statements. a+b=b+a is a true statement, a-b=b-a is a false statement, subtraction is no commutative.
There is no "is" to "truth"...true/truth is always about something else.

Heh, just my way of having fun and being long-winded in order to agree with Avatar.

Vraith wrote:a-b=b-a is a false statement

Heh, just my way of having fun and being long-winded in order to agree with Avatar.

We can introduce more fun by going meta with it. The statement "a-b = b-a is a false statement" is a true statement.

How many layers can we go? The statement "the statement 'a-b = b-a is a false statement' is a false statement" is a false statement. This particular progression can be extended indefinitely: the statement "the statement "the statement "the statement "..."is a false statement" is a false statement" is a false statement" is a false statement. Strangely enough, though, at any point the statement you are making is true.

I digress.

Don't forget, there is a "non-commutative" geometry where a+b does not equal b+a

I am actually disappointed, nothing new here at all (except the not very fresh term, "Spirit Science"). I was actually hoping someone had come up with ways of observing and gathering data about the supernatural realm. It almost surprises me no one has seriously pursued that. Maybe there IS a government conspiracy to cover it up!!! *cue X-Files theme music*

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I will leave questions of "universal truth" to the side even though I think some things are "universally" true--murder is wrong, etc.

There are no such things as "universal love" or "universal oneness". Anyone who thinks there are such things and who thinks they they try to live up to that sort of ideal needs to spend an hour with me--I can guarantee that I can piss them off and provoke a negative reaction from them. This sort of lukewarm, wishy-washy, neo-hippie, balderdash seems to resurface every decade or so; I guess the time was right because "The Secret" is yesterday's news. I have always found New Age stuff to be the most trivial mish-mash of theological and/or psychological stuff, the olla podrida of mysticism. In my experience, its adherents are also shallow, which is probably why it appeals to them. Sure, they are probably looking for answers to the questions in their life but they don't want to spend the time or mental energy required to dig deeply into those questions; they would rather have quick and easy answers spoon-fed to them in easily digestible bites.

Have I made my disdain for all things New Age clear?

Now that I think about it, I am going to contradict my original sentence. There is a universal truth--cause and effect, as proven by the laws of physics.

I was very much in the New Age thingy 30 years ago (till I experienced profound disillusionment with the whole shebang) and curiously, any time you wanted to go "deeper", the pathway led out of the mishmash and toward specific spiritual paths (Buddhism, Native American, etc). There was no depth in the middle of the mishmash.

I am reminded of Mulligan Stew, which is basically whatever leftovers you have, thrown in a pot and stewed together... I tried it once, and it tasted like nothing. There were so many flavors and textures mixed together, it had no character at all. It was just a bowl of edible protoplasm. The New Age is like that.

Vraith wrote:Science will NEVER have all the answers. I am almost certain that is true, too.

Science only seems to come up with ever-cooler questions, not answers.

Orlion wrote:Don't forget, there is a "non-commutative" geometry where a+b does not equal b+a

Oh, yes, there are numerous mathematical systems that have different basic properties.
Off the top of my head, I THINK "associative algebra" x times y does not equal y times x [which it does "normal" algebra].

deer of the dawn wrote:I was actually hoping someone had come up with ways of observing and gathering data about the supernatural realm. It almost surprises me no one has seriously pursued that.

Trying to collect scientific data via observation about the supernatural world is usually fruitless and often impossible. Any video or audio recordings are low quality and hightly questionable at best. Maybe--and this is a very thin maybe--at some point when physicists become able to set up experiments to test for higher dimensions that some cosmological theories like string, M, or F Theory suggest then evidence of something supernatural might occur.

No, such things definitely fall into the realm of "it is real only if you believe it to be real".

A lot of people were still into New Age 30 years ago when it was still new and quickly approaching the Harmonic Convergence. Unfortunately for its adherents, it didn't signal the start of anything new.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

deer of the dawn wrote:I was actually hoping someone had come up with ways of observing and gathering data about the supernatural realm. It almost surprises me no one has seriously pursued that.

Trying to collect scientific data via observation about the supernatural world is usually fruitless and often impossible. Any video or audio recordings are low quality and hightly questionable at best. Maybe--and this is a very thin maybe--at some point when physicists become able to set up experiments to test for higher dimensions that some cosmological theories like string, M, or F Theory suggest then evidence of something supernatural might occur.

No, such things definitely fall into the realm of "it is real only if you believe it to be real".

Depends. We really do not have "photographic evidence" of various physical matter neither. All that really matters is whether or not the "supernatural" elements interact with the the "natural" elements. One can then infer its existence, given a stringent and definitive characteristics. This approach would not work if:

1) There are no supernatural elements.
2) Supernatural elements do not/can not interact with natural elements.
3) The supernatural elements are intelligent and do not wish to be observed.

All these possibilities look exactly alike the other to our perspective, at that point what we would choose would depend on various personal beliefs.