Spirituality without religion

Originally posted by Conrau K
All knowldge drives from experience. Experience is subjective, thus knowledge is subjective. You would not "know the implications of the act". ou would only know the purported implications of the act. And a blind person would have given knowledge of the colour blue but since he has never experienced cannot be sure that it even exists.

Palynka you miss t ...[text shortened]... y scientist dscribe anything as an absolute truth. Whether it be about the colour blue or sex.

I don't miss the point of being skeptic since I claim no absolute truth.

But being skeptic is quite different from the idea that empiricism leads to relativism, which is what you've been describing.

One can believe a certain experience if a significant number of scientists has worked and convinced other fellow scientists that his work seems correct. The fact that we cannot claim it has an absolute truth has nothing to do with experiencing it directly or not. Even the scientist who conducted the experiment cannot claim the absolute truth of his own experiment. THAT is skepticism. It has NOTHING to do with PERSONAL direct experiences, but with the impossibility claiming absolute truths.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I dont think you see the contradiction in what you just said. Anyway, if we need an axiom to know if a truth is self- evident, how did we know the axiom was true to begin with? Wouldn't it presuppose another axiom? Ad Infinitum?

Our first axioms always originate from a process of induction (it can't be deduction as you imply, because eventually w ...[text shortened]... you are left with no other axioms to deduce from). They are thus, described as self- evident.

It is an axiom itself, so there is no contradiction.

I agree that cannot be proven, that's why we need axioms as starting points, because we cannot prove things Ad Infinitum. That was exactly my point.

Originally posted by Palynka


But being skeptic is quite different from the idea that empiricism leads to relativism, which is what you've been describing.

Whoa, hold on here. I never said such a thing. I have always acknowledged a truth which is not relative to me. How I perceive it though is quite different.
That is why the truth (or rather what we conceive as the truth) in part must be in some way relative to our perceptions of it. This definition has no impact on what the truth is though, just what we think it might be.

One can believe a certain experience if a significant number of scientists has worked and convinced other fellow scientists that his work seems correct. The fact that we cannot claim it has an absolute truth has nothing to do with experiencing it directly or not. Even the scientist who conducted the experiment cannot claim the absolute truth of his own experiment. THAT is skepticism. It has NOTHING to do with PERSONAL direct experiences, but with the impossibility claiming absolute truths.

What I meant was that even our own experiences are flawed. That is why science canNOT produce an absolute truth. We have to make assumptions (i.e. that what I am observing exists).

Originally posted by Palynka
It is an axiom itself, so there is no contradiction.

I agree that cannot be proven, that's why we need axioms as starting points, because we cannot prove things Ad Infinitum. That was exactly my point.

But how do you know that the axioms at starting points are true?

Originally posted by Conrau K
But how do you know that the axioms at starting points are true?

You've already answered that one haven't you?
The axioms can only really be assumptions - we can't prove them. We can only accept that they are true by convention.

Originally posted by amannion
You've already answered that one haven't you?

I think I did.
I guess what I have been trying to get across is that in the end it all relies on assumptions. That is why we can't be sure of anything. So for the skeptic to drop one docrtine but accept another, doesn't seem to come from a logical view point (perhaps a more logical veiwpoint). That is why I reject God. I can assume everyone else exists (because ay you said, its the only sane thing to do) but it seems exteremely pointless to then assume that God exists.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think I did.
I guess what I have been trying to get across is that in the end it all relies on assumptions. That is why we can't be sure of anything. So for the skeptic to drop one docrtine but accept another, doesn't seem to come from a logical view point (perhaps a more logical veiwpoint). That is why I reject God. I can assume everyone else exists (b ...[text shortened]... s the only sane thing to do) but it seems exteremely pointless to then assume that God exists.

Exactly!
I guess our views are similar after all. Where I've used the word "axiom", you've used "assumption". I believe that we need assumptions defined as axioms to build from there on.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Whoa, hold on here. I never said such a thing. I have always acknowledged a truth which is not relative to me. How I perceive it though is quite different.
That is why the truth (or rather what we conceive as the truth) in part must be in some way relative to our perceptions of it. This definition has no impact on what the truth is though, just what we th ...[text shortened]... T produce an absolute truth. We have to make assumptions (i.e. that what I am observing exists).

But when you say a blind person cannot understand "blue" or a virgin cannot understand "sex", you tie personal direct experience with knowledge.

Here I disagree, one doesn't need to conduct quantum experiments to aquire some knowledge about quatum mechanics. If you've said that one cannot "create" knowledge without proper testing, I would absolutely agree but you've pushed your point a little bit further, I believe. The blind can learn about colours without ever knowing the perception of them.

Originally posted by Palynka
But when you say a blind person cannot understand "blue" or a virgin cannot understand "sex", you tie personal direct experience with knowledge.

Here I disagree, one doesn't need to conduct quantum experiments to aquire some knowledge about quatum mechanics. If you've said that one cannot "create" knowledge without proper testing, I would absolutely agree believe. The blind can learn about colours without ever knowing the perception of them.

The blind can learn ABOUT colours without ever knowing the perception of them. (My all-caps added.)

Maybe I’m missing the point of this argument, but—

The thing is, that word “about” is a huge one.

Imagine a person totally blind from birth. You teach him all the technical “textbook” details about color; perhaps you might “identify” each color with a musical tone, so he can gain a substitute aesthetic experience. One day in his early adulthood, say, he undergoes an operation (which was heretofore unavailable) which gives him perfect sight. Will he immediately recognize the various colors from the education you gave him while he was blind?

More importantly for the point at hand, I think, is, do you think he’ll just shrug his shoulders and say: “Oh, yeah. Now I see colors. No big deal. I learned all about them.”

No doubt, he will be able to identify the conventional names of the color-perceptions he now experiences, describe their wavelengths, etc., fairly quickly because of the education he received while blind.

But there is certainly a huge difference between knowing “about” color (or sex), and knowing color.

In the end, conceptual/descriptive knowledge and perceptual (experiential) knowledge are simply not substitutes for one another. And in the case of color (and sex), among other things, I value the sensual experience far more than the descriptive or propositional knowledge.

EDIT: Of course, quantum mechanics deals with matters that are outside the range of our sense perception. In that case, ultimately experimental verification takes the place of sense perception, no? Ultimately, any scientific theory is subject to verification/falsification by empirical observation--even though it may take a long time in some cases to design and carry out experimentation.

EDIT^2: I am aware of the philosophical definition of knowledge as justified true belief. I find that to be an unnecessarily narrow definition in everyday discourse. In the Greek, there are two terms: episteme and gnosis. If you’re using the word “knowledge” in strictly the first sense, I have no problem with that. Just substitute an appropriate term in my post where I chose to use knowledge also in the second sense.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The blind can learn ABOUT colours without ever knowing the perception of them. (My all-caps added.)

Maybe I’m missing the point of this argument, but—

The thing is, that word “about” is a huge one.

Imagine a person totally blind from birth. You teach him all the technical “textbook” details about color; perhaps you might “identify” e ...[text shortened]... bstitute an appropriate term in my post where I chose to use knowledge also in the second sense.[/b]

Will he immediately recognize the various colors from the education you gave him while he was blind?
No, but I rate the knowledge that can be gathered from perceptions higher than knowledge of the perceptions themselves.
Knowing which one is blue or red or knowing what makes them different is not the same. I don't think than recognizing perceptions is more important than recognizing what caused them. (in terms of knowledge and knowledge alone, this is important since there are pleasures attached to perceptions which I certainly value highly)

do you think he’ll just shrug his shoulders
Of course not. I don't see your point here. My point on this thread was that I disagree that the fact that we may perceive things differently changes the reality behind the perceptions. To say that this leads to relativism is false, in my opinion. The fact that we can define blue in a way that transcends each individual's perceptions allows us to have a base of common knowledge.

In the end, conceptual/descriptive knowledge and perceptual (experiential) knowledge are simply not substitutes for one another. And in the case of color (and sex), among other things, I value the sensual experience far more than the descriptive or propositional knowledge.
In a way I prefer "Samsara" to "Nirvana" myself (feel free to correct me here, I know I'm simplifying both concepts). Perceptions are part of the pleasures in life and learning is part of the pleasures in life. If I was forced to abdicate one, I would abdicate from the former.

Again, I think this not under discussion, but if the fact that the possibility that each one's experiences are different leads to relativism. I don't think so, for the reasons/examples I gave before.

In the Greek, there are two terms: episteme and gnosis.
I'm sorry, how do you translate gnosis?

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Will he immediately recognize the various colors from the education you gave him while he was blind?
No, but I rate the knowledge that can be gathered from perceptions higher than knowledge of the perceptions themselves.
Knowing which one is blue or red or knowing what makes them different is not the same. I don't think than recognizing perceptio ...[text shortened]... ms: episteme and gnosis[/b].
I'm sorry, how do you translate gnosis?[/b]

My point on this thread was that I disagree that the fact that we may perceive things differently changes the reality behind the perceptions. To say that this leads to relativism is false, in my opinion. The fact that we can define blue in a way that transcends each individual's perceptions allows us to have a base of common knowledge.

I agree.

I'm sorry, how do you translate gnosis?

I was using it in the sense of intimate experiential knowledge (e.g., it is sometimes used to refer to sexual intimacy). It can also mean recognition or perception. Both episteme and gnosis can be translated as "knowledge," but episteme seems to refer more to understanding.

In a way I prefer "Samsara" to "Nirvana" myself (feel free to correct me here, I know I'm simplifying both concepts). Perceptions are part of the pleasures in life and learning is part of the pleasures in life. If I was forced to abdicate one, I would abdicate from the former.

And this is where we are at an impasse of choice (despite all the time I spend on here!).

I’m not sure what you mean by “higher knowledge” in your first paragraph. I would say that adding propositional understanding to perception means that you have more knowledge (and I do not argue for less knowledge). Beethoven’s 9th Symphony is for me a very powerful and moving piece of music. I neither know how to write or read musical score; nor do I have any knowledge base of musical theory. I do not eschew them; they are simply a knowledge that I have unfortunately not acquired. Such knowledge may well deepen my appreciation for the symphony (although I have actually known a few people, probably rare, who lost their ability to be moved by the music as a result of their continuing need to “dissect” it as they listened; my wife does have some background in music theory, and for her it enhances her appreciation).

But, again, if forced to choose between having an extensive knowledge of music theory but being deaf, say, or being able to be moved by listening to the music—I would always choose the latter.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]My point on this thread was that I disagree that the fact that we may perceive things differently changes the reality behind the perceptions. To say that this leads to relativism is false, in my opinion. The fact that we can define blue in a way that transcends each individual's perceptions allows us to have a base of common knowledge.

I agree.

, or being able to be moved by listening to the music—I would always choose the latter.[/b]

But, again, if forced to choose between having an extensive knowledge of music theory but being deaf, say, or being able to be moved by listening to the music—I would always choose the latter.

I agree. I wrote former where I wanted to write latter... My bad. Life is too short to be dead serious about it. 🙂

I’m not sure what you mean by “higher knowledge” in your first paragraph.

Again I agree that the term is vague, but I don't know how to phrase it more clearly in English (and perhaps even in Portuguese!). It's perhaps the different between recognition and understanding. A blind person may not be able to recognize colours, but he may learn about what they are. (again the 'about'...remnants of a skeptic self force me to put something there...)

I agree with most of what you've said (as usual 😉 ). The first sentences that you've quoted were my entire point on this thread and I think the disagreement came from poor wording from my part.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]But, again, if forced to choose between having an extensive knowledge of music theory but being deaf, say, or being able to be moved by listening to the music—I would always choose the latter.

I agree. I wrote former where I wanted to write latter... My bad. Life is too short to be dead serious about it. 🙂

I’m not sure what you mean by “high ire point on this thread and I think the disagreement came from poor wording from my part.

[/b]Ah. Well, I would've been surprised if you and I were in much disagreement! 🙂

I should've added a caveat to my post: learning, study, acquisition and exploration of propositional knowledge (e.g., about music) can be as much an aesthetic project as listening to music—or, maybe a better example: reading a book on mathematics, say, can be as aesthetically pleasing to some (or to the same person, depending on mood) as watching a sunset.

My life-project is largely an aesthetic one. I did not intend to imply that pursuit of knowledge is not also aesthetic.

Have you read Zorba the Greek? The narrator ("Basil" in the film) is a Buddhist scholar who has come to regard his scholarship as a waste of life—i.e., not "real" living. Zorba teaches him to love and to dance. But I think setting the one against the other, while effective dramatically (and as a kind of thought-experiment), does create a kind of false dichotomy.

In reality, experience/recognition and knowledge/understanding may be like two blades of the same pair of scissors that we use to cut through life.

(In my life, I have taken mostly the "Basil" path, I think. I need a bit more Zorba.)