talkmagic.co.uk

Ok...not to get things "extreme" (though I know certain folks believe anything I say on this sort of topic is an agitation) but, as I noted previously, Reincarnation is one of the predominant teachings in the world and was in fact, a common part of both, Hebrew and early Christian teaching; one that was later replaced (through the auspices of the politically driven Romanized version of Christianity) by the one-way-ticket idea originally proposed in Zoroastrian philosophy (to my knowledge, the first philosophy to promote a Heaven or Hell contrast).

I don't believe there is any "empirical" means by which to prove reincarnation or any sort of "after life" state. Spiritual matters simply do not lend themselves to the audacity of "intellect" when it comes to Newtonian thinking and the clinical application of "testing" -- the demand of being able to repeat a given result based on some discovered formula or set of ingredients... the auspices of the soul as well as all things Metaphysical elude said rigidity and until modern science learns to grow away from said anal retentive habits, it will never allow itself to see the greater picture... what IS beyond the present ability of "man" to justify, verify and accept... and again, I say that much of this is based on the lack of willingness to see anything beyond personal "intellect", which is an ego-based drive that's quite selfish, not to mention Arrogant.

My personal belief in Reincarnation/Past Lives is both, experiential and scholastic. I've been confronted by evidence face to face, in ways dealing with my own life as well as that of those individuals within my life. I've likewise seen a great deal of what the intellectual will want to call "anecdotal" evidence that have come from numerous studies involving Reincarnation/Past Life Memory.

Yes, there are those instances in which a hypnotist can plant an idea into the mind of the subject. There are likewise those circumstances in which the subject has simply convinced themselves of a specific reality; two paths that legitimate teachers and guides who deal with such things, address and even "dress down" would be clients when it comes to what they experience during a transgression... past life journey.

When it comes to those hypnotists and "entertainers" that implant the idea of a past life memory that is pre-determined... well, I think this is more sinister than certain antics common to the psychic profession; it is very manipulative and potentially damaging; it is likewise unethical when it comes to how legitimate past life work is done... I believe that most here can agree on these points, just as we'd agree that anyone exploiting a patron's "need" to know about a past life situation, is in the wrong... as with everything in life, there is a right & wrong way of dealing with this sort of issue and one of the keys in this case, is for the "guide" to keep his/her two-cents out of the journey when the "ritual" is being executed.

Even without all the mumbo-jumbo or hypnosis there are other indicators tied to both, past-life memory as well as personal Karma. The most common being personal attraction to given time periods & cultures, especially in cases in which the "patient" is exceptionally young and exhibiting an exceptionally high level of attraction as well as innate knowledge of said "people"

Sorry, but when a child less than 10 years in age (most typically 3-8 years in age) gives you very concise details to events and situations; information that they have had absolutely no outside mode of connection by... well, there is more to it than some kind of fantasy, conjecture or manipulation. I've seen this sort of thing first hand in more than a half-dozen situations and I dare all the intellectuals types out there (rationalists) to "prove" any sort of fraud or similar "explanation"... you simply can't do so even though, when it comes to older children as well as adults, I can concede that other factors may be involved.

Metaphysically speaking however, these "other factors" could simply be "triggers' that actuate parts of a person's memory; Lord Buddha spoke of this in some of his recollections while likewise pointing out some of the things I and others have mentioned when it comes to faux memory of things past and how much of it can be little other than personal fantasy; an escape or psychological delusion that person requires in their life at this point in time for yet known reasons.

The bottom line, as least as far as I and other students of Metaphysics (philosophy) may be concerned, is that both sides of the issue host a truth to them. The problem is, rationalists in the world wish for all things to fit in this or that niche and thus, set us all in Black & White reality which simply goes against the laws of nature. Reality is "gray" and not quite as restrictive or rigidly defined; too, there is always more to it than meets the eye. Those that do not recognize that truth are simply blinding themselves for any number of reasons. . .

Agitation? No, but your insistence that your point of view is right, and the associated rationalist bashing gets rather wearying and is just as arrogant as your interpretation of the personalities of said rationalists.

If there exists anything which is beyond the materialistic and which cannot be proved by empirical methods then it is simply not something which can be dealt with by science; many scientists will have personal views on these things, but they cannot say with authority that they are not possible. However, if there is any testable evidence such as knowing the unknowable in this case, it should be a simple matter to determine such to a reasonable degree of accuracy; where this accuracy comes from may or may not be a matter for science. Unfortunately, many of those who share your views on what must be termed the supernatural, also share your rampant cynicism of the scientific method and will not allow testing, or, when testing proves nothing, complain that science doesn't work.

IAIN wrote:my life, my rules, my world...

i can do as i please, think as i please and believe what i choose to...

if i make it no business of yours, by that i mean - as long as i dont try and make you believe the same as me...

then leave me the hell alone...

you can find "fault" in just about anything...

Hear hear!!

It's our experiences as individuals that give us our beliefs, there ought to be no reason why we need to rationalise them to others so long as we're not trying to ram them down anyone else's throat.

There was another thread recently which 'touched upon' the issue of drug use. I stated there how much I abhored drug use and yet anyone who knows me will know I smoke and I'm fond of a pint of decent real ale or two. Hypocritical? Maybe, but it's my hypocracy and mine alone. My abhorration of drug use comes from years of addiction and what was essentially self-recovery. But I won't preach to other drug users (I'll state my dislike for the behaviour however), happy in the knowledge that I'm always willing to be a helping hand in their recovery when they know the time is right.
The same goes for beliefs in psychic abilities et al. It's my belief and I'm entitled to it and I certainly don't get into forum debates about it as doing so serves no real purpose.

Which makes me wonder why I'm posting this at all? Probably because I read, with interest, the opinions of others on these topics and feel like I've got to say *something* at least.

So there, I have. Thanks. Move along.

*braces himself for the next post made by sam*

I must be getting old and tired. This thread would normally get me stirring things up and causing mischief. Somehow I am not in the mood. It must be the lengths of the posts and all the big words being used which are discouraging me. I think I would have to have a dictionary handy to participate on this thread.

To try and address Ant's topic, it sounds like epistemology is the crux of the thread and how you know the things you believe you know. Only then can you start seeing if it all fits together.

It's a fascinating one, as i've had arguments with many people and for their reasoning they've used things such as hearsay or news snippets they heard or read in a newspaper. In other words, watered down information.

Of course their sources are bull plop, yet they'll defend their point of view to the hilt. If i question my sources i like to think they're more accurate otherwise i wouldn't argue.

Propositional knowledge is a hard thing to really establish in my book. I believe a great deal of it could be subjective, and subjective knowledge is nothing more than opinion, so it isn't knowledge. What do we really KNOW to be true?

I believe you have a right to change your mind on anything, but yes Ant you must at least try and be consistent. It takes time and effort to constantly re-evaluate your beliefs and make sure they fit together nicely, but on a quiet afternoon over a cup of tea and a hob-nob perhaps its worth doing.

I did find your point in another thread interesting though Iain. You mentioned Atomos which is Democritus' idea/theory isn't it? He had that idea/theory a long long time ago and as you rightly pointed out, it took a while for the evidence to come along and prove him right.
But, it did. And here we are.
How then and with this in mind can you be an Atheist? Surely Agnostic is more your cuppa char? Sure there's no evidence for God now, but with Democritus in mind, who's to say some won't come along?

nickj wrote:Agitation? No, but your insistence that your point of view is right, and the associated rationalist bashing gets rather wearying and is just as arrogant as your interpretation of the personalities of said rationalists.

If there exists anything which is beyond the materialistic and which cannot be proved by empirical methods then it is simply not something which can be dealt with by science; many scientists will have personal views on these things, but they cannot say with authority that they are not possible. However, if there is any testable evidence such as knowing the unknowable in this case, it should be a simple matter to determine such to a reasonable degree of accuracy; where this accuracy comes from may or may not be a matter for science. Unfortunately, many of those who share your views on what must be termed the supernatural, also share your rampant cynicism of the scientific method and will not allow testing, or, when testing proves nothing, complain that science doesn't work.

Please go here -- http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/sutra380656.php#380656

IAIN wrote:*braces himself for the next post made by sam*

I'll keep it short then Basically all I wanted to add was about 'intuition' was that anyone who has REALLY looked at reason and logic for themselves instead of 'Logic works, because everyone agrees it does' which is very bad logic, might I add, has always boiled down the the question of intuition.

Einstein worked not logically, but imaginativley and expressed his thoughts in the logic shorthand that is mathematics. He worked by 'intuition' as he described it.

One of his best friends, the incredible mathematician Kurt Godel had reached the same problems with his own investigations into the limits of logic and began posing issues of meta-statements and so on, giving rise to paradoxes such as:

This statement is not true

He began to have to realise the issues of using logic to study logic and consciousness to study consciousness and, to paraphrase Huxley, the infinite... (well, its a long story why I shouldn't use that word when talking about Godel... but anyway...) the... immense complexity therein.

The thread that kept Einstein and Godel fueling each other was their faith that intuition was the governor of reason.

Similarly, the platonic form of the rationalist (and once again a mathematician involved with set theory and such)- Bertrand Russell- had reached the point where he began to realise the limitations of pure reason, to use the Kantian term. Reason has its paradigms and boundaries- and Russell believed once you stripped it down and used it to analyse itself you find a form of 'logical atomism'. Essentially this is, for want of a better word, 'intuition'. Russell believed in the a priori existence of a table before him because it seemed self evident and 'innate'. (Innatism also being closley allied with rationalism)

I remember watching an old grainy 60s interview with the legend where he recalled his first reading of Euclid and his introduction to axioms- the very... atoms, I suppose you could say, of logic itself. Axioms: something you know to be true self evidently but cannot prove.

I am a philosophical pragmatist- I believe that discord arrises mainly from lack of understanding the other person's argument, usually brought about from being caught up in surface structure instead of semantics. In this respect I am inclined to agree with Wittgenstein, one of Russell's dearest philosophers.

I find the idea of rationalism quite beautiful and from all of my investigations into anything skepticism is the only thing which seems certain. But it is usually those who do not understand the great pioneers of true rationalism or true skepticism who believe that it is incompatble with 'empirical' research- by... well, definition... I suppose, it is exactley the opposite!!! Rationalism, to those who investigate it for themselves objectivley and unbiased- is allied with intuition. Skepticism, by its actual and absolute definition, is opposed to materialism and empiricism.

It was rational idealism which gave birth to Jungian psychological ideas of the word 'psychic' we use so often.


As promised... I kept it shor... * hell
I fail again.

Well played folks. You've done a sterling job of rescuing this thread from the jaws of the same old bickering threads like this often descend into.
As suspected, it's proving to be a cracking read so far.

My only complaint (which is both minor and major depending on which angle you view it from) is that for some reason or other, possibly essential ones, I feel it would be almost impossible for someone with just a passing interest in the thread topic to follow along without spending more time looking up terms and concepts than actually reading the discussion. While it's great to see terms and concepts actually up for discussion, I feel the way they are being discussed may alienate newcomers to this area of discussion.

I'm sure that sounds incredibly condescending to newcomers, and I'd like to point out now that is entirely incidental. I'm not being condescending. I've had more than just a passing interest in things like this for a good few years now and even I've had to re-read some sections.

Maybe I'm just more dense than I give myself credit for.

I don't know what the bloody hell anyone is talking about. Come to think of I suspect they don't either.

mark lewis wrote:I don't know what the bloody hell anyone is talking about. Come to think of I suspect they don't either.

I forget what it is called but this phenomena is explained by a number of scientists when people over complicate the language in order to make themselves sound smarter.

Not saying this is necessarily the case above as the reason I thought this may be a nice topic to discuss is because of the complexity however some of the explanations are very "wordy".

The long and short of it Mark is;

Is empirical (i.e. scientific method) evidence truly empirical or can it only be to a finite extent due to the point where as an individual you stop understanding and rely on someone with greater knowledge than you to provide (to at least some degree) your opinion, therefore making it faith based. If you claim to be very logical and yet at the core of things somewhere along the line rely on faith, is this hypocritical?

The second part is, whether you are "scientifically" or "faith" minded (I have used these terms purely as a means of discriminating between the two), do you always approach events in life in the same way and if not, is that also hypocritical?

In response to your earlier comment;

Yes my wife is always right but only when she asks for my opinion and fortunately she does not frequent TM!

mark lewis wrote:I don't know what the bloody hell anyone is talking about. Come to think of I suspect they don't either.

Now that is something I agree with.

Of course I don't come at everything from the same standpoint. I choose not to lock myself into one particular way of thinking...or at least try not too. Different situations call for different ways of looking at things. I try to see things from other peoples perspectives. I try not to be so dogmatic and rigid in my ways of thinking.

Life is short, and the next one may be even shorter. Why not try to see things from other perspectives?

Think about it this way. If you choose from two standpoints then at least some of the time you may actually be right. Not that I'm convinced there is a right and wrong here. Perhaps in some situations there is a next life to live. Or perhaps I have reached Nirvana? Don't worry I'll wait.

The living are the dead on holiday.

I need to google lots of words I havnt a clue what they mean. The way I see things are-People who have a faith belive in the world being created by God.

Science however says Adam and Evie where not created by god, they never existed. Science tells us how the world was created...and it wasnt by some magical god.

''Im human, and liable to change''

John Lennon