--- "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > >I was trying to write from the 'neutral agnostic' > >position, while acknowledging that I in fact am > >a person who has had "numinous experiences." But > >I cannot prove that scientifically to someone who > >has not experienced such a moment. > > You can tell people that you had the experience: > that constitutes a > report. That report, that gathering of information, > can be as > scientific as any other gathering of information.
Mmm, yes, I can run a survey and show that, say, ~ 70% of Americans report having had at least one such experience; but there are listmembers who seem to think that anything that cannot be measured by instruments of some sort is either invalid or irrelevent. I am trying to see this from their POV. > The *implications* > of the experience are a different matter. > > Like atoms, the implications are invisible to the > unaided eye and > silent to the unaided ear. But just as people came > to accept the > existence of atoms by figuring out what their or > other entities' > existence implied, and then investigated as best > they could, so the > implications of numinous experiences can be figured > out by studying > reported occurrences, which are many. I do think that in the future we will be able to research some 'phenomena' that are now called 'metaphysical' in a scientific way. >> > Numinous experiences do occur. I don't know >> >anyone who denies that. It is the same with >>>apparitions and stigmata. They occur, too. > > > Yet some people will state that such experiences >> are "delusional," or the products of a weak mind; > > Yes, of course. There is a question here: what do > you mean by the > word "delusional"? Do you mean that the reports of > people having > numinous experiences are false and that the people > making those > reports or repeating them, like me, are (perhaps > inadvertently) lying? <grin> Not what *I* mean, as I'd be calling myself 'delusional' in that case, but 'yes' in that persons who only believe what they can measure have said, 'Those people only wish to have such experiences, and so have made them up!' [I think most non-experiencers do not impute *malign* lying to 'believers,' but rather 'self-delusion' or 'foolishly willing suspension of disbelief.'] > Or do you mean that the reports are truthful, in > that they accurately record people's experiences? They accurately record what people *say* they have experienced - at this juncture, *proof* of the experience as something coming from an external source rather than a biochemical brain glitch is lacking. OTOH, such experiences are widespread in humanity, across time and cultures -- I do not think this is an accident, or mere "wishful thinking" on the part of people "terrified of death." > Is the question whether reports of > numinous experiences are like reports of the voices > heard by some > schizophrenics: in our culture, almost everyone > agrees that such the > reports tell us a about the minds and bodies of the > people who hear > voices, but not too much about the subject matters > about which the voices talk. Yes. > >> The issue is not whether some people have such >>> experiences, but how they are interpreted. Within >>>a single culture, there is no question. Everyone >>>interprets the experience the same. Except perhaps in a polyglot concatenation such as our own! ;) >>>But people in different cultures interpret >>>apparitions, stigmata, and numinous experiences >>>differently. > >> Yes; but some people do not (cannot?) have these >> experiences at all, so they think of others - or >> themselves - as 'delusional' or 'defective.' > > Well, there are people who say I could not have > traveled once around > the world, because the world is flat. If I had > tried, I would have > fallen off the edge. To them, my round the world > trip must indicate I am 'delusional' or 'defective'. But in that example, I could physically *take* those flat-earthers out into space and *show* them that Earth is 'a big blue marble.' Currently, I cannot invite someone into my mind and show them what I have experienced. > Pretty clearly, there is a question of your or my > judgement here: do > you judge such people as right or wrong? Who is > 'delusional' or > 'defective', those who say that your reports of your > experience > indicate you are 'delusional' or 'defective', or > those who say that > your reports indicate a widespread human capability? Oh, *I* think it quite clear that those who do not allow the _possibility_ of "numinous-experiencing capacity" as a human attribute are either close-minded, or perhaps they simply do not have that ability themselves, like being red/green color-blind. (I've expanded previously on the hypothetical "genetic basis of spirituality," so won't repeat here.) > You could argue that that capability is as important > as having a > sufficiently efficient metabolism so as to survive > on little food, > which many say is why grandmothers were supported in > paleolithic > times, and thus were able to pass on cultural rather > than genetic learning. Kind of a 'cultural glue.' :) >>> It also goes without saying that numinous >>>experiences can and do confirm statements of liturgy >> >that are unfalsifiable in other ways. > >> But for those who cannot believe in such > >experiences, there is no "scientific proof" to >>replace the faith of the believer/experiencer. > > I don't understand you. A numinous experience is > undeniably > convincing to the person who has the experience. > But is it true that > such experiences mean that Confucius was right? Do > such experiences, > by Hindus, tell us that the Hindu pantheon is a > correct statement > about the nature of the universe? Somehow, I doubt > you are arguing > that numinous experiences, however convincing they > have been to > Confucians or Hindus, prove that Christianity is > wrong. > But I doubt you are arguing that Christianity is > wrong. Moreover, I > suspect that you agree that Confucians and Hindus as > well as > Christians and others have had numinous experiences. Absolutely! As have pagans, wiccans, Muslims, Jews, and Transactionalists. ;) > Then the > question becomes, what can we figure out from this > experience that humans so frequently report? <grin> Well, that *is* the $65,000 question, isn't it? Myself, I think it's the manifestation of another sense (call it sixth or seventh or spiritual if you like), which detects - albeit imperfectly - a level of reality that we cannot currently describe or measure, except in "soft" terms like metaphysical, higher plane, spiritual, etherial, etc. >>> As the late anthropologist, Roy Rappaport, pointed >>>out, numinous experiences transform "the dubious, >>>the arbitrary, and the conventional into the >>>correct, the necessary, and the natural." >>> This is important because members of a >>>paleolithic band must cooperate, which is to say, >>>members must behave often enough in what everyone >>>thinks of as a `correct, necessary, and natural' >>> manner, else the band will die. > > >Yes, spirituality must have been a 'centripetal' > >force in such bands, although in huge masses as we > >have grown into now, it has become a force that too > >often flings apart... > > Definitely true. As Alan Page Fiske, another > anthropologist points > out (in "Structures of Social Life"), in addition to > three other ways > of relating, people tend to establish criteria into > which some people fit and others do not. <snip> > > One of the characteristics of the modern era is the > increase in the > `width' or range of people considered inside the > Western `in-group'. > Americans, for example, think of New Zealanders as > being a part of approximately the same culture. <grin> Not to mention 'Klingons' and other alien wannabes. > One of the great political struggles of our age is > the determination > of who is `in' and who is `out'. Thus, those who > speak of the `common > law nations' try to inspire people to think that > others, such as the > French, are out. Those who speak of `Western > civilization' try to > inspire others to think of them as in. Those who > speak of `our common > humanity' want you to include people from central > Asia as well. Some people have a desperate need to feel superior or elevated, and the only way they can think of to do so is to place others 'beneath' them on a scale. I have written previously that I put *all* extremist fundamentalists in this category; they have in common the pathetic need to be members of an 'elevated elect' who have 'the one true knowledge,' and see non-believers as evil or sub-human. On some level they are terrified of change, of chaos, of being out-of-control; they interpret numinous experiences as validating *their view only,* and grant no one else the possibility of seeing the numinous except from their own picayune viewpoint. > Some science fiction readers ask whether a sapient > artificial > intelligence, with the intelligence, the emotions, > and the wisdom of a > human, but not his looks, are out because they are > not built in God's > image, or whether they are in. (I once had a long > discussion with an > Iranian on just this question; when I returned to > the US, I mentioned > the discussion to a friend. He wondered whether > among Christians such > as himself any entity that did not appear overtly as > God's image could be considered `in'.) Which is why some put such a huge, artificial barrier between themselves - "human!" - and 'all other' be it "subhuman infidels" or "dumb beasts." <snip> > Thus, it becomes important to decide whether > numinous experiences > indicate that Christians are all wrong, because the > numinous > experiences that confirm the Wahabis are correct; or > whether the > numinous experiences that confirm Catholics should > tell us that > Protestants should be killed; or whether there is > some other explanation. <big ol' grin> Well, I've explained it all quite plainly above! But a more elegant phrase (IIRC) is that "We see though a glass but darkly" -- it takes real humility to accept imperfection and limitation in oneself. Debbi Appalling Arrogance And Heart-felt Humbleness Wrapped Up In One Complex Package Maru :} __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l