Good points. This one interested me the most: "rather by recognizing that mysticism is completely beyond science."
It is beyond the scientific method in its focus and range, but I think Sam Harris would claim that when it talks about how the world "is" mysticism enters the field where logic does apply. You mentioned that Schroedinger is a physicist, a world class one at that from what I understand. But Physics is a field driven by math skills and I don't think that gives him a leg up on this kind of discussion over say...you or Chopra. It is all speculation about life. He leaves his credibility in his own field far behind on these topics. Because you have gained something from it, I will spend some more time thinking about it. Then he asks how can it even be statistico-deterministic > when we have such a clear experience of exercising our > free will? Why is the scientific fact incompatible > with our most basic sense of ourselves? I still think he is mixing up levels here. That is what is causing the paradox. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Damn Judy, I am only working on one cup of coffee here! Let me see if > > I can make an intelligible response! > > > > > Coming back to this, because I think it's an > > > important point: If Unity consciousness is as > > > MMY defines it, and if he's in Unity consciousness, > > > it isn't *up* to MMY, independently of nature, > > > whether to perform siddhis. It's nature's call. > > > > > > So it wouldn't really be a falsifiable standard > > > after all. > > > > I think he has already thrown his hat in to the ring of demonstrating > > student's flying for marketing purposes. So it seems like nature has > > spoken on this and just hasn't delivered the goods. He has used the > > impression of science for his marketing and even revealed his strategy > > in his "Science of Being". So it seems like it is too late for him to > > claim that nature just doesn't want him to blow people away and gain > > millions of followers by demonstrating something amazing. > > As far as I'm aware, he hasn't made that claim. I > was extrapolating from several strands of his teaching. > > > Maybe it was never meant as a falsifiable standard even though it was > > presented that way. I may have been giving MMY too much credit for > > being sincere about his interest in proofs and testing. > > My guess is that he believed siddhis would happen in > fairly short order. I don't know what, if anything, > he's said about them now that it's evident this was > an overly optimistic expectation, so I don't know how > he has rationalized it. > > > > > > > Erwin Schroedinger's quote is interesting. If my single cup of coffee > > brain can wrap around this multiple cups of coffee question... > > > > I don't buy his conclusion. He seems to be jumping levels of > > existence unnecessarily. He starts with theory, determinism, goes to > > personal experience, free will, and then lapses into poetry. > > Well, it's not really determinism in the philosophical > sense. He explicitly qualifies it as "statistico- > deterministic," by which he's presumably referring to > quantum mechanics--the observations and the math, not > just theory. > > Then he asks how can it even be statistico-deterministic > when we have such a clear experience of exercising our > free will? Why is the scientific fact incompatible > with our most basic sense of ourselves? > > > I don't think his conclusion is logical at all > > It isn't, it's paradoxical. It's the Advaita paradox. > > , it is just put > > together out of his imagination. > > He does identify it as an "inference." > > It sounds beautiful, but it is not > > how I think of it. When he is doing science he may be the man, but in > > his forays into philosophy he just sounds like an old-school Chopra. > > Ah, Curtis, come on. Chopra's not a physicist. > Schroedinger is referencing Advaita. He isn't the > only modern physicist who got into mysticism by any > means. I should recommend another Wilber book to > you, called "Quantum Questions: The Mystical Writings > of the World's Great Physicists." It's a collection > Wilber edited, and his introduction is a crystal-clear > explanation of how modern physics can lead one to > mysticism--but *not* in the "Tao of Physics" style at > all, rather by recognizing that mysticism is completely > beyond science. > > > We psychologically experience our free will acting as well as the > > determined parts of our habits and the effects of past actions and > > experiences coming into play and interacting with our will. Trying to > > drop a bad habit puts this in our face clearly. > > Sure, but this doesn't contradict Shroedinger. > > As far as deciding if > > the universe has some designs on our personal actions > > That would be the Self--yours and mine and everyone > else's--not some independent entity: "I--I in the > widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every > conscious mind that has ever said 'I'--am the person, > if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according > to the Laws of Nature." > > > , this is an area > > for philosophical speculations. Identifying our sense of "I" with the > > "I" controlling the motion of the atoms is more poetry than > > philosophy. Not that poetry is bad, I love it. > > I think one can say it's mystical philosophy. > > > So how do you understand it? > > As Schroedinger does; that's why I quoted him! > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Another wrinkle: what exactly does "able to do > > > > > the siddhis" actually mean in the context of > > > > > Unity consciousness? Does it really mean "on > > > > > demand"? > > > > > > > > This ends up in the broader question of free will and determinism in > > > > general in any state of consciousness. Nice point about the > paradox. > > > > > > > > I recognize, and others have pointed out, that MMY is unique in his > > > > perspective of siddhis. Many other teachers claim they are > > > > impediments to growth, or at lest distractions. But in his system > > > > they serve a much more interesting role for me. They are > indications > > > > that one has gained certain masteries over the laws of nature. I > > > > think they are important to distinguish "higher" states from just a > > > > flowery description of what ordinary, aware people are walking > around > > > > in every day. Since he does demonstrate siddhis at their incomplete > > > > hopping level, I can't see why he would not show the real deal. I > > > > think it was commendable of him to use the performance of siddhis as > > > > tests of consciousness. It gives a falsifiable standard. > > > > > > Coming back to this, because I think it's an > > > important point: If Unity consciousness is as > > > MMY defines it, and if he's in Unity consciousness, > > > it isn't *up* to MMY, independently of nature, > > > whether to perform siddhis. It's nature's call. > > > > > > So it wouldn't really be a falsifiable standard > > > after all. > > > > > > And yes, it's all very much wrapped up in the free > > > will/determinism paradox. I don't personally > > > have any problem with the idea that my sense of > > > free will is an illusion--that is, my "small > > > self"'s sense of free will. I think we assume > > > we have free will because we're dimly intuiting > > > that the Self has free will. > > > > > > I think I've posted this quote from Schroedinger > > > here before, but it's germane to this discussion: > > > > > > Erwin Schroedinger, in an essay called "The I That Is God," > > > wrote: > > > > > > ...The space-time events in the body of a living being which > > > correspond to the activity of its mind, to its self- conscious or > > > any other actions, are...if not strictly deterministic at any > > > rate statistico-deterministic....Let me regard this as a fact, as > > > I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the > > > well-known, unpleasant feeling about "declaring oneself to be a > > > pure mechanism." For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as > > > warranted by direct introspection.... > > > > > > Let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, noncontradictory > > > conclusion from the following two premises: > > > > > > (i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws > > > of Nature [determinism]. > > > > > > (ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I > > > am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that > > > may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take > > > full responsibility for them [free will]. > > > > > > The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, > > > that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, > > > every conscious mind that has ever said "I"--am the person, if > > > any, who controls the "motion of the atoms" according to the Laws > > > of Nature. > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
