Most scientists would be all up in arms when you say this to them. They'd scream that you are trying to drag noble science into the illogical mud with them.

The strange thing is that science and mysticism oppose each other so perfectly. Science is limiting, narrowing, excluding. Spirituality is holistic, widening, in-corporative.

Have you noticed that science is like a balloon? It is always just as big as is handy for science. If they do not understand it, it it does not belong to the realm of science. But if they find an explanation for something, it suddenly becomes part of science as if it always was.

This balloon inflates and deflates according to what is safe for scientists to declare reality.


"He said 'Have you ever noticed how as the sphere of understanding grows ever larger, necessarily the surface area of ignorance gets ever bigger?"
-- Dennis McKenna, by word of Terrence McKenna, Tree of Knowledge

They got it right.



But that is just what I described. Science cannot handle 'spirit' and therefore it is declared not to exist or not falling into the scope of science and studies done to find it are considered fringe or junk science.
But as soon as they can measure spirit they will declare it to be real and that THEY found it.

But the truth is not that we need or want an empirical understanding of the mystical. Why would you want that? That is still just applying science to what escapes science. The mushroom taught me that last time.
"We are what escapes your consciousness." "I am the escape from attention."

To me what that means is that deploying the logical empirical senses on the mystery or the other way around, the inner eye on the empirical facts is still a divisional mode of perception. However, when both integrate, there is no more such thing as empirical observation or an intuitive inner eye.

It is the vision that can become aware of 'that what escapes your consciousness' or 'the escape from attention'. It won't be 1+1=2. It will be alpha and omega equals infinity.

I think Castaneda would call it Seeing. A form of direct knowledge or understanding that is by default never wrong.

Never ask a solipsist about truth :-)

What a weird mind move or course to dive into?!? I see this a lot. Why is it that always this violent thought comes up, as if believing equals a risk of violence.

It seems an ingrained mode in thinking that we so easily associate suggestions about belief with violence. And what was said to trigger it really? Basically 'science has its boundaries'. The reaction is then as if science holds back the forces of anarchy where murder death kill comes out of...




Is belief a challenge?


Science and logic don't need "protecting", they are just tools, not belief systems. Tools that have been very effective in certain ways. I don't really see how to bridge science with spirituality, I'm not even sure what mysticism/spirituality actually is. In my life all I have ever experienced that could maybe fall into the category of spirituality are drug induced experiences which, as profound as they were, only seem to lead to more questions and not to any answers.[/quote]

So why do you say you don't know what spirituality is? You seem to be able to define it for yourself.


[quote]mysticism seems to be about intangible realms I'm not really sure what they have to offer each other... I could be just narrow minded about it though. I know relatively little about science and basically nothing about mysticism so I'm in the dark if I'm honest.[.quote]

Such is the duality, that science is precise and mysticism is imprecise. Science gives facts, spirituality gives questions. How is that not a definition? You understand quite well.

Spirituality lies in the absence of science. It is pursuing the unanswerable question, it is the paradox where seeking the answer leads to understanding there is no question, only the path. It is the point where Yoda says not to think, just to do. You can define science and spirituality by bouncing them off each other. Where one ends, the other begins.

And when you realize that you see the fractality of it, the Yin and Yang symbol that are two parts grabbing each other. You will zoom in and out and study any aspect of reality and see how reality is made of logic and intuition, fact and intuition, like infinite layers of an onion. To me the glue that binds both together is Awareness.

Everyone understands this perfectly.

That is one (1) sentence. I love it.

I did watch that all and it was interesting and fascinating.

It may not all be entirely scientifically correct, there may be some assumptions here and there where my instinct says 'whoa, not so fast mister!' but someone who can muster up the courage to come up with such a radical and novel way of describing reality deserves applause. And I always look for the logical reasoning, not so much the content. I don't care if he says we are in a black hole. I care about how he comes to his conclusion, can he stack arguments and supporting arguments in a way that have an inherit logical structure to it, that is what I am after. That logic may be different from scientific logic, as long as it has its own innate logical reasoning I am all for it.

We need millions of people doing this sort of deep thinking and reasoning on this planet. And when there are out there so many if this fantastic ideas, it will become apparent that the content, that science focuses on so much, is not what reality is, but that reality lies in the reasoning.

Edit:

What Citta said I find rather nonsense. The wiki gives quite dumb reasons as to why something was deleted. And the way they justify it is by circular reasoning.

What he is proposing cannot be true, therefor it is not true. And reasons like, 'I cannot find it on google, so what he describes is not true'.

McKenna was right. These physicists want you to believe in all sorts of things and then later it turns out to be junk and they want you to keep believing they are right with the next model they give you.

Never confuse reality with science.

Edit 2:

I wanted to add that anyone who inspires so much attack must be a clear and present danger to the status quo. I love it. He is being banned from Wiki, there doesn't even seem to be an article ABOUT him and why it invokes such hostility. Why is that. McKenna is featured on Wikipedia with a description of his life and so on and so forth. Why isn't he. If an encyclopedia may not contain articles on controversial people, then it is a biased work.

I was talking about mystical beliefs. Your example is way too extreme

I can come up with radical and novel ways of describing reality that are completely wrong too, anyone can do this. Just because the ideas are radical and novel doesn't mean you're supposed to applaud bad reasoning and misunderstandings of science. Wrong ideas are wrong ideas, and should be addressed as such. There is nothing to applaud about this.

And the way Nassin stacks his ideas and builds his conclusions are based on faulty assumptions, bad logic, gross misunderstandings of science and bad thinking in general. This is not deep thinking, it is flawed and bad thinking. It is not good reasoning, it is bad reasoning. His ideas are not fantastic, they are silly. As such he is not taken seriously and shouldn't be taken seriously unless he can come up with something real and consistent and be able to address significant problems with his assertions.



Why do you find what I said to be nonsense? Do you know physics? Perhaps you should explain why everything I said and pointed out, all based in current knowledge and our best theories, were wrong to address Nassim?

The wiki doesn’t give dumb reasons for deletion. Nassim fails to fullfill significant guidelines that are needed in order for articles to be reliable. Or perhaps we should just let ideas flow free no matter how bad they are and publish them, presenting them as reliable? You wanna advocate false information?



What are you talking about?



He is a threat because he spreads bad ideas and bad science. He is not a threat to status quo, status quo and real science is a threat to him. His ideas seems wrong, inconsistent and incompatible with current knowledge. If he is going to revolutionize physics, he has got to do better than this to get attention and real discussion going in peer reviews.

Nice cut and pace job, all of those things you mentioned are explained by Nassim here [LINK REMOVED DUE TO DUBIOUS CONTENT]

I was aware that he was removed from wiki, who cares? Probly because he is challenging mainstream speculation. Tell me what happened to Tesla? Or the guy who discovered orgone energy? People always try to tell me what to believe, I just say - haters gonna hate

This thread is not about arguing FYI

There IS no bad reasoning. To propose that only science can reason the 'right' way is utterly preposterous. That reeks os scientism. Don't forget that science itself declared for itself the 'right ways of reasoning' and then stick dogmatically to it. So what 'reason' is or 'reasonable thinking' is by definition just a consensual term. It is merely an agreement that says that if you think in this fashion, it is right but if you do not follow this method of reasoning, you are wrong.




There is no such thing. All information is an interpretation of reality.





Oh my god we are all going to die! Protect society! Protect your children, close their eyes, put your hands on their ears, for someone is not compliant with preset truths!

I would hope that some teen learning phsyics in school sees his work and start to be truly inquisitive about reality. Rather than being simply indoctrinated with high school physics from a teacher who barely understands why he scratches his own ass when it itches.

Haven't you heard mate. Life as we know it cannot endure. And everything needs to change. Science is a powerful force of momentum. That is why you defend it so. It keeps reality as it is, comfortably numb, as the song title goes.

Maybe that kid gets inspired to prove him wrong and in doing so opens up brilliant new ways of thinking, or maybe what Nasrim says will make him think and give him that spark to come up with a completely new idea that can be used to get us out of our predicament. We need as many weird, whimsical and alien ideas because ideas will spark new ideas and from the friction between the consensus and the novelty there might come an answer.





Peer reviews, lmao! He may be all these things you say and I am unsure as to if you actually saw 8 hours of footage, but he does so in a grandiose fashion.

What do you think they would say about ME if one day I write my theories down, my perspectives and beliefs, my assumptions and half-assed understanding of phsyics and go on stage? What would you say about me? And would you tell it to my face! Because my ideas are no less complex and illogical to your norms as his!
Insult him and you insult me.

A couple of parts to this.

1) Yes I still question everything. Probably more so now.

2) Skeptic, to me, has a more negative connotation. Kinda like being jaded. The sort of skeptic I'm referring to is one that would chose disbelief over belief without any other evidence. I try to stay open minded and not chose a side until I see data, or receive an insight...and then I still try to remain open to the fact that I may not have all of the truth or that their may be a higher truth. I do have beliefs, but I don't hold any so tight that I want replace with with a higher truth. Good science depends in part on not being skeptical, but open to what the Data say's. That's really all I was insinuating with that phrase. We have a saying in science, "Let the data tell the story". No need to be skeptical. Just adapt your view to the data or find the holes in the data that need to be filled in.

3) Yes part of being mystical is just the realization that this whole freaking reality is amazing...the more aware we are of it the more mystical we become. I mean it's REALLY hard to be mad at someone and in awe of creation at the same time. It's really hard to be jealous and in awe, in fact it's really hard to express many of our malignant human traits when we are in awe of the world around us. Mysticism in effect is continuous awe. IMHO.

Peace

ok guys.. lets get a bit back on topic here. as i said, the whole reason i created this thread was not to argue about why science and spirit are an impossible relationship - I understand that we all hold different beliefs here as to why one is more accurate than the other in explaining the universe around us, but i ask that we put these beliefs aside and start putting up some data. I would like this to be a database, not a boxing match. No arguing about personal opinions/beliefs in this thread.. just sources in which we can all make our own mind about

it is a hassle to combine these ways of thinking at times... but the reason i am doing this is mainly for people who are somewhat skeptical about the "reality" or "validity" of psychedelic experiences. this is why i would like to see some scientific studies into mystical phenomena posted up.. not because i believe one is more superior to the other, but because if we are going to be taken seriously by the public, then we are going to need some good digestible data for people who are a little more skeptic about what these substances are capable of.

data by itself is worthless. it doesn't really say anything, thus it has to be
processed and show correlation before it can say anything. science, by nature, has to assume a skeptical tone, especially
by 'peers', otherwise any bum can post bogus data.


me, i'm 99% scientific. science pays the bills, mysticism is coffee banter

^ This.

My bills are paid.

Nobody has all the answers. Humankind has yet to invent a system (so far as I can tell) that can explain everything without fail. Science may one day get there. Intuition allows any of us to get there, any time, except that, oh snap! I forgot. I swear I had the scret to everything, a fully unified field and pilosphers stone all wrapped up nice and neat. Oh well.

When I hear or read anyone getting all in a huff, all ragefully defending their paradigm, their religion, their way of thinking....I have to wonder. Is that rage a sign of certainty, or a sign of uncertainty?

Prejudice is not possible without insecurity.

One who is secure has no need to defend.

loved reading this post and i have to say I agree...there's only so far we can go trying to wrap words around experiences and it would be ridiculous to think that our ways of expressing our knowledge could really be accounting for everything when in fact we have to use words to account for it in the first place

wow... it is too.. sorry if that was a bit undigestible ...pun intended

I don’t see how it was a weird move. It seems to me that if someone makes an absolute statement, let people believe what they want, then the obvious thing to do is to take that statement to its extreme and examine the consequences. Millions of people in the world believe that they are entitled to kill other people for not sharing their superstitious beliefs, millions of people ARE killed for not adhering to certain “mystical” belief systems. This is not some hypothetical extreme that I have taken it to… it is reality.

I don’t think science “holds back the forces of anarchy”. Like I said in my post, I think science is a tool that we can use… and it has been very effective in a multitude of ways. You talk about science as though it is a thing… science is not a thing, it is a method. We all use the scientific method all the time, but for some reason when it is applied to beliefs there is an uproar… largely because most superstitious beliefs don’t stand up to examination.

People are free to believe what they want, but if the belief is a danger to me or if they are trying to convince me I should believe it then I am going to challenge it. If it doesn’t stand up to rational debate, if it is un-falsifiable, circular or littered with inconsistencies then I will dismiss it… what other option is there? Just believe everything? Or just believe what feels good?

To re-iterate, I don’t care what people believe as long as their belief doesn’t involve having some power over me (the exception being the legal system to an extent).



Not sure what you mean.


I say I don’t know what spirituality means because I don’t. It is, for me, an incredibly loose and vague word. If you are saying my definition (intangible realms) is the correct definition, which is what you seemed to be saying, then I am happy to never use the word again. It has no use for me if all it is is a blanket statement for anything and everything that may or may not exist anywhere in reality.

You say science gives facts and mysticism gives questions. Firstly, science doesn’t give facts. No scientific theory is held as truly absolute fact. but more importantly if mysticism is what gives the questions then scientists must be the most mystical people on earth. They are the ones making the most visible effort to solve these questions. Without people having questions there would be no need for science… we would just be content with not understanding.



No offense but that just looks like one massive platitude to me. It may be pointing towards something which you understand, but it doesn't help me understand.


Thanks for trying to clear that up a bit. I get what you are saying.

But you are forgetting that these are all elements of nature too if they are experienced

the whole show is our perception

A database is by definition something that belongs to the realm of the factual, logical and is scientific in nature. How will you add in a database the mystical experience?

For that you cannot use numbers.

If you want to be constructive, well, that is also a scientific approach. Where is the mystical in that?

So please explain to me how to actually start a system to eventually 'bridge the gap'?

If you really think that through a process of scientific evaluation you are going to be able to present to those who would rather see us dead, imprisoned or who we are utterly irrelevant to, a body of meaningful material or evidence of something mystical, then you are doomed to fail I am afraid.

Mystical and spiritual insight, wisdom, experience cannot be put in a database. There is nothing to record apart from anecdotal theorising...and that is what you want to bring to a scientist and 'proof' anything?






[/quote]

Visty - these are all good points and I am not denying any of them. I suppose what I am getting at is that with the currently rigid ways of thinking that are instilled into materialistic culture, people already have a set view on how they perceive the topic of spiritual experience - and that if we can create some kind of body of information that gives a little more insight and credibility of how these experiences are possible then more people may become interested in their spiritual potential (which the world is in dire need of right now!). I know it is not going to explain all of the aspects of spiritual experience.. that is impossible through recorded data because it is not the experience itself and thus lacks many of its dimensions. But it will hopefully spark a little more interest to the doubtful bodies of people who's views are set in concrete about the nature of their existence.

We are multidimensional beings at the end of the day and I would like to do anything i can in helping people to understand and wield that potential