6 ms·

I had an experience which I found, and still find, utterly convincing. But if I tried to describe it to you, you probably wouldn't be at all swayed. William J

I had an experience which I found, and still find, utterly convincing. But if I tried to describe it to you, you probably wouldn't be at all swayed. William James writes about this in 'The Varieties of Religious Experience'.

M_Grey 10y ago
The same could have been said for Einstein, but the trick was that he could prove it math, and observations. If what you found was real, do you think it could ever find some real expression that's testable? If not, maybe it only felt real, which would make sense if it happened entirely within the realm of your own senses.
- orasis 10y ago
  What if your assumption that things happen outside "the realm of your own senses" is false? The color blue does not exist outside the realm of our senses. Neither does the concept of a "table".
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    And yet you could establish criteria for both. Blue is defined by specific wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, and a table is an object. Both provide testable predictions, "Light of this wavelength will appear 'blue', and I can bang my shin against this table..." People who have never met can report having the same experiences with both "Blue" and "Table".
    - orasis 10y ago
      It's no different with private subjective experience - it's just that most people lack precise language to describe "transcendent" experiences. For example, there are mind states called "jhana" that can be reliably accessed by experienced meditators. The language used to describe them is along the lines of "as piti subsides and suka becomes more prevalent, you are entering the 2nd jhana". We even have language to describe what it's like to experience without an experiencer: In the seeing, only the seen. In the thinking, only the thought...
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        None of what you're saying addresses any of what I said, you've just sidestepped it with claims of inexpressibility as well as untestability.
        orasis 10y ago
        I agree with what you're saying about the scientific method being a useful tool for discovering repeatable cause and effect. I'm simply trying (and failing) to offer a perspective that possibly nothing occurs outside of personal sense experience. The experience of blue does not exist within the wavelengths of light, it exists as consciousness. A rock does not experience blue when those wavelengths hit it. If it is true that we only exist as our senses and consciousness then a transcendent spiritual experience is as real as anything else. If I haven't convinced you, then I am merely poor at describing what I'm getting at and for that I apologize.
zuzuleinen 10y ago
Can you try to explain? I'm really curios

M_Grey 10y ago

The same could have been said for Einstein, but the trick was that he could prove it math, and observations. If what you found was real, do you think it could ever find some real expression that's testable? If not, maybe it only felt real, which would make sense if it happened entirely within the realm of your own senses.

orasis 10y ago
What if your assumption that things happen outside "the realm of your own senses" is false? The color blue does not exist outside the realm of our senses. Neither does the concept of a "table".
- M_Grey 10y ago
  And yet you could establish criteria for both. Blue is defined by specific wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, and a table is an object. Both provide testable predictions, "Light of this wavelength will appear 'blue', and I can bang my shin against this table..." People who have never met can report having the same experiences with both "Blue" and "Table".
  - orasis 10y ago
    It's no different with private subjective experience - it's just that most people lack precise language to describe "transcendent" experiences. For example, there are mind states called "jhana" that can be reliably accessed by experienced meditators. The language used to describe them is along the lines of "as piti subsides and suka becomes more prevalent, you are entering the 2nd jhana". We even have language to describe what it's like to experience without an experiencer: In the seeing, only the seen. In the thinking, only the thought...
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      None of what you're saying addresses any of what I said, you've just sidestepped it with claims of inexpressibility as well as untestability.
      - orasis 10y ago
        I agree with what you're saying about the scientific method being a useful tool for discovering repeatable cause and effect. I'm simply trying (and failing) to offer a perspective that possibly nothing occurs outside of personal sense experience. The experience of blue does not exist within the wavelengths of light, it exists as consciousness. A rock does not experience blue when those wavelengths hit it. If it is true that we only exist as our senses and consciousness then a transcendent spiritual experience is as real as anything else. If I haven't convinced you, then I am merely poor at describing what I'm getting at and for that I apologize.

zuzuleinen 10y ago

Can you try to explain? I'm really curios