Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

John Freestone · 01-25-2008, 10:13 AM

I just got up, made a coffee and came here, and OMG (as I think you kids like to say

) - powerful learning here for me.

jawillie, I feel rather sad that you find this kind of thread frustrating, but you might not have come back, so you won't hear me say that. I stand by your right to feel your worldview rather than think it, and I share some of your frustrations with scientific people who think their worldview is the only possible one, but I see all these differences of opinion as healthy, how we learn stuff.

ALG - once again you are a powerful source of learning for me. I hadn't thought of James Randi creating his sceptical universe too, which doesn't attract real 'supernatural' occurrences, or rather, as you say, attracts endless frauds and loonies, as well as thousands of equally sceptical friends all backing up their relatively shared subjective realities. It makes perfect sense from the LoA viewpoint, I can see that now. I'm not saying that I can just drop my intellectual (or emotional, jawillie) objections to LoA immediately, but I'm so glad I put that puzzle here, and kind of kicking myself for being so stupid. I guess the idea was vaguely floating around in the back of my mind that LoA theory would go something like that, but I hadn't focused my mind on it.

I kept thinking that there must be something about the structure of scientific experiments that inhibits mystical/transpersonal/psychic effects - something that stops the whole scientific community from being able to measure psy phenomena ... and I guess there are three things: 1) the individuals involved are almost exclusively materialists, so they are individually creating their reality of materialism, 2) they are involved in constructing a shared subjective reality, and 3) they are individually and collectively taking action in the world in accordance with that viewpoint, i.e. putting up all the procedural barriers against data 'contamination' and to make sure that everything allowed into the experimental focus is measurable in material terms. Am I getting it? I read some of the applications for testing for JR's million dollars and, yes, from a scientists viewpoint, it is all very fair and reasonable - unscientific, untestable claims are disqualified before they even get close, others have the necessary bits and bobs of scientific procedure put in place to avoid people unconsciously contaminating the data. But from an LoA perspective, I can begin to see that all this is like the individual limiting the doors of perception. I can't easily switch off my sceptical bit and be 'converted', but I get the point: if Jesus came back and walked on water in front of James Randi, he'd start splashing about looking for hidden platforms, thus reinforcing his scepticism from his sceptical point of view, and even when he didn't find any hidden platforms, he'd just look for other material explanations he 'must' have missed. It's that 'must'. He wouldn't consider that he might have witnessed a miracle, which by definition isn't going to reveal material proof.

Thanks cylon, tk427, impaul99 and jawillie. This is sooooo strange, so interesting for me. I'm not new to all this, you know, I have wondered about this stuff for decades. When I dropped out of my science degree I read Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach and it was such an important book for me. I took on board the idea of freedom and letting go into the stream of life, so it gave me strength to pursue other paths in life, but I was sceptical about the miracle side of it - blue feathers and levitating spanners and flying through clouds of flies without killing any. Maybe my scientific indoctrination is stronger than I think, and maybe it's time to look again...or, I suppose some of you would say...experiment with it myself. Yikes, now that is slightly scary.

I better stop before I confuse Angela too much

- and it's true, my fingers are tired after 8 years online.

01-25-2008, 10:13 AM	#314 (permalink)
John Freestone Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 325	Omg I just got up, made a coffee and came here, and OMG (as I think you kids like to say ) - powerful learning here for me. jawillie, I feel rather sad that you find this kind of thread frustrating, but you might not have come back, so you won't hear me say that. I stand by your right to feel your worldview rather than think it, and I share some of your frustrations with scientific people who think their worldview is the only possible one, but I see all these differences of opinion as healthy, how we learn stuff. ALG - once again you are a powerful source of learning for me. I hadn't thought of James Randi creating his sceptical universe too, which doesn't attract real 'supernatural' occurrences, or rather, as you say, attracts endless frauds and loonies, as well as thousands of equally sceptical friends all backing up their relatively shared subjective realities. It makes perfect sense from the LoA viewpoint, I can see that now. I'm not saying that I can just drop my intellectual (or emotional, jawillie) objections to LoA immediately, but I'm so glad I put that puzzle here, and kind of kicking myself for being so stupid. I guess the idea was vaguely floating around in the back of my mind that LoA theory would go something like that, but I hadn't focused my mind on it. I kept thinking that there must be something about the structure of scientific experiments that inhibits mystical/transpersonal/psychic effects - something that stops the whole scientific community from being able to measure psy phenomena ... and I guess there are three things: 1) the individuals involved are almost exclusively materialists, so they are individually creating their reality of materialism, 2) they are involved in constructing a shared subjective reality, and 3) they are individually and collectively taking action in the world in accordance with that viewpoint, i.e. putting up all the procedural barriers against data 'contamination' and to make sure that everything allowed into the experimental focus is measurable in material terms. Am I getting it? I read some of the applications for testing for JR's million dollars and, yes, from a scientists viewpoint, it is all very fair and reasonable - unscientific, untestable claims are disqualified before they even get close, others have the necessary bits and bobs of scientific procedure put in place to avoid people unconsciously contaminating the data. But from an LoA perspective, I can begin to see that all this is like the individual limiting the doors of perception. I can't easily switch off my sceptical bit and be 'converted', but I get the point: if Jesus came back and walked on water in front of James Randi, he'd start splashing about looking for hidden platforms, thus reinforcing his scepticism from his sceptical point of view, and even when he didn't find any hidden platforms, he'd just look for other material explanations he 'must' have missed. It's that 'must'. He wouldn't consider that he might have witnessed a miracle, which by definition isn't going to reveal material proof. Thanks cylon, tk427, impaul99 and jawillie. This is sooooo strange, so interesting for me. I'm not new to all this, you know, I have wondered about this stuff for decades. When I dropped out of my science degree I read Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach and it was such an important book for me. I took on board the idea of freedom and letting go into the stream of life, so it gave me strength to pursue other paths in life, but I was sceptical about the miracle side of it - blue feathers and levitating spanners and flying through clouds of flies without killing any. Maybe my scientific indoctrination is stronger than I think, and maybe it's time to look again...or, I suppose some of you would say...experiment with it myself. Yikes, now that is slightly scary. I better stop before I confuse Angela too much - and it's true, my fingers are tired after 8 years online.