Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Esalen Group Stuck In The Mud.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Esalen Group Stuck In The Mud.

    Dr. Eric Weiss is a member of the Esalen Center for Theory and Research. He was brought into the group studying reincarnation and life after death to help understand the data associated with these ideas. This group previously published this data in the book "Irreducible Mind."



    Dr. Weiss has his lectures on "Science and the Transphysical Worlds" here:

    Recorded Lecture

    This is what he said about his experience with this group at Esalen:


    I've gotten nowhere with these people, because they are still trying to figure out how to explain these things using "old" (current) scientific ideas and they refuse to acknowledge that systematically by the nature of the case it is impossible. The problem of explanation in this case is a metaphysical problem. We have to re-conceptualize matter, re-conceptualize mind and re-conceptualize time and space all together if we are going to talk about the existence of transphysical worlds and they simply refuse to do all the work. They are not interested in having their imaginations disrupted at that level.
    ---------------
    Last edited by mszlazak; March 5th, 2012, 01:12 AM.

  • #2
    Quote from the outline of the lecture:

    The Doctrine of the Transphysical Worlds

    What I want to claim is that there are worlds outside of the physical world, that are systematically beyond the reach of scientific measurement, and that are nonetheless involved in important causal interactions with events in the physical world.
    This idea is very radical. It involves a cosmological shift that dwarfs the Copernican revolution. The Copernican revolution involves a shift in our perspective on the place of the Earth in the physical cosmos, but the cosmological shift that I am suggesting involves a shift in our understanding of the place of the physical world itself in a much larger and much more complex system of worlds. If my ideas seem unfamiliar, it is because they are unfamiliar.
    I am asking you to let go of what I take to be the most drastically limiting concept of modern times – the assumption that the physical is the actual.
    This assumption has become so ingrained, that it is almost unconscious, and if we are going to form an interesting understanding of personality survival, we have to get beyond this assumption. The physical is only a small part of the actual. We have fallen in to the idea that what is ultimately real is that which scientists can measure. We have learned how to perform more and more elaborate measurements, and on the basis of those measurements we can construct interesting technological devices. This is all well and good. But we have gotten so carried away with this activity that we have assumed that what is ultimately real is just what this method reveals.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
      Quote from the outline of the lecture:

      The Doctrine of the Transphysical Worlds

      What I want to claim is that there are worlds outside of the physical world, that are systematically beyond the reach of scientific measurement, and that are nonetheless involved in important causal interactions with events in the physical world.
      If it is involved in important causal interactions with events in the physical world how can it be byond the reach of science?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Arouet View Post
        If it is involved in important causal interactions with events in the physical world how can it be byond the reach of science?
        My God, you just can't help yourself can you?

        I think he said scientific measurement, not science. If you are using physical measuring devices designed to measure physical things, then it isn't surprising that they can't measure things that go beyond the physical. I might have a nightmare which causes me to sweat. That's a non-physical cause for a physical effect. You can measure the electro-chemical reactions in my brain but they can't tell you what images I saw in my nightmare.

        But that's just me attempting a reply. The actual lecture is linked in the first post so maybe give it a listen (I've only just downloaded it to my iPhone so will listen to it in the car sometime this week).

        The outline is here:

        Outline of an Esalen Lecture on Personality Survival and Transphysical Worlds

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
          My God, you just can't help yourself can you?
          Not sure what you're insinuating there...

          I think he said scientific measurement, not science.
          This seems like like mincing words. I doubt he was saying something so trite as you can't weigh these non-physical causes on a scale or with a measuring tape! The thing is, if there is a causal impact on the physical world then it should be measurable in some way.

          Comment


          • #6
            There was a wink at the end of it for a reason -- just teasing about your 5000+ responses. It does astound me that you hardly ever miss an opportunity to bang the drum for your cause. But, I guess that's what you are here for so I must admire your persistence. I very much doubt that I will be posting here in two years time, going over the same old arguments.

            As for the subject at hand, I'm not going to further second-guess the man before I've had a chance to listen to him.

            Comment


            • #7
              The class is broken down by lectures below the first link.

              Have you listened to the Q & A with his students at the end of the first lecture?

              Dr. Weiss wanted to leave the discussion of measurement and objectivity until later in the course but was forced to talk about it in the Q & A session after the first lecture.

              The issue he brings up is that measurement is impossible in Einstein's universe of General Relativity because there is no constant curvature to space-time.

              However, you can have objectivity without measurement.

              I'll have to listen again and find his later lecture on measurement but it seems like he is using the term in a very technical mathematical way associated with objective measures in spacetime. Apparently, projective geometry suffers from the same problems.

              Now don't take my word for it. Listen again because I may have misinterpreted a few things.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
                There was a wink at the end of it for a reason -- just teasing about your 5000+ responses. It does astound me that you hardly ever miss an opportunity to bang the drum for your cause. But, I guess that's what you are here for so I must admire your persistence. I very much doubt that I will be posting here in two years time, going over the same old arguments.
                Ah, yes, I'm part of some big cause and I'm here in bad faith just to shill for it, is that it? Can't be that I find it an interesting topic and enjoy checking posts throughout the day during mental breaks!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Oh, so he wasn't talking about a measuring tape after all!

                  (another )

                  Yes, I still need to listen and it looks like a 2 hour lecture so my journeys to work will be interesting this week.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Arouet View Post
                    Ah, yes, I'm part of some big cause and I'm here in bad faith just to shill for it, is that it? Can't be that I find it an interesting topic and enjoy checking posts throughout the day during mental breaks!
                    C'mon Arouet, I wasn't being serious - I thought that's what the smileys were for. If you must know, I appreciate the fact that you challenge everything - at least you (usually) do so with good grace. I can think of others who don't.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
                      C'mon Arouet, I wasn't being serious - I thought that's what the smileys were for. If you must know, I appreciate the fact that you challenge everything - at least you (usually) do so with good grace. I can think of others who don't.
                      ok, maybe I'm oversensitive today!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No prob. I am too on my bad days

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thanks Sandy! hanging in there!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kamarling View Post
                            There was a wink at the end of it for a reason -- just teasing about your 5000+ responses. It does astound me that you hardly ever miss an opportunity to bang the drum for your cause.
                            You could look upon it with charity and think that after 5000+ posts, there is some evidence that he finds the people of Skeptiko very interesting and likes to hang around to talk with them, whatever his viewpoint.

                            Edit: Just noticed that it was a little bit of light ribbing, sorry
                            Last edited by Vesalius; March 5th, 2012, 01:13 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Wow, lecture two starts with a chat with students about post-modern depression, desolation, meaninglessness and despair. The attitude that refuses the seduction of ideas.

                              It's an absurd position because it is impossible to articulate since it involves a per-formative contradiction.

                              I wonder if so-called skeptics are really coming from here but in desperation for meaning jump to science as if it can save them from the post-modern predicament.

                              But resting into the despair without bring it back to some positive "story" (denial) is needed.

                              Maybe creativity comes from here.

                              Later, we get into the integral perspective that we are transitioning into.

                              In some ways this reminds me of my readings of Ken Wilber many years ago. The similarity maybe only superficial. I'll need to review and press on with Dr. Weiss's lecture series.
                              Last edited by mszlazak; March 5th, 2012, 10:05 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X