@presentlightoftruth I think you've made a very wide-sweeping generalization with absolutely no evidence at all. It is true that some people will think they're some kind of elite that hang with him, but I doubt that's true for all, not even most. Ken wilber doesn't surround himself with people that worship - that stuff naturally happens when you're an excellent leader. Can't but help but feel that your view of his teachings are colored by what you think of him as a person, without having met him
Ever heard of that classic prank where someone labels 2 pigs with paint "1" and "3" and unleashes them into a school? People keep assuming there's a pig #2 and search for it hysterically.
@MaBu888 Religion at its core is simply spiritual technology. Its just that for the large part of human history man has misused it, so now religion has become a loaded word. With similar precision technology man can put a vehicle on Mars or a missile through your window. Same with Religion.
The "confirmation" part doesn't work for spiritual practices in the same way as it works for the objective sciences.
When different persons look through a telescope, they can all see the moons of jupiter, because they look at the same objects and can thus objectively confirm that the moons are there.
With spiritual introspection everyone looks at different object, because everyone looks only at his own mind and there is no way to inspect the mind of someone else to confirm what he sees.
The numbers of people in the emergency hospital i work at who were lucky enough to be brought back from death seems too all be able to confirm their experiences with one another. Of course what do I know right? I don't have the "injunction" to make any valid judgement on this since I was never the one lying there in cardiac arrest.
@Nacluw Ahem that is still subjective.....why don't you take your non dual thinking and stick it .....? Oops no where I suppose in non dual la la land
@MrCuntyballs2U Cuz it's beyond thinking and sticking. It's beyond la la land or any other concept as well. You kinda fail to offend me tho if that's what you're trying to do. ^^ But don't worry, reality is how you perseive it so if you're happy as you are and feel like you're not missing anything then frankly no one forces you to listen to him...
@Nacluw Thanks you it is obviously beyond you then......go on I dare you not to reply........that is the only way you might prove to have transcended your ego?
Nothing concrete will ever come of this........ It is the ego that told Wilber he could be the worlds greatest philosopher scientist psychologist etc etc by just bringing them under one roof........ I would settle for just one proof
"Mistaken are the folk who think That science and technology Have come to make the earth a rink For acrobatic skaters free. In truth these are beginnings made To bring about a change profound In human life and thought to upgrade The brain and lift to higher ground Above the fear of famine, drought Disease, want, flood and drudgery So that to win the trophy sought We would be relatively free." Check this link for more about accelerating brain evolution and averting nuclear disaster.
Keeping the validity of meditation as an injunction in mind, empiricists stick to the external senses because the exterior world is the most sturdy in proving things beyond anyone's opinion. Whereas subjective (interior) experiences could be lies, or misinterpretations. The same reason anecdotes alone cannot hold up in court for convicting someone of, say, murder, is the same reason scientists don't mess with the other side of the 4 quadrants.
Spirituality may be engaged in many different ways, as Ken Wilbur says. I have a you tube channel that offers a creative way of attaining the spirituality within; type in the search box: stephengambello. Or click into my name. My channel offers a meditative, contemplative presentation of music and imagery by my spiritual teacher S Brian Adam. He creative offerings to the world are unique. Please let me know what you think. His work is for everyone.
@nielsjoklein, Many modern spiritual teachers recognize Wilber's genius. If somebody can help Mooji, Pema Chodron, Jack Cornfield , Tolle, Genpo Roshi and all those wonderful teachers to be taking seriously by the Scientific Community is Ken Wilber, Before you make any other judgments you should check out what these very same teachers think about him, I think you will be surprised.
@Bassmystic I agree with you, and my "opinion" has nothing to do with Ken Wilber (whom I do not know in any whatsoever way), it just shows that I am creating the causes for unhappiness by judging other beings like this.
what is the religion similar to this, its from an american man who talks about the universe or somthin and visits loads of countrys. like he did a speech in madrid and a spanish person translated it for him. any ideas??
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I respectfully submit that "injunction" is not a requirement for discovery.
Using your example, "I must walk to the window to know if it is raining," what if I am standing in my yard? Do I still have to walk to the window to know if it is raining?
If you now add that I must be outside OR walk to a window, then what if I have a tin roof and can hear if it is raining?
Please clarify this if I have somehow missed something obvious.
You first must abandon material consciousness. Start with
selling your house and send the money from the sale to Dr. Wilbur. That way, you'll be standing outside when it rains, and you will have bought that knowledge with however much you sold your house for. Yes, the same amount you sent to Dr. Wilbur!! Amazing!!
You may think this is nitpicking, but empiricism and Popperian falsifiability aren't different methodologies, they're both one and the same methodology, that of science. As for Thomas Kuhn, he is certainly different, but Kuhn was a relativist who said all objective truth was impossible. As such Kuhn and scientific method are necessarily opposed.
As for meditation, I'm all for it, so long as people don't try to say it proves their favourite pet metaphysical claim, i.e. that a god exists.
'...if god does not exists than how is it possible for us to conceptualize the idea'.
What if you substituted 'god' in this sentence for 'santa claus' or 'toothfairy' or 'unicorns' or any of the other infinite number of things you can conceptualize? Does that mean they all exist too? I can conceptualize me being Superman; does that mean that I am, in fact, Superman?
I'm sorry, but I'm so surprised that I even have to say this that I'm wondering if I'm missing something in your comment...
@sam51092 south park covered exactly what you're talking about with Imaginationland. If you don't watch the show, you should because it brilliantly tackles some of most complex ideas human beings have come up with, or you could say, already exist and we try to explain them. But essentially we do nothing but rationalize a truth until we can prove it or it becomes an antiquated idea, like the world being flat as a basic example. I'm going off on something else here but I think you see the relation
Excellent video btw, every atheist should watch this. Most atheists wrongly associate spirituality with religion and consider spirituality unscientific even though it is not.
Religion is dogmatic, spirituality is not. This may sound confusing at first, but if you read into what religion is and what spirituality is, you will start to see the whole picture as to why they are different.
absolutely right. most atheists have never really gotten involved with the matter at all. they just neglect mythic worldviews, an do so because they confuse them with spirituality. spirituality, however is transrational - it doesn't neglect their (the atheists) rational worldviews (evolution, etc).
In most cases their position is superficial at best.
Atheism is the new black man! Its a huge ego boost because it gives you a reason to think you are smarter than other people. I mean I dont care if Im right or wrong in an argument, Im still smart because I KNOW that what I cant personally experience with my five human senses, theres no way it can possibly exist.
All the worlds a stage, and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
You are a house with four rooms: physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual. The room causing all the suffering is the emotional room. All the fear, anger, and grief that is unresolved (unembraced) of childhood is down in the metaphorical basement and is causing the unconscious mind to constantly ask, "What happened?" and "How do I keep it from happening again?" This causes our unconscious needs and wants which prevent us from being optimistic and being in the moment. Well intended and useless.
Science... Spirituality... just as half-assed no matter which cheek you got. Clearly, without any leaps of faith, you have a mind and you have a body. Check it out with your direct experience. They are not the same and cannot be reduced one to the other. The brain (material) is the mind's servant (nonmaterial). A non-material being has access to this physical plane through the human nervous system. Consciousness can move a protein chain that controls the potential across a human nerve membrane.
spirituality is just redundant and boring. we will not find and answer.
so take what we do have proof of. strive to become peaceful, happy and healthy. be optimistic and listen to your body. always live in the moment, and your life will be justified. just because you aren't religious doesn't mean you cannot benefit from meditation.
Spirituality is a lie, it's an idea based truly on imagination and has not one piece of evidence that it exists. Mr dyer said it has no material form therefore it doesn't exist. Being sad, happy or angry is just hormones and chemicals not some fucked up shit about religion.
meaningless. The reason why is because if any such experience can be measured then it falls within the scope of scientific articulation and must yield to scientific standards of confirmation, must be able to be repeated by any scientist under similar conditions, etc. If Wilbur wants to posit experience that cannot be measured in this way then he cannot call it experience.
I am not sure what you mean by irrational in this context. I am similarly unsure at what you mean by my 'underlying premise'. Can you clarify? Can you also show how it is meaningless with regard to what Wilbur has said here? An explanation with reference to the raw data would be scientific.
DHG1, did you miss the point? In Wilber's analogy, just as a microscope (or even our eyes) are injunctions, so too can our mind be an injunction, another tool to apprehend datum. Give me a reason why meditative practice can't be considered an injunction. Certainly, when we see a phenomenon with our eyes, we rely on our (and other scientist's) cognitive interpretive faculty to verify it. Inward-looking apprehension can be confirmed as well.
DHG1, "better to stay silent and be thought of as a fool, rather than open your mouth and be proven one." This applies to you and the rest of the delusional materialists. IT ISN'T A PHYSICAL EVENT YOU CLUELESS IMBICLE!!
Well there are some prominent philosophers that would disagree with you, including John Searle and Charles Taylor. I'm assuming you're familiar with their stance on consciousness. If not, consider the idea that my seeing a red patch in my visual field ('qualia') is in no way equivalent to a firing of a neuron. Certainly one event supervenes on the other, but one event is not equivalent to the other. Therefore, my phenomenological experience must be verified on its own terms.
I agree that the mental does not reduce to the physical; but, given that you agree that the mental supervenes on the physical, what is your position on the causal relation between the two? And to make the point about meditation concrete, consider this: attainment of a brain state may cause an epiphenomenal mental state, but if we are to imagine that mental states can cause brain states then any description of that relationship will have to respect (somehow) the rules of empirical verification.
The point is not the relationship between the physical and the mental. I think there are is a causal relationship, but more complicated than "A" brain state -> "B" mental event, which is why I only mention that there is a supervenience relationship. The point is that no amount of "A" brain state explanations will qualitatively explain a "B" mental event. For example, to answer the question, "Why is water wet?" one cannot merely say, well because its 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecule.
When Wilbur talks he sounds like a mad scientist; he pushes and pulls on theories of epistemology and science until they are unrecognisable. Popper was undoubtedly an empiricist; Kuhn agreed that a scientific theory must always be scrutinised by reference to experiential data. And experience has a strict meaning in science: what can observed; that is, measured by the senses or artificially extended sensors (instruments). Wilbur's idea of experience - and positing a link with spirituality - is..
Epistomologies are based on matter, energy, space , and time. They have content as its ground of knowing. It is a knowing "about" existence. A knowing "into "existence as a linguistic exercise and creation is what I learned from Werner Erhard and Laurence Platt. Would enjoy Wilber having a conversation with Werner.
I think Ken is talking about a scientific understanding from his percpective. I am sure this would be a new understanding to me. It comes back to what the two definitions look like side by side. Scientific understanding is part of the fabric of life.
I think Ken twists scientific understanding here. While spiritual growth might be a repeatable internal experience, that does not make its mysteries accessible to science as yet. Spirituality is a mind-practice for tapping into other levels of the fabric of life. Our human abilities here are mostly intermittant, though they are growing as we learn to focus awareness. Scientific rules for measurement are lagging behind but may catch up.
the best part about videos like this is that it brings out many people writing many words attempting to show their understanding and how much they think they know and can give you a good measurement of the scope of ignorance.
And sometimes even the scope of ignorance, relatively to something that we really don't have any ideas about, the ignorance is so great that it cannot be sensed, and is ignored.
My apologies for the typos but Im typing in a rush......once again sorry....but u get da jist of what I mean....and not bashing westerners...I am a westerner myself.....its just that they study from eastern teachers most of the time anyway......
book with calcualtions of the stars and so forth and they can read your past etc...unless u hav had this experience it may seem like astrology. But its a bit more spiritual.....anyway Im not endorsin any relgion..just saying that science and spirituality can coexist to a point....plus to really kno spirituality you need to listen to Eastern philosophers...no offense but many Westerners study these thigns for like 3 years,read books & lecture compared to the masters of the east who live all this
spirituality......but of course science wont actually get you the experience of spirituality......it proves its validity...but you must submerge yourself into spirituality to experience it....meditation etc...also one of the oldest oragnized relgions...if not the oldest...w/c everybody borrows mediation practices from is Hinduism....and its actually very scientific at times....the best example which Hindus can attest to is when the pujari or pandit open book on you....meaning he/she looks at a
TO everyone pushing science away....yes...spirituality is so encompassign thats cience can barely scratch its surface...BUT...science does prove the existence of God or really a higher intelligence etc...there is a mathematical formula proving the existence of the animaterial world....a great aspect of spirutality is that everythign here si an illusion...we r spirits having a humna experience...and Einstein validated that in the west with his theory of relativity...science can b a validator of
First you must understand what Buddha nature is and then implement to its fullest extent and minutest detail the methodology that leads one to achieve Buddha Nature. Confirm it with all who have achieved Buddha nature and then you know. However, if you actually reach that stage you will know how indescribable it is and only then can you understand the true nature of Reality! Try it:) You will also learn how idiotic science is:)
the new age integration of science and spirituality is the acquiescence to a corrupt society.
seeking proof of spirituality through science, or any other means, is actually avoidance of the truth of spirituality.
You can not look at meditation though a microscope; meditation is the microscope.
Science does not and can not address avoidance, and therefore is not qualified to prove spirituality to any degree. as degrees of proof=degrees of avoidance.
to me pastry and meditation arent very different. i dont think you can necessarily find out more about anything through sitting cross legged than you can by baking muffins.
proof suggests belief, and yes, belief seems to be avoidance.
i like science. i think science will figure out what some already have... many different paths
Diatonic135, I agree with your statement entirely. However, I do not think Wilber falls in the New Age category. Wilber is attempting to articulate and make accessible the metaphysical and mystical practices to a greater audience. The modern discoveries of science are in fact turning science on its head. Fundamentally spiritually has to be lived and is not a science experiment. Agreed 1000%
wow yes thank you for this! how many people say ___ is fake/not true - why because your government, religion, parents, or school told you so - question your ideas/thoughts where do they come from. someone says that stars are real because they saw them and you haven't seen the stars for yourself so you say "your a liar, thats a scam, thats not real" when in fact this person never did the research or work of thinking and researching for themselves what is true and what is not
What Ken says is really clear (to me). This is one of my favorite videos from Integral. It is about the "experience" not the mental apparatus of thought, but as it is expressed as thought it naturaly and predictably creates confusion.
the new is the old dressed in new clothes (terminology) but like the Emperor, seems to be naked. Your response.. nonsensical, terminolgy is applied to systems,old terminolgy can be applied to a 'new'(so-called) system, but the old 'system' is not applied to the new 'system', perhaps you meant he is using new terminology to describe his 'system' in terms of the 'old'? This is a comparison but that they can be compared means they are implicitly the same, does it not?
Still seems to throw a lot of verbiage out there with no clear coherence, one can use a lot of 10$ words but if they add up to nothing then they are a waste of air. Show me where this so called new system actually works to promote a clearer understanding of the universe and our place within it and I will reconsider the appearance that it is a lot of gobbledygook which confuses rather than clarifies, possibly intentionally so, thus the semblance and not the substance of knowledge.
Empiricism, like standard physics, chemistry, biology, etc. is exterior perspectives on phenomena that arise in this universe; the movement to describe this is modernity. Let's not forget that humans lived before empiricism and any human knowledge obtained before then should not be discounted for one perspective, and a narrow way of thinking. Lets also not forget that as an example, black holes are singularities - where the "laws" of physics break down.
I think a lot of these comments are missing the point. Wilber's idea of the AQAL is that there are 4 perspectives in which we(sentient beings) look at things, in short: I, and We, Interior and Exterior - What he describes here in Zen meditation is the Interior perspective of the internal self - Only 1 aspect of the entire AQAL framework. Now if this is over your head, pick up one of Wilber's many works and do some reading this holiday.
As Capra said in the Tao of Physics there is not much difference between a western scientist and an eastern mystic. The method to achieve knowledge is just the same (the three strands cited by Ken) but the object changes, FOr Westerners it's all about matter, while for Easterners it it mostly about inner life.
the universe is 100% governed by laws ~ this is the great assumption of science.
Wilber has 2 choices then, to either agree, and therefore see metaphysics as simply being unexplainable do to lack of technology. (but being based on PHYSICAL LAWS)
or to discard science.
(even if there are things "outside" the perceivable universe they would still function based on laws)
It is impossible for humans to imagine a system that is not law-based.
i know the answer to this lets construct a definition that we can manipulate and then come up with an answer which our definition was constructed for. wow i feel so unenlightened by this spiritual suedo bullshit. hey under this definition i think i just made a spiritual scientific statement.
"Define" - to set forth the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. (in this case what YOUR definition is) How do you define "spiritual" in your comments, "...spiritual suedo bs & spiritual scientific statement." I understand the sarcasm and am just looking for clarity.
i think the word meaning in your statement of definition is a very pertinent part of any understanding. in the above comment i am reffering to the lack of any clear meaning that can be inferred from false nonspecific generalisations. use the word spiritual and all of a suden talking crap is deep and meaningful. does that help? being vague doesn't provide answeres.
i made a video about it. but when i talk of spiritual i am talking of what conects us to the rest of nature and not anything mystical. my idea of spiritual is nothing to do with imaginary after lifes or etherial super beings. the only transendental aspect of spirituallity in my world is the transendance of experience of tangible events over our capacity to explain them. the revelation inherent in concrete knowledge of how fleeting all human history is for instance. religeon! no.
You are giving a classic response in today's world. Many people are fed up with churchy religion, the mythic sky god, following dogma to get to a place when they die. I understand that. So, what is not tangible about the experience Wilber describes in this talk over his capacity to explain?
Are you familiar with "The Marriage of Sense and Soul"? It is available in both book form and audio (on iTunes). Sounds like it might be right up your alley.
Hey - I just watched your video on spirituality and it is brilliant. You are a nature mystic (and a well spoken one, too!). I think you'd be surprised by the extent to which Wilber praises and includes nature mysticism, which is a deep feeling of connection with the whole of our world and beyond. It really is humbling, isn't it? Man, don't rule him out of your world. Look closer.
i must admit i did not listen to the whole discusion but i will try its just that some of the concepts he spoke of seemed a tad etherial. but ile give it a more carefull ear. thanks for your coments about my vid and thanks for watching.
You are welcome - my comments were sincere. Wilber uses what is called an "integral approach", which means he strives to include all points of view in his "map" of consciousness. If he sounds etherial here and there, it's because he allows a place at the table for that, as well. But the integral approach doesn't lack in using one's head to see that a particular set of ideas have limited logic...
i gave it a closer examination and i must admit i still find the sertion that you can aply the three strands to a subjective experience such as the budda head as questionable. i have no problem with the idea of a comunity of the qualified but with the other scientific asertions the comunity of the qualified are able to go on and expose discovery to the comunity of the unqualified. i dont think he adresses this isue so ile have to reserve judgement.
I understand your reservations. He speaks of "broad" and "narrow" science, and that both are generally accepted methods. Phenomonology and psychology are broad in that they are scienes of the interior. The findings there are harder to prove because they involve direct experience by an individual rather than external imperial data. I tend to accept it IF the experience can be duplicated in multiple individuals - then it is 'falsifiable. Wilber claims...
i gave it a closer examination and i must admit i still find the sertion that you can aply the three strands to a subjective experience such as the budda head as questionable. i have no problem with the idea of a comunity of the qualified but with the other scientific asertions the comunity of the qualified are able to go on and expose discovery to the comunity of the unqualified. i dont think he adresses this isue so ile have to reserve judgement.
...that if one does a certain 'method of practice' then one will have a certain experience. I have experienced some of those states, so I accept how he claims one can get there. It might be like your connection standing by the sea. You had the experience but I might not believe it until I, too, stand before the grandeur of the sea. I have to take up the injunction, get the data, and confirm it with you.
i made a film of standing by the sea which imperfect aproximates the experience or at least provides some coroberative data. human experience is subjective and an asertion of a state being coroberated by hearsay without verifiable evidence of any kind is as much use as a claim in a afterlife, god, santa, etc. thier may be a state of altered concousness but something so unquantifiable is dificult even to varify as a commonly experienced state. is what i mean by love what you mean by love?
Yes, I agree it is difficult. I don't know if we mean (experience) the same thing, but does that mean it is rubbish? Is it non existent because we experience it differently or because one of us might not experience it at all? Perhaps with enough practice we could varify each others experience of something and validate it. Maybe even validate it with a whole community of the adequate. Would validating it with numerous individuals make it 'real' or 'fact'? How many would it take?
its not how many. its can it be reasonably demonstrated. i have personal experience of people asserting experiences which could not have occured. this does not mean that all experiences need objective validation just objective knowledge. because someone experiences something internally does it objectivly exist? thier are conditions where by no matter how much the sufferer eats they still feel hungry. this means the feeling of hunger is false though for them it feels real.
its not how many. its can it be reasonably demonstrated. i have personal experience of people asserting experiences which could not have occured. this does not mean that all experiences need objective validation just objective knowledge. because someone experiences something internally does it objectivly exist? thier are conditions where by no matter how much the sufferer eats they still feel hungry. this means the feeling of hunger is false though for them it feels real.
not how many how objectivly. ilnesses exist which create all sorts of false experiences but for the sufferer the feelings are real. what he claims may be true but i think his evidence is subjective and if i acsept it, it would be no different to acsepting that because children all believe in santa and can acuratly agrea on details of the santa experience, santa exists. his community of the adequate is argumentum numerum. its not true because lots of people believe it.
...based on what? Do you suppose that anything you are thinking is entirely original? Hey, if it's interesting you might benefit from including these ideas as a part of what you think for yourself. Seriously, take it all in even if it just becomes something you are knowledgeable about to dissagree with.
It seems to me that all Ken is suggesting is that some of the methods of rational inquiry into physical phenomenon could be useful for rational inquiry into some types of non-physical phenomenon such as consciousness. This seems pretty straightforward to me. I find the controversy surprising, but also a kind of validation of Ken's general theory of the hierarchical nature of human cognitive development.
I whole-heartedly agree with your last three sentences. Your first two, however, are almost an insult. I am a student of Physics, and unless you're simply talking about our perspective of matter from a philosophical standpoint, I must ask that you do your own homework. I've put in my many years, most of it dealing with matter and its properties, have you?
There is actual Scientific evidence to show that matter is a creation of conciousness so really they work hand in hand. You just have to do your homework. New descoveries should be embraced as they point to a more complete understanding of things. People are just too lazy sometimes to really care what the truth is and just jump to the easiest and most comfortable conclusions. You won't make too much progress continualy doing that.
Science is a method to describe nature, not metaphor. Science has a hard time seeing things beyond the observable universe, because it only attempts to describe what is in the observable universe (observable, meaning detectable, not necessarily "visible"). That is not a weakness, but a strength. This guy is dragging the scientific method through the mud to support his beliefs. Scientific theory rests soundly only on facts, not beliefs or feelings or urges, no matter how powerful they may be.
As Wilber states, first we have to define what is meant by science, which you have done above from your point of view. If this is true and you are correct then explain phenomenologies like psychology. Is there no science there? According to your definition, no. Do you discount that entire field as irrelavant? (you are, of course, allowed to do that if you like!)
It's time to focus on the NOW, work day by day on become a better human being, watch Shelley Yates videos (here at You Tube under "Fire the Grid," they are 8, please watch them all) and open your heart because this is just a bit of taste of what the truth of Humankind is ALL about, we are in a time of change and we are co-creators of our own future, together we can create a better world for us and future generations. Namaste and God Bless You.
Charlie Darwin himself said, " To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, ' ABSURD ' In The HIGHEST Degree" ---- Charles Darwin ' Origin of Species ' Ch. 6)
And straight after that sentence, Charles Darwin said: "But when it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false".
So you see, the key word in that quote was not "absurd" or "highest". It was "SEEMS". It SEEMS absurd, and yet it is not absurd.
No! It is evolution through time and circumstance + AND the process of natural selection, which tends to evolve toward, but not always, a fitter organism. Makes one to conclude through both evolutionary process is the work of an infinite origin of all processes.
@presentlightoftruth I hope I can ask: What are they up to that worries/concerns you?
jhgosnell 2 months ago
@presentlightoftruth I think you've made a very wide-sweeping generalization with absolutely no evidence at all. It is true that some people will think they're some kind of elite that hang with him, but I doubt that's true for all, not even most. Ken wilber doesn't surround himself with people that worship - that stuff naturally happens when you're an excellent leader. Can't but help but feel that your view of his teachings are colored by what you think of him as a person, without having met him
torment3d 4 months ago
@presentlightoftruth : So are you jealous ?
rijkent55 5 months ago
I would recommend to listen Bertrand Russell's passages on this matter. It could be found on Youtube: Religion and Science Bertrand Russell
vaiksnoras73 7 months ago
Ever heard of that classic prank where someone labels 2 pigs with paint "1" and "3" and unleashes them into a school? People keep assuming there's a pig #2 and search for it hysterically.
That's my opinion of Ken Wilber.
TheIlluminerdi 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheIlluminerdi I do not get it!
smallpotatoes989 3 months ago
@MaBu888 Religion at its core is simply spiritual technology. Its just that for the large part of human history man has misused it, so now religion has become a loaded word. With similar precision technology man can put a vehicle on Mars or a missile through your window. Same with Religion.
amart2211 8 months ago
religion is when people gather to celebrate their highest values.
Cubil 9 months ago
Awesome lecture, and I love the concluding comment at the end - very pertinent !
rijkent55 11 months ago
is he drinking a beer lo? thatd be totally cool id have no problem with it
theeonionbagel 1 year ago
Great Video
gregvandenberge 1 year ago
The "confirmation" part doesn't work for spiritual practices in the same way as it works for the objective sciences.
When different persons look through a telescope, they can all see the moons of jupiter, because they look at the same objects and can thus objectively confirm that the moons are there.
With spiritual introspection everyone looks at different object, because everyone looks only at his own mind and there is no way to inspect the mind of someone else to confirm what he sees.
xknowledgeisfreex 1 year ago
Even with Shakespeare everyone can look at the same text and thus objectively confirm what is written there. Everyone is looking at the same text.
That's the difference.
xknowledgeisfreex 1 year ago
@xknowledgeisfreex their are certainn way's you could do it though for example use OBE's to try and bring back verifiable information.
greenelf12 1 year ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
The numbers of people in the emergency hospital i work at who were lucky enough to be brought back from death seems too all be able to confirm their experiences with one another. Of course what do I know right? I don't have the "injunction" to make any valid judgement on this since I was never the one lying there in cardiac arrest.
PineAppleEx420 1 year ago
this makes youtube much more worthier :) greetings from germany!
EasyStu007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi there. If you like this, you might like my book at evolvingcaveman 'dot' com
It's a kind of guide to navigate future human evolution. I've described it in my video.
Jeff
EvolvingCaveman 1 year ago
Genius! :P
Nacluw 1 year ago
Not surprising he missed a fourth element....Validation!.....then again why would Ken need validation?
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
@MrCuntyballs2U Here is the part of science where object and subject become one. Therefore, you are the only one who can prove it to you.
Nacluw 1 year ago
@Nacluw Ahem that is still subjective.....why don't you take your non dual thinking and stick it .....? Oops no where I suppose in non dual la la land
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
@MrCuntyballs2U Cuz it's beyond thinking and sticking. It's beyond la la land or any other concept as well. You kinda fail to offend me tho if that's what you're trying to do. ^^ But don't worry, reality is how you perseive it so if you're happy as you are and feel like you're not missing anything then frankly no one forces you to listen to him...
Nacluw 1 year ago
@Nacluw Thanks you it is obviously beyond you then......go on I dare you not to reply........that is the only way you might prove to have transcended your ego?
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
Nothing concrete will ever come of this........ It is the ego that told Wilber he could be the worlds greatest philosopher scientist psychologist etc etc by just bringing them under one roof........ I would settle for just one proof
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
Check my channel for a newly uploaded film, Science and Spirituality, based on Gopi Krishna's last book, The Way to Self-Knowledge. Thanks.
DrMickaelleDougherty 1 year ago
This needs to be applied to Law.
L00kng 1 year ago
DrMickaelleDougherty 1 year ago
biggest idiot yet!!!
BluePittbull666 1 year ago
Very true words!
MiSha400 1 year ago
injunction? you mean observation?
TheImpressionable 1 year ago
@TheImpressionable Injunction: The act of enjoining; the act of directing, commanding, or prohibiting.
That which is enjoined; an order; a mandate; a decree; a command; a precept; a direction.
Anomki 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wilber is a fraud
georgesbataille 1 year ago
Wilber is a fraud
georgesbataille 1 year ago
Wilber is a fraud. His obfuscation only fools the weak minded who cannot penetrate his misleading non-sense.
georgesbataille 1 year ago
@georgesbataille
elaborate.
ejohnwright 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Take a look at two tedx conejo videos of Mark Waldman, showing how spiritual practices change the brain in positive ways. Inspiring!
researchfellow 1 year ago
Keeping the validity of meditation as an injunction in mind, empiricists stick to the external senses because the exterior world is the most sturdy in proving things beyond anyone's opinion. Whereas subjective (interior) experiences could be lies, or misinterpretations. The same reason anecdotes alone cannot hold up in court for convicting someone of, say, murder, is the same reason scientists don't mess with the other side of the 4 quadrants.
Brothergeorge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
google Doe's Account. mindblowing.
sweetlapaz 1 year ago
Spirituality may be engaged in many different ways, as Ken Wilbur says. I have a you tube channel that offers a creative way of attaining the spirituality within; type in the search box: stephengambello. Or click into my name. My channel offers a meditative, contemplative presentation of music and imagery by my spiritual teacher S Brian Adam. He creative offerings to the world are unique. Please let me know what you think. His work is for everyone.
stephengambello 1 year ago
"Spirituality: The last refuge of a failed human. Just another way of distracting yourself from who you really are."
fubaraoul 1 year ago
Makes sense.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Comment removed
nielsjoklein 1 year ago
What do you mean by kindness and arrogance?
distortthis 1 year ago
Comment removed
nielsjoklein 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bassmystic 1 year ago
@nielsjoklein, Many modern spiritual teachers recognize Wilber's genius. If somebody can help Mooji, Pema Chodron, Jack Cornfield , Tolle, Genpo Roshi and all those wonderful teachers to be taking seriously by the Scientific Community is Ken Wilber, Before you make any other judgments you should check out what these very same teachers think about him, I think you will be surprised.
Bassmystic 1 year ago
@Bassmystic I agree with you, and my "opinion" has nothing to do with Ken Wilber (whom I do not know in any whatsoever way), it just shows that I am creating the causes for unhappiness by judging other beings like this.
nielsjoklein 1 year ago
Wilber gives me a headache, but what he says is clear and logic.
tmsgsn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my video i uploaded, its all about the important revelations that ive learned from smoking!!
Claudestclaire 1 year ago
Brilliant!
777Thinking 2 years ago
what is the religion similar to this, its from an american man who talks about the universe or somthin and visits loads of countrys. like he did a speech in madrid and a spanish person translated it for him. any ideas??
scott1506 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I respectfully submit that "injunction" is not a requirement for discovery.
Using your example, "I must walk to the window to know if it is raining," what if I am standing in my yard? Do I still have to walk to the window to know if it is raining?
If you now add that I must be outside OR walk to a window, then what if I have a tin roof and can hear if it is raining?
Please clarify this if I have somehow missed something obvious.
Thanks!
QCHitch 2 years ago
You first must abandon material consciousness. Start with
selling your house and send the money from the sale to Dr. Wilbur. That way, you'll be standing outside when it rains, and you will have bought that knowledge with however much you sold your house for. Yes, the same amount you sent to Dr. Wilbur!! Amazing!!
PleiadianAttrnyAtLaw 2 years ago
You may think this is nitpicking, but empiricism and Popperian falsifiability aren't different methodologies, they're both one and the same methodology, that of science. As for Thomas Kuhn, he is certainly different, but Kuhn was a relativist who said all objective truth was impossible. As such Kuhn and scientific method are necessarily opposed.
As for meditation, I'm all for it, so long as people don't try to say it proves their favourite pet metaphysical claim, i.e. that a god exists.
sam51092 2 years ago
the fact that phenomena exists in our minds as a concept is proof enough for me.
what i'm saying is that if god does not exists than how is it possible for us to conceptualize the idea.
it's making sense to me anyways.
lately though i've become more interested in language though. as opposed to finding the "truth".
i would say just keep in touch with the dome. mother earth. the big round womb of grass and water that conceived us.
shlempnar 2 years ago
'...if god does not exists than how is it possible for us to conceptualize the idea'.
What if you substituted 'god' in this sentence for 'santa claus' or 'toothfairy' or 'unicorns' or any of the other infinite number of things you can conceptualize? Does that mean they all exist too? I can conceptualize me being Superman; does that mean that I am, in fact, Superman?
I'm sorry, but I'm so surprised that I even have to say this that I'm wondering if I'm missing something in your comment...
sam51092 2 years ago 3
@sam51092 south park covered exactly what you're talking about with Imaginationland. If you don't watch the show, you should because it brilliantly tackles some of most complex ideas human beings have come up with, or you could say, already exist and we try to explain them. But essentially we do nothing but rationalize a truth until we can prove it or it becomes an antiquated idea, like the world being flat as a basic example. I'm going off on something else here but I think you see the relation
thecellarlife 2 years ago 2
Excellent video btw, every atheist should watch this. Most atheists wrongly associate spirituality with religion and consider spirituality unscientific even though it is not.
Religion is dogmatic, spirituality is not. This may sound confusing at first, but if you read into what religion is and what spirituality is, you will start to see the whole picture as to why they are different.
Darkgravx12 2 years ago 25
@Darkgravx12
absolutely right. most atheists have never really gotten involved with the matter at all. they just neglect mythic worldviews, an do so because they confuse them with spirituality. spirituality, however is transrational - it doesn't neglect their (the atheists) rational worldviews (evolution, etc).
In most cases their position is superficial at best.
trappedsoul7 1 year ago
@trappedsoul7
Atheism is the new black man! Its a huge ego boost because it gives you a reason to think you are smarter than other people. I mean I dont care if Im right or wrong in an argument, Im still smart because I KNOW that what I cant personally experience with my five human senses, theres no way it can possibly exist.
PineAppleEx420 1 year ago
@PineAppleEx420 ....and your point is?
trappedsoul7 1 year ago
@trappedsoul7
If I cant see, touch, feel, or hear you, then you don't exist!!
PineAppleEx420 10 months ago
@PineAppleEx420 well, you're right.... i don't exist!
trappedsoul7 10 months ago
@trappedsoul7
yep, and btw srry if the sarcasm in my first comment didnt translate well over the internet.
PineAppleEx420 10 months ago
@trappedsoul7
Yep, and srry if my sarcasm didnt translate too well over the internet
PineAppleEx420 9 months ago
@PineAppleEx420 no worries, man.
trappedsoul7 9 months ago
I suggest that you look at burtharding channel....
zerosetteaccordion 2 years ago
Wilber is remarkably clever!
cacaolover 2 years ago
Hamlet IS physics.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
Ken includes even narrow science in his considerations.
Peace and contentment to all beings.
CloudshadowMan1 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
mindrunfree 2 years ago
All the worlds a stage, and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
Frogstomp121 2 years ago 2
Shakespeare
plathhs 2 years ago
Comment removed
u2nick 2 years ago
thank you very much for sharing this information with us. It can help a lot
:)
Mcfaie 2 years ago
You are a house with four rooms: physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual. The room causing all the suffering is the emotional room. All the fear, anger, and grief that is unresolved (unembraced) of childhood is down in the metaphorical basement and is causing the unconscious mind to constantly ask, "What happened?" and "How do I keep it from happening again?" This causes our unconscious needs and wants which prevent us from being optimistic and being in the moment. Well intended and useless.
frankroshi2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science... Spirituality... just as half-assed no matter which cheek you got. Clearly, without any leaps of faith, you have a mind and you have a body. Check it out with your direct experience. They are not the same and cannot be reduced one to the other. The brain (material) is the mind's servant (nonmaterial). A non-material being has access to this physical plane through the human nervous system. Consciousness can move a protein chain that controls the potential across a human nerve membrane.
frankroshi2 2 years ago
Comment removed
frankroshi2 2 years ago
spirituality is just redundant and boring. we will not find and answer.
so take what we do have proof of. strive to become peaceful, happy and healthy. be optimistic and listen to your body. always live in the moment, and your life will be justified. just because you aren't religious doesn't mean you cannot benefit from meditation.
the brain is gnarly. treat it well!
shlempnar 2 years ago
Spiritualty and religion are not the same.
MaBu888 2 years ago 19
Science and religion are part of spirituality.
GodNyou2 2 years ago
shlempnar...
Your comment just described spirituality lmao. Also, religion is not the same as spirituality and meditation is a big part of being spiritual.
And DHG1 - the mental does not effect the physical???? Are you on crack or something? That's a completely untrue statement.
Darkgravx12 2 years ago
OnlyInNaziGermany
very well voiced my friend, but are you yourself, any more satisfied with this answer?
visionsofsilver 2 years ago
Spirituality is a lie, it's an idea based truly on imagination and has not one piece of evidence that it exists. Mr dyer said it has no material form therefore it doesn't exist. Being sad, happy or angry is just hormones and chemicals not some fucked up shit about religion.
OnlyInNaziGermany 2 years ago
meaningless. The reason why is because if any such experience can be measured then it falls within the scope of scientific articulation and must yield to scientific standards of confirmation, must be able to be repeated by any scientist under similar conditions, etc. If Wilbur wants to posit experience that cannot be measured in this way then he cannot call it experience.
DHG1 2 years ago
DHG1, Very irrationally put!! Actually its your underlying premise that is meaningless.
scoobydoo84 2 years ago
I am not sure what you mean by irrational in this context. I am similarly unsure at what you mean by my 'underlying premise'. Can you clarify? Can you also show how it is meaningless with regard to what Wilbur has said here? An explanation with reference to the raw data would be scientific.
DHG1 2 years ago
DHG1, did you miss the point? In Wilber's analogy, just as a microscope (or even our eyes) are injunctions, so too can our mind be an injunction, another tool to apprehend datum. Give me a reason why meditative practice can't be considered an injunction. Certainly, when we see a phenomenon with our eyes, we rely on our (and other scientist's) cognitive interpretive faculty to verify it. Inward-looking apprehension can be confirmed as well.
astrixx 2 years ago
Comment removed
DHG1 2 years ago
DHG1, "better to stay silent and be thought of as a fool, rather than open your mouth and be proven one." This applies to you and the rest of the delusional materialists. IT ISN'T A PHYSICAL EVENT YOU CLUELESS IMBICLE!!
scoobydoo84 2 years ago
DHG1, You materialists and reductionists are the modern day equivalents of the flat earthers. Clueless, ignorant, raving, ranting, ignorant nuts.
VAGRANT BE GONE!!
scoobydoo84 2 years ago
Well there are some prominent philosophers that would disagree with you, including John Searle and Charles Taylor. I'm assuming you're familiar with their stance on consciousness. If not, consider the idea that my seeing a red patch in my visual field ('qualia') is in no way equivalent to a firing of a neuron. Certainly one event supervenes on the other, but one event is not equivalent to the other. Therefore, my phenomenological experience must be verified on its own terms.
astrixx 2 years ago
I agree that the mental does not reduce to the physical; but, given that you agree that the mental supervenes on the physical, what is your position on the causal relation between the two? And to make the point about meditation concrete, consider this: attainment of a brain state may cause an epiphenomenal mental state, but if we are to imagine that mental states can cause brain states then any description of that relationship will have to respect (somehow) the rules of empirical verification.
DHG1 2 years ago
The point is not the relationship between the physical and the mental. I think there are is a causal relationship, but more complicated than "A" brain state -> "B" mental event, which is why I only mention that there is a supervenience relationship. The point is that no amount of "A" brain state explanations will qualitatively explain a "B" mental event. For example, to answer the question, "Why is water wet?" one cannot merely say, well because its 2 hydrogen and one oxygen molecule.
astrixx 2 years ago
The real answer to that question, is because it "feels" wet. It's a phenomenological explanation.
astrixx 2 years ago
When Wilbur talks he sounds like a mad scientist; he pushes and pulls on theories of epistemology and science until they are unrecognisable. Popper was undoubtedly an empiricist; Kuhn agreed that a scientific theory must always be scrutinised by reference to experiential data. And experience has a strict meaning in science: what can observed; that is, measured by the senses or artificially extended sensors (instruments). Wilbur's idea of experience - and positing a link with spirituality - is..
DHG1 2 years ago
Epistomologies are based on matter, energy, space , and time. They have content as its ground of knowing. It is a knowing "about" existence. A knowing "into "existence as a linguistic exercise and creation is what I learned from Werner Erhard and Laurence Platt. Would enjoy Wilber having a conversation with Werner.
billyjo1881 2 years ago
I think Ken is talking about a scientific understanding from his percpective. I am sure this would be a new understanding to me. It comes back to what the two definitions look like side by side. Scientific understanding is part of the fabric of life.
MalaHypnotherapy 2 years ago
I think Ken twists scientific understanding here. While spiritual growth might be a repeatable internal experience, that does not make its mysteries accessible to science as yet. Spirituality is a mind-practice for tapping into other levels of the fabric of life. Our human abilities here are mostly intermittant, though they are growing as we learn to focus awareness. Scientific rules for measurement are lagging behind but may catch up.
parkpost 2 years ago
the best part about videos like this is that it brings out many people writing many words attempting to show their understanding and how much they think they know and can give you a good measurement of the scope of ignorance.
hyprv 2 years ago
And sometimes even the scope of ignorance, relatively to something that we really don't have any ideas about, the ignorance is so great that it cannot be sensed, and is ignored.
MaBu888 2 years ago
My apologies for the typos but Im typing in a rush......once again sorry....but u get da jist of what I mean....and not bashing westerners...I am a westerner myself.....its just that they study from eastern teachers most of the time anyway......
GtPapi 2 years ago
book with calcualtions of the stars and so forth and they can read your past etc...unless u hav had this experience it may seem like astrology. But its a bit more spiritual.....anyway Im not endorsin any relgion..just saying that science and spirituality can coexist to a point....plus to really kno spirituality you need to listen to Eastern philosophers...no offense but many Westerners study these thigns for like 3 years,read books & lecture compared to the masters of the east who live all this
GtPapi 2 years ago
spirituality......but of course science wont actually get you the experience of spirituality......it proves its validity...but you must submerge yourself into spirituality to experience it....meditation etc...also one of the oldest oragnized relgions...if not the oldest...w/c everybody borrows mediation practices from is Hinduism....and its actually very scientific at times....the best example which Hindus can attest to is when the pujari or pandit open book on you....meaning he/she looks at a
GtPapi 2 years ago
TO everyone pushing science away....yes...spirituality is so encompassign thats cience can barely scratch its surface...BUT...science does prove the existence of God or really a higher intelligence etc...there is a mathematical formula proving the existence of the animaterial world....a great aspect of spirutality is that everythign here si an illusion...we r spirits having a humna experience...and Einstein validated that in the west with his theory of relativity...science can b a validator of
GtPapi 2 years ago
One question: How is the claim that buddha nature exists falsifiable? I think the whole argument really leans on this.
mytolisk 3 years ago
Just as falsifiable as your own subjective awareness, which is to say, not very falsifiable.
MaBu888 3 years ago
First you must understand what Buddha nature is and then implement to its fullest extent and minutest detail the methodology that leads one to achieve Buddha Nature. Confirm it with all who have achieved Buddha nature and then you know. However, if you actually reach that stage you will know how indescribable it is and only then can you understand the true nature of Reality! Try it:) You will also learn how idiotic science is:)
scoobydoo84 3 years ago
I wan't to get paid to sit on a couch and make up new words.
aes005 3 years ago
great speaker, great post :)
bustergmaxx 3 years ago
why are these people in the audience writing this stuff down? it is common sense...
mayombe2001 3 years ago
Though I love Wilber, he has been converted to the new age. :(
twankdafied 3 years ago
what do you mean by that?
xxwalkamongusxx 3 years ago
We really would like to know!
MaBu888 3 years ago
Exquisit states of consciousness and satori through meditation is not new age philosophy per se.
MaBu888 3 years ago
the new age integration of science and spirituality is the acquiescence to a corrupt society.
seeking proof of spirituality through science, or any other means, is actually avoidance of the truth of spirituality.
You can not look at meditation though a microscope; meditation is the microscope.
Science does not and can not address avoidance, and therefore is not qualified to prove spirituality to any degree. as degrees of proof=degrees of avoidance.
Truth has no degrees, and no consensus.
Diatonic135 3 years ago
to me pastry and meditation arent very different. i dont think you can necessarily find out more about anything through sitting cross legged than you can by baking muffins.
proof suggests belief, and yes, belief seems to be avoidance.
i like science. i think science will figure out what some already have... many different paths
xxwalkamongusxx 3 years ago
Diatonic135, I agree with your statement entirely. However, I do not think Wilber falls in the New Age category. Wilber is attempting to articulate and make accessible the metaphysical and mystical practices to a greater audience. The modern discoveries of science are in fact turning science on its head. Fundamentally spiritually has to be lived and is not a science experiment. Agreed 1000%
scoobydoo84 3 years ago
wow yes thank you for this! how many people say ___ is fake/not true - why because your government, religion, parents, or school told you so - question your ideas/thoughts where do they come from. someone says that stars are real because they saw them and you haven't seen the stars for yourself so you say "your a liar, thats a scam, thats not real" when in fact this person never did the research or work of thinking and researching for themselves what is true and what is not
imqtkd 3 years ago
i like this guy tho never heard of him. am interested in what others who like him think of my theory on video
spiritualkeys 3 years ago
What Ken says is really clear (to me). This is one of my favorite videos from Integral. It is about the "experience" not the mental apparatus of thought, but as it is expressed as thought it naturaly and predictably creates confusion.
greenalphabet 3 years ago
When you dare to acknowledge spirituality you invoke the concept of God.
EGMAG 3 years ago
If he doesn't know God.. then how is he the expert? Sounds like another impersonalist trying to make money.
Arati303 3 years ago
this guy uses a lot of words to say nothing....a new 'system' consisting of nothing but new terminology for old systems...
I was a little dissapointed.
originalwizbang 3 years ago 4
No, he's using new terminology to explain how the old systems can be applied to the new ones.
reflectionist 3 years ago
the new is the old dressed in new clothes (terminology) but like the Emperor, seems to be naked. Your response.. nonsensical, terminolgy is applied to systems,old terminolgy can be applied to a 'new'(so-called) system, but the old 'system' is not applied to the new 'system', perhaps you meant he is using new terminology to describe his 'system' in terms of the 'old'? This is a comparison but that they can be compared means they are implicitly the same, does it not?
originalwizbang 3 years ago
the new term firms where implicit wares dare sense firminology. Systems impair his terms of old. That means they are inexplicably different, or bold.
easonrevant 3 years ago
Still seems to throw a lot of verbiage out there with no clear coherence, one can use a lot of 10$ words but if they add up to nothing then they are a waste of air. Show me where this so called new system actually works to promote a clearer understanding of the universe and our place within it and I will reconsider the appearance that it is a lot of gobbledygook which confuses rather than clarifies, possibly intentionally so, thus the semblance and not the substance of knowledge.
originalwizbang 3 years ago 3
If you haven't done one or two, you're not allowed to vote, and you're not expected to.
MistaJohnsonG 4 years ago 2
Empiricism, like standard physics, chemistry, biology, etc. is exterior perspectives on phenomena that arise in this universe; the movement to describe this is modernity. Let's not forget that humans lived before empiricism and any human knowledge obtained before then should not be discounted for one perspective, and a narrow way of thinking. Lets also not forget that as an example, black holes are singularities - where the "laws" of physics break down.
MistaJohnsonG 4 years ago
I think a lot of these comments are missing the point. Wilber's idea of the AQAL is that there are 4 perspectives in which we(sentient beings) look at things, in short: I, and We, Interior and Exterior - What he describes here in Zen meditation is the Interior perspective of the internal self - Only 1 aspect of the entire AQAL framework. Now if this is over your head, pick up one of Wilber's many works and do some reading this holiday.
MistaJohnsonG 4 years ago
As Capra said in the Tao of Physics there is not much difference between a western scientist and an eastern mystic. The method to achieve knowledge is just the same (the three strands cited by Ken) but the object changes, FOr Westerners it's all about matter, while for Easterners it it mostly about inner life.
ewollc 4 years ago 2
the universe is 100% governed by laws ~ this is the great assumption of science.
Wilber has 2 choices then, to either agree, and therefore see metaphysics as simply being unexplainable do to lack of technology. (but being based on PHYSICAL LAWS)
or to discard science.
(even if there are things "outside" the perceivable universe they would still function based on laws)
It is impossible for humans to imagine a system that is not law-based.
jaytonbye 4 years ago
Hey, you rock!
ripptjeans 4 years ago
i know the answer to this lets construct a definition that we can manipulate and then come up with an answer which our definition was constructed for. wow i feel so unenlightened by this spiritual suedo bullshit. hey under this definition i think i just made a spiritual scientific statement.
ooglebydoogleby 4 years ago
Define "spiritual".
ddj333 3 years ago
define define
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
"Define" - to set forth the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. (in this case what YOUR definition is) How do you define "spiritual" in your comments, "...spiritual suedo bs & spiritual scientific statement." I understand the sarcasm and am just looking for clarity.
ddj333 3 years ago
i think the word meaning in your statement of definition is a very pertinent part of any understanding. in the above comment i am reffering to the lack of any clear meaning that can be inferred from false nonspecific generalisations. use the word spiritual and all of a suden talking crap is deep and meaningful. does that help? being vague doesn't provide answeres.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
Gotcha. I agree about how being vague doesn't provide answers...so what's your definition of spiritual?
ddj333 3 years ago
i made a video about it. but when i talk of spiritual i am talking of what conects us to the rest of nature and not anything mystical. my idea of spiritual is nothing to do with imaginary after lifes or etherial super beings. the only transendental aspect of spirituallity in my world is the transendance of experience of tangible events over our capacity to explain them. the revelation inherent in concrete knowledge of how fleeting all human history is for instance. religeon! no.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
You are giving a classic response in today's world. Many people are fed up with churchy religion, the mythic sky god, following dogma to get to a place when they die. I understand that. So, what is not tangible about the experience Wilber describes in this talk over his capacity to explain?
Are you familiar with "The Marriage of Sense and Soul"? It is available in both book form and audio (on iTunes). Sounds like it might be right up your alley.
ddj333 3 years ago
Hey - I just watched your video on spirituality and it is brilliant. You are a nature mystic (and a well spoken one, too!). I think you'd be surprised by the extent to which Wilber praises and includes nature mysticism, which is a deep feeling of connection with the whole of our world and beyond. It really is humbling, isn't it? Man, don't rule him out of your world. Look closer.
ddj333 3 years ago
i must admit i did not listen to the whole discusion but i will try its just that some of the concepts he spoke of seemed a tad etherial. but ile give it a more carefull ear. thanks for your coments about my vid and thanks for watching.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
You are welcome - my comments were sincere. Wilber uses what is called an "integral approach", which means he strives to include all points of view in his "map" of consciousness. If he sounds etherial here and there, it's because he allows a place at the table for that, as well. But the integral approach doesn't lack in using one's head to see that a particular set of ideas have limited logic...
ddj333 3 years ago
i gave it a closer examination and i must admit i still find the sertion that you can aply the three strands to a subjective experience such as the budda head as questionable. i have no problem with the idea of a comunity of the qualified but with the other scientific asertions the comunity of the qualified are able to go on and expose discovery to the comunity of the unqualified. i dont think he adresses this isue so ile have to reserve judgement.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
I understand your reservations. He speaks of "broad" and "narrow" science, and that both are generally accepted methods. Phenomonology and psychology are broad in that they are scienes of the interior. The findings there are harder to prove because they involve direct experience by an individual rather than external imperial data. I tend to accept it IF the experience can be duplicated in multiple individuals - then it is 'falsifiable. Wilber claims...
ddj333 3 years ago
i gave it a closer examination and i must admit i still find the sertion that you can aply the three strands to a subjective experience such as the budda head as questionable. i have no problem with the idea of a comunity of the qualified but with the other scientific asertions the comunity of the qualified are able to go on and expose discovery to the comunity of the unqualified. i dont think he adresses this isue so ile have to reserve judgement.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
...that if one does a certain 'method of practice' then one will have a certain experience. I have experienced some of those states, so I accept how he claims one can get there. It might be like your connection standing by the sea. You had the experience but I might not believe it until I, too, stand before the grandeur of the sea. I have to take up the injunction, get the data, and confirm it with you.
ddj333 3 years ago
i made a film of standing by the sea which imperfect aproximates the experience or at least provides some coroberative data. human experience is subjective and an asertion of a state being coroberated by hearsay without verifiable evidence of any kind is as much use as a claim in a afterlife, god, santa, etc. thier may be a state of altered concousness but something so unquantifiable is dificult even to varify as a commonly experienced state. is what i mean by love what you mean by love?
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
Yes, I agree it is difficult. I don't know if we mean (experience) the same thing, but does that mean it is rubbish? Is it non existent because we experience it differently or because one of us might not experience it at all? Perhaps with enough practice we could varify each others experience of something and validate it. Maybe even validate it with a whole community of the adequate. Would validating it with numerous individuals make it 'real' or 'fact'? How many would it take?
ddj333 3 years ago
its not how many. its can it be reasonably demonstrated. i have personal experience of people asserting experiences which could not have occured. this does not mean that all experiences need objective validation just objective knowledge. because someone experiences something internally does it objectivly exist? thier are conditions where by no matter how much the sufferer eats they still feel hungry. this means the feeling of hunger is false though for them it feels real.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
its not how many. its can it be reasonably demonstrated. i have personal experience of people asserting experiences which could not have occured. this does not mean that all experiences need objective validation just objective knowledge. because someone experiences something internally does it objectivly exist? thier are conditions where by no matter how much the sufferer eats they still feel hungry. this means the feeling of hunger is false though for them it feels real.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
not how many how objectivly. ilnesses exist which create all sorts of false experiences but for the sufferer the feelings are real. what he claims may be true but i think his evidence is subjective and if i acsept it, it would be no different to acsepting that because children all believe in santa and can acuratly agrea on details of the santa experience, santa exists. his community of the adequate is argumentum numerum. its not true because lots of people believe it.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
This is interesting but I'd rather think for myself and make my own ideas
BelligerentAuthority 4 years ago
...based on what? Do you suppose that anything you are thinking is entirely original? Hey, if it's interesting you might benefit from including these ideas as a part of what you think for yourself. Seriously, take it all in even if it just becomes something you are knowledgeable about to dissagree with.
ddj333 3 years ago
It seems to me that all Ken is suggesting is that some of the methods of rational inquiry into physical phenomenon could be useful for rational inquiry into some types of non-physical phenomenon such as consciousness. This seems pretty straightforward to me. I find the controversy surprising, but also a kind of validation of Ken's general theory of the hierarchical nature of human cognitive development.
NBayrule 4 years ago 3
I whole-heartedly agree with your last three sentences. Your first two, however, are almost an insult. I am a student of Physics, and unless you're simply talking about our perspective of matter from a philosophical standpoint, I must ask that you do your own homework. I've put in my many years, most of it dealing with matter and its properties, have you?
jeku1987 4 years ago
There is actual Scientific evidence to show that matter is a creation of conciousness so really they work hand in hand. You just have to do your homework. New descoveries should be embraced as they point to a more complete understanding of things. People are just too lazy sometimes to really care what the truth is and just jump to the easiest and most comfortable conclusions. You won't make too much progress continualy doing that.
Jaminator12 4 years ago
please cite that...
jaytonbye 4 years ago
Science is a method to describe nature, not metaphor. Science has a hard time seeing things beyond the observable universe, because it only attempts to describe what is in the observable universe (observable, meaning detectable, not necessarily "visible"). That is not a weakness, but a strength. This guy is dragging the scientific method through the mud to support his beliefs. Scientific theory rests soundly only on facts, not beliefs or feelings or urges, no matter how powerful they may be.
jeku1987 4 years ago
As Wilber states, first we have to define what is meant by science, which you have done above from your point of view. If this is true and you are correct then explain phenomenologies like psychology. Is there no science there? According to your definition, no. Do you discount that entire field as irrelavant? (you are, of course, allowed to do that if you like!)
ddj333 3 years ago
injunct =action; apprehe =understanding; confir=agreed adaption.
Put it in simple language! Your method really does NOT apply to ALL the infinite variations of circumstances inspiring discoveries.
EGMAG 4 years ago
FYI: You can read a lot more on Ken online at Questia.
seasulintex 4 years ago
It's time to focus on the NOW, work day by day on become a better human being, watch Shelley Yates videos (here at You Tube under "Fire the Grid," they are 8, please watch them all) and open your heart because this is just a bit of taste of what the truth of Humankind is ALL about, we are in a time of change and we are co-creators of our own future, together we can create a better world for us and future generations. Namaste and God Bless You.
Karmayespiritu 4 years ago
... and yet 1/3 of the trailer is already in american.
ABRASIV 4 years ago
Peace to all whom read this. Have a great day.
shoe2112 4 years ago
Hello,
you should visit my page and watch A Man's Word trailer.
ABRASIV 4 years ago
Thank you. I guess I shall have to learn some French. I admire you bilingual and trilingual Europeans!
shoe2112 4 years ago
Hello,
The english version of the film will out in september. Check out soon on parolesdhommeslefilm web site Bye.
ABRASIV 4 years ago
Charlie Darwin himself said, " To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, ' ABSURD ' In The HIGHEST Degree" ---- Charles Darwin ' Origin of Species ' Ch. 6)
av1611truth 4 years ago
And straight after that sentence, Charles Darwin said: "But when it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false".
So you see, the key word in that quote was not "absurd" or "highest". It was "SEEMS". It SEEMS absurd, and yet it is not absurd.
TCPHumanist 4 years ago 3
>>av1611truth the eye natural selection, <<
No! It is evolution through time and circumstance + AND the process of natural selection, which tends to evolve toward, but not always, a fitter organism. Makes one to conclude through both evolutionary process is the work of an infinite origin of all processes.
EGMAG 4 years ago
Creation is a continuing process.
originalwizbang 3 years ago 2