--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > snip So the big question remains as to whether the brain experiences and that style of brain functioning that feels spiritual just is what it is, or if it is a reflection of something "spiritual" going on that is more than the brain. If it not more than the brain working in a specific manner, are those brain states worth cultivating just for how they feel (cultivating in practices such as meditation or even artificially inducing them with drugs, magnets, electrical stim etc), forgetting the whole spiritual framework and meaning? > > I think they are worth cultivating. It is a crucial question as to what > intellectual paradigm might be best to provide the explanation for these > experiences. Spiritual paradigms are often worth investigating, but they are > highly varied because they tend to not be constrained in the way scientific > paradigms are, by specific controlled situations, and those pesky things we > call facts. Metaphysics is a minefield of explanations with minimal > constraints, while physics is a minefield with real mines that have to be > given their due. > > The path of enlightenment that each comes to think of when embarking on a > spiritual path usually begins with a metaphysical explanation of some sort > rather than a physical one. Bridging the gap between these two modes of > thought and our 'container' of consciousness (the great seemingly > non-physical mystery of existence); this seems to be the sought after goal, > but somehow, in the mode of thought, one or the other of these intellectual > paradigm categories wins out for most people, and an endless straw argument > ensues between the metaphysical concepts (and between different metaphysical > concepts), and the physical concepts (there are different physical concepts > but they usually get sorted out by scientific experiment).
Response:Yes, one of these paradigms does seem to win out - and I continue to hope that one paradigm does not have to preclude the other. Our generation is the first to have had these very real metaphysical experiences and then years later found that science is able to point to the brain and say "this caused that seemingly metaphysical experience." Frankly, it is hard to take, even if totally fascinating. > > Maskedzebra mentioned Aquinas. At the end of Aquinas' life he appeared to > have an experience that silenced him. He saw through the metaphysical > claptrap, and saw that all his efforts were as 'straw'. He spoke very little > after that. Thus I believe Aquinas finally had the revelation of seeing > through the veil of maya. Response:This is interesting about Aquinas. Did he write of what that particular silencing experience was? Because he did not have the experiments of neuroscience to silence him. Perhaps the metaphysical words were too limiting for his final experiences. I do not think this kind of experience has ever been observed in a scientific environment because it happens without any warning. Someone would have to be being scanned in an fMRI machine just at that moment to catch some physical correlate of the mental event. > Response:This whole intersection of science and metaphysics is so interesting. Basically, we are finding that the experiences (unboundedness, universal love, witnessing) are only in the head and no matter how real it seems, it is not what it seems. This is also true of psychosis. Maybe true of every minute of our life. And, this "not what is seems" reminds me of the whole free will discussion we have had here many times: it feels like you have free will, but really the brain is rapidly taking in data and responding and creating a seamless sense of a deciding self which is an illusion. So not only does the brain create experiences which become our reality, it creates its own unreal self to experience and feel in some control of that reality! Oy. Personally, while I am fascinated by the science I feel a bit robbed of the mystery and hope and reassurance of a cosmic plan if science and the brain is all there is. I hold on to the conviction of many who seem to actually be enlightened and who are quite sure, for some reason, that the reality of unboundedness is not dependent on the brain.
