Objective reality is validated by the reality-based community

I figured that I needed to share another excerpt from Jonathan Rauch's book, "The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth," that comes just before the passages I included in a previous post about this intriguing book.

Those Rules for Reality in the previous post have to be implemented by someone. That someone is the reality-based community. In another post I'll share what Rausch considers that community to be. 

Basically its people who are willing to act in accord with the Constitution of Knowledge, in much the same way patriotic Americans are willing to abide by the United States Constitution. Of course, there are strong disagreements about what is constitutional and unconstitutional. 

Likewise, there are strong disagreements about what is validated knowledge and what is unvalidated knowledge. But in both cases disagreements take place within the bounds of a Constitution that provides a framework and a process for arriving at agreement.

The question I'd pose to those who hold a mystical, religious, or intuitive view of reality is this: what alternative to Rauch's approach below do you suggest for determining the nature of objective reality?

Meaning, it is easy to criticize reason, rationality, facts, science, open discussion, criticism of propositions about reality, and such. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a better approach than the Constitution of Knowledge.

Read what follows.

Then, if you disagree with some of what Rausch says below, leave a comment on this post describing the nature of your disagreement. Others can then submit their own ideas. This is how knowledge is gained: by a reality-based community willing to engage in the social pursuit of truth.

What reality really is

So far, I have referred to reality and objective reality and the reality-based community without quite specifying what I mean. Now is the time to fill in that gap.

The question "What is reality?" may seem either too metaphysical to answer meaningfully or too obvious to need answering. 

When most people speak colloquially of reality, they mean the world as it really is, the world "out there," the world independent of human perception and cognition, the world as we would perceive it if we perceived correctly.

Surely that is what we feel reality to be, subjectively. Colloquially, people also use the terms "real" and "reality" to convey certainty or confidence that things are the way they are.

Reality, in common parlance, is that which is reliable and intractable and cannot be wished away: the rock we stub our toe on, the abrupt encounter with the ground when we fall. As Theaetetus and Socrates pointed out, however, such colloquial definitions are not very helpful.

The whole problem is that humans have no direct access to an objective world independent of our minds and senses, and subjective certainty is no guarantee of truth. (More like the opposite, because certitude is so often misleading.)

Faced with those problems and others, philosophers and practitioners changed their approach. Instead of thinking about reality metaphysically, as an external if unknowable "world out there," they think of it epistemically, as that of which we have objective knowledge.

More specifically, they think of reality as a set of propositions (or claims, or statements) which have been validated in some way, and which have thereby been shown to be at least conditionally true -- true, that is, unless debunked.

Some propositions reflect reality as we perceive it in everyday life ("The sky is blue"). Others, like the equations on a quantum physicist's blackboard, are incomprehensible to intuition. Many fall somewhere in between.

Propositions turn out to have some interesting properties. They are infinite in number and so never scarce, but true propositions are precious and comparatively rare.

Even so, the quantity of validated propositions -- of statements considered to be part of the canon of knowledge -- far exceeds the grasp of any human individual or even any large group of individuals. Propositions are not material objects, but neither are they purely ephemeral, especially if they are true.

Karl Popper claimed they exist neither in the realm of material things nor the realm of subjective feelings and perceptions, but in a third realm of their own, "the world of objective contents of thoughts."

Popper compared human knowledge to the webs spun by spiders or the honey produced by bees: "exosomatic organs" which animals build outside their bodies. 

In a similar fashion, humans create knowledge -- validated propositions -- and store their knowledge in  books and equations and libraries and databases, where it exists independently of our minds and bodies and could be discovered and used by an alien species millions of years from now even if humanity were extinct.

Propositions have no volition and can do nothing on their own. Yet once they are acquired by the reality-based network, they can interact with each other across the network: the modification, acceptance, or rejection of one proposition can force adjustments to many others.

Although the network is a human creation and all its participants are people, it far surpasses the comprehension of its creators, and it undergoes a version of natural selection, driven by its own dynamics.

The reality-based network behaves like an ecosystem, producing a body of validated propositions whose composition humans can influence but not control.

That is objective reality, insofar as we can know reality. The totality of those propositions is as close as we come to objective truth.

Now, you must have noticed that a phrase I used a few paragraphs ago, "validated in some way," hides a cheat. In epistemology, the whole question is, validated in what way? As we have seen, the epistemic and social consequences of validation using, say, a tribal oracle versus an authoritarian government versus social error-seeking are different.

And the systems are in many ways incompatible with each other. If we care about knowledge, freedom, and peace, then we need to stake a strong claim: anyone can believe anything, but liberal science -- open-ended, depersonalized checking by an error-seeking social network -- is the only legitimate validator of knowledge, al least in the reality-based community.

Other communities, of course, can do all kinds of other things. But they cannot make social decisions about objective reality.

That is a very bold, very broad, very tough claim, and it goes down very badly with lots of people and communities who feel ignored or oppressed by the Constitution of Knowledge: creationists, Christian Scientists, homeopaths, astrologists, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, birthers, 9/11 truthers, postmodern professors, political partisans, QAnon followers, and adherents of any number of other belief systems and religions.

It also sits uncomfortably with the populist and dogmatic tempers of our time.

But like the U.S. Constitution's claim to exclusivity in governing ("unconstitutional" means "illegal," period), the Constitution of Knowledge's claim to exclusivity is its sine qua non. Defending that claim is no small task, and so we need to understand the logic which supports it.

Comments

[um]

>>Objective reality is validated by the reality-based community<<

Sensual reality is validated by the [sensual] reality-based community

Transcendent reality is validated by the [transcendent] reality-based community

[Appreciative Reader]

Might it perhaps be simpler to think of objective reality merely as colloquial shorthand for "best-fit model of reality", or "best-fit worldview"? Because that is exactly what it is, in effect.

The epimstemic hair-splitting between that model and "actual" reality, while conceptually sound, is for practical purposes of no use at all. Other than, that is, to show us how changing scientific paradigms are indicative neither of erroneous methodology nor of an ever-shifting and scary world, because what keeps changing, what keeps getting updated, is not the underlying reality but our understanding of it.

For practical everyday purposes, in order to function in the world, we can go with the colloquial usage, and just forget that epistemic hair-split.

-------

That is, it might be somewhat confusing to directly define reality as a set of propositions. What those propositions represent is our model of reality. And what we're doing is colloquially referring to that model itself as reality. Spelling that out might make things ...simpler?

Doing that would also explains the insistence on objectivity. (That is, why specifically those sets of propositions that are objective? Why not some theological or ideological propositions instead?) The answer, the explanation, is that it is objective propositions that do provide the best fit.

As for backing up that last claim, made in the last sentence of the last paragraph, it might be sufficient to point at the progress made in the last four hundred years, and contrast that with the stagnation of centuries and millennia before that.

[Spence Tepper]

Everyone believes they are rational dnr scientific. But it's not always as advertised.

Logic based on facts results in testable factual conclusions.

Logic based on conjecture that results in false judgments that aren't testable, isn't rational thinking. It's conjecture.

What are real facts and what is fake news? Both claim to be rational thinkers and rational communities.

How hard is it to say "I don't understand, and with the limited information I have I can't understand."

Apparently that's a challenge to some "rational thinkers".

Conjecture is your clue.
People who aren't doing their own research and experiments are not rational because they are not generating facts. They are choosing to believe others ' claims for "fact".

And when these same people attempt to judge those with a different experience, they indulge in pure conjecture.

[Brian Hines]

Spence, no, this isn't how the reality-based community works. Read the blog post where I shared the Rules for Reality by Rausch. The person making a claim about objective reality has no special significance. Einstein's pronouncements about the relativity of space/time weren't accepted because Einstein had an experience of what this aspect of reality was all about.

Relativity theory was accepted not because he was Einstein, but because he presented evidence that convinced others his claims about reality were true. Subject to debunking, of course, but true until proved otherwise. Likewise, if Spence Tepper, or anyone else, has an experience of some aspect of reality, that experience means nothing in terms of objective truth unless evidence is provided that it should be accepted.

As Rausch says, this prevents us from accepting wild claims just because someone says they had a certain experience. Alien abductions aren't true just because people claim this happened to them. Bigfoot isn't true just because people claim they saw this creature in the woods. And mystical experiences aren't true just because someone claims they had a vision of the divine, or God, or something supernatural.

Saying something is true doesn't make it objectively true. Claims about objective reality have to be submitted to the reality-based community to see if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a claim being accepted. Can you think of a better way to determine what is objective reality? If so, share it. I can't think of one. Neither can Rausch. Science is so wonderfully effective because it follows the rules for reality. Religions make no progress in this regard because they rely on unproven claims that have been debated fruitlessly for hundreds or thousand of years.

[Tendzin]

In other words, Logical Positivism vs. metaphysics of any kind. This is a very old topic.

In respect to the 4th of July, we can contrast Jefferson with Adams. Jefferson was all for a Rationality sans metaphysics and cheered on the French Revolution. Adams, in contrast, was shocked by the way that France rejected religious teachings, and he predicted the tyranny to come. “Is there a possibility,” he reflected, “that the government of nations may fall into the hands of men who teach the most disconsolate of all creeds, that men are but fireflies, and that this all is without a father? Is this the way to make man, as man, an object of respect?”

For those who don't know the history, the French Revolution, a crusade ostensibly fashioned on Reason, resulted in a terrible Lord of the Flies situation that some say has a remarkable similarity to current events.

[Spence Tepper]

Here is another rule of science that the false rational community doesn't get.

Lack of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist.

Hypotheses test the existence of independent variables. That is the basis of science. There is either enough evidence to conclude the independent variable is real and exists, or there is not enough evidence.

Perhaps the instrumentation was not sensitive enough. Perhaps the experimental conditions were not designed to actually detect the independent variable.

Science can never prove something doesn't exist merely because the data doesn't exist to support it.

But that doesn't stop the false scientific community from prognosticating about things for which they have no evidence nor experience.

There was zero scientific data three hundred years ago for subatomic particles. But today we know they exist. Five hundred years ago there was zero scientific data for electromagnetic radiation. Today we know it exists.

A thousand years ago there was no scientific data for gravity. Today we know it exists.

A rational, science based community would refuse to comment on statements that cannot be tested nor have any basis in their own repeatable experience. They would never claim it doesn't exist.

The false rational community in contrast claims that what they can't see smell taste or feel, or test, doesn't exist. That's unscientific.

[Appreciative Reader]

"People who aren't doing their own research and experiments are not rational"

-------

Spence, I disagree with that sentiment very, very strongly.

As far as mysticism, I myself do follow your particular dictum for rationality. But I wouldn't for a minute brand those who are not similarly engaged in experimentation as irrational. Doesn't really make sense to do that.

-------

Actually I'm not commenting here on what you said simply in order to express this disagreement. That was in passing. The actual reason I'm commenting on what you said, is because your words indicate that there may be two levels to rationality. Just as we have primary research and secondary research, I guess we can think of primary rationality and secondary rationality.

Perhaps you can directly follow my idea, that I'm struggling to express here, but if not, let me try to explain in a bit more detail.

-------

At the primary level, you're right, it would be rational to believe only those things that we've ourselves personally validated. However, in practice it is simply impossible for any single individual to personally validate even a billionth, maybe even a hundred-billionth, of the things they might encounter and deal with in their lifetime.

Therefore, what becomes of primary importance is this "secondary rationality".

You get me, right? Like, what is the speed of light? You don't know that, not at the primary level. Nor do I. How far, exactly, is the sun from the earth? Neither of us has personally validated that answer. I guess if we wanted to we could, you and I, if we were prepared to devote the necessary resources to doing that. But that again would only be those two questions, leaving another ten billion questions that we still haven't personally validated, but necessarily must take on faith.

So that, what things to take on faith, in order to be rational, becomes something that takes center stage, in any discussion on rationality.

In other words, this "secondary rationality" is probably the more important.

Sure, secondary rationality couldn't exist meaningfully in the absence of primary rationality, just as secondary research wouldn't exist meaningfully in the absence of primary research.

But, at the individual level, for you and me, what really matters is this secondary rationality. Not all of us actually need to be scientists. And in any case, even scientists can actually do science in one specific area and one specific subject, and like the rest of us take on faith the billion other areas and the billion other subjects.

Which is the basis for the strong disagreement with your earlier comment I'd expressed earlier in this post. This larger idea, about "secondary rationality", that your words made me think of, is what I wanted to put forward here.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Brian
Thanks for your comments. I agree with your depiction of the need for facts, but I think there may be confusion with what acceptance by the scientific community actually means, what rejection by that same community means, and the scientific perspective on reality in general.

1.Acceptance by the scientific community is based upon their judgment that objective data exists from controlled experiments (or uncontrolled events with a statistically significant number of recordings) to conclude that a hypothesized independent variable exists, and not some other explanation for a measurable event.

2. Rejection by the same community where the evidence doesn't meet the standards for statistical significance.

Both 1 and 2 above are limited to testable hypotheses.

The scientific community does not make agreements about the existence of independent, causal variables without such evidence.

3. Reality. The scientific community does not and has never claimed that reality is limited to 1 above. They already know from their own history that the business of science is to investigate the unknown.

None of Einstein's conclusions would have been tested if people stopped at.

" there has been no evidence for that for the entire human history. It can't and doesn't exist." That's not rational thinking.

Conjecture is used to develop testable hypotheses, not to define what is or isn't real.

The lack of data isn't used to define reality either. Because that would be pure conjecture.

When people use conjecture to define what is or isn't real with no effort to create testable hypotheses and to then test them, that's not rational or scientific, whether such false thinking is indulged in by theists or atheists.

In fact science demonstrates all kinds of things people thought, falsely, didn't exist, actually exists.

It's what science does.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
If you are commenting on the physics of light and citing research by others alone you may be very rational in your choice of whose theory to believe.

But you will be limiting your logic to their reports for your permeses. You are taking something on faith. That's ok too if you intend to test that.

But if you have no intention to test this for yourself it's not rational nor honest to claim "I know." Because you have only someone else's experience to go on. You can say, "I'm placing my faith in this literature, in what it says, because it seems objective to me."

That's fine. That is the basis for your belief. Of course major scientific findings are occasionally rescinded by their own authors.

But it's not the same as saying" I've mowed this lawn with this mower for over a decade and I know pretty much how much gas it takes. That hasn't changed. "

If you can do some of your own testing, then you increase the likelihood that what you find and what they reported is actual.

That's a critical step for the really important things, the things that you really need to confirm are in fact real.

There is no substitute for it. I suggest you raise your standards for reality, at least on the important stuff.

[Appreciative Reader]

"if you have no intention to test this for yourself it's not rational nor honest to claim "I know."

-------

We've been through this already, haven't we, in a different context and in a different thread, not very long back?

I thought we were agreed that, in practice, "I know" is actually the short form for what would, if razor sharp precision in speech is aimed for, be better expressed as "I believe I know".

Even the scientist necessarily relies on his equipment, and on the many underlying theories and principles he's using, without himself validating each and every one of them, or even many of them, heck in most cases probably not even one of them, because that is simply not possible.

If you're using ten billion things, then the best you can do, even if you were inclined to experiment yourself, is to test one or two aspects of one or two items, out of the tens and hundreds of aspects of the millions and billions of items that you use.

Given that, how meaningful would it be to claim, as you did, that "People who aren't doing their own research and experiments are not rational"?

Using that kind of yardstick, can you find a single rational person in the whole wide world?

I'd like you to think over this for one more time, and tell me if you might not want to revisit, and perhaps rescind, that particular statement of yours, that I'd quoted in my previous comment?

-------

Like I said, I'm not diminishing the importance of primary research and primary rationality, but I'm suggesting that in our day to day life, and in practice, it is the secondary rationality that is of greater importance.

I don't know if this book of Brian's touches on this, but I should think that one of the key parts of living rationally would be to figure out, and clearly formulate, what exactly would constitute the rules of this secondary rationality.

[Dungeness]

@ AR: "Like I said, I'm not diminishing the importance of primary research and primary rationality, but I'm suggesting that in our day to day life, and in practice, it is the secondary rationality that is of greater importance."

Quite. Excuse me if I go off on a bit of a riff though.

I believe existential questions must never become secondary nor the
pursuit of answers abandoned. [Soaring music]. Seriously though, the
primary/secondary sieve itself and the "show me demonstrable evidence"
mantra of the anti-theist do create an effective way of diminishing those
efforts to find answers. Subtle but effective. It exalts a kind of lofty scientific
club of "priests" who alone are qualified to weigh in and vet the evidence for
others. Gatekeepers who sneer haughtily at those lacking scientific street
"cred". Stick to the quotidian dramas out there and leave the rest to us.

The mystic, however, says our consciousness is well, God-like, with the
potential for unlimited awareness. Researching who we are, our purpose
in life, and how to realize life's potential must always be primary and never
secondary. This opportunity mustn't be lost. No one can take that journey
for us either.

"This is my prayer, that I may know before I leave why the earth called me
to her arms. Why her night's silence spoke to me of stars, and her daylight
kissed my thoughts into flower. Before I go may I linger over my last refrain,
completing its music, may the lamp be lit to see your face and the wreath
woven to crown you." --Tagore

[Appreciative Reader]

Dungeness, despite your ironic tone, that was a beautiful post. I find myself applauding, and agreeing that the questions that mystics investigate must never be thought of as secondary.

A clarification, though. I used those terms as used in research. Not to indicate importance, but the nature of the research. Primary research directly researches a subject, while secondary research is meta research, essentially collation of primary research. Likewise, I meant the term primary rationality to refer to rationality as applied to the world directly, and secondary rationality as referring to how we might understand and collate others' "primary" efforts at rationality.

Given how complex our world is, the vast majority of our efforts in rationality would in practice be of the latter, and indirect, kind. So that, I was saying, it makes sense to clearly formulate our "rules" for this second, indirect kind of rationality as well.

[Dungeness]

@ AR  : "A clarification though..."

Thank you. I sensed I wasn't getting it so I went off on a riff. We hide
behind irony to protect ourself.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Using that kind of yardstick, can you find a single rational person in the whole wide world?"

Yes, everyone who works for their living. They are actively working with the physical, social and biological realities they must affect for progress.

They try, they test, they research and use that to come up with new answers, pilot implementig those, adjusting the feedback as they go, and track their progress.

Therefore my comment about not being rational refers to those not actively working in a field but prognosticating about it. There may be some insights there, but also ignorance.

It isn't rational to expect such as those to have much accuracy or depth in their understanding.

You wrote earlier that my reports could be caused by any number of things.

Only to someone unfamiliar with such events.

In truth they are caused by one thing, and that is what actually caused them.

[Appreciative Reader]

“… You wrote earlier that my reports could be caused by any number of things.
Only to someone unfamiliar with such events.
In truth they are caused by one thing, and that is what actually caused them.”

…….Which would be what, Spence?

You’d said in a recent post, that I’ve responded to just now, in the other thread, that you take your experiences for what they are, and do not hypothesize about what they are about. So what is this one thing that you’re referring to now, that only someone unfamiliar with them might think of attributing to causes other than that one thing?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You asked
"You’d said in a recent post, that I’ve responded to just now, in the other thread, that you take your experiences for what they are, and do not hypothesize about what they are about. So what is this one thing that you’re referring to now, that only someone unfamiliar with them might think of attributing to causes other than that one thing?"

Ah. These are two different points.
1. I don't frame hypotheses about the cause of my experiences.
2. Whatever is the cause it can't be any one of a dozen possibilities. It will be just one thing. Whatever that cause actually is.

Let me add some clarifying comments.

1. I do hypothesize about what to try next to improve clarity, stability and visibility of both internal and external experiences. And daily these get their testing.

2. The cause to my experiences is in all cases, reality, in one form or another.

[Appreciative Reader]

The above makes absolutely no sense at all, Spence.

You say : "Whatever is the cause it can't be any one of a dozen possibilities. It will be just one thing. Whatever that cause actually is."

Those are simply words strung together, that are entirely bereft of meaning.

You'd said earlier that the reason is one thing and one thing alone, and that only someone not directly familiar with the experience can posit other possibilities. How does that tie in what you've said here, in a way at all?

Obviously what is at the back of these experiences would be, well, *something*. That hardly needs stating at all.

In any case, it need not even be one of the things speculated by someone, but turn out to be something else altogether. And, what is more, it need not, unlikely what you say, necessarily be just one of the things proposed, but a combination of two or three or more of the possibilities speculated by someone.

-------

Further, that you might try out other things in order to improve the clarity of your experiences, has nothing at all to do with "hypothesizing" about the cause of such experiences. That isn't what the word "hypothesis" refers to, not unless you want to stretch it out of all semblance of meaningfulness and utility. And nor does it have anything to do with what we were discussing just now.

-------

I'm sorry, you seem to be using words to cover up what appears to me to be an inadvertent faux pas, and I want no part of politely nodding along to help you do that.

You'd claimed that you don't hypothesize about your experiences. And I'd applauded and agreed with your approach.

And then, in the next breath, as it were, you go ahead and claim that your experiences derive from one thing and one thing only, and that anyone claiming anything else is a function of their unfamiliarity with that process. When questioned more closely, you end up with these string of words that ... to put it plainly, seek to deflect rather than illuminate.

Let's not do that, please. Waste of time and energy all around. You do have enough of actual worth to talk about, re. both your first-hand experiences, as well as your very detailed study and understanding on these broad ideas, to have any need of such.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Those are simply words strung together, that are entirely bereft of meaning."

Look at it from the other side. A dozen explanations might be equally valid in someone's eyes. But at best only one is the reality. And maybe not even that one. The actual cause might be something else.

But it isn't anything that speaks to us, that appeals to you or I. I could call it God. You might call it imagination.

Or it may be something else.

But as we have one objective reality it can only be one cause. And not necessarily the one you or I like best.

That's why I don't frame any hypotheses.

If, on my way to merging with Shabd, I pass through gas clouds in space, reliably, at least weekly, that's a real thing. It's reliable, repeatable, and in full HD. I try not to spend too much time sight seeing there.

But what is it?

Neither you nor I know. I'm not going to label it. I'm too busy passing through it.

But without scientific, objective, third party verification, it's not whatever label we create.

That's what I meant by people claiming to be scientific but not doing their own research and experimentation.

Conjecture and labels without scientific measurement and verification are not science nor scientific. However much the theist of anti - theist community clings to the need to have everything explained but willing to personally and vigorously test nothing.

Explore, verify the reliability of the event, then test casual variables.

When science can recreate the vision of our galexy and the gas clouds seen within they may have an explanation worth discussing. Meanwhile, people recreate the conditions that result on this event all the time in deep meditation.

[In Search Of]

Hi Spence, I like reading your posts for the most part. Great that you have visions and enjoy them.
The only issue I would take on this is that it is not repeatable under all conditions. If it's true, and "real" (probably not the correct term here), then anyone and everyone should be able to experience it.

This clearly is not happening since the vast majority of shabd practitioners don't experience a damn thing, most times over decades of effort. Saying it's your heavy karmic load, or you lack love is a non starter.

I'm not holding you accountable as the mouthpiece for the practice, but it works for you, and that's great. Doesn't work for the vast majority.

Peace!

[Spence Tepper]

Hi In Search Of
You wrote
"The only issue I would take on this is that it is not repeatable under all conditions."

The problem with this argument, from a scientific perspective, is that many actual occurring physical realities are entirely invisible to our senses and require special conditions and instruments. This is why, for example, if you said in 1800 that there is no such thing as huge quantities of energy stored in matter, because there was no data to support that, you would be wrong. The conditions to measure and control atomic and subatomic energy were developed later. Yet those energies have always been here, largely undetected.

If a group of people claimed they had a method to see this in operation naturally, if you were interested, you might consider setting up your own lab and seeing for yourself.

You wrote

"If it's true, and "real" (probably not the correct term here), then anyone and everyone should be able to experience it."

No. Only those who had the lab equipment, the time and effort to set it up, and assiduously follow the instructions. The rest can read their results.

No one is going to come close to the four minute mile without some effort, coaching and hard work. Now if they have a natural love of running that would help.

You wrote
"This clearly is not happening since the vast majority of shabd practitioners don't experience a damn thing, most times over decades of effort."

I'm sorry I haven't taken a survey. But a few I've met were quite candid about their progress, including the Satsangi who brought me up the path. Even in the you tube Baba Ji Q and A sessions occasionally you see someone acknowldge they had made progress within but were having trouble sustaining it.

What was that progress? Their close Satsangi friends may know. Suffice it to say these things can be seen in the writings of different mystics down through the ages. I've witnessed them as have others.

You wrote
"Doesn't work for the vast majority."

Find the ones it did work for, if you have any interest.

Or share your statistics, I'm interested in your data.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi In Search Of
Science deals with things that are often invisible, and through carefully controlled experiments reveals the existence of those hidden things.

You wrote
"The only issue I would take on this is that it is not repeatable under all conditions. If it's true, and "real" (probably not the correct term here), then anyone and everyone should be able to experience it."

It is most certainly repeatable under controlled conditions.

Anyone who can recreate those conditions will get the same results. Several do.

You wrote
" This clearly is not happening since the vast majority of shabd practitioners don't experience a damn thing, most times over decades of effort. Saying it's your heavy karmic load, or you lack love is a non starter."

I've not taken a survey, but several Satsangi friends did share their similar experiences with me, including the person who brought me to the path. And my own experiences were confirmed by the writings.

If you will watch the recent Gurinder Q and As you will also see occasionally folks who report they have made progress within and are asking for help to sustain it. What was that progress? Their closest friends may know.

[Spence Tepper]

And In Search Of...

As for the explanation of Karmic Load etc, I've found a different approach worked for me when I fell and all that inner experience shut down. Which, over the last fourty years has happened a few times.

How stable was my life? How well was I attending to the vows? How well was I treating the people around me? Where was my mind going in meditation? What were my triggers for anxiety or calm?

I considered my brain as a piece of equipment, and the Master within a deeper part of that same machinery. And then my entire life as a tool.

And yes, I've had to really lean down my distractions and lifestyle. And do the daily work. But all is good these days.

[Spence Tepper]

One day a proud and noble moose, with a Jay bird on its back, strolled in regal and liesure fashion through the forest. They saw a pig with its snout in the mud, snout and body filthy from its routing about in dirt the whole day. The Jay whispered to the moose, "How shameful these forest creatures that live in mud. So backwards."

The moose whispered in reply, "Yes, they really are living like beasts. So ignorant. They simply don't know how to live any other way. Poor and stupid. Well, we must educate them, mustn't we?"

The pig was so focused on its activity it did not see the moose or the Jay.

"You there. You, Pig, what are you doing there? You are a mess! Stop that. Stop that now! I am the police moose in this forest, aurhorized, and I command you to stop!"

The pig stopped and looked up, mud, dew and rain water dripping from its snout, which had specks of dirt and damp tree bark caked on it.

" Huh? "

" I told you to stop! You are filthy creature! Why are you messing about in the mud!.. Really, I guess it's just your nature! How backwards and ignorant you are!"

The pig replied in a lovely and quite sophisticated French accent ," Monsieur, what on earth are you talking about? "

It puts its snout back into the mud and with its paws dug out a beautiful white truffle.

[Spence Tepper]

"And. So? What is that?" Commanded the Moose.

The Jay bird commented "It looks like a beige rock. What a sheer waste of time."

The pig rolled his eyes and sighed then spoke patiently in his heavy accent..
"Zees little strahnj underground mushrhuuum ezzz wort abouut ten times eez weight in Gold, Monsieur and Madam."

" That is a pure fantasy!" exclaimed the moose.

And the Jay added, "A filthy pig and his lies. He's just trying to get out of being fined for messing up the lovely natural carpet of moldy leaves this forest is so well known for!"

"Av you nevair tasted one of zees?" asked the Pig.

The moose looked down its nose at the pig. "I do not stoop to the the dirt for my food."

The pig replied "I wurk for zee finest chefs in France. And not many of us can do zees work." the pig commented, returning to its search for more of the little beige rrock at the bar of another large tree.

The little Jay said, "You, a pig, cooking meals? Ridiculous. We would all get sick and die eating mud and stones buried in the mud!"

The Pig commented "No. You do not cook zee truffle. You slice it theen ovair pasta or greens. Always raw. Really, here maybe you can smell the fragrance."

The moose turned and walked away, commenting to the Jay, "Stooping to smell rocks. There is no point in talking to the pig. Really it's so sad, they are so attached to their old and filthy ways."

The Jay added, "Yes, and did you hear that whole fantastic story about working for French chefs?" And both the Jay and the Moose's laughter could be heard fading away as they walked on.