|  Author | Topic: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Physical (Read 1,154 times) |
Don Salmon
Guest
|  | Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Physical
« Thread Started on Nov 5, 2011, 1:37pm » | ![[Quote]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/quote.png "[Quote]") |
Hi,
Just a quick note to recommend Don DeGracia's book, "Beyond
the Physical." I'll write later with the exact URL; but if you search
his name and the book title, you'll find the whole text online. It's
over 300 pages, so i recommend ordering a copy from Amazon.
For
those who have been asking me to make specific recommendations on
developing a new scientific method, Don (not me, DeGracia:>) has
written one of the best recommendations I've ever seen. I've just been
skimming through the book, but am eagerly awaiting my Amazon copy.
I'll post more as I continue to study his writing.
Best,
Don (S)
| |
|
don salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #1 on Nov 7, 2011, 12:32pm » | |
Hi:
Here's the URL for Don DeGracia's book:http://www.firehead.org/~pturing/occult/misc-pdf/beyond_the_physical.pdf
and
here's the URL for the book he recommends, "The Conquest of Illusion",
which does a much better job of pointing out the limitations of
materialistic explanations than I was able to do in the "Shaving
Science" essays: http://www.med.wayne.edu/degracialab/metaphysics/Conquest_Of_Illusion.pdf.
let me know what you thinK! donsalmon7@gmail.com
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #2 on Nov 8, 2011, 2:36pm » | |
Reading the opening of "Beyond the Physical", as Don D paints a
passionate picture of the whirlwind of knowledge that characterizes the
past century, I was reminded of this opening passage from Sri
Aurobindo's "The Synthesis of Yoga" (written in monthly installments
from 1914 to 1921):
***
We are in an age, full of the
throes of travail, when all forms of thought and activity that have in
themselves any strong power of utility or any secret virtue of
persistence are being subjected to a supreme test and given their
opportunity of rebirth. The world today presents the aspect of a huge
cauldron of Medea in which all things are being cast, shredded into
pieces, experimented on, combined and recombined either to perish and
provide the scattered material of new forms or to emerge rejuve- nated
and changed for a fresh term of existence. Indian Yoga, in its essence a
special action or formulation of certain great powers of Nature, itself
specialised, divided and variously formulated, is potentially one of
these dynamic elements of the future life of humanity. The child of
immemorial ages, preserved by its vitality and truth into our modern
times, it is now emerging from the se- cret schools and ascetic retreats
in which it had taken refuge and is seeking its place in the future sum
of living human powers and utilities. But it has first to rediscover
itself, bring to the surfacethe profoundest reason of its being in that
general truth and that unceasing aim of Nature which it represents, and
find by virtue of this new self-knowledge and self-appreciation its own
recov- ered and larger synthesis. Reorganising itself, it will enter
more easily and powerfully into the reorganised life of the race which
its processes claim to lead within into the most secret penetralia and
upward to the highest altitudes of existence and personality.
In the
right view both of life and of Yoga all life is either consciously or
subconsciously a Yoga. For we mean by this term a methodised effort
towards self-perfection by the expression of the secret potentialities
latent in the being and — highest condi- tion of victory in that effort —
a union of the human individual with the universal and transcendent
Existence we see partially expressed in man and in the Cosmos. But all
life, when we look behind its appearances, is a vast Yoga of Nature who
attempts in the conscious and the subconscious to realise her perfection
in an ever-increasing expression of her yet unrealised potentialities
and to unite herself with her own divine reality. In man, her thinker,
she for the first time upon this Earth devises self- conscious means and
willed arrangements of activity by which this great purpose may be more
swiftly and puissantly attained. Yoga, as Swami Vivekananda has said,
may be regarded as a means of compressing one’s evolution into a single
life or a few years or even a few months of bodily existence.
***
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #3 on Nov 8, 2011, 10:21pm » | |
I just realized I didn't say anything about why I called this thread,
"Beyond Ken Wilber". I guess I thought it would be obvious, but for now
I should probably say something -
I think that Don D's
distinction between science, philosophy, occultism and mysticism points
to something that I've found missing in all of Ken's writings. Don D
writes very clearly about how the direct connection, for now, is not
from science to mysticism but from science to occultism (I didn't say
that very well, maybe someone can write and help?)
For example,
Ken started, and I think others picked it up, the idea that the ancient
scriptures showed no knowledge of psychological development.
Looking
in the Lankavatara Sutra or Dhammapada for insight into psychological
development is like looking at the work of literary critics to find
insight into chemistry.
In "Beyond the Physical", there are
some excellent insights into what astrology and alchemy and other occult
disciplines were really about, and I think that the kind of
understanding of psychological development found in such occult texts
opens doors far beyond anything in modern psychology (or in Ken's
writings).
And Don D even recommends a methodology, related to lucid dreams and OBEs. Really interesting stuff!
| |
|
Don Salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #4 on Nov 13, 2011, 7:15pm » | |
11-12-11, 7 PM, reply#4
Just got the hard copy of the book. Beautiful cover!
The book is available for free at his website, http://www.med.wayne.edu/degracialab/psite/index.html ) but I’d strongly recommend buying it at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Physical-Sy....1228792&sr =8-2
I’m
going to start over again, commenting from the beginning. My aim at
this point is simply to understand what Don D is writing, refraining
(for now) from making any critiques. I’d welcome commenters who have
read his book, and disagree with my interpretation of what he’s saying.
| |
|
don salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #5 on Nov 13, 2011, 7:25pm » | |
In the first chapter, Don gives a brief look at the radical
historical changes that have occurred in the past century, concluding
with a focus on Godel, who used “the very heart and soul of the
positivists’ doctrine – mathematics” - to show that it is impossible to
know the world “rationally and completely within the scope of
mathematical and scientific logic”. This is much more compelling
knowing that Don understands the limitations of science within the
profound framework laid out by Van de Leeuw in his “Conquest of
Illusion”, which incorporates the full spectrum of science, philosophy,
occultism and mystical (spiritual) knowledge.
He concludes with a
call for multiple perspectives similar to ideas presented by Alan
Wallace in his latest books, particularly “Embracing Mind”.
Undrestanding that all perspectives are limited (and that the Vedantic
notion of “Consciousness” does not involve either a perspective or what
post-Kantian philosophers conceive of as an “Absolute”), Don provides a
strong foundation for an approach to contemporary scientific methodology
that is respectful while revealing its grave limitations.
| |
|
don salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #6 on Nov 13, 2011, 7:30pm » | |
this is, I think, a wonderful passage from Sri Aurobindo's "Letters on
Yoga" (excerpts from letters he wrote to his disciples) regarding the
limitations of the intellect. The complete letters can be found here:
http://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/22-24/index_e.htm
EUROPEAN metaphysical thought — even in those thinkers
who try to prove or explain the existence and nature of God or of the
Absolute — does not in its method and result go beyond the intellect.
But the intellect is incapable of knowing the supreme Truth; it can only
range about seeking for Truth, and catching fragmentary representations
of it, not the thing itself, and trying to piece them together. Mind
cannot arrive at Truth; it can only make some constructed figure that
tries to represent it or a combination of figures. At the end of
European thought, therefore, there must always be Agnosticism, declared
or implicit. Intellect, if it goes sincerely to its own end, has to
return and give this report: "I cannot know; there is, or at least it
seems to me that there may be or even must be Something beyond, some
ultimate Reality, but about its truth I can only speculate; it is either
unknowable or cannot be known by me." Or, if it has received some light
on the way from what is beyond it, it can say too: "There is perhaps a
consciousness beyond Mind, for I seem to catch glimpses of it and even
to get intimations from it. If that is in touch with the Beyond or if it
is itself the consciousness of the Beyond and you can find some way to
reach it, then this Something can be known but not otherwise."
Any seeking of the supreme Truth through intellect alone must end
either in Agnosticism of this kind or else in some intellectual system
or mind-constructed formula. There have been hundreds of these systems
and formulas and there can be hundreds more, but none can be definitive.
Each may have its value for the mind, and different systems with their
contrary conclusions can have an equal appeal to intelligences of equal
power and competence. All this labour of speculation has its utility in
training the human mind and helping to keep before it the idea of
Something beyond and Ultimate towards which it must turn. But the
intellectual Reason can only point vaguely or feel gropingly towards it
or try to indicate partial and even conflicting aspects of its
manifestation here; it cannot enter into and know it. As long as we
remain in the domain of the intellect only, an impartial pondering over
all that has been thought and sought after, a constant throwing up of
ideas, of all the possible ideas, and the formation of this or that
philosophical belief, opinion or conclusion is all that can be done.
This kind of disinterested search after Truth would be the only possible
attitude for any wide and plastic intelligence. But any conclusion so
arrived at would be only speculative; it could have no spiritual value;
it would not give the decisive experience or the spiritual certitude for
which the soul is seeking. If the intellect is our highest possible
instrument and there is no other means of arriving at supraphysical
Truth, then a wise and large Agnosticism must be our ultimate attitude.
Things in the manifestation may be known to some degree, but the Supreme
and all that is beyond the Mind must remain forever unknowable.
It is only if there is a greater consciousness beyond Mind and that
consciousness is accessible to us that we can know and enter into the
ultimate Reality. Intellectual speculation, logical reasoning as to
whether there is or is not such a greater consciousness cannot carry us
very far. What we need is a way to get the experience of it, to reach
it, enter into it, live in it. If we can get that, intellectual
speculation and reasoning must fall necessarily into a very secondary
place and even lose their reason for existence. Philosophy, intellectual
expression of the Truth may remain, but mainly as a means of expressing
this greater discovery and as much of its contents as can at all be
expressed in mental terms to those who still live in the mental
intelligence.
This, you will see, answers your point about the
Western thinkers, Bradley and others, who have arrived through
intellectual thinking at the idea of an "Other beyond Thought" or have
even, like Bradley, tried to express their conclusions about it in terms
that recall some of the expressions in the Arya. The idea in itself is
not new; it is as old as the Vedas. It was repeated in other forms in
Buddhism, Christian Gnosticism, Sufism. Originally, it was not
discovered by intellectual speculation, but by the mystics following an
inner spiritual discipline. When, somewhere between the seventh and
fifth centuries B.C., men began both in the East and West to
intellectualise knowledge, this Truth survived in the East; in the West
where the intellect began to be accepted as the sole or highest
instrument for the discovery of Truth, it began to fade. But still it
has there too tried constantly to return; the Neo-Platonists brought it
back, and now, it appears, the Neo-Hegelians and others (e.g., the
Russian Ouspensky and one or two German thinkers, I believe) seem to be
reaching after it. But still there is a difference.
In the
East, especially in India, the metaphysical thinkers have tried, as in
the West, to determine the nature of the highest Truth by the intellect.
But, in the first place, they have not given mental thinking the
supreme rank as an instrument in the discovery of Truth, but only a
secondary status. The first rank has always been given to spiritual
intuition and illumination and spiritual experience; an intellectual
conclusion that contradicts this supreme authority is held invalid.
Secondly, each philosophy has armed itself with a practical way of
reaching to the supreme state of consciousness, so that even when one
begins with Thought, the aim is to arrive at a consciousness beyond
mental thinking. Each philosophical founder (as also those who continued
his work or school) has been a metaphysical thinker doubled with a
yogi. Those who were only philosophic intellectuals were respected for
their learning but never took rank as truth-discoverers. And the
philosophies that lacked a sufficiently powerful means of spiritual
experience died out and became things of the past because they were not
dynamic for spiritual discovery and realisation.
In the West
it was just the opposite that came to pass. Thought, intellect, the
logical reason came to be regarded more and more as the highest means
and even the highest end; in philosophy, Thought is the be-all and the
end-all. It is by intellectual thinking and speculation that the truth
is to be discovered; even spiritual experience has been summoned to pass
the tests of the intellect, if it is to be held valid — just the
reverse of the Indian position. Even those who see that the mental
Thought must be overpassed and admit a supramental "Other", do not seem
to escape from the feeling that it must be through mental Thought,
sublimating and transmuting itself, that this other Truth must be
reached and made to take the place of the mental limitation and
ignorance. And again Western thought has ceased to be dynamic; it has
sought after a theory of things, not after realisation. It was still
dynamic amongst the ancient Greeks, but for moral and aesthetic rather
than spiritual ends. Later on, it became yet more purely intellectual
and academic; it became intellectual speculation only without any
practical ways and means for the attainment of the Truth by spiritual
experiment, spiritual discovery, a spiritual transformation. If there
were not this difference, there would be no reason for seekers like
yourself to turn to the East for guidance; for in the purely
intellectual field, the Western thinkers are as competent as any Eastern
sage. It is the spiritual way, the road that leads beyond the
intellectual levels, the passage from the outer being to the inmost
Self, which has been lost by the over-intellectuality of the mind of
Europe.
| |
|
don s
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #7 on Nov 15, 2011, 3:43pm » | |
Sri Krishna Prem, born Ronald Nixon, was educated at Cambridge. A
fighter pilot in World War I, he taught English at Lucknow University
in the 1920s before retiring to the Himalayas with his spiritual
teacher, Yashoda Ma (who had been the wife of the vice-chancellor of
Lucknow). He was widely recognized in India as one of the few
westerners believed to have truly understood - and lived - the
spiritual teachings of Indian culture. He was considered by Ramana
Maharshi to exhibit a “rare combination of bhakti and gnana” and was
equally admired by other spiritual teachers as well. In addition to his
commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita and the Katha Upanishad, he wrote
many essays which were very popular in India in the 1920s and 30s. His
writings integrate western and eastern philosophy and spirituality. He
had a wide ranging understanding of science as well as the literature of
Europe and India, and he also had a profound understanding of what Don
DeGracia refers to as “occultism”.
Sri Krishna Prem, in this
selection from his commentary on the Katha Upanishad, describes a (the?)
method to get beyond the limitations, the agnosticism, of the mind:
We
must go inwards if we would find [the source of the Light of
Consciousness]. Like salmon in the breeding season we must ascend that
River… as an arrow we must shoot ourselves against the current to the
Source from which it springs. There and there only shall we find the
Bliss that throbs at the heart of being, the Bliss that is the World’s
desire and whose reflections in the forms that come and go, lend the
attractiveness to our desires.
When that Point is reached a
wonderful sight is seen. The Waters of Light that we have traced back,
narrowing and narrowing to their Source, are seen to widen out again on
the other side into a great Ocean of calm and living Light whose blue
waters shine with a radiance never before beheld.
Softly the
waters rise and fall in ceaseless rhythm and with each wave a throb of
bliss pulses through the watching Soul, so that, forgetting all, it
longs to plunge for ever in their cool depths.
It is the eternal
Summer Sea, the Sea whose waters wash for ever the inner shores of
being. A channel leading to it is to be found in the heart of every
living creature and all these separate channels lead to the same Sea,
one and all-pervading, in whose Waters all sense of separateness is
lost. Therefore we are bidden to seek the Way in our own hearts for
only there shall we find it.
As it bursts upon our view we
realize that it is That for which all our life we have been seeking.
Nor has our search been confined to this one life alone. Spurred on by a
dim memory of having known it long ago, we have wandered on and on
through life after life in a darkness so great that we have almost
forgotten that this Sea of Light existed. Always it has lured us on over
the next range of hills and always when we got there the view disclosed
has been of a country similar to the ones we have been wandering
through so long. Only when we realize that the blue light that makes
those far hills so magical comes from a Light that shines within our
eyes do we call a halt to our endless wanderings, and, turning back upon
ourselves, enter the Stream that leads us to the Sea.”
| |
|
anon
Guest
| | dancing the nondual shuffle
« Reply #8 on Nov 15, 2011, 6:09pm » | |
Don posts: "Sri Krishna Prem, in this selection from his commentary on
the Katha Upanishad, describes a (the?) method to get beyond the
limitations, the agnosticism, of the mind:
We must go inwards if we would find [the source of the Light of Consciousness]. ..."
The
two truths doctrine of Tibetan Buddhism differentiates between two
levels of truth: conventional and ultimate, or relative and absolute, or
commonsense or spiritual. The two truths doctrine holds that truth
exists in conventional and ultimate forms, and that both forms are
co-existent.
Sometimes people mix these up. We can imagine
someone being late to a dentist appointment, being told by the
receptionist that they are late (a simple statement of conventional or
relative truth), and responding by making some absolute- or
ultimate-sounding statement about the nature of time ("Time is an
illusion," or "There is only the present eternal moment, so it's not
possible to be late," etc.). Some people refer to this kind of confusion
(which may or may not be intentional) as the "nondual shuffle."
Is
it possible to talk about the ontological status of consciousness in
terms of conventional or relative truth? I say it is. Don apparently
believes otherwise, for his every comment on the matter points to
ultimate or absolute truth.
In any event, I give up and I'm outta here.
| |
|
Andy Smith
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #9 on Nov 17, 2011, 9:29pm » | |
I have reviewed Beyond the Physical at my blog:
http://nodimensions.com/blog
| |
|
don salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #10 on Nov 18, 2011, 8:34am » | |
anon - i like your idea of writing about "Beyond the Physical" in the
context of the "two truths" doctrine of Vedanta/Buddhism (I think
Gaudapada uses the same idea? not sure).
Your note has been
coming to mind on and off throughout the day since I read it. I was
amused as I had a dentist appointment the same day as your note
appeared. I had chipped my tooth as I (after Jan warned me not to!)
attempted to open a recalcitrant "Peppermint Pattie" wrapper with my
teeth.
I just had to smile thinking of trying, if I didn't get to
the appointment on time, to explain to Dr. Nabors that I was late
because "there's only the present moment" or "time's only an illusion".
I can imagine he might have responded, "yes, and you won't need any
anaesthetic because pain is only an illusion too."
Anyway, I
think the two truths notion will end up being enormously helpful in my
attempt to clarify the ideas I've presented. And even better, it's a
perfect leadin to the next chapter in Don D's book.
Hopefully I'll have time to get to it soon.
Thanks,
Don
| |
|
don salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #11 on Nov 25, 2011, 10:02am » | |
In Chapter 2, Don D makes a very interesting distinction, basing this on
the work of Van der Leeuw (from van der Leeuw’s book, “The Conquest of
Illusion”).
Don points out that for the last several decades,
there has been an attempt to relate science and spirituality, and this
has generally been done by comparing science and mysticism (I know the
term “mysticism” will cause problems for some; I think Don is using it,
accurately, as a pointer to an “underlying unity” at the foundation of
various spiritual traditions. There’s not space to develop this here,
but for those interested, Alan Wallace does, I think, a very good job
here: http://www.alanwallace.org/Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf)
The
4 categories van der Leeuw uses are: (1) science (meaning physical,
outer or ‘gross’ science); (2) occultism (which could be called
non-physical, subtle, inner or etheric/astral science); (3) intellectual
philosophy; and (4) mysticism, or mystical philosophy. Simplifying it, I
would use the terms inner and outer science on the one hand, and
intellectual and mystical philosophy on the other. To refer back to the
“two truths” anon referred to above, you could say it simply the
distinction between science and philosophy.
To quote van der
Leeuw: (cited on page 25 of “Beyond the Physical”) “Philosophy deals
with the ultimate principels and realities which are the ternal
foundation of our world, science deals with the multitude of phenomena
in which these principels appear to us, science with the how; philosophy
searches for the ultimate nature of being, science is concerned with
the functions and workings of this world of forms surrounding us.” He
goes on to note that occultism is closer to science than philosophy – it
deals with forms, just as science does, only it deals with subtler
forms, different “planes” or “dimensions” of experience than physical or
outer science.
Using Van de Leeuw’s categorization, Don says
that the best place to start, in the investigation of science and
spirituality, is not with mysticism, but with occultism. As we begin to
move into the subtler spheres of existence (or experience, which is
ultimately the same thing), the inappropriate mixture of physical
science and philosophy will be made more apparent.
This last point is mine rather than Don D’s. I’ll try and make this a bit clearer.
In
a way, the whole series of “Shaving Science With Ockham’s Razor”
articles was really about making this simple distinction. The main idea
is that mixed up in many purely “scientific” explanations of the forms
of our experience are a host of philosophic assumptions. There is
nothing wrong with this, I think – it’s unavoidable. The only problem
is that it seems to be unconscious.
I think a good way to
explore this is to look at the responses from Andy Smith and David Lane.
They say that they don’t find anything essentially problematic in the 5
“theses” I laid out, then proceed to incorporate a host of
materialistic (ie philosophic) assumptions in their essay that are
presented as scientific fact.
Here’s a specific one from another
writer, psychologist Paul Bloom. He says that there is overwhelming
scientific evidence that all mental activity is produced by the brain,
and cannot exist independently of the (physical) brain.
There’s a
simple way to disprove this. I don’t think it will be done in the next 3
or 4 years, but I’m fairly certain that some time in the next 30 to 40
years it will be done fairly regularly.
Here’s a story about
the means of disproof. Back in the spring of 1992, I attended an
evening workshop on lucid dreams at the New York Open Center. During a
break, I had a very interesting conversation with a scientist sitting
next to me (I don’t know if he would want to be identified, so I’ll
simply refer to him as “Tom” and not mention his particular field of
expertise).
Tom and I were both enjoying the workshop very
much. I told Tom I was just finishing up a masters degree in psychology,
with lucid dreams as the focus of my research. I told him I had been
following developments in science for the past 20 years, and was amazed
at how far things had come in just 20 years. I then added, “If it was
1970, and you described what was happening now [in 1990], I would have
said, ‘oh, that would probably be taking place in 2010 or 2020.” He
laughed, and said that he had recently told his wife the exact same
thing, almost to the year.
We then started talking about the
major obstacles to the development of a “spiritual science”, and we both
agreed that a major breakthrough in parapsychology was probably one of
the more important ways of breaking through those obstacles. At one
point, I said, “you know, I have this recurring idea, related to lucid
dreams. Imagine Martin Gardner at a sleep lab in New York and Carl
Sagan at a sleep lab in San Francisco [both Gardner and Sagan are since
deceased, but you could substitute Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman, or
another pair of skeptics if you like].
“You’d need to find 2
expert lucid dreamers, probably people who can, at will, enter the dream
state while maintaining awareness [we both knew of LaBerge’s research,
and his research subject who could do this, so we had no difficulty
accepting this possibility). Call them “A” and “B”. “A” would be in
New York, and “B” would be in the sleep lab in San Francisco. Gardner
would give a message to “A” who would consciously enter the lucid dream
state. “A” would then meet up with “B” who also had consciously entered
the lucid state. “A” would give Gardner’s message to “B” who would
then reenter the waking state, and give Gardner’s message to Sagan.
This would be repeated enough times, without failure, so that both
Gardner and Sagan would be convinced, disband CSICOP, and announce the
beginning of a new, nonphysical approach to science.”
As soon as I
finished the story, Tom immediately turned to his wife, Barbara [not
her real name], and said, “Do you remember 2 nights ago? I was talking
about this, and told the exact same story [with the same characters, I
think, Gardner and Sagan].
We laughed, and talked more about what
might happen in the next 20 or so years – which takes us to the
present. Neither Tom nor I thought the final breakthrough would happen
by 2010 or 2011, but we both thought it would probably happen by the
middle of the 21st century. With Don DeGracia’s help, it just might!
| |
|
don salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #12 on Nov 25, 2011, 10:12am » | |
after posting, I realized that the apparent synchronicity in the story
(Tom telling me that he had just told his wife the same idea, with the
same characters) might be challenged by David Lane. I have to say, I'm
with Eliot Benjamin on this one. I think that using conventional
mathematics within a conventional "cause-and-effect" framework misses
the point of what an acausal principle - as jung referred to
synchronicity - is all about. Another way of putting it is to look at
the piano playing example in the original Shaving Science article. It's
not that the "materialist" idea is wrong and the "idealist" idea is
right, or vice versa. one way of looking at the piano player sees the
objective as primary, and one sees the subjective as primary. Within
their respective frameworks, they're both right. The only problem comes
when they claim their perspective is "the way things are". To put it in
van der Leeuw's terms, they've moved from science to philosophy - and
not just any philosophy, bad philosophy. Materialism is one way of
looking at things, idealism another, and dualism is - in a way - a way
of not looking at things. And panpsychism - when presented as a kind of
covert dualism in self-denial - seems to combine the worst of all these
approaches!
Zen Buddhist teacher Albert Low says this
infinitely better than I can in his 'Creating Consciousness" book.
Highly recommended:>))
Back to synchronicity - it's like the phone call example so many people cite- "I just knew it was going to be Tom" calling.
The
mathematicians who refute this, are, within their framework, completely
correct. It is simply - IN that framework - a matter of the "odds".
The
problem is, this framework ignores "the subject of cognizance" (to use
Schrodinger's lovely phrase). Ask someone to observe closely what it
feels like when they have the experience of "knowing" someone is going
to call, and compare that to the experience of simply thinking about
someone who then calls. It's not the same phenomenon at all. The
mathematician using 'odds" to refute the synchronicity is mixing science
and philosophy, or at the very least, outer science (physical science)
and inner or subtle (non-physical) science.
Low uses the "old
woman/young woman" picture from the old Gestalt psychologists to frame
the mind/matter polarity. One cannot exist without the other, but
neither can both exist independently at the same time. He provides a
rather unique approach to the question of subject and object, or
"awareness of" and "awareness as", linking it with Samadhi, fractal
geometry (as does DeGracia) and evolution.
| |
|
don salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #13 on Nov 30, 2011, 7:57am » | |
I received some feedback that the previous entry was a bit disorganized. My apologies.
The
basic theme of Chapter 2 of “Beyond the Physical”, as I understand it,
is the distinction between physical and occult science (or outer and
inner science, as I refer to it) and philosophy and mysticism (or
intellectual and mystical philosophy, as I refer to it).
“Outer’
science deals with the physical world, and “inner” science deals with
non-physical planes of being. As Sri Aurobindo defines a “plane”, it is
not a “place” or ‘world’ but a particular relationship between
Conscious Being (Purusha) and Conscious Energy (Prakriti, or Shakti).
In regard to both “sciences”, the aim is to understand phenomena, not to
explain the ultimate nature of phenomena.
Philosophy – whether
intellectual or mystical – deals with ultimate principles. Intellectual
philosophy maintains a certain separation between subject and object
when dealing with these principles. Mystical philosophy – by means of
what Franklin Merrell-Wolff and Sri Aurobindo refer to as “knowledge by
identity” – comes to an integral understanding of phenomena, not
dismissing them as “illusion” but seeing them always as inseparable from
the Infinite.
I also mentioned that this distinction was at the
heart of the “Shaving Science” articles. “x” as the “unknown” was kind
of an impossible ruse to avoid directly refuting the materialistic view.
From the viewpoint of intellectual philosophy, a material explanation
may appear to be sufficient, and thus, there appears to be some kind of
material or physical “x” which is beyond the scope of outer science to
comprehend. However, from the (non?)viewpoint of knowledge by identity,
“x” has no meaning.
The main point of the article – which I
think is well expressed in Chapter 2 of “Beyond the Physical” also - was
to show that scientists regularly take science beyond its proper scope,
mistakenly thinking it can do the work of philosophy. One of the
examples I gave was Yale psychologist Paul Bloom’s claim that the data
of neuroscience – the mere facts uncovered by study of the brain – prove
conclusively that consciousness cannot exist apart from the brain.
This is one example of the almost pervasive mixing of science and
philosophy (Dennett, Dawkins’ and Harris’ writings are a goldmine for
this sort of mixture) that occurs in modern science writing.
Some follow up thoughts:
THE TWO TRUTHS INTEGRATED:
“Each finite is in its reality or has behind it an Infinite which has
built and supports and directs the finite it has made as its
self-figure; so that even the being and law and process of the finite
cannot be totally understood without a knowledge of that which is occult
within or behind it”.
Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, p. 328.
I
think one of the beautiful things about “Beyond the Physical” is it
makes clear that as scientists begin to explore the occult, the
non-physical realms, their understanding of all physical things will be
profoundly transformed.
My favorite story about the danger of mixing up levels of reality is the one told by Ramakrishna.
A guru tells his disciple the great Truth, that “All this is Brahman”,
and that “You and Brahman are One.” The disciple, dazzled by the
profundity of this truth, goes out walking later that day, hardly aware
of the events around him. Suddenly, he sees a large elephant walking
toward him. He thinks to himself, “I am Brahman, the elephant is
Brahman, should Brahman get out of the way of Brahman?” Meanwhile, the
driver sitting on top of the elephant is shouting at him, “Hey, fool,
get out of the way!” The disciple continues walking, and then the
elephant grabs him up in her trunk and throws him to the side of the
road. The disciple, confused, lays in the ditch for a long time,
wondering how to understand what had just happened to him. Finally, his
guru comes along, sees the disciple sitting in the ditch and asks what
happened. After the disciple explains, the guru says, “But why didn't
you listen to the voice of Brahman telling you to get out of the way?”
| |
|
don salmon
Guest
| | Re: Beyond Ken Wilber: DeGracia's "Beyond the Phys
« Reply #14 on Dec 8, 2011, 10:09am » | |
I'm starting a separate thread with some passages from the writer Sri
Krishna Prem, which I think will help to make clear the underlying theme
of “Beyond the Physical”. As best as I understand it, Don DeGracia's
book is largely based on the ancient theme, “As Above So Below”, or in
more contemporary language: all that we know as the outer or “physical”
universe is a reflection of an “inner” universe (and both outer and
inner are ultimately, reflections of an innermost Reality).
I'll be posting more on this thread soon, continuing with the next chapter.
| |
| |
|
![[Home]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Reply]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/reply.png "[Reply]")
![[Share Topic]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](DeGracia,Beyond%20the%20physical_files/print.png "[Print]")
Logged
