|
HOME
PHOTOGRAPHY
WRITINGS
index
PAINTING
DRAWING
TECHNO
BIO
BUY
CONTACT |
Reflections on Spiritual "Proof"
This article attempts to give more validity to spiritual experiences,
by the roundabout method of showing that they are different in nature
from what is currently considered objective scientific phenomenon,
and thus must be clearly seen as amenable to a verification process
that is different, yet just as actual and meaningful.
Any scientist anywhere can do a simple physics experiment
and re-confirm that, for instance, F = ma, or disconfirm a false equation
such as F = mv. In this sense, such knowledge is "public knowledge".
The experiments are reproducible, and so are the results. They are
concerned with external phenomena.
Spiritual facts on the other hand, cannot be confirmed in the same way,
nor can any private knowledge, such as what the color green looks like
to some particular individual.
Perhaps what’s important about the fact that public knowledge is
confirmable is the fact that reality - the world out there - is orderly
or "rational".
What a new psychology would say is that at some level, when looked at
with a clear enough mind and with enough perspective, human psychological
experience and behavior is also orderly and rational, and obeys certain
invariant principles. So far, psychology as a science has not been able
to agree on any such underlying structure.
Physical scientists try for objective confirmation and support of hypothesis
by testing and experiment. They look outside for confirmation or "final"
proof, in publicly repeatable material situations called experiments.
A psychology based in "spiritual" experiences or insights
looks inside, to subjective experience, for proof and confirmation,
guided or primed by clues from others who have had similar experiences.
But the final "proof" is subjective in the sense of being
inward or "inside". Thus with spiritual states of mind you
cannot compare measurements of experiments in the outside world: the
"observations" in this case are invisible. Even if someone
changes their behavior as the result on an insight for instance, that
change of behavior is only proof of behavior: what it is the result
of is open to any interpretation by the observer, and still only knowable
finally by the subjectivity of the person behaving. As an analogy, what
the color green looks like to them will always and finally only be known
for certain by them alone.
But in the broader, social sense, spiritual experiences and scientific
experiments are both confirmable by a similar process: anyone performing
the "experiment" will get the same result. We would certainly
hope that that were true if they reflected facts — that is, natural
or spiritual "laws" —which have to be universal
to be laws of nature. In the case of spirituality, this means experiencing
an altered state of mind that all humans through the ages have had access
to.
In the realm of psycho-spiritual insights however, it is much harder
to delineate exactly what the "experiment" is, because it
breaks the bounds in which the person is conceiving of the whole situation!
(Revision 05/5/'10: Here I have confused the experimenter
with the subject. The actual problem has to do with the veracity and
subjective nature of the subjects reports, and the fact that the only
access to them is subjective, and the only way to communicate them
is verbally (so far as current technology and science go)).
It is essentially a creative event of a holistic nature
within, or from inside, their own life-mind, in the present.
(Revision 05/5/'10: I now doubt that it is "holistic",
at least in the sense that I meant it here (global and mental). Rather
I now believe it is some part or parts of the brain that are triggered
into a coordinated and genetically innate response, despite what it
seems like and however veridical it feels to be).
It is
the nature of the experience of the absolute Now, that is not continuous
with what is called "learned knowledge", "conditioning", or "process
thought". Thus only certain pointers, principles, clues, paradoxes,
or metaphors can be used to guide a person towards a realization of
the nature of their own True Self.
(Revision 05/5/'10: Though the psychology of switrching
from "processing"
to "flow" state is what is alluded to here, and still
relevant pscychologically speaking, I no longer think these experiences
are reflections of a spiritual or "universal" mental reality
of any type, but rather are based in physical processes and human "software"
handed down by culture, that have both evolved over immense spans
of time).
Sometimes techniques are used, including
meditation and mantras (as in Zen), but these of course are not foolproof,
and are merely instruments or tools, artfully chosen to somehow create
an opportunity, if lucky, to bypass the interfering intellect.
Someone might get a "feeling" you know something, but you
don’t have any concrete tokens to bring back from another mental
state — unlike a diver in the outer world's oceanic depths, who
could bring up a gold coin or goblet — other than your testimony
or changed presence. Any attempt to articulate what you experience
as a deep spiritual reality will get lost in the translation from mind
to language to lips to ear to another mind, through time.
So in a sense, in the material world, anyone can see the result of
an experiment or action and what it can confirm or deny (though this
still requires that they are not dogmatic in their interpretation of
what it means). But in a spiritual realization, we are utterly alone,
and without interpretation. Only you can truly know what you know in
this case. This may sound frightening to the ego — something infinite
and lonely — but the experience is actually one of boundless
freedom and flexibility in thought, feeling, and action.
The wise teacher or counselor's admonition to "listen for the feeling"
is significant, in helping us to sidestep the "endless loop"
generated by intellectual thinking and preconceived notions of opening
up in psychological matters. The deeper feelings he and other teachers
try to point us towards can indeed "take one to the world within",
and open up new channels of perception and learning, and a new direction
from which to experience life. How this works, I don’t know. But
thinking about mechanisms misses the point, because it is about the
process itself, in the infinite present, before the kind of
thought that cleverly designs or understands mechanisms.
(Revision 05/5/'10: Again, this may be true in a subjective
sense, but there still will be ways to understand it scientifically
and reproduce the experiences at will, such as by neural stimulation.
We may not be as special as we imagine (under the influence of spiritual
and religious teachings, which tend to emphasize the ultimate importance
of humans and our spiritually-influenced lives), and these experiences
probably reflect natural survival mechanisms only).
By seeing these psycho-spiritual facts from such a broad perspective,
and developing a teaching model based in experience, this deep knowledge
connects with "common sense" in both its foundations and it’s
learning, and therefore is potentially available to anyone. Freedom
from technology and ideological baggage also democratizes it and makes
it more palatable to a wider audience. None of the esoteric teachings
or "wisdom traditions" (at least that I know of) are this
simple and "user friendly".
(Revision 05/5/'10: The "broad perspective" I would point
to now would be one that includes evolutionary theory, the latest
explorations and techniques in neuroscience, cognitive science, anthropology, and
so forth).
I see a future psychology as part of a broader forefront of change
within the mind of humanity, just beginning, marrying practice and
theory in a truly "grounded" philosophy, as some inspired
individuals break away from the pack and create a coherent paradigm
for healing and discovery of the mind and our unlimited human potential.
(Revision 05/5/'10: This "grounding" I now think should
be in a naturalistic framework and not a spiritual one. The "mind of
humanity" is not one unified thing, although you could look at it that
way. Genetic and neuropsychology, if steered correctly, will help
us optimize humanity and unleash our potentials. However, philosophy
is needed as a consulting and guiding mechanism).
- Eric Platt 9/'99
BACK
TO TOP OF PAGE | WRITINGS INDEX
| SITE INDEX |
