Certainty and Doubts, Hope and Faith

20 Guests, 0 Users

Of those who say nothing, few are silent. ~ Thomas Neill

Advanced search

Dilber MulticolorMarley TPSMF Default Theme -

[Francis]

I would make a distinction between scientific knowledge and direct knowing (gnosis). Scientific knowledge was first conjured in the mind and then tested (validated) by comparison against physical reality. Direct knowing bypasses the validation process. Direct knowing is Spirit being distilled into mind-stuff (intuition). Scientific knowledge is mind-stuff that has been manifested and confirmed by focusing awareness on the physical world. If there were no doubt, then there would be no need for the validation step.

I like what Masters says about doubt and skepticism. I would reverse the two in terms of connotation, however. Doubt is a temporary state of mind that serves to help validate theories and hypotheses. Like the concept of the Devil’s Advocate. Skepticism is a pathological predisposition toward casting aspersions.

Gnosis:
“Swiftly arose and spread around me the peace and knowledge that pass all the argument of the earth, And I know that the hand of God is the promise of my own, And I know that the spirit of God is the brother of my own, And that all the men ever born are also my brothers, and the women my sisters and lovers…”

Science:
“Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.”

[Michael]

I sometimes look at paradigms as "sets" that contain assumptions from which logical processes can be initiated and carried forward to value-laden conclusions.  From that it follows that WITHIN a given paradigm, all conclusions and values are relative to one another, but all assumptions are absolute.

These paradigmatic assumptions are assumed facts about the nature of reality, such as descriptions of phenomena and explanations of phenomena, and background stories about how and why things are the way they are.  And which objects of consideration are more important, and which are less important.  (and this includes what things are assumed to actually exist and what things don't) 

Different paradigms contain different assumptions and values.  So if we embody multiple paradigms, we have to relativise what was formerly absolute.  -Our assumptions about the nature of reality.

An interesting byproduct of this upgrade to our consciousness operating system, is that our certainties change. 

So long as we are stuck with only one paradigm, or worldview, or perspective...it only makes sense to be certain of our assumptions.  When we can embody multiple paradigms, or worldviews, or perspectives, everything in reality becomes relative to everything else, and therefore uncertain in a sense.  Uncertain in the sense that the world of form or appearance is all relative with nothing absolute at all.  And reality is partially given form by means of our adopted paradigms, both individually and collectively. (the myth of the given)


I find that I have less patience than I used to when conversing with people who can only speak in terms of absolutes, embedded in certainties.

How boring is that?

Especially when I have to revert to the same style of communication in order to make my points. 

[Francis]

I agree that being locked into a certain worldview is limiting. On the other hand if we have several worldviews to choose from, we need a way to pick the right one for a given situation. What worldview will work best for what I'm now trying to accomplish? How do I  choose?

Some people want to solve this problem (of choosing worldviews) by integrating all worldviews into one comprehensive worldview that is somehow universal and fits all cases. I think this approach is impractical.

For the sake of example, let's assume that the Ram Dass levels listed below are really a set of fundamental worldviews. All we need then, is a way to take a specific goal and marry it to the best worldview in the set, which will best help us achieve that goal. So we need a comprehensive list of all available worldviews and an analysis of each of these worldviews that tells us their uses and their drawbacks.

RAM DASS EXCERPTS FROM:
SELF-MASTERY. A JOURNEY HOME TO YOUR SELF
A TEXTBOOK FOR THE NEXT MILLENNIUM

SEVEN LEVELS OF REALITY

THE SEVEN LEVELS OF REALITY ARE:

PHYSICAL REALITY: A material, body-oriented, earth-plane reality (food, money, sex). The majority of people are aware of ONLY this level of reality, and therefore they live within it and don't see beyond it.
PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY: In this reality we identify people (and ourselves) as happy, sad, highly-functioning depressive, neurotic, aggressive, etc. We see beyond their bodies and observe their unique personalities.
META-PHYSICAL REALITY: In this reality we see people from the astral plane, but it's still another game of individual differences. In this reality we group people within archetype, astrological signs, etc.
 AWARENESS REALITY: At this level we see people as beings that are just like us, another entity trapped in the illusion of individual differences (body, personality, astrology). It's a softer, more aware stage, but we still perceive separateness and still feel separated from each other.
NAMASTE REALITY: At this level of reality we perceive that we are all ONE! When we look into another person's eyes we see only ONE of us; we see only ONE appearing as the many. Up to this point every reality felt real, but at this level of reality we come to realize that all levels of reality are only relatively real, meaning that no level of reality is any more real than any other level.
MEDITATION REALITY: At this level we return to the formless, non-attached, no models, pure being-ness state of reality. At this level we just "are." It is what God is. NOT the concept of God, but God Itself. We live within the un-manifested Uni-verse (one song)! It's the level where we realize that levels one through five were mere experiences of the five senses.
SELF-MASTERY REALITY: At this level a liberated, self-realized (real) being is FREE to be in, but not attached to, ALL LEVELS OF REALITY. At this level, you can be in level six, the meditation reality, and still be in level one, form. As a self-mastered being you have all levels of reality available to you simultaneously, so you can play in any or all levels of the chess metaphor simultaneously.

So the last level is a kind of detached play on all levels. Yet each of these others is an independent self-referencial worldview, except the last one that is kind of a meta-view. When Dass says that 'people are trapped in the illusion of individual differences' I think he is being somewhat obscure. The individual differences are made progressively more real as they approach manifestation on level one. In other words the categories that are nonexistent (unreal) on the higher levels, become arbitrary assumptions on levels 2 & 3, and progress toward manifestation at level 1. Whereas the categories and distinctions on levels 2 & 3 are just hypothetical proposals, usually inherited, these same differences are translated down and actually made real* (manifest) on level 1. *Whatever that means.

The point being that manipulating physical manifestation is a matter of choosing the right categories on levels 2 & 3 in order to get the physical results that you want manifested.
Worldview = an assumed set of possible categories and value assignments for each of these catagories, that all exsit on levels 2 & 3. Clearly there are an unlimited number of possible worldviews based on this definition. However, since operating one that doesn't substantially agree with the consensus version is the definition of insanity, we have a limited spectrum of such worldviews available. I suppose the best way to seek out new ones is to seek out other cultures. Or study nutcases.

[jimtzu]

Isn't the universe already integrated? a worldview is just a window looking at what can be seen or known at the particular time from that individual space/time.  an integrated worldview is a larger window, but a window still the same. how does one "see" the universe without looking thru a window? (your koan for the day) 
waking up is clearing the thoughts and feelings that cloud the gnowing of what is before you.  difficult as that is it can be done with a lot of (non)work, seeing thru someone elses eyes (paradigms) can be done too, but can you see thru everyone's eyes to get the complete picture?  can the whole be tasted in one gulp??

[henry]

koan? what is the sound of one hand mime washing windows Gulp...anonymous

[Francis]

I agree that the Universe is already integrated and that there are veils that obscure the completely integrated view. I'm not sure if the whole can be experienced. Different types of veils can be tried on and lower-level veils can be transcended to get to levels 6 & 7 on the Dass scale. I'm not sure if levels 6 & 7 are really the whole enchilada. There is no way to prove that there aren't more subtle and insidious veils on the higher levels. I think it's dangerous to assume there aren't any, than to assume otherwise.

[Michael]

From Richard Tarnas' book The Passion of the Western Mind:  "Perhaps what Virginia Woolf said of great works of literature can be said as well for great worldviews: "The success of the masterpieces seems to lie not so much in their freedom from faults - indeed we seem to tolerate the grossest of errors in them all - but in the immense persuasiveness of a mind which has completely mastered its perspective." "

[Francis]

Makes sense to me. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the pitfalls of a given perspective that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

[Michael]

Here's a new formulation that just occurred to me.  I tend to avoid formulations these days, but sometimes they're fun to play with.

This comes from thinking about the Woolf quote above...

Some elements one can bring to bear on 'the mastery of a perspective' or worldview:

Mind
Heart
Experience
Instinct

Mind - Understanding.  Positioning.   Mastery of perspective is about making formulations, turning them into positions, then defending those positions against other competing perspectives.  Intellectual chess. 

Heart – Relationship. Mastery of perspective is about feeling how one’s own perspective relates to other significant perspectives, and how it relates to reality, Mind, Experience, Instinct, and everything else.

Experience - Mastery of perspective is about making the best use of one’s life experience.  Which means integrating and bringing to bear past experience in present circumstances.

Instinct – Being deeply in touch with the wisdom of the body and the collective unconscious.  Bringing that wisdom to bear on one’s experience and integrating that into one’s worldview.


Back to the Woolf quote:

“The success of the masterpieces seems to lie not so much in their freedom from faults - indeed we seem to tolerate the grossest of errors in them all - but in the immense persuasiveness of a mind which has completely mastered its perspective."

I think the persuasiveness alluded to above is due to embodying the perspective in question.  Which means bringing to bear more than just the mind’s understanding.  It means also bringing to bear heart, experience and instinct.

[Francis]

I love formulations. Good job. I think that to master a perspective means that you can see the limitations of the perspective and the range of its usefulness. I think that you can use a menu of perspectives where each can be logically independent and use different assumptions and have different applications. Conscious compartmentalization, as it were.

[Michael]

I think Frank Visser's latest essay on IntegralWorld is is best to date.  I'm struck particularly by this passage:

Wilber once claimed that, if evolution turned out to be explainable on the basis of  reductionistic, naturalistic principles, then that is what AQAL theory  would include:

But overall integral theory doesn't hang on that  particular issue. If physicalistic, materialistic, reductionistic  forces turn out to give an adequate explanation to the extraordinary  diversity of evolutionary unfolding, then fine, that is what we will  include in integral theory. And if not, not.

That seems like a strong statement. Isn't the idea of an onward and  upward striving evolutionary process key to the AQAL model? What if the  "Spirit of Evolution" turns out to be a Ghost? Given the—often  emotionally charged—way that Wilber has argued for a "spiritual" view  of evolution, in contrast to the "reductionist", scientific view, one  almost senses that he needs science to fail on its own, to be able to promote his alternative.

Wilber's post-metaphysical spirituality still has many unsolved problems and ambiguities (such as an "immanent telos" driving evolution, not to mention the "intra-physical" nature of consciousness, as dealt with in "My Take on Wilber-5").  In my opinion,

integral theory as meta-theory (or theory about  theories) should decide on what type of empirical evidence—if any—it  takes to falsify it.

Evolution apparently isn't a candidate for this?

(my emphasis)

Then I came across an appropriate John Lilly quote this morning:

The quality of one's model of the universe is measured by how well it matches the real universe. There is no guarantee that one's current model does match the reality, no matter how certain one feels about the high quality of the match. Feelings of awe, reverence, sacredness and certainty are also adaptable metaprograms, attachable to any model, not just the best fitting one.

Modern science knows this: we know that merely because a culture generated a cosmology of a certain kind and worshiped with it, was no guarantee of goodness of fit with the real universe. Insofar as they are testable, we now proceed to test (rather than to worship) models of the universe. Feelings such as awe and reverence are recognized as biocomputer energy sources.

[jimtzu]

yes, the scientific method of testing by falsification is the best way, so far, of checking out man-made models/theories. relying on someone else's ideas because we like them or think they are "smarter" (not necessarliy wiser) than us, leads one into blind faith. we have to do the leg work and if we're a mapmaker, be open to the reality that we can't have the whole picture, even if it tweaks the ego, in the true spirit of science. 

it would seem that wilber or anyone living more in the mind, should go out and get their hands dirty, literally, in the service of others to put their egos into perspective.  in his case, he did some of his best work whilst washing dishes. 

[Francis]

Falsification doesn't always completely discredit a theory. No that you said it did, I just want to make the point that falsification can sometime limit the scope of a theory in terms of applicability, without totally discrediting the whole theory. Einstein said that "No amount of experimentation can prove me right, but one experiment can prove me wrong." This is true only because he was claiming that his theories were universal in scope. Relativity as a theory limited the scope of Newton's laws of motion, but it did not really disprove them because relativistic formultions reduce to the Newtonian formulation for speeds much slower than the speed of light. Nasa and people like that still use the Newtonian formulations for this reason, even though they've been duly "falsified" by Einstein, et al.

So I'm advocating that we use theories as tools that have limited applicability and stop the pathological focus on "Truth" versus "Falsity". Falisified theories may be useful when circumstances change. Likewise universally true theories could become obsolete. I don't belieive in universal theories because universality can never be proven, as Einstein points out. The idea of universality gives us a warm fuzzy feeling, as Lilly points out, which can be a goal in itself. However this feeling can be the enemy of pragmatism.

"Creeds and schools in abeyance, Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never forgotten,I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard, Nature without check with original energy."

[Nickeson]

Regarding theory and Wilber and the need for meta-theory, and the use of theory etc.---

I posted this over in Balderville in March about such things...it is an excerpt from from a longer thing:

"I don't know how AQAL works when mixed into the context of professional Theory Making, because those labs are just too airy for me. But I'm not sure that the professional Theorist wouldn't find it to be more efficient to just put notes above the desk that read: “Be Sensitive. Reach Far. Dig Deep.” instead of trudging through SS&E. People on the ground have been doing that for years, doing it exceptionally well. It is as if Wilber did not know they were there; as if he dropped out of school but never left the walled confines of a campus. In my wanderings through the Integral Province I have asked myself more than once if Integral Theory wasn't for those meta-reclusive intellectuals who only relate to their colleagues and are oblivious to the fact that the rest of the world might be ahead of them.

"My case in point: Edwards and Jon (above) mention Islamic Terrorists, I'll wander down that road and put in a plug for a friend's latest book, The Looming Towers by Lawrence Wright. It won the Pulitzer last year for General Non-Fiction. It is the most comprehensive, fundamentally Integral, analysis of a situation regarding Islamic Terrorism in print anywhere. Everything in the 4Qs are considered and yet I would put even money on the proposition that Wright has never heard of Ken Wilber, and wouldn't read him if he had. Such things are not Wright's style or interest. Years ago he and I were, each in our own idiosyncratic way, prima donna investigative magazine journalists, worked out of the same office for awhile. And I am sure we discussed the need to apply theory to our work. But there was a limit to its use. Theory, as any good non-Marxist Marxist should know, should only be used to provide a rough frame-work for the evidence and data as it is coming in; sort of like a teacher's seating chart for the first two weeks of the semester. If an investigator/analyst is really doing their work the way it should be done there will soon come a time when the amount of evidence will reach a critical mass wherein the facts of the case will start arranging themselves into coherent patterns based not on the theory but their relationship to each other. If the facts themselves don't kick down the theoretical traces and throw them out of any further consideration then something is wrong. If the writer needed to perpetuate the conceptual presence of theory beyond the phenomenological demands of the facts then we considered them to be hacks who suffered greatly from character flaws…clear on the face of matter. It is similar to an other profession. Lawyers all know that first and foremost one argues the facts, but if the facts don't favor one's side only then one argues the “law,” which is the State's (Province if you will) name for its peculiar theory. Good lawyers, good writers know for sure that facts trump theory any day, compound that twice for meta-theory."

I should point out that facts really don't know their relationship to each other and don't arrange themselves as I stated in this quote. It was a metaphor. But a good investigator/analyst knows deep in her heart that a theory is in the long run an insult to her intelligence and her ability to tell the better story and is always looking for a coherent and verifiable way to grind it under her heel. So the trick is to tolerate it for the shortest time possible (like the schizophrenic wino sitting next to you on the bus) and always be on the alert for the way to make a break from the damn thing.

[Francis]

I agree with you. Theories are two layers of abstraction away from the now (reality). Facts are the first layer. People like me get enthralled with the compelling arrangement of facts and lose out on the now. It's a disabling pathology on the one hand and the essence of creativity on the other.

"After arranging the world in the most beautiful and enlightened manner, the scholar goes back home at 5 o'clock in the afternoon in order to forget his beautiful arrangement"


People are fond of saying "facts are facts" as if facts have some supremely objective quality. This allows a subtle subjectivity to sneak in. For all practical purposes, in any given situation, there are an infinite number of possible facts to consider. The subjectivity comes in by choosing which ones to focus on, to the exclusion of the others. That is, "putting the facts in perspective." The theories that arise from these facts are therefore tainted with the germ of subjectivity. The only possible cure for this problem is if we happen to stumble on a universal theory. It seems possible because we've seen theories can often accommodate facts that were not considered when the theory was first formulated. This is considered to be objective validation. To chase a theory that fits all facts is misguided because such a theory would be too general and ambiguous to be useful. It would be about as useful as any tautology, but that's about it.