Inner Empiricism

[Nick_A]

Hello All

I thought best to post this thread here so as to invite discussion and not be limited to debate.

I've learned that trying to understand the meaning and purpose of the essence of religion requires more than the intellect but requires the whole of ourselves as well as a degree of conscious attention. As we are, we are as the old story of the four blind men having touched different parts of a camel, trying to argue over what it looks like. This is what is normally called debate. It tries to understand a higher whole through examining its parts by the associative mind. It cannot be done.

So for those that need more than mental stimulation but the ability to nourish the heart that is a natural calling for man, what do we do? We know there is a lot of self deceptin out there but is there truth at the bottom of it. Is Rumi right when he says:

Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi.

Perhaps the reason that there is so much BS is because there is actually something genuine and of great value for humanity we've become blind to.

Jacob Needleman is one of these rare men that are able to unite religion and science. He shows that science tries to understand the external world but for us to come to understand human meaning and purpose that the great teachings like Christianity seek to serve, requires our knowledge of the inner man: ourselves. This knowledge he calls here inner empiricism. I invite anyone with the need for the "heart" of philosophy in contrast to the joy of argument to read the following article so that we can discuss it in a more satisfying manner than debate?

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

For example: does this make sense to you?

As it happens, I believe there is a growing number of younger philosophers who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter--about what we mean by "reality" and the central role of experience. What draws them, and what originally drew me, to the whole area of philosophy is a quest for meaning. I discovered that the mind by itself cannot complete the philosophic quest. As Kant decisively argued, the mind can ask questions the mind alone cannot answer. For me, this is where the juice of real philosophical investigation begins to flow. I believe it is precisely where intellect hits its limits that the important questions of philosophy start to come alive.

Mainstream academic philosophy has for a long time tried to answer these fundamental questions with that part of the mind we call intellect. Frequently the difficulties encountered were so great, the logical tangles so confusing, that many philosophers decided such questions were meaningless, and some even began to ridicule anyone who dared ask "What is reality?" "What is the meaning of life?" "Is there life after death?" "What is the soul?" "Does God exist?" Yet these are the questions of the heart. These are the questions that matter most to people--not whether the syntax and deep structures of our language can ever truly represent real knowledge. The meaningful questions, these " questions of the heart", rise up in human beings because of something intrinsic to our nature, an innate striving which Plato called Eros.

One aspect of this is the striving to participate in a reality greater than ourselves. It is a yearning, a hunger, a force we may recognize as love. This drive is as much, if not more, a part of our nature as the sexual, physical and animal desires which psychoanalysis and mainstream psychiatry have identified as parts of our essential nature. Our drive for understanding, for participation in a higher reality, shapes our psyche as much as anything else.

But what can the mind do with this deep participatory urge? Even at its most brilliant, the intellect alone can only ask questions that skim the surface of Eros; it cannot answer these questions. Yet such questions--the meaning of life, the nature of the soul--need to be answered. If intellect is not up to the job, how can we penetrate these mysteries? The solution, I'm proposing, is that we can only extend the reach of intellect through experience. There is a certain type of experience that opens up the mind, expands our consciousness, and allows us to approach answers to many of these fundamental questions.

[bernee51]

Hello All

I thought best to post this thread here so as to invite discussion and not be limited to debate.

I've learned that trying to understand the meaning and purpose of the essence of religion requires more than the intellect but requires the whole of ourselves as well as a degree of conscious attention. As we are, we are as the old story of the four blind men having touched different parts of a camel, trying to argue over what it looks like. This is what is normally called debate. It tries to understand a higher whole through examining its parts by the associative mind. It cannot be done.

So for those that need more than mental stimulation but the ability to nourish the heart that is a natural calling for man, what do we do? We know there is a lot of self deceptin out there but is there truth at the bottom of it. Is Rumi right when he says:

Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi.

Perhaps the reason that there is so much BS is because there is actually something genuine and of great value for humanity we've become blind to.

Jacob Needleman is one of these rare men that are able to unite religion and science. He shows that science tries to understand the external world but for us to come to understand human meaning and purpose that the great teachings like Christianity seek to serve, requires our knowledge of the inner man: ourselves. This knowledge he calls here inner empiricism. I invite anyone with the need for the "heart" of philosophy in contrast to the joy of argument to read the following article so that we can discuss it in a more satisfying manner than debate?

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

For example: does this make sense to you?

As it happens, I believe there is a growing number of younger philosophers who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter--about what we mean by "reality" and the central role of experience. What draws them, and what originally drew me, to the whole area of philosophy is a quest for meaning. I discovered that the mind by itself cannot complete the philosophic quest. As Kant decisively argued, the mind can ask questions the mind alone cannot answer. For me, this is where the juice of real philosophical investigation begins to flow. I believe it is precisely where intellect hits its limits that the important questions of philosophy start to come alive.

Mainstream academic philosophy has for a long time tried to answer these fundamental questions with that part of the mind we call intellect. Frequently the difficulties encountered were so great, the logical tangles so confusing, that many philosophers decided such questions were meaningless, and some even began to ridicule anyone who dared ask "What is reality?" "What is the meaning of life?" "Is there life after death?" "What is the soul?" "Does God exist?" Yet these are the questions of the heart. These are the questions that matter most to people--not whether the syntax and deep structures of our language can ever truly represent real knowledge. The meaningful questions, these " questions of the heart", rise up in human beings because of something intrinsic to our nature, an innate striving which Plato called Eros.

One aspect of this is the striving to participate in a reality greater than ourselves. It is a yearning, a hunger, a force we may recognize as love. This drive is as much, if not more, a part of our nature as the sexual, physical and animal desires which psychoanalysis and mainstream psychiatry have identified as parts of our essential nature. Our drive for understanding, for participation in a higher reality, shapes our psyche as much as anything else.

But what can the mind do with this deep participatory urge? Even at its most brilliant, the intellect alone can only ask questions that skim the surface of Eros; it cannot answer these questions. Yet such questions--the meaning of life, the nature of the soul--need to be answered. If intellect is not up to the job, how can we penetrate these mysteries? The solution, I'm proposing, is that we can only extend the reach of intellect through experience. There is a certain type of experience that opens up the mind, expands our consciousness, and allows us to approach answers to many of these fundamental questions.

Interesting..."The meaningful questions, these " questions of the heart", rise up in human beings because of something intrinsic to our nature...

This 'something' is the fact that we have evolved to a level of consciousness where we can ask ourselves the question "Who am I?" When our ancient ancestors first realized this was possible god was invented.

How would you answer the question "Who am I?"

[Nick_A]

Bernee

This 'something' is the fact that we have evolved to a level of consciousness where we can ask ourselves the question "Who am I?" When our ancient ancestors first realized this was possible god was invented.

Was God invented at this point or did we become capable of a perception of higher consciousness? Perhaps we became capable of harboring a seed with the potential to grow so as to acquire a relationship to God impossible for the rest of organic life on earth. Does an acorn know what an oak is or is it just able to become one because of its potential. Perhaps the God/Man relationship is part of our potential and we are at the seed stage.

How would you answer the question "Who am I?"

Perhaps the idea isn't to answer the question but to deepen the question itself through inner empiricism enabling us to "Know Thyself." The better the question, the better the answer. "Who am I?" can be felt superficially at the most external parts of our personality or from the depths of human being itself. How to question from the reality of our inner world and not from the fantasy and chaos it has become?

From the article:

What I want to emphasize is that once we begin to take seriously the potential capacity of the human mind for other kinds of experiences--for other states of consciousness--and develop the proper language and understanding, we discover that the whole question of appearance versus reality itself shifts. Once we begin to realize that there is a selfhood that is more real, under what we usually call "my self ", we come to recognize that not only do we live in a world of appearances outside, we also live in an internal world of appearances.

At this point, the whole issue gets really interesting. Now we see that in order to know the world behind external appearances, we have to get behind the appearances of our inner world. The only way to gain real knowledge of the outer world is by penetrating the appearances of the inner world. Thus, if I want to know the numinous, the thing­in­itself, I need to activate that instrument in myself that is capable of perceiving it. This is the very "instrument" that Kant proved, so he believed, did not exist.

[bernee51]

Bernee

This 'something' is the fact that we have evolved to a level of consciousness where we can ask ourselves the question "Who am I?" When our ancient ancestors first realized this was possible god was invented.

Was God invented at this point or did we become capable of a perception of higher consciousness?

As god does not exist I believe this point in our conscious evolution - a point that brought with it the ability to develop concepts - is the point of the birth of the gods.

]
Perhaps we became capable of harboring a seed with the potential to grow so as to acquire a relationship to God impossible for the rest of organic life on earth.

Not impossible. Evolution has not stopped because we can conceptualize it.

Does an acorn know what an oak is or is it just able to become one because of its potential. Perhaps the God/Man relationship is part of our potential and we are at the seed stage.

The combination of two cells into a fertilized embryo had the potential to become a conscious being. The god/man relatioonship is an illusion.

How would you answer the question "Who am I?"

Perhaps the idea isn't to answer the question but to deepen the question itself through inner empiricism enabling us to "Know Thyself." The better the question, the better the answer. "Who am I?" can be felt superficially at the most external parts of our personality or from the depths of human being itself. How to question from the reality of our inner world and not from the fantasy and chaos it has become?

I take it then that you have no wish to attempt an answer on these pages.

From the article:

What I want to emphasize is that once we begin to take seriously the potential capacity of the human mind for other kinds of experiences--for other states of consciousness--and develop the proper language and understanding, we discover that the whole question of appearance versus reality itself shifts. Once we begin to realize that there is a selfhood that is more real, under what we usually call "my self ", we come to recognize that not only do we live in a world of appearances outside, we also live in an internal world of appearances.

At this point, the whole issue gets really interesting. Now we see that in order to know the world behind external appearances, we have to get behind the appearances of our inner world. The only way to gain real knowledge of the outer world is by penetrating the appearances of the inner world. Thus, if I want to know the numinous, the thing­in­itself, I need to activate that instrument in myself that is capable of perceiving it. This is the very "instrument" that Kant proved, so he believed, did not exist.

Exactly. But first the 'thing iteself' must be identified - realized. The first step is "Who am I?"

Come on - take a leap..give it a go. In your own words.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

As god does not exist I believe this point in our conscious evolution - a point that brought with it the ability to develop concepts - is the point of the birth of the gods.

The combination of two cells into a fertilized embryo had the potential to become a conscious being. The god/man relationship is an illusion.

Exactly. But first the 'thing iteself' must be identified - realized. The first step is "Who am I?"

I can tell you intellectually as part of a theory but it is up to us to verify whatever theory through inner empiricism.

for example I believe now that we don't have "I." "I" (inner unity) is our potential. As we are, we are like Buddhism defines us. We are a plurality with no "I". One moment one facet of my personality expresses itself and another soon after when conditions change. I have looked inside enough to verify Paul's description of himself as the wretched man to have verified that it is true for me. It is my experience.

Can you accept the possibility that you may be wrong. The article asserts that we adopt a great many preconceptions from a complete lack of inner empiricism. If this is true, we have to set aside what we believe and experience inner empiricism before claiming to know if God or higher consciousness exists.

"Do You wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself"
-ABBA EVAGRIUS, FOURTH CENTURY

If this is true, we must begin with Inner Empiricism rather than from conditioned denial in respect to the truth of it.

[bernee51]

Bernee

As god does not exist I believe this point in our conscious evolution - a point that brought with it the ability to develop concepts - is the point of the birth of the gods.

The combination of two cells into a fertilized embryo had the potential to become a conscious being. The god/man relationship is an illusion.

Exactly. But first the 'thing iteself' must be identified - realized. The first step is "Who am I?"

I can tell you intellectually as part of a theory but it is up to us to verify whatever theory through inner empiricism.

for example I believe now that we don't have "I." "I" (inner unity) is our potential. As we are, we are like Buddhism defines us. We are a plurality with no "I". One moment one facet of my personality expresses itself and another soon after when conditions change. I have looked inside enough to verify Paul's description of himself as the wretched man to have verified that it is true for me. It is my experience.

Can you accept the possibility that you may be wrong. The article asserts that we adopt a great many preconceptions from a complete lack of inner empiricism. If this is true, we have to set aside what we believe and experience inner empiricism before claiming to know if God or higher consciousness exists.

"Do You wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself"
-ABBA EVAGRIUS, FOURTH CENTURY

If this is true, we must begin with Inner Empiricism rather than from conditioned denial in respect to the truth of it.

Of course I could be wrong. And it matters not whether I am wrong or right. Wrong or right is a destination...the journey is what is important.

Does 40 years of seeking jnana, meditation and self inquiry count towrds Inner Empiricism?

You state above: "...for example I believe now that we don't have "I." "I" (inner unity) is our potential. As we are, we are like Buddhism defines us. We are a plurality with no "I". ..."

I presume this is in answer to "Who am I?". I am unaware of Buddhism defining the 'self' as a plurality - other than when describing the illusion of self. What we truly are, in the buddhist view as I understand it, is anything other than a plurailty

You then state: "One moment one facet of my personality expresses itself and another soon after when conditions change. " You are observing here an object in awareness...this is clearly not the answer to the question "Who am I?.' 'I' cannot be an object in your awareness. In determining the answer I must first determine what I am not. Once that is done all that is left is 'I'

I have written elsewhere that I have little respect for Paul's rantings and regard him has a mysogynist misanthrope. He certianly was a wretched man. "I" am not.

Seeing we are quoting...Momoimus wrote:

Omitting to seek after God, and creation, and things similar to these, seek for Him from (out of) thyself, and learn who it is that absolutely appropriates (unto Himself) all things in thee, and says, "My God my mind, my understanding, my soul, my body." And learn from whence are sorrow, and joy, and love, and hatred, and involuntary wakefulness, and involuntary drowsiness, and involuntary anger, and involuntary affection; and if you accurately investigate these (points), you will discover (God) Himself, unity and plurality, in thyself, according to that tittle, and that He finds the outlet (for Deity) to be from thyself.

[Beto]

I've learned that trying to understand the meaning and purpose of the essence of religion requires more than the intellect but requires the whole of ourselves as well as a degree of conscious attention. As we are, we are as the old story of the four blind men having touched different parts of a camel, trying to argue over what it looks like. This is what is normally called debate. It tries to understand a higher whole through examining its parts by the associative mind. It cannot be done.

Who said the experiment has to be limited to the perspectives of four blind men? This is an obvious weak analogy. To correlate adequately with the concept of "religion" you'd have to have several million blind men feeling up the animal (that's one happy camel) and at that point, and if they can adequately describe each spot they felt, an almost perfect picture can be drawn, one that everyone accepts. The ultimate purpose of debate is to join as many perspectives as one can, to accurately describe reality. Of course, this would be easier if everyone was honest about what they "experience", which sadly is not always the case. The blind dude that got the camel's privates might feel reluctant to participate.

So for those that need more than mental stimulation but the ability to nourish the heart that is a natural calling for man, what do we do?

What you refer to as "nourish the heart", I understand as a failure to understand the biochemistry of emotions. You're subjectifying what may not need subjectifying.

We know there is a lot of self deceptin out there but is there truth at the bottom of it.

Is Rumi right when he says:

Quote:
Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi.

Go on...

Perhaps the reason that there is so much BS is because there is actually something genuine and of great value for humanity we've become blind to.

Bullcrap is bullcrap. I think "religion" is the "fool's gold" (subjectivity or a personal perspective may look nice) but "gold" is what derives from rational debate and discussion.

Jacob Needleman is one of these rare men that are able to unite religion and science.

He shows that science tries to understand the external world but for us to come to understand human meaning and purpose that the great teachings like Christianity seek to serve, requires our knowledge of the inner man: ourselves. This knowledge he calls here inner empiricism. I invite anyone with the need for the "heart" of philosophy in contrast to the joy of argument to read the following article so that we can discuss it in a more satisfying manner than debate?

Science sets no such boundary for itself. Like I said before, the forceful subjectification of what you refer to as "internal world" is unwarranted. Quantum mechanics by itself is kicking a$$ and taking names on "subjectivity", and an experimentally verified "quantum model of consciousness" may soon follow. From my perspective (and we're here to compare that with as many as possible), "inner empiricism" today is as intellectually dishonest as, for instance, the anthropomorphization of any incomprehensible phenomenon.

Hmmm, no definition problem yet.

[Nick_A]

I've learned that trying to understand the meaning and purpose of the essence of religion requires more than the intellect but requires the whole of ourselves as well as a degree of conscious attention. As we are, we are as the old story of the four blind men having touched different parts of a camel, trying to argue over what it looks like. This is what is normally called debate. It tries to understand a higher whole through examining its parts by the associative mind. It cannot be done.

Who said the experiment has to be limited to the perspectives of four blind men? This is an obvious weak analogy. To correlate adequately with the concept of "religion" you'd have to have several million blind men feeling up the animal (that's one happy camel) and at that point, and if they can adequately describe each spot they felt, an almost perfect picture can be drawn, one that everyone accepts. The ultimate purpose of debate is to join as many perspectives as one can, to accurately describe reality. Of course, this would be easier if everyone was honest about what they "experience", which sadly is not always the case. The blind dude that got the camel's privates might feel reluctant to participate.

The whole purpose of inner empiricism is to allow what is in us that interprets experience to develop so as to become realistic. In order to become honest about what we experience, we have to consciously experience and not just imagine experiences in a continual flow of preconceptions. Debate seeks to protect and justify our preconceptions. The efforts to consciously "know thyself" and acquire inner empiricism develops the quality of that which interprets.

So for those that need more than mental stimulation but the ability to nourish the heart that is a natural calling for man, what do we do?

What you refer to as "nourish the heart", I understand as a failure to understand the biochemistry of emotions. You're subjectifying what may not need subjectifying.

Is this your experience? Have you ever needed love? If you have, has it been your experience that it has been satisfied by reading a text on biochemistry?

We know there is a lot of self deception out there but is there truth at the bottom of it.

Is Rumi right when he says:

Quote:
Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi.

Go on...

Perhaps the reason that there is so much BS is because there is actually something genuine and of great value for humanity we've become blind to.

Bullcrap is bullcrap. I think "religion" is the "fool's gold" (subjectivity or a personal perspective may look nice) but "gold" is what derives from rational debate and discussion.

This may be what you think but is it something you've inwardly verified. Science gives us access to facts. The essence of religion deals with our need for "meaning." Science has no need for inner empiricism since its concern is with the external world. Meaning for us is initially related to our inner world. To clarify "meaning requires the efforts towards inner empiricism which develop the quality of what in us does the interpreting.

From the article:

It is entirely inappropriate in an article such as this for me to attempt to say more about where this process might lead. My intention has been to draw attention to inner empiricism as a critical methodology for any true philosophy, and to intimate its limitless possibilities. Specifically, I wanted to suggest that even the initial stages of the process can lead to experience and knowledge of deeper realities. The question of who the seer is is best left to the committed spiritual (inner­scientific) aspirant to discover for him­ or herself. However, I do want to emphasize that if you are motivated to explore the possibilities of inner empiricism, there comes a point where you realize that you can't access more fundamental levels until that which is seeing itself begins to be transformed. At that point, you realize that what is fundamental is not what you are seeing, but the see­er itself in all its forms. "Tat tvam asi, " the Hindu masters said: "Thou art That."

Where debate is unconcerned with the quality of the seer, the quality of the inner experience of meaning is determined by the quality of the seer which develops through the practice of inner empiricism.

Jacob Needleman is one of these rare men that are able to unite religion and science.

He shows that science tries to understand the external world but for us to come to understand human meaning and purpose that the great teachings like Christianity seek to serve, requires our knowledge of the inner man: ourselves. This knowledge he calls here inner empiricism. I invite anyone with the need for the "heart" of philosophy in contrast to the joy of argument to read the following article so that we can discuss it in a more satisfying manner than debate?

Science sets no such boundary for itself. Like I said before, the forceful subjectification of what you refer to as "internal world" is unwarranted. Quantum mechanics by itself is kicking a$$ and taking names on "subjectivity", and an experimentally verified "quantum model of consciousness" may soon follow. From my perspective (and we're here to compare that with as many as possible), "inner empiricism" today is as intellectually dishonest as, for instance, the anthropomorphization of any incomprehensible phenomenon.

Hmmm, no definition problem yet.

[/quote]

So far so good.

[Beto]

Is this your experience? Have you ever needed love? If you have, has it been your experience that it has been satisfied by reading a text on biochemistry?

Choosing to "romanticize" life, indulging some of our feelings, and not dwelling so much on their origins is one thing. Another is to willfully ignore what we know is at the root of emotions, and attribute to any of them "divine" origins that "transcend" the human body.

[Nick_A]

Is this your experience? Have you ever needed love? If you have, has it been your experience that it has been satisfied by reading a text on biochemistry?

Choosing to "romanticize" life, indulging some of our feelings, and not dwelling so much on their origins is one thing. Another is to willfully ignore what we know is at the root of emotions, and attribute to any of them "divine" origins that "transcend" the human body.

So we have this great question. On the one hand we know that higher mammals have emotions similar to ours and have arisen with our earthly evolution.

Yet there is this other possibility that a greater q