Skip to main content

Having experiences, doing experiments.


I find it more understandable than ever that consciousness, thought, will, morality, spirituality... are simple empirical phenomena that should not pose any problem to positive science. It is true that for some strange reason scientific positivism has generally been conceived as totally antagonistic to the study of faith, spirituality and to the sensitivities of the human soul in general. But, are these psychological phenomena not like any other? Why must not science study them? Did not about objective facts of experience?
Spirituality is a fact manifested in subjective experiences (all psychological manifestations are subjective) that can be the subject of scientific study, like any human behavior. These are personal, measurable, real experiences, beyond the dogmas of religion.
It will seem paradoxical, but science and religion, in the background, they share the same objective: to know the truth, understand the working of reality. Simply. The raw material for scientific research are empirical experiences, which are events of personal experience as any other, as are, of course, spiritual or religious experiences. Scientists simply create a specific, controlled conditions of laboratory, in order to experience, in the broadest sense of the word, events that do not occur regularly in everyday life. What is at issue in science is to create the conditions for people who is researching to experiment new phenomena. To experiment is to have experiences, to compose certain conditions to have a personal experience of perception of reality, as we have in any everyday psychological experience at any time, or in a spiritual or emotional or aesthetic or poetic experience.
Science and religion are (or should be) something very similar, if not the same thing. Joan Mascaro said it in a straightforward manner:

'The spiritual experience, as scientific experiments, is based on the observation of facts.'
'There is inner observation and experiment and outer observation and experiment. From the first comes poetry, spiritual vision and all human values; from the second, science and technology.'
'If science is one, religion must be one. Science is based on experiment, religion should be based on experience.'
'It's the experience that matters, not the concept.'
'Pure consciousness should not be affected by the experience: should observe the experience.'

Religion and science, in the background, share object and method: observation of the facts of empirical experience. The difference between religion and science is 'just' of perspective, is that religion has an overall view of nature as a whole (which corresponds to the idea of God), while science has a partial view of the constituent parts of nature. So religion has to resort to the contemplative observation and imagination to encompass the whole, unable to reason or understand the discrete elements; while science uses analytical thought and observation of isolated elements of a complex whole that is very difficult to encompass item by item. Religion needs of imagination to maintain overall articulation, needs faith, needs to trust that things are or may be in a certain way, because it can not observe or certify element by element, unlike science. The problem with religion is that it fails to go deeply into any subject in order to keep the vision of the whole, not depth intelige any particular aspect of nature, has to conform to the faith and 'contemplation'; while the problem of science is that it almost never comes to appreciate the whole of reality, the real functioning of the reality that is hidden because thoroughly analyzes elements but is not able to articulate each other. The truth, or the meaningful of truth, which is relevant to people, is beyond the scope of science normally.
Mascaró says:

'Life avoids the microscope and the telescope.'
'Appearance is the visible world, the reality is the unseen world.'
'Imagination fills the visible things with a high unseen meaning.'
'When you see the many forget the All.'
'God is the All.'
'The world of the poet and of the artist is more real than the object of physical science.'
'The poet sees the words in contemplation, not in the mere thought.'
'Art is a way of contemplation.'
'Intelligence deals with material things. It is very important in science, but it can not deal with the spiritual values and poetry.'
'Analyze the whole into its constituent parts is useful; but what do you say about contemplation of all? Because the whole is much more than its parts and the whole can not be understood by analysis but by synthesis, synthesis of contemplation. Contemplation is beyond thought.'

The important thing is to know the truth, understand the working of reality either by way of science or by way of religion, it is indifferent. The debate one way against the other is completely sterile. The only thing that can bring us freedom and happiness is empirical knowledge of the world, with the only tools of observation, thought and imagination, regardless of the framework within they are used. What is needed is to always go beyond, discover, keep learning... Anything else is deadlock, empty words, dogma.
Knowledge, which is to capture the order of nature and its future, is what makes us free. Capturing intelligence or 'logos' that exist in nature is like capturing God. The freedom and happiness of people lies precisely in that, in understanding the world.

'The thought must have freedom to think. But there is only freedom in truth. We are not free to think that 2 + 2 = 5! If we do we are not free, we are in the bondage of error.'
'You are free to play wrong notes on the piano, but that will not produce music. The freedom to make music comes from playing the correct notes. '
'We are not free to see the sun if we close our eyes.'
'As the harp string is subject to fixed rules just get the freedom of music.'
'The task of man on earth is to learn to read and write, to read the life and to write the life.'
'There is only one truth in the universe. Science is one and religion is one, but there are many false religions.'
'The world needs a new religion, a new philosophy of life free from dogmatism of science and technology and free from dogmatism of organized religion.'

The true path is not science nor religion per se, but a harmony between observation and imagination, a reciprocity between the two. It is the way of observation directed by imagination, while imagination controlled by observation. It is the way of empirical reality, the truth that feeds on reality. The way of discovery. Of imagination that raises new possibilities beyond thought, but at the time verified its reality by thought.

'Just reason and spiritual imagination both together can do self-sufficient man: reason and God who has given us the reason.'
'The ideas come from the imagination.'
'What matters is an inner experience verified by the wisdom of reason.'
'The actual apprehension of the ultimate truth is available to all men.'
'Great things are beyond words and insignificant things should be resolved in a few words.'

Words themselves do not lead reason. Reason lies in truth, and truth in reality. What is at issue, then, is to do science, but empirical science of things that really matter to people.

Popular posts from this blog

Prana, qi, ki...

‘Prana’ is a Sanskrit word for breath or ‘air inspired’ (from the verb ‘pran’: aspire), but also means ‘universal and invisible energy that enters the body through breathing’. Prana is a physical principle that permeates all forms of life, that which gives life and wisdom to beings and that is or comes from a kind of ‘universal spirit’. The first mention of the word ‘prana’ appears in the Rig-Veda, the oldest text of India, in the mid-second millennium B.C.
Prana shares the global sense of ‘air-life-wisdom’ with many terms of different ancient cultures: Greek ‘psyché’ and ‘pneuma’, Hebrew ‘ruach’ and ‘néfesh’, Latin ‘spiritus’ and ‘anemos’, Arabic ‘ruh’... or the Hindu atman, which also means soul while air or breath. (See the post ‘Pneuma...’ of this blog). Often, too, prana is confused with jiva, another Sanskrit term for soul-air, as there is a close connection between them. Jiva, in particular, would be the portion of air or prana which is located specifically in the cavity of the h…

Mind, body and environment.

Memory is not a 'copy' of reality. The past is not in our memory. It is there as little as the future is. The mind is present activity. Contents that mind produces, about what has already happened or what might happen, are the result of its activity, they are not the mind. Brands of memory remain with some of our experiences, but the fact we want to see in these brands the reality itself or a reproduction of it is due to the bias of our anthropocentric and psychologizing vision, by which we replace the world by the contents of thought.
Our mind does not work like a computer, says R. Epstein. Our brain actually is not an information store. Our brain, strictly speaking, does not process information nor recovers knowledge nor saves memories. The computer is just a metaphor. What the brain does, more or less, is to resonate with reality; it is like a soundboard that, as everything, operates in the present, not in the past or in the future. It works in the physical present, with ele…

Psychology and Life

The more certain existence and the better we know is indisputably ours, because, of all other objects, we possess external and superficial triable notions, while we perceive ourselves internally, deeply. What do we check then? What is, in this exceptional case, the meaning of the verb 'to exist'? First I see that I passage from one state to another state. I'm cold or heat, I'm happy or sad, I work or do nothing, I look around me or think about something else. Sensations, feelings, volitions, representations, such are the modifications among which distributes my existence and which color it alternately. I change, then, without ceasing. (p.13)
Thus the anthology of Henri Bergson (1957), conducted by Gilles Deleuze, starts, with this text of L'évolution creatrice, direct and full of content. And follows:
(...) I say, and rightly so, that I change, but the change seems to reside in the passage from one state to the next state: for each state, considered separately, I bel…