<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> so you can't say, this one's wrong or right.
<simon> sure you can :)
<simon> experiences are imperfect
<MathPoet> you can be full of it, too.
<MathPoet> how can you say that?
<MathPoet> and what would that mean?
<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?
<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?
<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> 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> 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) has left ##philosophy ("und weg")
<DGNeree> well, at least you've got something on the /lastlog page
- skor (n=skor@unaffiliated/skor) has joined ##philosophy
<DGNeree> hello skor
<DGNeree> there was a discussion but i silenced them all
<DGNeree> they're still thinking about it
<skor> that good huh ?
<DGNeree> hm.. wouldn't know
- DGNeree waits for the dam to break
<DGNeree> hm... it's holding
<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> ok then
<DGNeree> thanks. it was about the subjective/objective schism
<DGNeree> i'm sure i'll get back to it later