|
Post by a on Mar 2, 2007 8:54:40 GMT
The trouble with proof is that it is all to often tied in with ones belief system. Sometimes the best proof is simply doing the right thing (and not simply be seen to be doing the right thing or as bullies sometimes put it "do the right thing" ) and enjoying the long term benefits that accrue from it.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2007 9:02:02 GMT
The trouble with proof is that it is all to often tied in with ones belief system. Sometimes the best proof is simply doing the right thing (and not simply be seen to be doing the right thing or as bullies sometimes put it "do the right thing" ) and enjoying the long term benefits that accrue from it.
Namaste
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 2, 2007 9:14:38 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren,
The phenomena that Russell described a few entries back are IMHO a good example of the psychic rather than the spiritual. The latter is always universal, transcending the individual.
Often neglected or forgot are the roles played by mesmerism, magnetism, hypnosis and mediumship in the development of certain occultist, spiritist, pseudo-religious and psychoanalytic "schools" during the 18th to 20th centuries. The main error involved was trying to base spiritual (universal) conclusions on, at times collective, psychic phenomena.
One test of the authenticity of any school is to see whether it reduces the triad Spirit - Mind (or Soul [anima]) - Body to Mind - Body or even less, e.g. body with some psychic functions.
Those prone to becoming overly absorbed in the psychic can prescribe themselves an antidote, for example carefully working through Euclid's Elements.
In other terms, not only the compass but also the square and the ruler are required.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2007 10:05:09 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, The phenomena that Russell described a few entries back are IMHO a good example of the psychic rather than the spiritual. The latter is always universal, transcending the individual. Often neglected or forgot are the roles played by mesmerism, magnetism, hypnosis and mediumship in the development of certain occultist, spiritist, pseudo-religious and psychoanalytic "schools" during the 18th to 20th centuries. The main error involved was trying to base spiritual (universal) conclusions on, at times collective, psychic phenomena. One test of the authenticity of any school is to see whether it reduces the triad Spirit - Mind (or Soul [ anima]) - Body to Mind - Body or even less, e.g. body with some psychic functions. Those prone to becoming overly absorbed in the psychic can prescribe themselves an antidote, for example carefully working through Euclid's Elements. In other terms, not only the compass but also the square and the ruler are required. Indeed
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 2, 2007 11:58:57 GMT
I've found it difficult to enter this thread in part because of Maat's opening word 'proof'.
I've been struggling as to how to succinctly explain why, so until now had left it. Some of the ongoing discussion, however, clearly point to perhaps what would satisfy, if no-one else, at least myself: evidence - but evidence according to the nature of the subject, event or designation under discussion.
For example, for myself, that many people may have reported an experiential silkiness of the coat of a unicorn is not sufficient evidence to accept the physical manifestation of unicorns (in fact the opposite!). Conversely, a single sighting of a UFO with specific claims that I would personally accept, or a single sighting of a thylacine by a person who has reliable knowledge of such would be sufficient.
In the spiritual realms, the evidence needs to have its own frame of reference. That this can be criticised from a kuhnian, feyerabandian or lacanian perspective neither adds nor takes away from whether the evidence, within its own field, is warranted, and whether it has the 'force' of convincing various individuals.
Note here that part of the overall problem is not simply an epistemological one: each field may have its proper epistemological considerations without any of these having the psychological power to shift an either too narrow or too broad mindset. And the problem with my difficulty in this thread is that it asks what is really this personal and psychological (and hence individually different) question about what would convince, rather than the broader question about what a specific area of interest or of investigation has as part of its epistemological considerations.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 2, 2007 18:56:38 GMT
I've found it difficult to enter this thread in part because of Maat's opening word 'proof'. I've been struggling as to how to succinctly explain why, so until now had left it. Some of the ongoing discussion, however, clearly point to perhaps what would satisfy, if no-one else, at least myself: evidence - but evidence according to the nature of the subject, event or designation under discussion. For example, for myself, that many people may have reported an experiential silkiness of the coat of a unicorn is not sufficient evidence to accept the physical manifestation of unicorns (in fact the opposite!). Conversely, a single sighting of a UFO with specific claims that I would personally accept, or a single sighting of a thylacine by a person who has reliable knowledge of such would be sufficient. In the spiritual realms, the evidence needs to have its own frame of reference. That this can be criticised from a kuhnian, feyerabandian or lacanian perspective neither adds nor takes away from whether the evidence, within its own field, is warranted, and whether it has the 'force' of convincing various individuals. Note here that part of the overall problem is not simply an epistemological one: each field may have its proper epistemological considerations without any of these having the psychological power to shift an either too narrow or too broad mindset. And the problem with my difficulty in this thread is that it asks what is really this personal and psychological (and hence individually different) question about what would convince, rather than the broader question about what a specific area of interest or of investigation has as part of its epistemological considerations. Agreed—although, having been taught to be cautious, no matter how credible the witness, I expect I would only provisionally accept a single sighting as 'proof', pending corroboration, preferably some other form of evidence—particularly regarding matters where an ideological agenda is suspected and especially regarding matters which are notorious for the presentation of falsified evidence, (even credible witnesses are 'only' human). Moreover, as legal studies have demonstrated, eye-witness accounts are much less reliable than is usually supposed. I especially liked your point about different areas of study having their own epistemological considerations. For instance, Behaviourists in the field of Psychology are entitled to accept as evidence only that which can be observed: However, some overstretch their discipline and appear to assert that unobservable phenomenon is nonexistent or meaningless. Similarly, as you have alluded to, different planes of being appear to operate under different laws. I have listened to countless discussions about the law of Karma where Newton's Third Law of Motion—of every action having an equal and opposite reaction—is used as 'proof', rather than just as an analogy.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 2, 2007 21:29:40 GMT
Perhaps "proof" is not a final step like a mathematical proof (dependent upon the assumptions and logic) but rather the starting point for a series of actions.
For example, if unicorns exist then what can one do with them that one cannot do with the rest of creation?
If one can perform or access those unique actions then the existence of unicorns is an actionable hypothesis . If one can continue to act on that hypothesis and get satisfactory results over a long period then one might provisionally accept unicorns as a manifested reality.
Of course a manifested reality might not have an identical causal reality. It may be a seagod imitating the properties of unicorn.
But even so there is still the question about how the concept of a unicorn should have developed and been so powerful for so long
Testing whether a manifested reality has a causal reality is a bit tricky and the only way I know of doing it directly requires access to the 5 electricities that "sit" above the 7 subplanes. If the electricities are present within the manifested reality then it is also a causal reality. If not, it is projected by another entity a bit like a docu-drama on the TV
Cheers
Russell
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 2, 2007 23:35:08 GMT
Hmmmmm. I know we're enjoying the aliens and unicorns and all that but . . .
Is "proof", as discussed here, the same critter as is expected when we examine someone to be sure s/he is a brother?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 3, 2007 0:06:30 GMT
>Is "proof", as discussed here, the same critter as is expected when we examine someone to be sure s/he is a brother?
That is an interesting question that perplexed spiritualists in the 19th and early 20th century. I recall reading some account of a spiritualist society that after much effort managed to wrest from a known positive spirit a recognition phrase that was demanded from each approaching spirit. The spirits who could not provide the correct phrase were repudiated
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by journeyofthought on Mar 3, 2007 0:45:34 GMT
I'm a bit bewildered by all the alien and unicorn talk, so I'll just insert my two cents toward the main question of what constitutes "proof" I define proof as a condition that is met when a idea is supported by logic, reason, and rhetoric..and the proof of something cannot be sustained by any logical fallicies. Of course, that may just be my BA in philosophy talking (that IS all college degree's in philosophy are worth, talking...LOL)
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 3, 2007 0:55:08 GMT
It may be a seagod imitating the properties of unicorn.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 3, 2007 3:01:59 GMT
Philip I seem to detect a certain amount of scepticism but presumably it is not about one being imitating another as humans get paid to do that before large audiences. So presumably other beings may do it also Perhaps your scepticism is about seagods and yet they were well understood by Theosophists after Hodson. I can't find his South Pacific seagod on line but it is quite similar to www.geocities.com/athens/Olympus/3987/geof10.jpgSo your scepticism must be to do with unicorns but here are 6 Old Testament references from the King James translations: Nu 23:22 - Show Context God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. Nu 24:8 - Show Context God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows. Job 39:9 - Show Context Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Job 39:10 - Show Context Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Ps 29:6 - Show Context He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn. Ps 92:10 - Show Context But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil. So am eventually unsure about what you are sceptical Perhaps it would have been better if I had given my account in terms of unnamed "astral" entities rather than use specific examples And I note the various characteristics of the unicorn: - it is so strong that the god of israel may be flattered by being considered as strong - the unicorn is unlikely to serve - the unicorn can harrow whole valleys while pursuing someone - young unicorns are known and they famous for skipping - unicorns have horns that are comparable to horns of people And this we are told by some is the word of god Cheers Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 3, 2007 6:01:47 GMT
Bro. RussellJust briefly (I'm going out). Yes, I am sceptical—This is utter madness! OK, if one entity were to imitate a unicorn, why would your first choice be a 'seagod' of all things—why be so specific? I am far from being a fundamentalist, Theosophical or otherwise. The unicorns in the Bible are due to mistranslations and people are familiar with the attributes of unicorns BECAUSE they don't exist! Unicorns were the main example used by Aquinas and others to establish that, while one may know the essence of a thing (horn, silky coat, etc.), this did not prove the thing existed. Naturally they chose a being they assumed would be unarguably accepted as being fanciful for the example. Before that, the unicorn was used to demonstrate that an utterly fanciful creature was not possible to imagine. That, the closest we could manage was a composite creature, from attributes with which we were already familiar (compare Carroll's, The Hunting of the Snark—and please do not insist that Snarks are real).
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 3, 2007 7:27:50 GMT
>why would your first choice be a 'seagod' of all things—why be so specific?
Because I find it better to argue specific examples than abstractions
>The unicorns in the Bible are due to mistranslations
This may well be so. But I would be interested in what beings fit the 6 quotations without saying that the recorders of the OT were just being trivial or deluded
>Naturally they chose a being they assumed would be unarguably accepted as being fanciful
think I am correct is asserting that Aquinas was not an initiate of the mysteries? If so, then one might have some concerns with the extent of his knowledge
More generally it would be interesting to survey the multitudes of artists who depict unicorns to find out how many are eye witnesses.
The white unicorns are fairly easy to locate but the black unicorns stand off a long way and are hard to see
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 3, 2007 14:06:58 GMT
Bro. RussellI suggest you are experiencing cognitive dissonance. You have acknowledged that your experience of a unicorn may not have been as you first thought—Wonderful! However, The alternative you offered, that it may have been a 'seagod' imitating the properties of a unicorn, is even more illogical. You were begging the question when I asked why you now think it may have been a 'seagod'—Why not, for example, the tooth fairy? In responding to your citations of biblical references to unicorns, I was NOT referring to the 'original' recorders but to the subsequent translators, who on encountering 'rêym', principally meaning 'wild bull' ( Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, #7214), rendered it as 'unicorn'.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Mar 3, 2007 19:26:29 GMT
Tamrin, Is it possible that the head on your composite Creature is a Keith emerging from Lake Taupo
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 3, 2007 20:01:10 GMT
Alleged unicorn sightings according to www.crystalinks.com/unicorns.htmlAdam Garden of Eden Beginning of time Emperor Fu Hsi China 5,000 years ago Emperor Huang Di Emperor's garden in China 2697 B.C Emperor Yao China About 2,000 B.C Confucius China 551-479 B.C Ctesias India 4th century B.C Alexander the Great Asia 3rd century B.C. Julius Caesar Germany 1st century B.C. Prester John Asia Mid- I I 00s < Genghis Khan India Early 1200s "The Unicorn has existed in Chinese mythology for thousands of years. It appears in many different forms, but the most familiar is a beast with the body of a deer, the tail of an ox, the hooves of a horse, and a single short horn growing out of the middle of its forehead. The hair on its back is five-colored to represent the five sacred Chinese colors: red, yellow, blue, white, and black. The hair on its belly is yellow. In some accounts, it has green scales like a dragon." "An Arabian Unicorn known as karkadann was supposedly endowed with magical qualities. Its horn was a good-luck charm against the scorpion, and eating its meat got rid of demons. Based on the description from ancient texts, experts now believe that the karkadann was actually an oryx, a large antelope that appears to have only one horn when seen from the side." (aren't experts wonderful? they do not require any evidence other than scepticism before making their reinterpretations) And here is Strong : 7213 ra'am raw-am' a primitive root; to rise:--be lifted up. 7214 r'em reh-ame' or rieym {reh-ame'}; or reym {rame}; or rem {rame}; from 'ra'am' (7213); a wild bull (from its conspicuousness):--unicorn." So the word for unicorn derives from "rise up" . I can see how that means a wild bull, or perhaps a tree, or may be a mountain The fundamental issue of course is whether every being in existence must have a physical body. Some people clearly maintain that only beings with physical bodies are real - perhaps even requiring God to incarnate. For other people, the experience of the non-physical worlds is a daily event and they have much less trouble with mythical (mouth) accounts This is somewhat reminiscent of the tension between the believers and the gnostics. In the old days there were crusades against the gnostics. These days we are more tolerant Cheers Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 3, 2007 21:27:54 GMT
Tamrin, Is it possible that the head on your composite Creature is a New Zealand Theosphist? I presume you mean the ' seagod' and not the tooth fairy (the latter is a genuine photo of such and therefore constitutes concrete proof of the existence of the tooth fairy ). The former is John Norton Moore, a U.S. Professor of Law, specialising in the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, he is not a Theosophist. Addendum: This reply had been in response to a post (#55) which has since been modified. The answer to the modified question is: No.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 3, 2007 22:04:25 GMT
Alleged unicorn sightings according to www.crystalinks.com/unicorns.htmlAdam Garden of Eden Beginning of time Emperor Fu Hsi China 5,000 years ago Emperor Huang Di Emperor's garden in China 2697 B.C Emperor Yao China About 2,000 B.C Confucius China 551-479 B.C Ctesias India 4th century B.C Alexander the Great Asia 3rd century B.C. Julius Caesar Germany 1st century B.C. Prester John Asia Mid- I I 00s < Genghis Khan India Early 1200s "The Unicorn has existed in Chinese mythology for thousands of years. It appears in many different forms, but the most familiar is a beast with the body of a deer, the tail of an ox, the hooves of a horse, and a single short horn growing out of the middle of its forehead. The hair on its back is five-colored to represent the five sacred Chinese colors: red, yellow, blue, white, and black. The hair on its belly is yellow. In some accounts, it has green scales like a dragon." "An Arabian Unicorn known as karkadann was supposedly endowed with magical qualities. Its horn was a good-luck charm against the scorpion, and eating its meat got rid of demons. Based on the description from ancient texts, experts now believe that the karkadann was actually an oryx, a large antelope that appears to have only one horn when seen from the side." (aren't experts wonderful? they do not require any evidence other than scepticism before making their reinterpretations) And here is Strong : 7213 ra'am raw-am' a primitive root; to rise:--be lifted up. 7214 r'em reh-ame' or rieym {reh-ame'}; or reym {rame}; or rem {rame}; from 'ra'am' (7213); a wild bull (from its conspicuousness):--unicorn." So the word for unicorn derives from "rise up" . I can see how that means a wild bull, or perhaps a tree, or may be a mountain The fundamental issue of course is whether every being in existence must have a physical body. Some people clearly maintain that only beings with physical bodies are real - perhaps even requiring God to incarnate. For other people, the experience of the non-physical worlds is a daily event and they have much less trouble with mythical (mouth) accounts This is somewhat reminiscent of the tension between the believers and the gnostics. In the old days there were crusades against the gnostics. These days we are more tolerant Cheers Russell :-/Too bad, you have faltered after only the first, small step towards acknowledging there is a problem Of course a manifested reality might not have an identical causal reality. It may be a seagod imitating the properties of unicorn. If you turn your back on the magnificence of your 'mundane' reality and cling to your delusions of superhuman abilities, it is your choice: However, please do not expect everyone else to fall-in-line.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 3, 2007 22:50:41 GMT
>Of course a manifested reality might not have an identical causal reality. It may be a seagod imitating the properties of unicorn.
I can see the example offered was a distraction from the proposition about reality
Perhaps I should have said: Of course a manifested reality might not have an identical causal reality. It may be one entity imitating the properties of another. As we see daily on the TV news
Cheers
Russell
|
|