That sounds very black and white - and if I'm not mistaken, tolerance for ambiguity is a hallmark of Kegan's stage 4 and (even more so) stage 5...
-
-
Replying to @michaelgarfield @MimeticValue and
Yes, you easily discover that there is not a single valid narrative but a map of possible truths. But the ambiguity does not extend to "perhaps we can go back to Newtonian physics" or "perhaps people talking to burning bushes have access to a deeper level of cosmic truth".
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
I don't think anyone was advocating talking to a burning bush - that's pretty clearly reductio ad absurdum. Just because a system has some obviously false elements doesn't mean that the entire system, or the people who use the system, have nothing else to offer.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
Obviously. They just don’t have any claim to the null hypothesis.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
Most of western science and philosophy is still secretly refuting the null hypotheses of creation, objective transcendental source of meaning and dualism. The problem is not in the possible acceptance, but in the mere deference to these claims.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
Not all gnostic teachings posit creation, objective transcendental meaning, or dualism. In fact, many systems explicitly reject all of those things (e.g. Dzogchen or Madhyamaka).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @michaelgarfield and
The problem with gnostic knowledge is not its content, but the positive confidence without evidence. We can have as much content as we want, but must only assign confidence to them according to the evidential support, which esoteric practice and religion reject.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @michaelgarfield and
The claim that gnostic knowledge is inherently rejecting of observable evidence is just not true. You can find competent teachers who won't ever ask you to believe anything. They will give you specific instructions on how to use your attention, and ask you to see what happens.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @Plinz and
Certain kinds of knowledge are inherently experiential: the only evidence you can possibly get for them is through experience. If I said that you can feel pain on your head, the only way to know that I'm right is to hit yourself on the head and remove all doubt that this is true
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That's not to say contemplatives never make claims without evidence. Far from it. Scientists also make claims without evidence. What makes science great is that it doesn't matter who makes the claim. What matters is whether their results are reproducible.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.