<simon> what do you mean by spiritual experience? like odin, seth, etc.

<MathPoet> I suppose I mean an experience I associate with something beyond ordinary experience.

<simon> oh, like drugs?

<MathPoet> yes, although I find they aren't necessary. More like Carl Jung talking about a connection to the extramundane.

<simon> I haven't tried Carl Jung.

<MathPoet> he's tasty, I think.

<simon> but does he throw a colour show, I wonder, like taking drugs will make your see colours.

<MathPoet> No. I'm talking about experiences that have more lasting transformative meaning which I found that drugs on the whole did not.

<simon> what is Carl Jung's 'connection to the extramundane'? I haven't read about that.

<MathPoet> It's in his book, "Undiscovered Self". A thin little book about protection from mass mind.

<simon> is that last part your evalution of it, or his intention with it?

<MathPoet> his intention with it, I believe. It's actually quite clear, if a little dense but the point is, that not everybody's spiritual experience has to agree. and here is a situation where the Law fails.

<MathPoet> Logic becomes a way of being "right" in the world.

<MathPoet> I love that

<MathPoet> and I wonder about other situations in which the Law has to be thrown out the window.

<MathPoet> Mostly experiential, I should think.

<MathPoet> ah well.

<simon> not everybody's *experience* has to agree.

<MathPoet> absolutely!

<MathPoet> so you can't say, this one's wrong or right.

<simon> sure you can :)

<MathPoet> haha!!!

<simon> experiences are imperfect

<MathPoet> you can be full of it, too.

<MathPoet> how can you say that?

<MathPoet> and what would that mean?

<simon> well

<MathPoet> I'm talking about spiritual experiences, btw. not hallucinations and such

<simon> naturally experiences are just experiences. trying to stuff them into an intersubjective, collective world perception might prove hurdly.

<MathPoet> maybe I wasn't clear.

<simon> I'm talking about plain experiences, such as your idea of how many forks are in your drawer.

<MathPoet> what does hurdly mean?

<simon> problematic

<MathPoet> no. those are simple things. There's nothing to talk about.

<MathPoet> I'm talking about experiences that cannot be "proven" or "verified".

<MathPoet> That's where the meat of it is.

<MathPoet> the artist's process is certainly mystical in some way, non-mundane.

<MathPoet> or extra-mundane.

<MathPoet> or connected thereto.

<simon> einstein: creativity is hiding your sources.

<simon> it is only mystical because we like it that way.

<MathPoet> authenticity: making your sources plain.

<DGNarrator> It is not the experience that is imperfect, it is so because the senses and our brain fool us

<simon> it means the moment we start explaining art, we ruin it.

<simon> not that art can't be explained.

<DGNarrator> unless you explain it in an artful way

<simon> DGNarrator, and thus create new art, point taken. :)

<MathPoet> no. It's okay to explain art as long as we don't claim to have the be-all-end-all explanation.

<DGNarrator> it's a trick :)

<MathPoet> and "explain" is questionable too.

<simon> MathPoet, it is okay to explain natural phenomena using science as long as we don't claim to have the be-all-end-all explanation. :)

<MathPoet> I could write a poem about a painting and that would be a kind of explanation.

<DGNarrator> and i would be inspired to write a song to illustrate your poem

<MathPoet> I'm talking about artistic experience which involves a connection between the inner person and the outer world.

<DGNarrator> that goes through the senses and the mind

<MathPoet> The inner experience is unverifiable and so undeniable.

<simon> atheists who cling to one explanation of our physical world may be deceiving themselves, but religious people are just wishful thinkers and bad statisticians. :)

<DGNarrator> may i make a point here?

<MathPoet> how can you verifiably say so?

<MathPoet> yes

<DGNarrator> there is the question of matter and subjective awareness

<DGNarrator> materialistic views deny the objectivity of the individual self

<DGNarrator> but the material world is only a subjective impression

<simon> MathPoet, because our current scientifical view of the world was derived very recently and is still somewhat imperfect, whereas most religious world views are just very unlikely. that's my impression, anyway.

<DGNarrator> and science is the product of subjective minds

<MathPoet> spiritual people are so because they have experienced something. this is different from RELIGIOUS people.

<DGNarrator> not all religious works are unlikely

<simon> DGNarrator, which ones aren't?

<MathPoet> you cannot deny a person's spiritual experience any more than they can prove it.

<simon> MathPoet, of course not. much like you can't deny a person on drugs their experience. :)

<DGNarrator> old hinduistic science is now called religion, while it is a well-wrought philosophy

<MathPoet> and I would think you would go more by experience that vague "impressions"

<MathPoet> no, simon. you can't. But I say that having experienced spirituality both on and off drugs, there is a difference and it is real.

<MathPoet> I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about spirituality

<DGNarrator> simon, we are drugged by everything in life. food, drink, the aire that we breathe, the people

<DGNarrator> lust, hate,

<MathPoet> religion seems to be yet another logic.

<simon> the question remains, what can we share with the people taking the same drugs as ourselves?

<DGNarrator> love, ideas, dogma's, theyre all drugs

<MathPoet> religion is a way to be right.

<MathPoet> we can only share such things as best we can.

<simon> MathPoet, sometimes religion isn't illogical. in my roleplaying groups, our fantasy universes, often the metaphysics are well-founded, yet completely imaginary.

<DGNarrator> yes, lets please separate organised religion from spritual experience. they are contradictory

<MathPoet> I didn't claim religion is illogical, in fact, it can often be quite logical and still allow others to do violence to another's soul.

<MathPoet> in fact, it often is and does.

<simon> MathPoet, you said it wasn't, and I agree with you. most often, it is my impression, religious belief suspends logic. :)

<DGNarrator> simon the difference is between believing and knowing

<simon> DGNarrator, knowing is much like believing with a fixed threshold of certainty.

<DGNarrator> religion asks us to believe

<MathPoet> no. I said spirituality had little to do with logic. At least I thought I said that.

<DGNarrator> no, knowing is experiencing the (a) truth

<MathPoet> spirituality and religion tend to be very different things.

<simon> DGNarrator, oh :) how do you know you experience the truth?

<MathPoet> See, if you say "truth" you're just replaceing God with something else. There is no valid argument.

<DGNarrator> simon, how do you know what you know?

<DGNarrator> i mean, how do you know something is true?

<simon> DGNarrator, I don't?

<MathPoet> "I know it because I feel it." (Anthony Piccione)

<DGNarrator> yes of course you do

<DGNarrator> but why?

<simon> DGNarrator, without venturing into complete sollipsism, what I know is what I assume with an overwhelming certainty is correct.

<DGNarrator> something inside you knows something is true

<MathPoet> I have to go. Friend in the hospital. Sorry.

<MathPoet> more later, if I can?

<seanw> Hey guys. I see you have a good discussion going :)

<simon> DGNarrator, yeah, for example my brain going "ow, that hurts." :)

  • MathPoet sets mode -e MathPoet
  • You are now known as MathPoetAway
  • services. sets mode -6 MathPoetAway

-NickServ- This nickname is owned by someone else -NickServ- If this is your nickname, type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY <password>

<DGNarrator> well, you experience pain

<DGNarrator> the brain comes after

<DGNarrator> first pain, then the brain :)

<simon> the act of knowing requires me to experience the pain consciously first, regardless of what my nerve system does automatically.

<DGNarrator> but: what is it that experiences the pain?

<simon> my mind?

<DGNarrator> not really. the mind analyses the nerve pulses and says: PAIN!!!

<DGNarrator> there is something that experiences the mind too

<DGNarrator> your thoughts and feelings are experienced by some... thing (?)

<DGNarrator> by you, whatever that is

<DGNarrator> you are aware of your pain

<DGNarrator> there is nothing without some... thing (?) experiencing it

<DGNarrator> without awareness there is nothing

<DGNarrator> you could call it solipsistic, but its not

<DGNarrator> because, if there is nothing outside of awareness, then the whole universe in nothing but awareness

<DGNarrator> *is

<DGNarrator> so every fragmment of the universe is aware, or else it wouldnt exist

<DGNarrator> that is my point

<DGNarrator> but we are fooled by our senses and our dreams, which we call reality

<DGNarrator> and our logic and imagination

<DGNarrator> and we try to get to grips by what we experience every day

<DGNarrator> *with

<DGNarrator> but to conclude this line of thought:

<DGNarrator> The eastern old philosophy says there is only one reality, that is the self, which (who (?) is god, and god is all

<DGNarrator> and western science says there is only matter/energy, and the self/mind is a product of it

<DGNarrator> the two are irreconcilable (is that a good word? I'm dutch, you know)

<DGNarrator> and they can't be resolved because they both are unprovable

<DGNarrator> because the self is not an object

<DGNarrator> and objects are not the self

<DGNarrator> the self does not exist in terms of material thought, and the "material" world is not real in terms of the self

<DGNarrator> it is a dream

<DGNarrator> and the perceiver of the dream

<DGNarrator> the field and the seer of the field

<DGNarrator> this is the world

<DGNarrator> according to experience

<DGNarrator> and what else have we got?

<DGNarrator> it is the stance we have taken in the scheme of things

<DGNarrator> and it is a battle to the end

<DGNarrator> and the battle is what creates the world

<DGNarrator> the clash of opposites

<DGNarrator> unreconcilable opposites

<DGNarrator> it is a tragedy and a comedy

<DGNarrator> ok. Enough. thanks for reading.

  • kristallpirat (n=kristall@ has left ##philosophy ("und weg")

<DGNeree> well, at least you've got something on the /lastlog page

<DGNeree> :P

  • skor (n=skor@unaffiliated/skor) has joined ##philosophy

<DGNeree> hello skor

<skor> morning

<DGNeree> there was a discussion but i silenced them all

<DGNeree> they're still thinking about it

<DGNeree> :P

<skor> that good huh ?

<DGNeree> hm.. wouldn't know

  • DGNeree waits for the dam to break

<DGNeree> hm... it's holding

<DGNeree> :)

<DGNeree> at least i think it was coherent thinking

<skor> mmm, time to grab coffee then. So what was the topic DGNeree ?

<DGNeree> there's not much talk on this channel mostly

<DGNeree> please don't let me start again :(

<skor> haha

<skor> ok then

<DGNeree> thanks. it was about the subjective/objective schism

<DGNeree> i'm sure i'll get back to it later