Archive for the real twilight zone

Spiritual Superiority and Scientific Ignorance

March 22, 2012 alan Balance Views, beliefs, brain science, closed minded, cognitive dissonance, conversations, critical thinking, dogmatic opinions, empiricism, experience, feelings, Free Will, fundamentalism, god, Good, inflexibility, is this for real, logical fallacies, logical fallacy, metaphysics, mind, mysticism, neurology, neuroscience, opinion, opinions, perception, perception bias, personal truth, psychology, rational mystic, rational mysticism, sceptic, scepticism, science, scientific literacy, scientific method, sensation, senses, Skeptic, skepticism. science, the real twilight zone

So we’re back again…

On a recent The Real Twilight Zone episode there was a presentation by a singer who was interested in the connection people had to the land. More to the point she was promoting an event in which groups of people could gather at the same time across the UK and ‘sing thanks’ to the planet.

Now, as you might expect, I immediately see the social, emotional and cultural value of such an activity. Bringing individuals together in order share an experience in which the focus is ‘gratitude’ and ‘personal connection with place’ is a vote winner in my book.

But because I accept this positive and affirmative action I need not accept some of the metaphysical constructs that my guest on the show presented.

Ley Lines. Earth Energies and the plausibility of Dowsing being areas which need not go hand in hand with a general support for the Earth Singing activity.

It was interesting to sit back and watch the debate that this interview provoked and so I thought I’d try to encapsulate some idea that allow me, as a Rational Mystic, to hold what may appear to be contradictory views.

So, lets start with Philosophy.

As a discipline this area of academic study can be considered as providing a framework which supports and encourages debate. The framework is built around logic, reasoning and the synthesis of information to extend and explore understanding.

My apologies to any Philosophers ‘out there’ who might feel I’ve oversimplified their specialism. So to make sure I’m at least getting some of this right, lets listen to a philosopher….

 

Now, Science.

Science is about asking questions, proposing hypotheses, collecting observations, conducting experiments, analysing data and sharing findings  - the scientific method. The business of science is to construct meaningful questions which set out to identify the ways in which the cosmos (in it’s broadest sense) works. The derivation of Laws and Theories, upon which further hypotheses can be tested is part and parcel of the process of science.

Again, my apologies to any Scientists ‘out there’ who feel misrepresented.

Science provides a method by which we can explore the world and the cosmos. There is often a by-product to this processes of science which results in technological innovation.

Philosophy provides a vehicle through which findings from scientific explorations, historical reflection and personal introspection can be brought together  in broader terms – such as the consideration of morals, ethics and mores.

Both approaches can be mutually supportive. One deals solely with the world of objective reality no matter how abstract that reality can become. The other deals with what the findings and innovations of science mean – their relevance to the past, present and future and what we can call ‘the human condition’.

It is also true to say that both approaches to knowing and understanding are based upon human constructs – i.e. methods, ways of questioning, ways of being.

They are also built around the ability to ‘deconstruct’ ideas and phenomena in order to question the specifics (the variables) whether they be in terms of abstract concepts, physical objects, observations and even the structure of words themselves. Defining ‘terms’ and ‘variables’ is an essential part of the philosophical and scientific debate.

So what of ‘mysticism’?

Well the branch of philosophy known as Metaphysics deals with aspects of what we know as mysticism. For me it as about personal, subjective experience that we either seek (or not) to place into our own constructs of how the cosmos works.
The same experience can happen to dozens of people all of whom will interpret it initially according to the way they feel they connect with the world – and this is a good thing.

The challenge comes when we try to share what we have experienced and what we mean by the words we use to describe experience. Now I personally enjoy metaphysical debate and provocation BUT only when the people I debate with can engage is such a personal thing without feeling their beliefs are under attack…

Our personal constructs about the world are just that – personal AND we are connected emotionally to the things we accept as being ‘real. Hence there will of course be some hesitation, or even reluctance, to consider questions which run counter to what we ‘feel to be true’.

The more dogmatic we are in our beliefs the less open we are to real debate. I would go a stage further, however, and suggest that fundamentalism is dogmatism plus fear.

If we are unable to tolerate anothers position is it because we feel threatened by their difference?

If we cannot debate our position is it because we are so insecure in our own beliefs that we cannot bear any question?

If we believe that to question spiritual ‘truths’ is wrong are we in danger of persecuting others for their understandings?

Whether there is or is not a God or are or are not Angels is not really a question for science. Behaviours which result from a belief is of interest to psychologists and sociologists and were there to be ‘physical manifestations’ of spiritual beings then sure, science would be able to ask questions.

Most of the statements and beliefs held by those on a ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’path and the experiences often quoted as evidence are by their very nature ‘intangible’ and not easily reducible to things science can measure. This does not mean the experiencing of them is not important or relevant to the individual or shared collective consciousness.

For me it is easy to recognise and value the different ways of interacting with the world; the different kinds of experiences we can have and the questions we can choose to ask (or not).

For me it is easy to recognise and value the limitations of each of the ‘ways of experiencing’. It is great that ‘science does not know everything’ because this allows for questions and development of new ideas as well as the redefinition of old ones.

So back to the title of this essay ..

Scientific Ignorance for me is best demonstrated by those who say things like …

“Science doesn’t know everything you know” – said with a ‘told you so’ patronising edge

“It’s only a Theory” – said as if to reduce the status of scientific theory to a ‘cute idea’.

From so-called scientists,

“Well my ideas is so revolutionary that the scientific community won’t even consider it” – usually from those who have an idea (which they call a Theory) that does not fit with ‘conventional wisdom’…

And, from creationists,

“Well if evolution was a true then why don’t we see monkeys having human babies” – yes this was actually said by a Creationist!

Spiritual Superiority can be summed-up when anyone with a metaphysical or spiritual point to make suggests that ‘the reason you don’t understand is because you’ve not reached the same level as we have….” or any other such hierarchical claim.

For me ….

The Rationalist wants to ask empirical questions about objective reality

The Mystic is happy to ‘talk’ about ideas which are inclusive BUT is more interested in what a personal, subjective experience means to me.

I want to be open to different ways of experiencing, relating to and being with myself in relation to the wonderful cosmos and the potential that we have as people to be more than we are…

I want to think about ‘how I know what I know’ and absorb what I can from the range of teachers, philosophers, scientists, mystics and situations I have been fortunate enough to encounter.

….I’m obviously not sure of what I don’t know and so tentative about the things I do think I know…. of course what I feel is another thing entirely.

So for those of you who like ‘videos’ here are some I found to keep you thinking. Not saying I like the style, or endorse the views – but there’s some food for thought here…

 

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
No comments , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scientology – Conclusion

January 18, 2011 alan Church of Scientology, Creeds and Behaviour, the real twilight zone, Tom Cruise

This is a very emotional topic and I, for obvious reasons, will tread carefully in my own summing up.

As far as the Creed of Scientology goes I think I am in total accord. I may, in my later years PC aware mind like to see the emphasis from MAN dropped and the use the word HUMAN, picky I know but just sounds more inclusive. (Maybe PEOPLE would be even better).

However a CREED is a simple set of guidelines which should inspire BEHAVIOUR, and quite frankly there is a genuine lack of respectful behaviour of those on ‘both’ sides of this issue. Surely the idea of ‘FAIR GAME’ in terms of combating detractors and critics is in complete opposition to the creed of inalienable rights.

Now here is where I offer a little bit of personal information…

I few years ago, when I was living in London, I found myself at a loose end and simply roamed the streets looking for suitable distractions. It had been raining and I was less than impressed with my own indolence, lack of motivation and generally damp disposition.

Walking past one brightly lit store front I was stopped by an extremely pleasant, smartly dressed and confident young man who simply asked “Are you happy with your life?”

Now I’ve never been one for superficial conversations and his direct question appealed to my interest in meaningful conversation and debate. I was about to question what he meant by ‘happy’ when he asked if I’d be interested in completing a short questionnaire. It seemed like a great opportunity to get out of the rain and fill a few moments or two so I agreed.

I went into the store and sat a desk. I noticed several other people sat at desks either on their own filling in forms, or with another smartly dressed young person engaged in conversation. The whole thing felt like one of those ‘time share’ sales meetings, so I was on alert as it were.

I duly completed my questionnaire, recognising many of the kinds of questions that would appear and the run of the mill psychometric assessments, and awaited my results.

After a short while I was joined by another be-suited individual who, whilst gently waving papers around, gave the results of my ‘test’. It was interesting, and in fact started off by making generally positive statements about my personality and disposition. I was being flattered.

There was then a long pause. The voice of my confident dropped into a whisper and he leaned forward. I mirrored his body language ready to hear whatever he needed to share…

“There are some clear blocks and darknesses however….”

He then spent the next few moments on what felt like a character assassination. Whatever good feelings about myself he had inspired a few moments ago were dismissed by his sharp, incisive, ego destruction.

When he had finished he sat back on his chair and said…

“We have a programme to help people like you. People who are unfulfilled, under-achieving on their potential…. Have you heard of Dianetics?”

This was my introduction to Scientology.

Although I did attend the ‘suggested’ follow-up session and gladly accepted my free copy of L Ron Hubbards book, I knew at the moment I had first taken the questionnaire that ‘what was being sold’ was not for me.

If I had been at a low ebb, or if I had been ‘searching’ for something and if I was not somewhat versed in pyschometric testing and ‘cold reading’ (for that’s what so much of the consultation felt like), then perhaps I would have joined this august group and maybe would be doing far better in life than I currently am.

For me Scientology, like so many evangelical religions and spiritual groups, is in danger of preaching one thing and behaving in a totally different way. More importantly, and this is perhaps a key question, how can any group – Christian, Jane, Islamic, Scientologist – have a stated belief in personal choice, free will and human potential whilst engaging in restrictive practices?

In trying to get a picture of Scientology and assessing its status as a Religion, it so difficult get past the vitriolic, negative and abusive stereotypes, language and attitudes.

If I as a grass roots Scientologist believe that my faith is being twisted, my doctrine misquoted and my colleagues attacked then I would be defensive and perhaps aggressive to the mocking questions of others.

If I as a parent of a child who has become a scientologist and hence has been “cut off” from them and their family, it would be difficult for me to see the religion as anything other than evil and ‘cult like’

If I as an investigator in search of some balanced opinion become harassed, spied upon and taunted, it would be difficult for me to see anything positive in the behaviours of those I am questioning.

As I researched this topic there were times when I felt I was hearing the generic complaints, misinformation and prejudiced thinking that has plagued so many religions at one time or another. Chirstians need only look at their own history to see how the institution of the Church as failed to follow its own preachings.

The best I can do at the moment is to ask the question that Scientologists hate, as would any religion if the same question was directed at them…..is it a cult?

To answer that question, the topic on The Real Twilight Zone on the 18th January will be Cults and Cult Behaviour. 

No comments

Meaningful Debate

November 6, 2010 alan anti intellectualism, debate, paranormal, paranormal investigations, paranormal politics, rational mystic radio, research, the real twilight zone

Meaningful Debate…

Warning – this post contains explicit language in the quotes used !

All hail the Internet… a yottabyte of information growing daily.

There was a time when ‘information was power’ now it is perhaps the leaden weight of information overload that stifles meaningful debate.

I love the idea of free-speech….

I love the idea of sharing and learning from each other…

I love the idea of playing devils advocate in order to sift through what is known, what can be known and what could be know.

All hail the Interner …. An information superhighway …

Now clogged with the flotsam and jetsom of human babblings – from the relevant to the irrelevant; the reverent to the irreverent.

Finding relevant, valuable and timely information on many topics is becoming more and more difficult.

Accessing information from trusted, researched or thoughtful sources is becoming more and more problematic.

For all its potential the Internet, which could provide a platform for intellectual, emotionally intelligent debate on issues that impact upon the human race and the world in which we live seems to be populated with opinionated evangelists who seek not knowledge, or discussion, but the accolades of members of the cult of anti-intellectualism.

Look at the level of comments some articles on the paranormal, esoteric and alternative generate…

From the vehement support of one UFO commentator and the sceptics who dare comment on his thinking…

This guy will most likely end up in history as Thomas Jefferson as a man of great vision and mind. Now these morons laugh at him like the guy that said the world is round. These morons will be remembered by our grandchildren just as what they are TRUE MORONS with no vision.I am surprised they have not accused him of witchery and burnt him.

To responses to the suggestion that UFO’s may be misidentified and have rational explanations…

….venus, the goverment is fucking stupid. do they think we can are too stupid to tell the difference between venus and a ufo? You have 2 eyes for a reason: Depth perception, and pilots cannot fly without it. I know a fucking venus when I see one.

(I won’t make too much of a comment about the final sentence suggesting more than one Venus in the Solar System).

From the advocate who can’t be bothered to defend their position…

u non-beliver burnnnn

To the proposer of an idea….


these aliens are demons of the bible they dont land because people will know what they really are the devil wants people to believ he doesn’t exsist how can you fight an enemy if you dont know who the enemy is.when they do land the whole world will be deceived

To the atheistic scholar who disagrees…

B*tch the bible is full of sh*tty crap
F*ck off
The aliens shud come and F*ck u up motherf*cker

Surely meaningful debate is about sharing ideas and opinions in an open, honest, direct yet respectful way.

Sure we can disagree – but we can still have the integrity to listen to, think about and respond to the ideas we share.

An ongoing Facebook discussion with Pygar, mentioned in an earlier post, has been thought provoking, challenging and I hope he will agree respectful. We may be coming from different perspectives and of course as in any debate we are defending and exploring respective positions. From my point of view at least I will be willing to change opinions in the light of evidence, arguments and challenges that show the flaws, fallacies and factual inconsistencies in my arguments..

This is the spirit of debate and stands in stark contrast to the emotional defence of a personal belief and opinion.

Far too many paranormal discussions end in emotional disarray because the sceptical or devils advocate position seems to attack some personal, sacred truth. In effect many of this kind of discussion is about evangelism and conversion to an idea rather than a meaningful consideration of evidence, exploration and exploration.

Haunted Cornwall FM is one programme that does seek to discuss and debate issues related to ghosts, spirits, mediums and the paranormal and as a presenter on this show I am well aware of how real emotions can overtake the playful emotive challenges made by both the rational and mystical hosts, interviewees and on-line contributors.

In the belief that there is more room for this kind of ‘no flame’, intellectual and challenging debate in metaphysical, scientific and paranormal ideas outside of the immediate Haunted Cornwall remit I have decided to re-view and develop a project idea mentioned in the first few posts on this blog (check the archives).

The podcast idea, as it was then, has moved onto the creation of a radio show with the working title The Real Twilight Zone. It will be going out from Penwith Radio on Tuesday evenings between 8pm and 10pm GMT.

I am in the process of lining up some guests and with the help of a friend from Ghosts-UK (Tim) we should be able to get an on-line chat room, listen again and listen again podcast service set up.

Obviously I will tell you all more in due course BUT I hope that the show will become a place where meaningful debate can happen…

Alan

The Real Twilight Zone – Rational Mystic Radio

 
 

No comments