|
Post by wayseer on Mar 10, 2007 0:17:45 GMT
Tamrin writes -
Please remember, Freemasonry was at the forefont of the Age_of_Enlightenment.
Which is rather scary really. The AoE ushered in the AGE OF REASON where reason/logic triumph over the mystic/magical - there is no other way.
Which is what lies behind the exchange between Bros Tamrin and Russell - each are using a different rational (and I use 'rational' in the true sense of the word) for their argument - one is using reason/logic while the other is utilising mystic/magical.
Interesting, I think, that an esoteric board becomes endangered through the use of reason and logic - the products of latter day Western Imperialism. (Sorry - that sounds political, which I guess it is, but there you go)
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 10, 2007 0:59:30 GMT
Tamrin writes - Please remember, Freemasonry was at the forefont of the Age_of_Enlightenment. Which is rather scary really. The AoE ushered in the AGE OF REASON where reason/logic triumph over the mystic/magical - there is no other way. Which is what lies behind the exchange between Bros Tamrin and Russell - each are using a different rational (and I use 'rational' in the true sense of the word) for their argument - one is using reason/logic while the other is utilising mystic/magical. Interesting, I think, that an esoteric board becomes endangered through the use of reason and logic - the products of latter day Western Imperialism. (Sorry - that sounds political, which I guess it is, but there you go) Mysticism and magic were part and parcel of the Age of Enlightenment. Indeed Sir Isaac Newton, far from having a singular vision, was very much a mystic. To modify your own words: Interesting, I think, that a Masonic forum becomes endangered through the disdain of reason and logic—disciplines which are encouraged by the Craft.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 10, 2007 2:50:59 GMT
Bro Tamrin - one swallow does not make a summer. Indeed, the AoE was an 'elightenment' from the institutional doctrine of the Church - that through reason and logic explantions of the 'natural' world could be illuminated devoid of church dogma.
But reason and logic have, somewhat ironically, become themselves a doctrine of 'how things should be' - and like the Church, have become institutionalised in its ways of thinking.
But, to add another swallow - physicist, cosmologist and now astrobiologist Paul Davies - The very fact that the universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness - in other words, that the universe has organized its own self-awareness - is for me powerful evidence that there is `something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.
I do not disdain reason and logic - I distain the 'Doctrine' of reason and logic just as I distain the Doctrine of the Church - there is a world of difference.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 10, 2007 3:48:44 GMT
I suggest you are applying too broad a generalization—There are many swallows to be found. For instance, not all scientists, especially not the majority of those intelligent, educated and sophisticated ones at the cutting edge of their respective fields, reject mysticism. Consider your own example, Dr. Paul Davies, he is far from being either doctrinaire or a solitary voice. Many, but still fewer than is commonly thought, of those trained in basic scientific techniques may be blinded by the simplistic, doctrinaire views about what is scientific and what is not. Nevertheless, science progresses despite these stereotypical examples. An example I have used elsewhere on this forum is that, while it is fine for Behaviourists in Psychology to say what they will or will not accept as evidence, some go further and appear to use the same criteria in declaring what is real and what is not—In doing so, they are being both doctrinaire and illogical. While there have been doctrinaire abuses in the name of reason and logic; reason and logic have been among the tools used to expose those errors. I like the analogy of stepping off with the left foot (intuition) and following up with the right (reason) as a means of progress, (stepping off with the right would not lead to anything new). After stepping off with the left, one needs to advance with reason to corroborate and consolidate one’s position (or to discount it). This scenario also applies to the fields of magic and mysticism (albeit, the principles differ from those of physics).
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 10, 2007 8:24:00 GMT
Took me ages to acccept that many Freemasons don't do this, even though they are instructed/encouraged to do so in their second. I would imagine that those lodges that do actively encourage this, and those Masons who do, probably find taking steps up the old ladder much easier. And the wisdom and beauty that is being missed by those who don't is really sad. Still their choice at the end of the day. Saddeneing to watch when those who don't ridicule those that do though. Sort of debases the Craft in my opinion. Good job that I am not a Masonic power that is, for I would be coming down rather hard on this, enabling all of those who are properly prepared and who wish to take steps take them. Would you come down hard on me? Why would I? You don't ridicule. You question, you actively seek the truth. Which is good and I encourage this. It is those who ridicule others that prevent others from taking steps that I would come down hard on. After asking them to explain how what the are doing (hurting others, preventing others feeling comfortable taking Masonic steps) is Masonic, and then some re-education.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 10, 2007 10:27:24 GMT
Would you come down hard on me? Why would I? You don't ridicule. You question, you actively seek the truth. Which is good and I encourage this. It is those who ridicule others that prevent others from taking steps that I would come down hard on. After asking them to explain how what the are doing (hurting others, preventing others feeling comfortable taking Masonic steps) is Masonic, and then some re-education. Cheers mate. You might enjoy this 'own goal' (it lends itself to a point you raised earlier).
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 10, 2007 13:09:00 GMT
Funnily enough I have written a book on the place of humanity at this time. Part of it deals with aliens, and explores the sort of issues that this cartoon raises. But that is only a small part of a book, which I wrote while being lost, and which on reflection is, for all of its faults, quite stunning. But I would say that. I must try harder to get it published. I have called it "Our Place in the Twenty First century". As I have only recently picked it up again I am currently going through it wondering whether to update it to my current knowledge level, or to keep it as it is to make it more accessible to those who are following my steps.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 10, 2007 13:13:00 GMT
Bro Tamrin writes -
... science progresses despite these stereotypical examples.
Ah, Yes - there must be progress - but only along certain lines. Perhaps Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flat Earth Society along with the various Creation Myths should all be banned because of this 'progressive science'.
You have your own views which you have made very clear arguing exceedingly well within the idiom of your own belief system.
Regardless, people will seek that which is beyond what the 'scientific' experts have to say. The mystical quest by the Knights of the Round Table and the Stories of Hans Christian Anderson tell more about ourselves than most experts are able, even with their finely tuned instruments. Or are these narratives also to be proved false.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 10, 2007 15:44:16 GMT
Bro Tamrin writes - ... science progresses despite these stereotypical examples.Ah, Yes - there must be progress - but only along certain lines. Perhaps Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flat Earth Society along with the various Creation Myths should all be banned because of this 'progressive science'. You have your own views which you have made very clear arguing exceedingly well within the idiom of your own belief system. Regardless, people will seek that which is beyond what the 'scientific' experts have to say. The mystical quest by the Knights of the Round Table and the Stories of Hans Christian Anderson tell more about ourselves than most experts are able, even with their finely tuned instruments. Or are these narratives also to be proved false. Now I'm being accused of wanting to ban Santa Clause I guess, if someone were to advance an argument on the forum, which depended on the premise of Santa Clause existing as an individual at the North Pole, along with his helpers and reindeer, I might find something to say (but not in the presence of children). I would be interested in what lay behind the premise, what it says about human nature, the mythical and historical roots upon which it draws and where it may lead—but the premise, as such, I may dispute. Similarly, I would probably disagree with a premise of the earth being flat—Is that OK with you? Please remember, the topic of this particular thread is ' What Would You Accept as Proof?' You appear to have formed a particular, stereotypical view of me as a committed skeptic, which I suggest is at odds with many of my posts elsewhere on the forum. I am not a committed skeptic, in matters esoteric OR, as you will agree, in matters scientific (albeit, both matters I approach with caution). Indeed, I have a reputation among Freemasons in my region as being very esoteric (their eyes may glaze over after a while but they still come back for more). I find great relevance in the study of comparative mythologies and in the study of trans-personal psychology. I maintain there is One Life of which we are each expressions and I consider myself to be on an inner quest of self-discovery and have been told that Freemasonry itself is a progressive science, the application of which may assist on that quest. I consider the judicious use of reason, logic AND intuition to be important tools on that quest and I find Freemasonry advocates that approach—What do you suggest?
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 10, 2007 22:16:08 GMT
Now I'm being accused of wanting to ban Santa Clause Bro Tamrin - now where did I say that? What I was alluding to was the direction in which your 'progressive science' argument would eventually lead. You appear to have formed a particular, stereotypical view of me as a committed skeptic, which I suggest is at odds with many of my posts elsewhere on the forum.Indeed - which is why I am somewhat surprised in the direction in which you wish to lead this discussion. You asked the question - What would you accept as proof - then go on to outline your standard of proof - and just to make my own position clear - that is OK with me. What I am cautioning against is the use of the intellect and 'progress science' to set those parameters. Perhaps the Q could be - What would you accept as a/the 'standard of proof'? And on that question the existence of flying saucers, ghosts and unicorns could be well argued.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 10, 2007 22:38:16 GMT
Bro. Wayseer, You asked the question - What would you accept as proof - then go on to outline your standard of proof - and just to make my own position clear - that is OK with me. Thanks ... I guess—But I did not ask the question: The question was asked of me by Bro. Stewart and Bro. Maat thought it was a good idea to to commence this thread, to specifically address that question.
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 11, 2007 9:38:29 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren,
Perusing this rather long thread, one can conclude that no consensus has been reached. Is this surprising?
IMHO some of the underlying questions have not yet been asked, e.g. if there is any such thing as an object independant from one or more subjects.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 11, 2007 10:15:04 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, Perusing this rather long thread, one can conclude that no consensus has been reached. Is this surprising? IMHO some of the underlying questions have not yet been asked, e.g. if there is any such thing as an object independant from one or more subjects. To answer your rhetorical question, lack of consensus is not surprising in a wider sense, as different individuals may have different standards. However as the question is about, 'What Would You [i.e., the individual] Accept as Proof?' consensus is irrelevant. In the narrower sense, whereby the question had originally been addressed specifically to me (i.e., Tamrin). I have endeavoured to answer it and, again, consensus is irrelevant in that context (unless a committee is required to agree as to what I believe, regardless of my opinion on the matter). I suppose one might ask, 'What should anyone accept as proof?' With that hypothetical question in mind, I agree that, "What we touch, we tear." The observer, by no more than observing, influences the subject. Have you any solution which will not compound the problem?
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 11, 2007 18:35:41 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren,
In the act of intellectual intuition there is unity of proof, prover and proving. However, by "intellect" buddhi, in contrast to manas (mind), is meant. By way of symbolic analogy, one may say that in the act of love there is unity of beloved, lover and love.
In a relative world of manifestation with the appearance of diversity and separation, proof is generally a convention according to circumstances. For example, in many jurisdictions the criteria of legal proof are more stringent in criminal than in civil procedures.
Even the criteria of logical proof may vary. For example, some schools of Hindu logic consider the categories of neither and both in addition to either and or.
A koan of A-dvaita Vedanta runs:
Neither this, nor non-this, nor neither, nor both.[/b]
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 11, 2007 20:32:54 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, In the act of intellectual intuition there is unity of proof, prover and proving. However, by "intellect" buddhi, in contrast to manas (mind), is meant. By way of symbolic analogy, one may say that in the act of love there is unity of beloved, lover and love. In a relative world of manifestation with the appearance of diversity and separation, proof is generally a convention according to circumstances. For example, in many jurisdictions the criteria of legal proof are more stringent in criminal than in civil procedures. Even the criteria of logical proof may vary. For example, some schools of Hindu logic consider the categories of neither and both in addition to either and or. A koan of A-dvaita Vedanta runs: Neither this, nor non-this, nor neither, nor both.[/b][/quote] O.K., you have answered the question as to, 'What Would You [i.e., lihin] Accept as Proof?' As stated above, this is not a matter for consensus. However, in respect to the hypothetical question, 'What Should Anyone Accept as Proof?', can you communicate your 'intellectual intuition' to anyone. Indeed, would you rely on anyone's intuition as 'proof', which would be certain to sway you? I suggest I may have reservations about relying on your 'intellectual intuition' if you were, for instance, navigating. I further suggest you have implied an unfounded presumption that others do not use 'intellectual intuition'—it is the next step where 'proof' is appropriate. By the way, one does not need to turn to schools of Hindu logic to find the very unremarkable terms or categories, 'neither' and 'both.' Of your following statement: A koan of A-dvaita Vedanta runs:
Neither this, nor non-this, nor neither, nor both. I would add, neither [is it] a koan Perhaps you could communicate what your 'intellectual intuition' tells you about the subject of alien visitation, with which this thread began? Would your insight, your 'proof', end the debate for all concerned or just for you?
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 13, 2007 0:39:00 GMT
" Now I a fourfold vision see, And a fourfold vision is given to me; 'Tis fourfold in my supreme delight, And threefold in soft Beulah's night, And twofold always. -- May God us keep From single vision, and Newton's sleep!" Cheers Russell Well blow me down, as they say in some quarters... True story - met a man once who said that he was given a technique for releasing the subtle body so it could astral travel. He managed to do this on the very first occasion and he soared up into the night sky and heard a very slow background chant of a voice saying Beulaaaaaah, Beulaaaaah.... He remembered how wondrous it was and was left wondering why the voice was calling that name. I didn't know either... perhaps someone can enlighten me. Maat PS - Tried the technique myself but remained earthbound and started to look like an indian woman (clue )... mental note: must diet ;D
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 13, 2007 1:50:49 GMT
In Damon's A Blake Dictionary (pp.42/45), there is a rather long commentary on Blake's references to 'Beulah' (of which this was one of many). Perhaps the essential point is (p.42): "In Blake's system, Beulah is the realm of the Subconscious." Further on (p.43), we read: "Blake placed Beulah as an intermediary between Eternity and Ulro (this world of Matter)." A further reference is from an on-line glossary: Beulah: Beulah ("married" in Hebrew) is one of [the] names given to Jerusalem when it is rejoined to God after the exile. In Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Beulah is the pastoral earthly paradise (in sight of the Heavenly City) where Christian and the other pilgrims rest before crossing the River of Death and entering the Heavenly City. For Blake Beulah is an idealized place without conflict, the conventional image of heaven or Eternity where all is at peace and all are one. For Blake, this notion of Eternity is misguided and fallen. Beulah offers an escape from the energetic effort and creative conflict of Eternity. It is a place to rest, but also it is a temptation to escape the demands of Eternity. It stands between Eternity and Ulro. Its inhabitants, the daughters of Beulah, remember eternity and act as muses for the poets (such as Blake) who dwell in Ulro. There is a detailed description of Beulah in Milton 30.1-31.11 And then, for a bit of whimsy, we find:
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 13, 2007 3:29:08 GMT
Aaaaaaaaaaaah, happy sigh. Very, very pretty. But I take it this refers to rather an idealized marriage. For it isn't all about the harmonious conjuction of opposites. There's a real struggle going on, too. A sort of opposites-attract tension that scores off the senses like so many sparks upon water. And there's proof a plenty of that (see, I *can* stay on topic )
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 13, 2007 4:43:11 GMT
The similarities between two of William Blake's works, "The Ancient of Days" and "Newton", suggest that, contrary to the above quote, Blake was impressed by Newton's vision. Turning to Damon's Blake Dictionary (p.298), we read: Blake recognized Newton's genius, and therefore attacked his error, which was the triumph of materialism. Newton, and Bacon, the inventor of experimentalism, and Locke, the author of the philosophy of the five senses, constitute an infernal trinity... Later (p.299), however, we read: Indeed, it is the "mighty Spirit ... from the land of Albion, nam'd Newton" who alone has the power to blow "the Trump of the last doom" and "awake the dead to Judgment" (Eur 13:2-5). And in the final apocalypse, Bacon and Newton and Locke, who first and last were seekers of the truth, whatever their errors, appear in the heavens as the greatest representatives of Science, among the chariots of the Almighty, counterbalancing Milton and Shakespeare and Chaucer, the greatest representatives of Art (J 98:9).
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 13, 2007 8:20:35 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, In view of the ex-istences of an indefinitude of universes, each with an indefinitude of prototypes of beings and an indefinitude of their modes, the premises of questions of possible communications amongst them seem to yours truly too restricted to our familiarity with parts of only one such universe and thus of limited applicability to the question of what constitutes proof. If intellectual intuition were limited to one individual mind-body conceiving itself as separate from the rest of manifestation, it would have not even generality, let alone universality. The typical case of proof of consensus amongst a number of mind-bodies leads to limited common recognition but not to universality. Usually, navigation of a vessel is based on experience of proofs based on consensus. Intellectual intuition is not what is sometimes called "gut feeling". An example of intellectual intuition familiar to some is the passage to the limit in integral and differential calculus. For an ample explanation of this and some other relevant items of mathematical symbolism, read Bro. René Guénon's work The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus[/url], translated into English. Yours truly has read only the French original and thus cannot vouchsafe the translation.
|
|