« Guide to creating scientific controversy | Main | Ken Wilber is wrong about Plotinus »

November 14, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sagan's 'Cosmos' was in general mind-blowingly good tv.

the intellect seems to generally be frowned upon by mystic traditions, but if one stops to contempla the mystery and magnitude of the universe, it is i believe rendered even more awr-inspiring when understood through science. This can in itself lead to somegthing akin to a religious expiernce in its seeminly transcental-like majesty, which is possibly how einstein saw it.

sagan seemed fairly open-minded too in that he tried to find evidence for paranormal claims and was less dismissive of a god than many of his contemporaries. One wonders tho how conistently he followed his own convictions? His piano example above could be applied to god for which there is also no evidence.

only the mystic truly understands or realizes the true capacity of this universe, and the rest, while the intellectual scientist grasps at straws with his dim level of perception. Like trying to bend an envelope beyond its capacity, 1 into 0 infinity cannot go.

Who would this mystic be? Nothing wrong with truly understanding or realizing the true capacity if this universe, and the rest. Ok, ok just tell what you mean by capacity? Then, I will go away. Thanks, Roger

The problem really is not the intellect, it automatization of the intellect.

Meditation efforts = "Thus, de-automatization may be conceptualized as the undoing of automatization."

"In contemporary psychology and philosophy, the 'I' usually is not differentiated from the physical person and its mental contents. The self is seen as a construct and the crucial duality is overlooked." Awareness and the content of awareness.

A strong argument in favor of Diekman's view is the "crucial duality" he distinguishes.

Can you imagine an "I" arising solely as a conglomerations of content ?

Observation without an observer ? It would be the first non-dual discovery ever. That is, the first example of non-dualism. Everything we know is dual. I don't have to explain that, Check any philosophy or any school of thought.

So according to Diekman, there is Awareness and the contents of the mind. I=awareness, Everybody has the same name "I". We know awareness by being it. This also the problem of the infinite regression presented by the "observer of the observer" reduction.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.