the eternal paradox that keeps dividing us.

[polytrip]

I have noticed that there is an ever reoccurring theme that divides the nexus. Whether we´re having a discussion on depressive disorders, the nature of the DMT experience, or whether it´s on science, religion or mysticism. The basic underlying theme that keeps dividing us is the old materialism/spirituality debate.

I think that the reason why themes related to this keep causing such a stir, is actually that the problem is a paradox. It´s a fake problem. Both sides are right, and therefore the lack of recognition of any of the two sides will feel like severe injustice to some people: both the claim that humans are not spiritual beings and the claim that materialism is a lie, do not do justice to the life´s we lead in this world. And injustice will always upset people...like it should.

My mind is moving my body. I´m using my fingers right now, to transfer something that is inside my mind, onto this screen. You are using your eyes to transfer something that is on a screen into your mind.

Only when you would take the stance that it is a mere coincidence that my fingers move exactly like i want them to, that the movement of my fingers isn´t realy caused by ME but that they pure coincidentally move like i want them to and that they have done so up till now, only then can you make a credible claim that the mind, the soul, the spiritual is not in some way connected to the body, the physical, the worldly (unless i´m looking over some other possibility´s here ofcourse...you´re welcome to fill them in where i have failed to do so).

At the same time we don´t know what either side is. We don´t know what the physical world is and we don´t fully know who WE are either.
But that´s not the last word either.

We do agree that we can use words to refer to certain phenomena, even though the connection between the words and the phenomena may be not a direct one but a rather long chain: no scientist or mysticist would disagree if i would say that i´m sitting on a chair right now, even though the chair would actually be a collection of molecules, that are actually a collection of atoms, that are actually a collection of subatomic particles, and that most of the chair is empty space, even. So even though i may not actually know what it is i am realy refering to, we all agree that the reference itself is still valid to some degree. When you understand this sentence, you have implicitly agreed with the above, at least to some extent, because you know what i wanted to say when i used the word 'chair'.

I think that what can be said about chairs in this way, can be said about both matter and the soul as well. We don´t know what the words realy refer to, but we do know what is meant with them. Saying that either one or both of them don´t exist is something therefore, that in a sense MAY be true, but that doesn´t do fully justice to reality either.

I don´t have the answer. But i do think that these are the puzzlepieces, and that somehow they can be fitted toghether.

Maybe all of our disagreements could be used in a positive way, to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the nature of existence. I don´t think the (knowledge)gap can ever be fully bridged. But we can get closer and closer, each day.

 

[corpus callosum]

Christopher Hitchens used to say (and I think he coined the phrase): "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." There's a lot of sting in that--and it's obviously true and valid.

Not trying to de-rail the thread, but is this THE Christopher Hitchens who was behind Bush Jnr re the Iraq WMD issue?Makes you think how vacuous/subjective 'evidence' can sometimes be.

Let the thread proceed........

 

[SWIMfriend]

Christopher Hitchens used to say (and I think he coined the phrase): "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." There's a lot of sting in that--and it's obviously true and valid.

Not trying to de-rail the thread, but is this THE Christopher Hitchens who was behind Bush Jnr re the Iraq WMD issue?Makes you think how vacuous/subjective 'evidence' can sometimes be.

Let the thread proceed........

Right. More evidence for what I've been saying all along: ANYONE can be wrong...and being wrong is EXTREMELY common in the human experience.

 

[SWIMfriend]

I don't know that the internet exists, and I don't know that you and I exist as we seem to right now. The experiential evidence supports it, but I also have experiential evidence that aliens exist and this "physical" life does not.

I agree that all of my experiences of the physical world point toward the materialistic perspective. To say that that is enough evidence for me to be a materialist assumes that I can't conceive of the possibility that the existence of my entire physical life is one large and magnificent trick, but that is not the case. Not only can I conceive of it, but I have seen behind the curtain.

This is a sticking point, and it seems a sticking point that gives many here great problems. The problem is here:

1) EVERYONE knows that nothing can be stated with "absolute" certainty. We could all be brains in a jar--or the modern version of that: all just part of the matrix. To say one can't be a materialist until it's PROVED that all existence is material is...a bugaboo. It's equivalent to saying that you will assume NOTHING until you can know EVERYTHING. Which leads to....

2) If you WISH to navigate the universe and your mind in something like a rational manner, you must--IF ONLY PROVISIONALLY--take a stand somewhere, on something. You can't go anywhere with "Nothing can be known." And as I've stated elsewhere, people who wish to state that "Nothing can be known" really have no good reason for even wanting to be posting things on internet forums (except "nothing can be known" the one thing, ironically, they wish to claim they DO know).

 

[jamie]

"but instead allow their statements to imply that something must be true, then they can avoid having to acknowledge they are "claiming" something to be true"

I think for whatever reason you just interprete things that way. I dont get why things have to be only either or with you? If someone explains an experience they had without comming to conclusions than why do you always assume that they are implying that they are claiming it to be true? I mean this is something that you have said numerous times that makes absolutly no sense to me. If someone describes an experience that would be in line with other experiences in the esoteric literature that is not the same as a person describing the experience and claiming it IS proof of some kind of esoteric reality. I see lots of people talking about experiences they have and you just comming in and telling them they are wrong or they are somehow claiming to to be "true" when they have done no such thing.

"More evidence for what I've been saying all along: ANYONE can be wrong...and being wrong is EXTREMELY common in the human experience"

I agree..but how can you be sure that you are not wrong then as well some of the time? I mean, no offence but you have no experience at all with DMT or any psychedelics at all. When asked about it you just talk about how much you have meditated. There is nothing wrong with that I think meditation is great but it is not the psychedelic thing. A large dose of a tryptamine psychedelic is nothing like meditation at all. If you have not had the experience yet still have so many opinions on the topic, while believing that humans are often wrong than you must concider the possability that you are wrong.

 

[SWIMfriend]

"but instead allow their statements to imply that something must be true, then they can avoid having to acknowledge they are "claiming" something to be true"

I think for whatever reason you just interprete things that way. I dont get why things have to be only either or with you? If someone explains an experience they had without comming to conclusions than why do you always assume that they are implying that they are claiming it to be true? I mean this is something that you have said numerous times that makes absolutly no sense to me. If someone describes an experience that would be in line with other experiences in the esoteric literature that is not the same as a person describing the experience and claiming it IS proof of some kind of esoteric reality. I see lots of people talking about experiences they have and you just comming in and telling them they are wrong or they are somehow claiming to to be "true" when they have done no such thing.

Communication is always a problem. One takes things in context, etc. I don't think most of the, let's call them "materialist-spiritulist fights," are completely due to mis-communication. I think some posters believe some very unusual things (say, perhaps, "supernatural" things) truly exist (even if only "elsewhere" ), and others believe such claims are unreliable.

"More evidence for what I've been saying all along: ANYONE can be wrong...and being wrong is EXTREMELY common in the human experience"

I agree..but how can you be sure that you are not wrong then as well some of the time?

Obviously, I am not sure--aren't I the one to say that being wrong is extremely common? But, just as obviously from what I've said here and elsewhere, if I want to try to learn, I must begin to sort through my own experiences and the claims of others, and make my best determinations (provisional as they may be) about which are true and which are not. I can then state my results (to myself and others), and continue on. That's all anyone can do.

But, again, those who disagree with me, and feel they DO NOT need to take a stand anywhere...well, why do I hear so much from them? And so ardently? If they don't know anything or believe anything, I can't understand why they have the urge to speak up--ESPECIALLY in discussions about what is true or not true.

I do think, however, what I personally do--from a skeptical perspective--is take with some doubt any claim (or personal experience) which seems truly extraordinary: such as the existence of other worlds, accessible only through the mind.

If I'm in a public place, and a policeman comes by and remarks that there has been a multi-car, multi-fatality accident on highway 101, and traffic is blocked for miles in both directions--I'll probably consider changing my travel plans.

If a homeless person wanders by screaming to nobody in particular that alien ships are coming down and lifting cars by the thousands off highway 101...well, I might glance at the sky--but I won't consider changing my travel plans.

Now...that attitude VERY WELL might end up making me the captive of some rather nasty aliens. But, LET'S TELL THE TRUTH, shall we: It's the attitude VIRTUALLY EVERYONE TAKES....EXCEPT when it comes to some special belief or idea they hold dear...

 

[Vodsel]

I'm with Blake in this one. This was his way to address the paradox.

All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors.
1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.

But the following Contraries to these are True:

1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3 Energy is Eternal Delight.

 

[SWIMfriend]

I will just chime in here to note that the problem with quoting thinkers from the past lies in how RADICALLY the world has changed EVEN in the last fifty years (and even Einstein has already been dead for about sixty years).

It seems quite plausible that they would say completely different things if they could have the advantage of living in the present.

 

[Vodsel]

It seems quite plausible that they would say completely different things if they could have the advantage of living in the present.

I find Blake's ideas absolutely valid nowadays. If anything, the last century developments in physics (or at least, what I've been able to grasp about them) bring me even closer to what he wrote. But maybe it's just me.

 

[pau]

After several thousands of years of history, there still are no answers to these questions. I doubt the Higgs Boson finally provide the answer. My bets are not on the graviton, either.

After an almost pathological number of years of ontological concerns, I have drifted just in the last few years towards an atiyoga (aka dzogchen) perspective on these matters. This was foreshadowded by even more years of near-social exile ... there are few easier ways to alienate oneself from friends and family than ending a discussion by saying that not everything has to have an answer.

Of course, this fits right into a philosophical system that has non-dualism as a major tenet: there is nothing to be observed, since there is not an observer. For me, this was the next logical step that took place from believing that everything is merely a chemical reaction in my mind. In atiyoga, it "said" that the ultimate is simply "naked awareness", " a state of pure and total presence", a unity of cognizance and emptiness. So who is there to even ask questions about this stuff? Nobody's home.

Entheogens have provided a major push for me in this direction (as have some way cool people from this website). With all that assistance, my "meditation" practice has gotten way deeper, to the point where I can finally unplug my mind for big parts of the day - and night - with or without them. I'm not saying entheogens are an essential part of everyone's investigation into these kind of questions, but over history, for those who are interested, there is evidence that many psychonauts have at one time or another used them as an aid.

 

[hixidom]

2) If you WISH to navigate the universe and your mind in something like a rational manner, you must--IF ONLY PROVISIONALLY--take a stand somewhere, on something. You can't go anywhere with "Nothing can be known." And as I've stated elsewhere, people who wish to state that "Nothing can be known" really have no good reason for even wanting to be posting things on internet forums (except "nothing can be known" the one thing, ironically, they wish to claim they DO know).

That would all be true if cognitive dissonance did not exist. You assume that I can't hold two contradictory beliefs in my mind simultaneously. My body and brain will always operate on materialistic principles because I have to assume my fingers exist before I can type with them, but my soul is still a solipsist. Being able to alternate between belief systems is the only way I can get through my day-to-day life as a physics student, during which I see myself as more of an automaton.

 

[Doodazzle]

The dmt experience can be rather shattering. Afterwards, what do you do? You can rigidly grasp tight to your favorite pet dogma. Try desperately to exert some control.

To me, this is the reason for this divide that pops up so often here at the nexus. DMT challenges our basic beliefs about reality.

Sometimes that causes people to get defensive.

 

[clouds]

what Vodsel says.

 

[Hiyo Quicksilver]

Great post man!

In this environment where there are a huge amount of differences in perspective, understanding, and in many cases the actual felt experience of reality itself, it's important to seek out what we can understand, identify with and positively interact with in communicating with others, rather than putting our effort into what sticks out as disagreeable to us.
In this way, we simply gloss over the semantic irregularities that cause meaningless or unproductive conflict and put forth everything we have into the common truth between us. It's this universal truth that we're looking for in all matters here, whether it be strictly macroscopic and materialistic, or deeply "spiritual" (or however you'd call it).

...Speaking of which, there's no reason why the materialistic view and the spiritual view can't coincide. It seems to me that the the materialistic viewpoint strives to bring many divine or alchemical elements into its scope of understanding, and in the same way the spiritual experience seeks to realize the divine, cosmic, etc aspects of reality in the experience of the eternal present moment, which includes material reality. There's no need to pick sides, because in the end of the day, we're just taking two paths to the same goal... and we're all on the same team.

[/schpeel]
Hg

 

[gibran2]

Here’s the problem:


We are trapped.

“Trapped” maybe isn’t the best word. It implies an involuntary condition. A state from which one wishes to escape. Most people aren’t even aware of their “confinement”, so it’s hard to argue that they wish to escape.

How are we trapped?

1. We are trapped in the present.

We experience the “timeless eternal now”. No one has ever experienced the past. No one has ever experienced the future. In spite of this total lack of direct experience, all of us (most of us) are convinced that there is a past and there is a future.

But the past and future are abstractions – they are concepts based on the nature of our experience in the present. From the eternal present we postulate the existence of a “past” and a “future”.

2. We are trapped in consciousness.

We experience nothing but uninterrupted, “subjective” consciousness. No human being has ever experienced anything other than consciousness. We may become unconscious, but we never experience unconsciousness. For us, experience IS consciousness, and consciousness IS experience.

An objective physical reality – a reality existing outside of consciousness – is an abstraction. It is a concept based on the nature of our experience of “now” and our consciousness. From uninterrupted subjective consciousness we postulate the existence of an “objective” reality that lies outside of consciousness.

Sometimes materialists forget that objective reality is an abstraction. We don’t need objective reality to be “real” to study it.

And sometimes non-materialists forget that experiences have form and structure. There’s no denying that the physical world exists. The real question (and it’s an unanswerable one) is how it exists.

And here’s what I think is the biggest question of all:



“Why am I here?”

 

[Hiyo Quicksilver]

Mmmm... does anyone else just love the way the universe is going these days?

That was a nice post, thanks! It had me rolling in it for a bit. :d

 

[jamie]

Here’s the problem:


We are trapped.

“Trapped” maybe isn’t the best word. It implies an involuntary condition. A state from which one wishes to escape. Most people aren’t even aware of their “confinement”, so it’s hard to argue that they wish to escape.

How are we trapped?

1. We are trapped in the present.

We experience the “timeless eternal now”. No one has ever experienced the past. No one has ever experienced the future. In spite of this total lack of direct experience, all of us (most of us) are convinced that there is a past and there is a future.

But the past and future are abstractions – they are concepts based on the nature of our experience in the present. From the eternal present we postulate the existence of a “past” and a “future”.

2. We are trapped in consciousness.

We experience nothing but uninterrupted, “subjective” consciousness. No human being has ever experienced anything other than consciousness. We may become unconscious, but we never experience unconsciousness. For us, experience IS consciousness, and consciousness IS experience.

An objective physical reality – a reality existing outside of consciousness – is an abstraction. It is a concept based on the nature of our experience of “now” and our consciousness. From uninterrupted subjective consciousness we postulate the existence of an “objective” reality that lies outside of consciousness.

Sometimes materialists forget that objective reality is an abstraction. We don’t need objective reality to be “real” to study it.

And sometimes non-materialists forget that experiences have form and structure. There’s no denying that the physical world exists. The real question (and it’s an unanswerable one) is how it exists.

And here’s what I think is the biggest question of all:



“Why am I here?”

That was an awesome post!

 

[hixidom]

No one has ever experienced the past. No one has ever experienced the future.

Good God Gibran. You are my hero. The moment I saw that crazy avatar, I knew I was about to read some serious stuff.

 

[Baffald]

I don't think anything we do based on our mind is a coincidence... it has direct purpose...cause and effect... action and reaction

Science and spirituality can become one... I think eventually it will as more answers come to pass

Its nice to see others always asking why and how it is the ultimate question which science is based on.

Read and learn from everyone. Take what they say or write... think about it and compare it to your own experience. Then you can dismiss it, or accept it or take part of it and leave the rest... but you are better off for taking the consideration as it serves to let you understand your fellow man.

No sense in arguing or name calling or being a troll... hopefully those that do will reflect on themselves and why they do it and will eventually do things to help themselves.

Learn and grow both scientifically and spiritually. If it wasn't for spirituality we would not have science as the gist of both is to answer that fundamental question why.

The present reality is what we know...We learn from the past... we either look forward to or dread the future based on what happens in the present. You can't change the past but you can do things to put yourself in a better place in the future.

Key is to keep an open mind on everything. Those that don't are limited based on their internal dogma and will slow in their progression.

I have been very impressed with the intellectualism and knowledge and openness on this site. Some smart ass mofo's have posted on here.

You also have to consider the personalities that this site and what DMT is going to draw to. Its not for the weak. It is some heavy shit. Some are more experienced and more knowledgeable than others, but we are all here because of an underlying theme of wanting to talk about our experiences, learn more about the unknown and learn from each other.

I think materialism is basically a part of desire based on social pressures which we use this site to get away from. (I am not talking like this to the neighborhood moms) We are all subject to it no matter what if we want to live comfortably in this day and age, especially if you have children and in turn... responsibility to others. I think its better to accept it than to fight it and really something I have learned to not worry about.

Discussing materialism as it relates to reality and consciousness well... ultimately everything is real because we experience it. If not we wouldn't... I think its that simple. The key board I am typing on, the chair I am sitting on are very real, they are made of material and kept together by electromagnetism. They are not a subject of our imagination because we are real. We wake up every day and experience things, some good some bad, but we learn from those experiences and take them to form our beliefs, our attitudes, our thoughts, and our words.

Bottom line is to be comfortable with yourself, form your beliefs from your own experiences and do the best you can in life. Learn, love and be happy is the best advice I can give... Internal struggles will only cause you to worry and create dilemmas. Its up to you to change your thoughts in the current situation in what you are caught up in. External struggles I have found are just not worth the aggravation, as people causing those struggles are on a different level than you based on their experiences. That's why we are all different and that is why we all have our own thoughts and belief systems.

Ultimately I think we realize that we are all brothers and are brought together via a common theme and curiosity. Those that dismiss one side or the other are just narrowing their own perspective and creating limits for themselves... As Hiyo Quicksilver said... we are all on the same team...

Love to all... sorry if I rambled too much

 

[Orion]

Just to give some definitions here:


Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Dictionary)

Spirituality:

Spirituality is belief in an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality (wikipedia)
Incorporeal or immaterial nature. (Dictionary)

Sure you can have both, but it would seem that blending these two together makes very little sense? At least when you're sober... don't get me started on those spirit-matter hyperspace alchemists...

The big punchline is, there is nothing we can capture or analyse beyond the realm of the physical (well DUH), but quantum physics seems to suggest there is nothing in the physical but empty space! I guess in that sense you can have both spiritual and physical blended together...

Truth is we are never going to know everything, there will always be some way to weave spirit and mysticism into (not so very) hard reality.

 

[cellux]

Many branches of science are based on mathematics which is incorporeal and immaterial in nature.