« Purity vs. pollution is a bizarre aspect of caste | Main | We are the only animal that can deny our animal nature »

February 25, 2023


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

Strawberries ARE part of a worldview and are being "tested" etc ... because ... because there are farmers that grow them and markets that make them available ..not only to you but to all.

If eating strawberries would not have that same effect upon ALL, they simply would not be THERE for all to consume.

Unique experiences are just an "unique variation" of the same.

Growing strowberiies is an industry, with many branches, literature, test facilities etc to grow the "best tasting" etc strawberry ...it is a mysrical path or religion ... hahaha

I recently encountered an interesting Gentleman on a group I have been a member of for years now. They are people interested in the late Robert Monroe’s writings. Every Group has only a few articulate contributors who post often, such as those here. But I had never followed up on a y of this poster’s links he shared, or books he authored, or Youtube interviews, until a few days ago. He is about 70, lives in Toronto, immigrated from Scotland. His writings really get a hook in me, and I have just read most of his past articles he shares on his blog. I listened to only one of his interviews so far on YT, and am impressed by his genuine sharing of his memories of having lived past lives, but what interests me the most, is his sharing how he leaves his body , and retrieves souls stuck in low earth, Astral Realms, who recently died, but still think they are alive, and in human bodies, such as those killed in the Turkey earth quake.
Here is the Link to his blog, if any one might be interested in taking a look. His Name is Gordon Phinn.

Jim Sutherland

Worldview; such an interesting subject. A worldview being a view of the world, used for living in the world. A world view is a mental model of reality. I wonder if there could ever be a universal worldview? It would mean every person on Earth (I was about to use the term believing but I’ll choose seeing) seeing the world ‘as it is’, that is, devoid of the particular influences projected onto the world through the individual’s acquired conditioning.

Even if the individual keeps his/her view private, does not reveal or discuss it, that is still a world view and likely influences their behaviour and therefore, in some ways, affects the world. And, does the enlightened, the realised man or woman embody the one and only reality? It is doubtful that such an all-knowing state exists.

Science may well eventually provide a universal perspective but it would undoubtedly still be open to corruption – perhaps by itself and by humanity in general. I would say that at best, science can only continue to give us insights into ourselves, along with some of the compatible insights of Buddhism where the emphasis is on freeing ourselves from the restricted views imposed on us by the mentally conditioned structures of mind and self.

Why, thank you, Brian, for your kind words! :--)


You agree with my larger points, both of them, and in fact endorse them fully here. As for that small disagreement about that small detail, well, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t differ in some respects in how we look at things, is one way to go about it, sure. On the other hand, there’s this:

My views on this, as on everything else, are essentially a work in progress. And that “progress”, in this particular instance, draws significantly from what you’ve yourself said in the past about subjectivity, as well as comment discussions on here around that subject. Basis my understanding of how you look at things, I would imagine that on this, this incidental detail I mean to say, our views would be fully congruent. And what’s more, the overall thesis, if I may call it that, the overall scientific worldview as I see it, it does not stay fully consistent, it does not stay fully coherent, if we leave out that small detail, small and incidental though it is.

So that, Brian, I’d like to address that specific detail, a bit, if I may. I’m hoping that it will indeed turn out, even as far as that detail, that, and as you say, “Yet maybe we're seeing similarly.”


Let me start by saying two things, two generalizations. (And bear with me, I’m only thinking my way through here. Work in process, like I said --- and fully amenable to correction!)

First: That a view admits of a scientific explanation does not mean that one must necessarily inform oneself of and follow the science on it. That isn’t how real life works! However, even when, for incidental everyday things, we don’t actually take the trouble to follow the science, it is still important to realize which things do admit of a (more precise, more accurate) understanding that is informed by science, even if we do not choose to avail of that understanding in that instance.

And secondly: To do science is to essentially follow the evidence in a consistent manner. That’s what science is after all, following the evidence in a consistent manner. Even when one does do (or refer to) science for some issue, it does not always have to take the form of full-on formal science. And even when it comes to full-on formal science, one does not really have to go nuclear every time: there’s gradations to how far one might want to go, depending on how important the issue is.

For instance, this question: How cold of a day will it be today? Will it rain, will it snow? What kind of clothing should I wear when I go out today, considering the weather? Now in considering this question, most times we won’t actually do science on this question. But we probably would, even if implicitly, follow the evidence. And, if the question becomes somewhat important --- for instance, if it’s winter time and we live in very cold climes where the temperatures dip well below zero --- then we might want to look, if only casually, at the weather forecast. And if the weather question becomes very important, like if we’re the captain of a ship at sea, well then we’d probably need to go fully nuclear on this, and get as much of the scientific information on this as is available. The point is, the question itself is a matter for science --- regardless of how much science we personally choose to avail of on it, and regardless of whether we’re at all availing of any science on it at all.


So here then is the bit from your post, about the raspberries: “I'm not totally convinced that his thesis is correct about a worldview needing confirmation by reason, rationality, logic, or science. I put raspberries on my cereal every morning. The taste of those berries is "mystical," in the sense that no one but me knows how they taste to me. (…) But it seems a stretch to say that the fact that I buy raspberries whenever I do our weekly grocery shopping makes raspberries part of my worldview, and so requires confirmation by reason, rationality, logic, or science.”

So raspberries-on-cereal tastes a certain way to you. So far so good. Like you say in your post, that’s a subjective experience, and needs nothing beyond your having registered that experience.

But when you extrapolate from that into making that item a regular part of your grocery shopping, and of your diet, then you’re making some implicit assumptions here, even if you’re not actually thinking about it. For instance, you’re assuming that raspberries are, on the whole, good for you. Had they been carcinogenic, then you wouldn’t dream of eating them I’m sure. Even if not actually carcinogenic, but if they were found to contribute significantly to diabetes or high cholesterol or some such, in that case you would probably either eliminate or at least significantly limit your consumption of the fruit. On the flip side, if it turns out that raspberries increase telomere length in direct proportion to how many of them you eat, then you might buy, and eat, far more of the fruit than you now do.

Forget its effect on health, even when it comes to the simply appreciating the taste of it: Your views might change if you found out that your liking is predicated not simply on your taste buds but to what the thing does to your brain chemicals, like dopamine. You know, like heroin, and alcohol, and even something as innocuous as coffee. Knowing that your liking for it is partly the result of addiction --- should it turn out that raspberries are addictive --- may affect how you view your predilection for that fruit. (Not necessarily negatively. Like I keep consuming substantial quantities of coffee despite knowing it is addictive, because I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives in the case of coffee. But regardless of whether in sum negative or positive, definitely it is a thing to keep in mind, whether or not what you’re consuming is addictive.)


Sorry, that’s lots and lots of words! To sum up, where I was going with this is, whether you should be indulging your liking for raspberries, and whether or not you should be eating it regularly, that is definitely, and without a shadow of a doubt, a scientific question. You may not yourself choose to delve into the scientific aspect of it all, sure. Or maybe you choose to go science-lite on it, and generally check out newspaper reports and magazine articles and internet articles about its health aspects (and again, not necessarily seek out those articles, but maybe you’ve happened to read them, and use the information you’ve happened to glean to inform your choice). Or maybe you’re a fitness fanatic and you go full nuclear and read up every research report you can lay hands on and talk to nutritionists and closely examine the evidence and then arrive at your conclusion that raspberries are good for you as well as taste good, and so should be a regular part of your diet.

My point is, regardless of how much science you personally avail of as far as raspberries, and regardless of whether you personally avail of any science on it at all, the fact is that the question, “Should I be incorporating raspberries into my regular diet?”, is definitely a scientific question.


And, to tie this back to my original discussion with manjit: Our mystical experiences are, in and of themselves, subjective, and so outside the purview of science. The same as every other experience. But the moment we interpret that experience, immediately it becomes a scientific question. Should we build up a worldview around our interpretation of our mystical experiences, then that is very much a question for science.

We may ourselves choose to follow the science or not, that’s up to us. Obviously. No one’s going to put a gun on our head and demand that because the question is one for science, therefore we must necessarily abide by the science on it. That is entirely up to us. But, regardless of whether we do the science or not, regardless of whether we avail of what science has to say on the question, the question itself is one of and for science. It is a scientific question.

And, for every scientific question, when we choose to not avail of the science, then we necessarily run the risk of taking less than optimum decisions. Whether we want to take that risk is for us to decide, implicitly or otherwise. But the question itself is scientific.

Which is why it makes no sense to me when manjit claims that there is nothing rational, logical or scientific about mysticism.

>> It is doubtful that such an all-knowing state exists.<<

As all that exist is just an "unique variation" of the SAME scientists are curious about what was BEFORE the big bang and mystics want to know what is BEYOND body and mind.

Whatever exists, is an unique variation of the SAME

@Whatever exists is a unique variation of the same.

Well put Um - nice and concise.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. 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.


Post a comment

Your Information

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


  • 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.