Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:17:55 -0500
To: darwin@atheists.net
Subject: Eternity is forever

Hey Darwin,

Interesting website, cudos for pointing the discrepancies that people
ignore while fooling themselves about religion. Perhaps we could extend
this lesson into the realm of spirituality.

Just read a few articles on your site including "Eternity Is A Fušk Of A
Long Time".
Thats why there is evolution, an obvious scientific certainty. What is
uncertain is the cause, the impetus, the innovation, is it unconscious
or maybe conscious?

Transcend and include, is one way to look at evolution, spirit-or
transcendant consciousness- is always enfolding or evolving if you
prefer. So there is always something to learn in the multiverse, perhaps
an eternities worth.  It is a little arrogant to assume that there is
only one form of life, or aspect of life or organic based beings in one
dimension.  There are theories to indicate other dimensions, like say
string theory. Whose to say from our perspective, that we can rule out
any other type of consciousness or awareness or life, existing in these
dimensions. There may well not be, but we are in no position to assume.
Point is that we, from our perspective of rational reductionism, cannot
disprove any other form of existence, or other beings, etc. It simply is
not in the purview of science, of monological objectification and
reductionism.

Eventually we have found we reduce matter to wave/particle duality which
is the mindfušk for objective science, because it not telling us what we
expected to find.
At its basic level things are energy, that exceed the speed of light in
our dimension when it comes to objectifying it, and pinning it down in
the monological manner that science operates. Empirical science only
studies things it can't talk to. It does not include subjective reality
in the equation. This is not to denigrate science, it is a valid and
useful tool to study the biosphere and the sphysiosphere. But it can't
reduce the mind to the brain. Which comes first the thought or the
chemical reaction? It appears to go both ways. Who is gonna prove that
consciousness isn't an evolution of energy-that that energy  may exists
independantly of the  biophysical electrochemical body. Maybe that body
is an enfolding of that energetic consciousness or spirit or whatever
you want to call it, and a conscious evolutional transcendance is
possible maybe even imperative.

There is a bit from Richard Feynman called "Fooling Yourself" I think,
and he very rationally talked about how science has to work from basic
principles always checking and etc, not taking anything for granted and
he gave several examples in science how it happens. He then talked about
how he went into an isolation chamber for several hours and had some
hallucinations.

Well, the first thing is, yea, humans tend to have chicken shit
aberrations of the mind, that we call hallucinations.  Ok, so lets not
fool ourselves and call it game over.  I can't tear apart quantum
physics by spending six hours studying it, I have to do the injunction,
which takes years, and see for myself, and then compare notes with
others who have done the work, if we can't help but come to the same
conclusions then yea, we can say something with relative certainty about
Quantum physics.

Many people have spent their lifetimes studying the spiritual realm
through very hard work and study. Lets see if theres is any evidence
based on comparison and study of whats been called the "great chain of
being"-reaching from matter to body to mind and to what next and from
whence? 

When these people, prophets, meditators, whatever you want to call them,
come together to discuss what they percieve and interpret - or we take
apart their work left to us through history - and compare notes we find
that they all have something in common to say about certain aspects of
consciousness.  They are able to percieve some type of reality which
indicates something far greater than the sum or reduction of our parts.
Maybe evolution of consciousness, trancends the physiosphere. Who knows
what correlations we may find from spiritual adepts who have done the
work, learned the injunction, and compared notes.

There is currently a schism between empirical science and it methodology
and spirituality, or conscious transcendance if you prefer, very little
work being done in this realm from qualified scientists, who could meta
analyze these types of documented experiences coupled with psi
experimentation of which there is a great body of work, and a lot of it
defies debunking, adn derserves study.  Carl Sagan in his book "The
Demon Haunted World", admitted that number generator experiments showed
cause and effect and definitelfy deserved further study."The Conscious
Universe" Dean Radin would be a start to look into. Something else you
might check out is the work of Ian Stevenson, "Where Reincarnation And
Biology Intersect", it is some very solid work involving case sudies of
reincarnation. No BS, just solid documentation from a scientist trained
in the method. If you care to look at a sort of comprehensive overview
of the science of consciousness from a spiritual and methodological
perspective you might check out Ken Wilber, who has laid out a huge body
of work trying to integrate these two seemingly separate realms of
science and spirituality and teh consciousness that intersects them. The
scientific method and spirituality have been falsely disassociated
instead of differentiated, quite a difference adn a loss to mankind.

Obviously the "good book" and other religions has been through the
institutional filter, most of it is BS, written for the sake of power
relations more than anything, maybe even 99% of it. But there is
something to learn from these religions. We could assume that these
"prophets" were full of shit or inventions to control people etc, but
then we would be just "fooling ourselves" wouldn't we. We would have to
do the work and see for ourselves in a methodical and dialogical manner
and then compare notes. No other way to prove or disprove it. We may
have "a fušk of a long time" to figure it out. Maybe not.
Cheers to ya.