Re: continuing believing vs knowing....please don't be too bored :-)

[Guest guest]

Toni, all,

It could be said that one of my research interests, over thirty-five

years, are the relationships between individual experience and belief and

spirituality. There are several over-arching questions which frame this

inquiry.

Yet, to ask questions of individuals about what he or she has experienced,

and then to ask how experience drives their beliefs, compels me to set

aside all sorts of personal prejudices.

Actually, I try to attempt to do this even as I know well my own

prejudices can't be merely set aside; they tend to change over time; and

they inflect my inquiry.

It is incumbent upon the social scientific researcher to at least know

what the constraints of their own frameworks are, and how these both help

and hinder their own inquiries. In some ways the clearest kind of research

is descriptive and phenomenological. This is to say: what the person's

self-report is and is about. See what rich questioning evokes! How do

people describe their experiences and views?

Still, concepts underlie descriptions. For example, numinosity is a

quality of experience. The numinous may also be instrumental to a belief

system about how this quality of experience is brought about. The Noumen,

so-to-speak, is a transcendent category given a sense of cosmic

spirituality. If you don't believe in the noumen, is it not better to say

the experience was " awesome, " awe-inspiring, wondrous? ...chicken and egg

problem, right?

Anyway, in laying it out like this, you can see how findings move from the

specifics of the self-report, through to the constituents of belief,

through to the structure of a systematic spirituality.

Ha! Where it does so. For the researcher the avowed atheist's self report

is equal to that of the most pious master.

***

Here's the catch: psychology is oriented to account for the

mental/mindful/neurological/cognitive (etc.) human mental experiencing,

believing, and cosmic-view making. So, such accounts seek to understand

everything on the continuum between belief in no God as well as the belief

in the most all pervasive transcendental meta-physical cosmic reality.

Psychology, as a scientific enterprise, is forced to accept the entire

continuum of experience and belief. Psychology doesn't have a skin in the

game of ascertaining what (to many) are self-evident, pervasive and

comprehensive cosmic (and spiritual) " set up(s). "

The clearest thought problem is to consider whether one believes

wholeheartedly in a vital factor that necessarily encompasses every last

atom, or, that one believes in a vital factor that is only a party to

those who believe it to be so.

If one is in the first group, it becomes obvious that such a belief system

inheres to a view through which the non-believer is held to be *wrong,*

(but probably doesn't know that he or she is wrong.) Again, to account for

those who have an awesome experience but attribute it to, for example,

brain chemistry, or to luck or to happenstance.

Note: there exist belief (and spiritual) systems that only make sense by

posing that some believers know better and some do not.

Jung was not very interested in subtle forms of agnosticism. And, in the

forties and fifties, his own work was sealed off from the revolution in

psychology commenced during those decades; as behaviorism gave way to

cognitive psychology. So, he knew nothing of folk psychology and the

problem of how people infer what is another person's theory of mind. He

didn't live long enough to experience the impact social psychology and

anthropology would have on the study of people's beliefs.

***

Of course modern psychology can't grasp the non-falsifiable archetype. At

best, the archetype names patterns of experience, etc.. And,

paleo-psychology steps back through time until hominids don't leave any

trace of symbolizing anything, yet, there remain the bareboned patterns of

survival.

I've done lots of experiments with my own awareness over many decades, but

the thing that remains most fascinating to me is how it has come about

that humans beings believe in so many different things and, nevertheless,

no one thing is demonstrably the superior thing to believe in.

happy new year,

in Clepheland

ps. (I suppose Ken Wilber's integral spirituality, having placed its bet

on eros as the vitalizing cosmic force, echoes Jung's 'knowing rather than

believing'. However, as it was with Jung and analytic psychology, Wilber's

system--currently--is very weakly psychologized. And, Wilber, unlike Jung,

is a devoted monist and, in a funky sort of way, is a neo-traditionalist.)

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Thank you for your post I appreciate your point of view

You said:

" it could be said that one of my research interests, over thirty-five years,

are the relationships between individual experience and belief and

spirituality.

You said you study to ask questions of individuals about what he or she has

experienced,and then to ask how experience drives their beliefs, "

What type or research, would this open up? I can not understand what

experiences drive except acceptance of that experience as true for them. My

experience of being caught in a rain storm would make me wet, and i would

know that rain wets me. My only further belief would be that an umbrella

would be a good thing or to stay out of rain.

Why one would want to know about the spiritual experiences of others seems

to me to be to either help them understand or to research spirituality per

se

I felt Jung was as psychiatrist trying to help people who came to him to

find meaning in their lives, or explain to them how those experience might

bring more peace or joy to themselves.Knowing how the psyche might work, and

explaining conscious and unconscious, or meaning in symbols might be very

helpful. to those a bit confused or searching.

That is not what you attempt it seems? You are looking purely at research in

an area where you yourself seem not to be able to be objective.

We are speaking a different language. I am not a researcher or a

psychologist. I studied Jung and psychology to try to bring my own

understanding to my own spirituality as it developed.

I would, I suppose be willing to answer some questions because I am a

" witness " . I can only speak about my own experience and its effect on my own

life.

I have no interest in prostalitizing, nor to convince anyone I have the

right answer. I do, but only for my own life. It is a canard unbelievers

often throw out that " believers " as you call them think they are right and

everyone else who sees differently is wrong. There is no right and wrong,

nor can there be a judging of what meaning one gives to one's life and one's

relationship to one's G-d.

What will you do with this " research? become convinced that each human being

will attempt to find his spiritual path if that is in his mind.

Yes, one can teach spirituality( if one is personally convinced) to a

degree, or on can push forward one's own " belief system " if one wishes. One

would have to be convinced that one's beliefs were based on some kind of

truth and that one was helping others.There are thousands who feel so

called.

I am not interested in going out to miss. That is not my vocation. Nor is

watching others with a spy glass to see if their beliefs bear fruit. In fact

I try to speak only with those who are interested or who want to find out

about another way to find meaning and approach an unknown G-d.Or often just

to share in comfort with like minded friends.

I have a huge collection of classical writers, preacher, saints,

psychiatrists and psychologists who felt they had a path which suited,

fulfills them and gives meaning, joy and life to them.Years ago I tried

different ways of approaching the most important part of my life, its

spirituality using the methods of these people or some of them.

Spirituality is a personal way of handling one's life to bring it to its

fullness and it is hoped it will be seen by its fruits. I see many seekers

come who are not sure within themselves how to begin or how to proceed and

they need older practitioners to help them for a while.When they see a happy

vibrant person with joy and love the are attracted to them.

My concern is to simplify if asked some of the concept of a way that feeds

me fully and makes my life meaningful, peaceful but most of all loving. From

personal experiences I know the world honored steps taken by many, and I can

point the way...only because I know I have my truth at this moment and

practice it.

Few, and I have counseled many ,ever some with more than a need to know G-d

if possible and to know they are loved. That is their beginning.

This is not research to see which system suits who, or which is the best.The

best is that which shows the way toward,meaning, relationship with the

spirit sought by that person in a way suited to her.

it is my proven feeling that rational dogmatic and logical ways meet the

needs of many who are not yet ready for a personal commitment or specific

belief. They must get their feet wet first. Unhappily these people when

ready are never offered the next step because they feel unworthy, guilty or

not yet ready to declare themselves.And fear also now enters in.

My witness is to those people to tell them to put away all those reasoning

abilities, teachings and practices that seem to disturb them, and their

fear slowly begin their own intuition, their own spiritual needs and become

acquainted with a loving G-d who accepts them as they are.

It is long after that that those people themselves begin to feel a need for

further close relationships and the experiences they receive cares them

on.No stopping now with ever closer experiences which bring certainty and

joy. ( the time may come, when in some traditions the experiences stop and

faith carries one on.

Most of us,by the way who have been graced by experiences, need them at the

start to encourage us on...because we actually feel can see the tiny

beginning of Reality behind them, do not and will not talk about what is

sacred to us unless it helps someone else or we believe we need the help of

discernment. We haven't the words the awe and the joy and the love are not

describable in words. Further we do not " get " them. We do not deserve any of

it, and we know we have been blessed . There is no merit we earned. This is

freely given love only to be shared with everyone.

As for being " right " or " wrong " . Those farther along the path would never

consider another path righter or more wrong nor would they dare make such a

judgment since they actually know only their own truth.

Sitting and watching the world go by is les painful for many who want to

take a leap but still have the fear that to give a little will mean soon

they have nothing left.One must always sit down and count the cost...on any

path

This is my way, my truth, and my witness. It is too precious for me to throw

it around where others aren't interested. I will always try to allow the

fruits of my love to be seen felt by others. And I am always willing to

answer anyone who questions me...but not for research..only for their life.

Toni

Message -----

To: <JUNG-FIRE >

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 1:16 PM

Subject: Re: continuing believing vs knowing....please don't be

too bored :-)

> Toni, all,

>

> It could be said that one of my research interests, over thirty-five

> years, are the relationships between individual experience and belief and

> spirituality. There are several over-arching questions which frame this

> inquiry.

>

> Yet, to ask questions of individuals about what he or she has experienced,

> and then to ask how experience drives their beliefs, compels me to set

> aside all sorts of personal prejudices.

>

> Actually, I try to attempt to do this even as I know well my own

> prejudices can't be merely set aside; they tend to change over time; and

> they inflect my inquiry.

>

> It is incumbent upon the social scientific researcher to at least know

> what the constraints of their own frameworks are, and how these both help

> and hinder their own inquiries. In some ways the clearest kind of research

> is descriptive and phenomenological. This is to say: what the person's

> self-report is and is about. See what rich questioning evokes! How do

> people describe their experiences and views?

>

> Still, concepts underlie descriptions. For example, numinosity is a

> quality of experience. The numinous may also be instrumental to a belief

> system about how this quality of experience is brought about. The Noumen,

> so-to-speak, is a transcendent category given a sense of cosmic

> spirituality. If you don't believe in the noumen, is it not better to say

> the experience was " awesome, " awe-inspiring, wondrous? ...chicken and egg

> problem, right?

>

> Anyway, in laying it out like this, you can see how findings move from the

> specifics of the self-report, through to the constituents of belief,

> through to the structure of a systematic spirituality.

>

> Ha! Where it does so. For the researcher the avowed atheist's self report

> is equal to that of the most pious master.

>

> ***

>

> Here's the catch: psychology is oriented to account for the

> mental/mindful/neurological/cognitive (etc.) human mental experiencing,

> believing, and cosmic-view making. So, such accounts seek to understand

> everything on the continuum between belief in no God as well as the belief

> in the most all pervasive transcendental meta-physical cosmic reality.

>

> Psychology, as a scientific enterprise, is forced to accept the entire

> continuum of experience and belief. Psychology doesn't have a skin in the

> game of ascertaining what (to many) are self-evident, pervasive and

> comprehensive cosmic (and spiritual) " set up(s). "

>

> The clearest thought problem is to consider whether one believes

> wholeheartedly in a vital factor that necessarily encompasses every last

> atom, or, that one believes in a vital factor that is only a party to

> those who believe it to be so.

>

> If one is in the first group, it becomes obvious that such a belief system

> inheres to a view through which the non-believer is held to be *wrong,*

> (but probably doesn't know that he or she is wrong.) Again, to account for

> those who have an awesome experience but attribute it to, for example,

> brain chemistry, or to luck or to happenstance.

>

> Note: there exist belief (and spiritual) systems that only make sense by

> posing that some believers know better and some do not.

>

> Jung was not very interested in subtle forms of agnosticism. And, in the

> forties and fifties, his own work was sealed off from the revolution in

> psychology commenced during those decades; as behaviorism gave way to

> cognitive psychology. So, he knew nothing of folk psychology and the

> problem of how people infer what is another person's theory of mind. He

> didn't live long enough to experience the impact social psychology and

> anthropology would have on the study of people's beliefs.

>

> ***

>

> Of course modern psychology can't grasp the non-falsifiable archetype. At

> best, the archetype names patterns of experience, etc.. And,

> paleo-psychology steps back through time until hominids don't leave any

> trace of symbolizing anything, yet, there remain the bareboned patterns of

> survival.

>

> I've done lots of experiments with my own awareness over many decades, but

> the thing that remains most fascinating to me is how it has come about

> that humans beings believe in so many different things and, nevertheless,

> no one thing is demonstrably the superior thing to believe in.

>

> happy new year,

>

> in Clepheland

>

> ps. (I suppose Ken Wilber's integral spirituality, having placed its bet

> on eros as the vitalizing cosmic force, echoes Jung's 'knowing rather than

> believing'. However, as it was with Jung and analytic psychology, Wilber's

> system--currently--is very weakly psychologized. And, Wilber, unlike Jung,

> is a devoted monist and, in a funky sort of way, is a neo-traditionalist.)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

> may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Toni,

>Why one would want to know about the spiritual experiences of others seems

> to me to be to either help them understand or to research spirituality per

> se

Yes. For example, why do people define spirituality differently?

>

>You are looking purely at research

> in

> an area where you yourself seem not to be able to be objective.

I admitted this. So, the problem of doing informal research is how to

capture data without infecting it with one's own stuff.

> I can only speak about my own experience and its effect on my

> own life.

Exactly.

> It is a canard unbelievers

> often throw out that " believers " as you call them think they are right and

> everyone else who sees differently is wrong.

> It can be a canard, yet at the same time not every believer or person

who believes themselves spiritual reports that there sense of the (for

example,) divine nature of the cosmos is *only true for themselves*.

Thus, such reports often make explicit that there is a right sense and a

wrong sense.

> What will you do with this " research?

The fascinating thing for me is that spiritual beliefs and actions exist

in such variety. Why is it so? What do we understand to possibly be the

genesis of spirituality in light of spirituality, (in the broadest sense,)

itself coming into existence at some point in the past?

> The best is that which shows the way toward, meaning, relationship with

> the spirit sought by that person in a way suited to her.

Yes; time-honored...

> My witness is to those people to tell them to put away all those reasoning

> abilities, teachings and practices that seem to disturb them, and their

> fear slowly begin their own intuition, their own spiritual needs and

> become acquainted with a loving G-d who accepts them as they are.

Clearly this is workable with a person receptive to this. I would contrast

this with a long-standing approach, appropriate to some for the same

reasons. This approach elevates reason as a very refined instrument able

to deeply engage reality. Or, in another approach, observation is to be

purified not for the result of the sacred but, rather, for the result of

really clear observation.

> As for being " right " or " wrong " . Those farther along the path would never

> consider another path righter or more wrong nor would they dare make such

> a judgment since they actually know only their own truth.

But this sense of yours runs counter to all sorts of traditions which

don't require--at all--this modern psychological turn. I can't think of

any element in traditional Sufism which supports this idea. In fact, there

could be said to be an intense skepticism about the mere attachment to

one's own truth in middle eastern and asian spiritual practices (and

esotericism.) For example. But this just identifies something of the

variety of approaches.

This suspicion of 'psyche' in its manifestation through identity and

identification is a paradoxical current. One way of looking at this is

that the personality does not survive the submission to " All " or God, and

so what happens to be true for a 'you' is more the problem than the

solution.

But, this is just a way some people, masters, systems of practice, view

the biggest questions about the development of consciousness. And, on the

surface of these features of belief and practice, the tip of an intriguing

iceberg, there is the problem of psychologizing any monism. Psychology

needing, as it were, two to tango.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Ah...

This " Or, in another approach, observation is to be

purified not for the result of the sacred but, rather, for the result of

really clear observation. "

So we human beings are capable of " clear observation " that all will agree

on? We will each see it the exactly same way? Objectively???

You see we think so highly of ourselves as human beings, so highly evolved,

we actually believe our reasoning, logic and technical know-how can

penetrate

the secrets of the universe , so to speak. We have it all figured out or

will soon have....by our power???

You actually believe this? " I would contrast

> this with a long-standing approach, appropriate to some for the same

> reasons. This approach elevates reason as a very refined instrument able

> to deeply engage reality. "

You see , I do not. I believe the Reality of this cosmos will only reveal

itself to us through " spirituality " intuition built on humility...insight

will come, enlightenment will come, but not through out frail, dualality in

which we elevate our mind to that which it cannot penetrate.

The Renaissance and our friend Descart started to take it too far. We lost

what little humility we had, and now we think we are the masters of the

universe with a short bow at incomprehensible " acts of G-d " .

Quantum physics should have alerted us if astrophysics didn't that there is

much we have not a clue about. We shall know someday, perhaps, but not with

our minds or that little organ we call the brain.( it is matter by the way)

Life will explain itself to the humble and the patient from within the heart

and that " kingdom of -G-d within we all don't really believe in. Otherwise

known as the spirit who will lead us, and show us in good time when we stop

thinking we actually are so evolved and admit how far we still have to

go...we are a few years away from the cave and campfire, only a few.

Now is what I say Gospel? for all to bow and accept? of course not. I have

no Absolute truth, and either my friend has anyone on this earth. What I

have is only my own Self and that ego which wants to impress everyone, but

at

least I know what I do not yet know.....and may never know. In other words I

live in a dual universe and as long as i cannot escape from there unless the

grace of G-d allows me to for an instant or two of union, I remain there.

We are all bloated with our own great minds....or those of other beings,

human I guess around us. it is our heart which will keep us out of

destroying this planet if anything can, not scheming minds, greedy impulses

and overweening hubris.

Now that is my truth.

I no longer need answers to questions which do not concern my immediate stay

here for not too long. I won't even have to " ask G-d " as we used to say as

children we would do when we got to heaven???? Now heaven where is that

exactly?

No I am not a Luddite. I am a well educated and intelligent woman , no

scientist, but read well enough in much of it for a lay person. I am however

concerned that our technology is fast outpacing our moral level of

development, and our HUBRIS is going to be our end of we do not stop our

overweening pride and fear from obliterating ourselves...not G-d mind you,

just part of his creation.

Sorry, . Intellect and reasoning are tools for ethical human beings,

those who love, not destroy in their fear of powerlessness.

You heard it from me. Purely my own thoughts, prayers,meditations and grace.

I can live well and happily with that. happy others are using some of their

brains to try to get us out of our desire to ravage the earth and all in it.

I respect mind....as far as it can go. But is limited by poor insight and

unbelievable pride.

We do not speak the same language, I am sorry, and can hardly communicate

but we are both " well meaning " and in ignorance.Fear is our

difference...grace can bring us to that point when we know we are secure in

the cosmos not because we deserve it, but because we were created for

it.Pure gift accepted with humility and a gift all will partake of.

Toni

In the end we will not take 2 to tango...perhaps we will All be One. Duality

will no longer separate us.

To: <JUNG-FIRE >

Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:24 AM

Subject: Re: continuing believing vs knowing....please don't be

too bored :-)

> Hi Toni,

>

>>Why one would want to know about the spiritual experiences of others seems

>> to me to be to either help them understand or to research spirituality

>> per

>> se

>

> Yes. For example, why do people define spirituality differently?

>>

>>You are looking purely at research

>> in

>> an area where you yourself seem not to be able to be objective.

>

> I admitted this. So, the problem of doing informal research is how to

> capture data without infecting it with one's own stuff.

>

>> I can only speak about my own experience and its effect on my

>> own life.

>

> Exactly.

>

>> It is a canard unbelievers

>> often throw out that " believers " as you call them think they are right

>> and

>> everyone else who sees differently is wrong.

>

>> It can be a canard, yet at the same time not every believer or person

> who believes themselves spiritual reports that there sense of the (for

> example,) divine nature of the cosmos is *only true for themselves*.

> Thus, such reports often make explicit that there is a right sense and a

> wrong sense.

>

>> What will you do with this " research?

>

> The fascinating thing for me is that spiritual beliefs and actions exist

> in such variety. Why is it so? What do we understand to possibly be the

> genesis of spirituality in light of spirituality, (in the broadest sense,)

> itself coming into existence at some point in the past?

>

>> The best is that which shows the way toward, meaning, relationship with

>> the spirit sought by that person in a way suited to her.

>

> Yes; time-honored...

>

>> My witness is to those people to tell them to put away all those

>> reasoning

>> abilities, teachings and practices that seem to disturb them, and their

>> fear slowly begin their own intuition, their own spiritual needs and

>> become acquainted with a loving G-d who accepts them as they are.

>

> Clearly this is workable with a person receptive to this. I would contrast

> this with a long-standing approach, appropriate to some for the same

> reasons. This approach elevates reason as a very refined instrument able

> to deeply engage reality. Or, in another approach, observation is to be

> purified not for the result of the sacred but, rather, for the result of

> really clear observation.

>

>

>> As for being " right " or " wrong " . Those farther along the path would never

>> consider another path righter or more wrong nor would they dare make such

>> a judgment since they actually know only their own truth.

>

> But this sense of yours runs counter to all sorts of traditions which

> don't require--at all--this modern psychological turn. I can't think of

> any element in traditional Sufism which supports this idea. In fact, there

> could be said to be an intense skepticism about the mere attachment to

> one's own truth in middle eastern and asian spiritual practices (and

> esotericism.) For example. But this just identifies something of the

> variety of approaches.

>

> This suspicion of 'psyche' in its manifestation through identity and

> identification is a paradoxical current. One way of looking at this is

> that the personality does not survive the submission to " All " or God, and

> so what happens to be true for a 'you' is more the problem than the

> solution.

>

> But, this is just a way some people, masters, systems of practice, view

> the biggest questions about the development of consciousness. And, on the

> surface of these features of belief and practice, the tip of an intriguing

> iceberg, there is the problem of psychologizing any monism. Psychology

> needing, as it were, two to tango.

>

> regards,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Toni, all,

You spent two posts saying that all anybody can do is experience, believe

and have faith in their own sense of what is true, and, per force then

nobody can judge what another person's particular truth is and is about,

whereas now you've swung to the opposite position that what is true for

you per force allows you to judge with certainty what *might be* true or

not true for somebody else.

> So we human beings are capable of " clear observation "

Buddhism. Faithless objectivity. Hard won transparency. ...a possibility.

> I believe the Reality of this cosmos will only reveal

> itself to us through " spirituality " intuition built on humility

By use of the word " us " your own belief system is entirely posed here as

the severest judgment of what is possible in *others*.

Fundamentalism. Still you have no problem applying your truth to what you

think *will only* reveal. I can't read 'will only' as being equivocal.

***

The trick is to sincerely Know that what one knows is applicable only to

one's own self, unless one has developed the capacity to prove that one is

certainly right where others are certainly wrong.

All you've done is shown your true colors here in applying what you've

come to know *as if* it necessarily is *correctly* ramified against

alternative possibilities.

It's worth noting those alternatives are not required to exist except

where they do exist. In other words, I have not made any claim for the

extant wide (universal, etc.) application of any possible alternative.

Whereas you've made the move from claiming you know what is true for you

to claiming that this also means you know what cannot also be possible for

somebody else.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Not being G-D, I ACTUALLY KNOW ONLY MY OWM PARTIAL TRUTH. Shame on you for

making me say it in every sentence.

I am part of All, so I see my meaning that way, not singly as the lone

person in the universe.

I am seeing with my own eyes, not yours, not G-d's not anyone elses. I hope

my intuition is right. Where did I say my answer is the only one?

My judgments are also my own.

What is it with you? If i find a piano player rendintion less than perfect,

am I announcng divine truth for all?

get off it, Srtephen,

I am no meglomaniac. I may announce my own understanding even when I know it

is patial and may be totlly out of the ball park.

It is not my hubris, my friend...it is my personal insight into ALL of US.

So maybe I am crazy? what changes your meaning? my ranting? No.

If I discuss the cosmos, I see it my way, understand it my way....I am not

here all alone, so what happenes to me in my own mind may happen to all of

us...or it may not.

By now you must know I have only one certainty. One..I am loved by the One.

I know it.

Take a deep breath. In my mind so are you. But that is in my mind. Because

we are all one. You don't have to be included in my meaning....off you go.

What eats at you so.....maybe I should declare to all the END is

Coming...maybe it is or isn't. I have no personal clue or public clue. I am

not G-d.

Toni

Re: continuing believing vs knowing....please don't be

too bored :-)

> Toni, all,

>

> You spent two posts saying that all anybody can do is experience, believe

> and have faith in their own sense of what is true, and, per force then

> nobody can judge what another person's particular truth is and is about,

>

> whereas now you've swung to the opposite position that what is true for

> you per force allows you to judge with certainty what *might be* true or

> not true for somebody else.

>

>> So we human beings are capable of " clear observation "

>

> Buddhism. Faithless objectivity. Hard won transparency. ...a possibility.

>

>> I believe the Reality of this cosmos will only reveal

>> itself to us through " spirituality " intuition built on humility

>

> By use of the word " us " your own belief system is entirely posed here as

> the severest judgment of what is possible in *others*.

>

> Fundamentalism. Still you have no problem applying your truth to what you

> think *will only* reveal. I can't read 'will only' as being equivocal.

>

> ***

>

> The trick is to sincerely Know that what one knows is applicable only to

> one's own self, unless one has developed the capacity to prove that one is

> certainly right where others are certainly wrong.

>

> All you've done is shown your true colors here in applying what you've

> come to know *as if* it necessarily is *correctly* ramified against

> alternative possibilities.

>

> It's worth noting those alternatives are not required to exist except

> where they do exist. In other words, I have not made any claim for the

> extant wide (universal, etc.) application of any possible alternative.

>

> Whereas you've made the move from claiming you know what is true for you

> to claiming that this also means you know what cannot also be possible for

> somebody else.

>

>

> regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

> may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Toni, all,

> Not being G-D, I ACTUALLY KNOW ONLY MY OWM PARTIAL TRUTH.

But the problem you create is your judgment about what *possibly may be

true* for other people.

I introduce the tried-and-possible alternative of objective consciousness,

and, you respond with scepticism. This is okay; your sense issues from

what is true for you, but--and nevertheless--your response in fact does

judge the truth of others, albeit within the extremely confining

constraints of what you know for yourself to be true.

How else to read the following:

" So we human beings are capable of " clear observation " that all will agree

on? We will each see it the exactly same way? Objectively???

You see we think so highly of ourselves as human beings, so highly evolved,

we actually believe our reasoning, logic and technical know-how can

penetrate the secrets of the universe , so to speak. We have it all

figured out or will soon have....by our power???

More to my point, you wrote:

" I believe the Reality of this cosmos will only reveal itself to us

through " spirituality " intuition built on humility. "

I understand this is what you feel is true for you, but you chose to write:

" this cosmos will only reveal itself to us through (etc.) "

***

The question is simple: do you believe that alternative views are subject

to your definitive skepticism? "

If you do, then I understand why you don't think objective consciousness

is a possibility for anyone.

But if, in fact, you accept that for some other person " faithless

objectivity* " is possible, then perhaps the truer response you could

fashion would be:

" How interesting!? "

***

Of course we've been around this track many times before. Excuse me for

pointing out the obvious contradiction inherent in your suggesting some

specific form of spirituality isn't possible in your view.

I suggestion you reflect on the possibility of being rigorous in adhering

to truth that is true for you while being open to its not being true for

*some* other persons.

Alternately, you can embrace the ramifications of understanding that what

is true for you necessarily has wider applications and so requires you to

be skeptical and judgmental.

regards,

*the formulation of a self-actualized Buddhist acquaintance of mine.