Übermensch wrote:Well, don't think too hard about it Lúthien... these things are still very hotly debated.
(Many of the questions that have plagued philosophy have ended up being a ping pong match back and forth between the objective and the subjective.)
I'm well aware of how this has been the subject of philosophy since the dawn of time. I don't intend to add a new voice to that; I merely want to find an answer that satisfies me.
Simply put, being able to see beyond the dualistic mindset, in many ways, is the very condition of our Gnosis
Yes. Simply put: I'm aware of that
... and on to the next one ...
Übermensch wrote:And not to be controversial, ...
What would be controversial?
... but I think science can explain this.
If you mean what I think you mean I think I don't agree - or actually, you disagree with it yourself, by stating that "such explanations are beyond the scope of logic" - to which I agree.
In terms of philosophy, my god, this subject has been so thoroughly covered throughout history, it's a wonder there's any mystery left to solve.
Well, maybe that's because everyone has to figure it out for themselves ... maybe to conclude that it really cannot be solved in dualistic terms.
John Beebe even pointed out in one of his lectures that as far back as the Enlightenment period, the tendency has been to persecute introverts.
I'm sorry, but what do introverts have to do with this??
In western culture there is no such thing as "enlightenment," because it's been stigmatized--it's taboo.
Is "enlightenment" (as in "the enlightenment period", not as in the goal of Zen meditation, I presume?) taboo?
<skipping a bit>
... Even the term enlightenment has been reduced to a platitude in our society, and if you mean anything other than that by it, it's met with hysteria.
Anything other than what (platitude)?
But call it Gnosis and (tada!) you're safe, it's recognizable as a Greek word, and no one knows what the hell you mean by that anyway.
All right ... let me see if I've got this straight: if you use the word "Gnosis" instead of "enlightenment" when NOT referring about the usual platitude, you can avoid hysteria because ... it's a recognisable Greek word?
Seriously ... can you explain what you mean by "enlightenment"?
I've always understood "enlightenment" to mean something like as it is phrased in Wikipedia as well:
wikipedia wrote:The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.In France, the central doctrines of les Lumièreswere individual liberty and religious tolerance in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy – an attitude captured by the phrase Sapere aude, "Dare to know".
... but I'm afraid I can't figure out what you mean from the context.
So from the perspective of science it's no mystery, it's already been solved.
Sorry, I can't figure out how you arrive at that conclusion.
For science to take it upon itself to 'solve' this mystery rates right up there with the guy who solved the mystery of belly button lint--you know, it just doesn't care.
Good heavens man! You're not making it any easier, do you - after stating that science considers it "already solved", you say that it doesn't care about it ...? Somehow those two things seem maybe not to contradict one another, but I've got a hunch that they don't go together very well either.
Übermensch wrote:Science already has a full time job trying to keep humanity from destroying itself, so let's not waste its time on trivial matters.
I don't think that Mr. A's bellybutton-gazing will keep any Mr. / Mrs. B from saving the world. On the contrary even: if I were a scientist engaged in saving the world I would rather see my bellybutton-studying colleagues deeply engrossed in their favourite pastime in a shack somewhere, than running around in my lab like crazy interfering with my experiments
Besides, you never know how a cow catches a hare. Maybe something insanely useful might come from that belly button study. You know, in one of those serendipity things. Sure, it's extremely unlikely, but still :p
Also: it's not so that most scientists are involved with saving humanity from itself. It would be a splendid idea if they would though. And much the same goes for political and religious leaders everywhere.
Übermensch wrote:But as for Jung this 'spiritual realm' would exist inside the collective unconscious, I believe.
"collective unconscious" != "you" ...?
Übermensch wrote:Because if it exists outside of you, then it's a problem.
Übermensch wrote:And I'm not sure about Freud's metaphysical leanings, but I know toilet training and dirty diapers are somehow involved.
Potty training: yes. Diapers: I doubt it.
Sorry, answering this made me a bit mischievous. But no disrespect intended! It's just my weird sense of humour.
I just find this post very hard to follow, and where I do think I understand it, I think I disagree somewhat.