• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

Free episodes:

Are you joking?
No. If you're going to dispute a point I've made, please provide specific concise relevant points in support of that position that can be discussed along with references, Simply telling me I'm wrong or don't understand and to go sift through volumes of information until it comes to me isn't reasonable. So once again, where, specifically, in some reference or another does it say that phenomenology accounts for the causal factors of consciousness itself rather than the phenomena associated with consciousness ( such as various perceptions, feelings, and experiences ) ?
 
Last edited:
What follows is Occult knowledge ...

Please define "occult knowledge" and briefly explain why it should be taken seriously.

For convenience, a Wikipedia Quote is included below:

"The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden". In common English usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable", usually referred to as science. The term is sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people" or that "must be kept hidden", but for most practising occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences. The terms esoteric and arcane have very similar meanings, and in most contexts the three terms are interchangeable.

It also describes a number of magical organizations or orders, the teachings and practices taught by them, and to a large body of current and historical literature and spiritual philosophy related to this subject."
 
Last edited:
Well, that is what it seems many people are doing these days - finding a book - or a film - to 'live in'. ;) Scientific exploration is often stimulated as much by hopes and wishes - a vision of what might be possible - as much as by a 'scientific problem'. More is pursued through the imagination than we know.

LINK:

For some it's 'The Matrix' - for others it's 'Harry Potter'. :p

Or, this........

LINK:

And this.......beginning with a scene with the silicon-based life form that evolved from the robots (not an alien).......

LINK:


I would add as a possible answer the cosmic question "where is everybody?", that when civilizations reach a certain critical stage of development, they weigh the cost/benefit of interstellar travel against the personal reward of idealized life in "the matrix". And they simply disappear down the rabbit hole of virtual reality. So there may be billions of intergalactic opium dens in the universe run by self-sustaining machinery that keeps its occupants on a kind of endless pleasure cruise.

And might some undesirables in the algorithm be evicted and doomed to cruise vast stretches of the "real" universe in search of vindication and fulfillment? Hint: A possible story idea to anyone masochistic enough to write scifi for editorial submission. ;)
 
So once again, where, specifically, in some reference or another does it say that phenomenology accounts for the causal factors of consciousness itself rather than the phenomena associated with consciousness ( such as various perceptions, feelings, and experiences ) ?

I never claimed that "phenomenology accounts for the causal factors of consciousness itself rather than the phenomena associated with consciousness." Where did you get that idea? Where is it you think I claimed that or even suggested it?
 
So many posts with interesting content - where to begin! :)

I am an outlier in this conversation mainly because of fundamental differences in ontology. As much as I have been influenced by various occult and esoteric streams, and 'use' certain approaches more comprehensive (imo) than others I have come across - better at 'tying up the loose ends' - I am not here to advocate any point of view (or teacher or stream) or try to persuade in any direction - though I will be forthright in my view regarding the purely materialistic approach: as a premise the approach is woefully lacking in 'tying up the loose ends' - in sum, the approach lacks 'elegance'.

At most I am here to share with those interested - with a difference. I would like to hear what works for others - what 'ties up' their 'loose ends', too.

So saying, no matter what I say will never do justice to some very sophisticated models out there, that are - for lack of a better phrase - the 'alternative science' stream (like 'alternative medicine' - we must live with the 'politics' of the dominant paradigm), because make no mistake, it is as much a science, subject to exploration and experimentation, as any mainstream science.

I would say that there are about five to eight modalities that inform my grasp of the 'heuristic structure' I make internal reference to. The modalities ('schools' or 'streams') have been studied over decades. They all differ - sometimes significantly - but they also have an interesting consistency in their internal structures. What is more - as I have used certain ideas - they have been verified by personal experience (others have been set aside as not useful or were not verified). There remain great mysteries - the greatest mystery of all - a consistent experience that I had across my childhood and into my adulthood - remains a mystery. However, because of that experience I know that there are worlds and universes which the mental equation simply cannot grasp - the mind (as it exists at this time) is just too 'insufficient'. We are truly fledglings in this journey. It is why the hubris of the materialist scientist is so glaring. We are fledglings.

Two slight mentions for context: the experience I refer to above would be classified as mystical, because it is not (yet) in the realm of (my) knowledge. As an Occultist I am on the Path of Knowledge. I am not on the Mystical Path, nor the Path of the Heart, nor any number of other paths. This means I am going through the Head Chakra. Most people are going through that Chakra (because that's what our culture foments) - and it is a dangerous path. Every path has it's cautions, however.

Also, it must be said - language can be deceptive. To speak of these things is not always wise - but I do think there is receptivity and I think we can have a good conversation. What I am not interested in is contention - and I sense no one else is interested in that, either. Nothing of value proceeds from that. Also, a healthy dose of 'not taking oneself and one's views too seriously' is good on this journey. Bottom line, we are looking through a glass darkly - and we all do our best - not so?

though I will be forthright in my view regarding the purely materialistic approach: as a premise the approach is woefully lacking in 'tying up the loose ends' - in sum, the approach lacks 'elegance'.

It is unsatisfying - but I have to confess that I had scientific materialism and scientism shoved down my throat in my upbringing and that has an effect on my views.

At most I am here to share with those interested - with a difference. I would like to hear what works for others - what 'ties up' their 'loose ends', too.

I think that's an excellent goal for this discussion!

As an Occultist I am on the Path of Knowledge. I am not on the Mystical Path, nor the Path of the Heart, nor any number of other paths. This means I am going through the Head Chakra. Most people are going through that Chakra (because that's what our culture foments) - and it is a dangerous path. Every path has it's cautions, however.

You had mentioned this before, I think, and I've done a lot of thinking about this lately - I appreciate you pointing it out (the dangers of going through the Path of Knowledge and the other available paths)

Also, it must be said - language can be deceptive. To speak of these things is not always wise - but I do think there is receptivity and I think we can have a good conversation.

I agree and have learned this through hard experience. It's said that the greatest trick the Devil ever accomplished was to convince the world he does not exist. If he didn't accomplish this directly through the invention of language, then inventing language was his second greatest trick! (That last bit is in the spirit of your final lines: Also, a healthy dose of 'not taking oneself and one's views too seriously' is good on this journey. Bottom line, we are looking through a glass darkly - and we all do our best - not so?)
 
Please define "occult knowledge" and briefly explain why it should be taken seriously.

For convenience, a Wikipedia Quote is included below:

"The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden". In common English usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable", usually referred to as science. The term is sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people" or that "must be kept hidden", but for most practising occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences. The terms esoteric and arcane have very similar meanings, and in most contexts the three terms are interchangeable.

It also describes a number of magical organizations or orders, the teachings and practices taught by them, and to a large body of current and historical literature and spiritual philosophy related to this subject."

To me, Tyger's post that begins:
What follows is Occult knowledge of the organization of the human being.

does a good job of providing a working definition or concepts that can be discussed in this thread and is within the scope of the Wikipedia definition.

As to why it should be taken seriously - for me the answer is personal experience. There is lots of information available describing practices and many initiatory orders that will provide guidance in these practices. Basically, you do the practice and see what happens for you.

Other reasons it should be taken seriously is the demonstrated intelligence and knowledge of the subject in Tyger's posts and the importance of these ideas in Tyger's world-view and the fact that these teachings are wide-spread today and have been present throughout history, these ideas have survived and anything that survives deserves to be taken seriously. This does not make them true and it does not mean you have to believe them or that you shouldn't critique them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earlier today ufology suggested that we each identify as best we can our approach to or concept of consciousness. For me, phenomenology -- especially as developed by Merleau-Ponty -- is the soundest approach to understanding consciousness and its interdependence with the natural world and the cultural worlds we live in, layered over our primordial relationship with nature. As it happens, the wikipedia article on MP provides an adequate overview of and helpful introduction to MP's thought.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would say my own approach has not been determined yet. I grew up with the scientism and scientific materialism or my father and the extremely intuitive and eclectic approach to the world of my mother (and so was exposed to Jung, Grof, M. Scott Peck, mysticism, feminism, many other -isms and etc etc all powerful influences), then I read Nietzsche in college and then largely left behind formal intellectual pursuits as I tried to cope with adult life.

In middle age I'm now coming back to find, as Tyger put it, what ties up my loose ends - what is "a living option" as James puts it, for me and what I might live my life by. The information that Tyger has shared draws me strongly as does the phenomenology that Constance offers - there is plenty there for both hemispheres - so I would say I am in learning/questioning mode rather than having a firm approach at this time, my goal is to keep my mind open and learn. Thank you all for your contributions so far . . .
 
Other reasons it should be taken seriously is the demonstrated intelligence and knowledge of the subject in Tyger's posts and the importance of these ideas in Tyger's world-view and the fact that these teachings are wide-spread today and have been present throughout history, these ideas have survived and anything that survives deserves to be taken seriously. This does not make them true and it does not mean you have to believe them or that you shouldn't critique them.

Correct - absolutely. Believe nothing - do the inner work and see for yourself.

There are many stories from the journey - some good hair-curling yarns to be told by the fire on a dark and stormy night - entertainment, indications of the way, but only that when all is said and done.

One of the best, most comprehensive teachers of the occult I have come across stated emphatically that: others would come after him who would add to what he discovered - and more importantly, would correct where he was in error.

I am struck by no matter how many times I say to do the inner - that that is the avenue for verification and personal knowledge in these matters - still there is a wish for there to be external evidence. The best answer I can give to that is: observe nature - with passionate interest; observe human nature - with dispassionate interest; observe yourself - with interested dispassion. That said - two observations to make.......because the 'organ of perception' one is forging is oneself, and what one 'sees' will be the result of the precision of one's forging.....

I want to take you back to a scene in the first 'Indiana Jones' film - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' - where Harrison Ford and his lady love are tied to a stake (I think) - it's at the end of the film - and the Ark of the Covenant is being opened by the Nazi officers. Indiana Jones shouts out the instruction: 'Don't look, Marion!' - and we then see the officers bedazzled by the beauty of the creatures emerging from the Ark but very quickly the creatures morph into something hideous and evil. In that image there resides a subtle truth: the malleability of the astral realm. To explain.....

We see in the physical. Nothing appears to change in what we see based on our mood in a given moment of time. There sits the rock - there the rock will sit in that moment regardless if we look with happy eyes or angry eyes. There it sits.

If we could see into the etheric, there is a bit more malleability than is present in the physical but the etheric is not as responsive as is the astral, which is the next 'sheath' after the physical and etheric. With the astral, hold onto your hat! Consider the lightening speed with which your emotions can shift from one instant to the next - so it is if one is saddled with 'second-sight' into the astral realm: the transitions are lightening quick. Plus what one 'sees' is oneself raw and untransformed. Recall the query: if I was walking down the street and saw myself, would I run to embrace my image or turn away in aversion. Here is the reality of that - you see what are your creations (in the astral), and you see what is around you (in the astral), as well, what you draw to yourself (in the astral) - nothing 'objective' about this kind of 'insight' (seeing-in) and with even the merest flicker of fear, or disgust, and the images shape-shift to be that which you create. The problem is accentuated when the seer into this realm is not aware that they are creating what they see - and that they must command the creation. A seer at this level of expertise may be able to acquire some accurate information but the hit-or-miss ratio can be on the order of random.

The purification - transformation - call it what you will (the process is spoken of in various ways in various streams) - of the astral 'body' or 'sheath' (the realm of feelings, desires, passions) - is essential if one is to maintain sanity. Taking on the inner journey as a conscious discipline and nothing gets easier - quite the reverse - the path becomes ever steeper and rockier, as the saying goes. Also, though we may enter the path from varying portals (Head, Heart, Solar Plexus) - all portals will be engaged at some point. The path of knowledge requires the heart engaged, and will for sure at some junctures precipitate mystical experiences. [But other chakras - like the second or 'sacral chakra' related to sexuality - will also engage, and is a notorious problem for men and women in their prime - not to be addressed by sublimation or denial - but that's a whole 'nother topic. See: 'Kundalini', 'Cosmic Egg', 'Tantric Yoga'.]

One other element: the determination of where you leave off and others begin.This can be more of a problem for the Individuality when incarnating in a female body (I have thought), but the issue of boundaries is universal. In one of my trainings - I relayed this particularly troublesome emotional experience: I was at work at my desk. My boss was squiring a group of visitors past my desk whereat they stopped just in front of me. As I sat there, suddenly - from one moment to the next - I was beset with the most intense emotional pain, the heartache of a 'lost love' experience with ferocious intensity to the point of agony. I sat struck numb as this 'squall' tore through my being - when the group moved off to the other side of the room - and finally disappeared into another room. As they were across the room the pain in me dramatically subsided - and with them no longer in physical connection with me - the pain was gone entirely.

My teacher's guidance was this: first, I had been 'sensing' the emotional state of someone in that group. [How was I to know this for the future? Such sensings come into the soul (emotional body in this case) just like I had described - like a squall - with a definite beginning and a definite end. Earmark of an empathic event taking place. A 'not you' moment though until we learn that boundary we react as though it is us and suffer.] Second, my experience was more intense than the person's emotional state I was picking up. [This seemed very 'unfair', I protested - and I said as much. Unfair though it might seem, I was told, such was the nature of such empathic responses.] Further, I would not have 'picked up' this emotion had I not had an experience of the same or similar emotion in my personal 'cache' - which enabled me to resonate to the emotion of heart-break in the other. I had to go back into the experience and pull up any internal images that had occurred at the time. Had I looked at the group? Yes. Had anyone stood out? Yes, a man - and as my teacher walked me through the experience I was shown that I had the information already as to where (from who) the experience was coming - and I was shown how I might have, could have, 'healed' in that moment.

I tell the above as an illustration of knowing the boundaries of the self. Generally we are a mass of feelings, desires, errant thoughts - and we identify it all as 'us' - when in fact it is not so. I knew someone whose empathic response was so keen that they could not be present in large groups of people. One friend told a story of being in a circle of strangers, when a man entered the room and sat in the empty seat beside her. Within minutes she was overcome with sorrow and began to sob uncontrollably. Even at it took place, the 'observer' in her, was mystified about what was happening to her. People came round to pat her and give the usual clucks - when the man stood up and left. At once the sorrow vanished and the crying ceased. A squall. When I told her the 'explanation' - she resonated at once. That was it - and she sensed it at the time: the man was carrying some sorrow. But when I told her that she felt his sorrow keener than he did to the point of open sobbing but he did not - she as well thought that was very 'unfair. :p But so it is.

I had to learn how to identify when an emotion was arising from within me and was 'my own' and when it was arising from elsewhere. ['My own' had a slow organic birthing, not in any way extreme; 'from another' was exactly like a squall - abruptly beginning and ending - and extremely unpleasant, totally consuming while occurring.] Learning how to handle all this before 'second-sight' is accessed is on the order of a gift - be grateful you are not 'psychic' to see what battles are being waged in the astral! Ha!

The above has been proved with me time-and-time again. I see women tending to be more empathic - be it for nature or nurture - but anyone on the empathic spectrum would find themselves in this situation. This also goes for thoughts. How do thoughts arise? The most dangerous situation I found myself in was when I was in a relationship with someone and found myself having moments of intense suicidal despair with suicidal thoughts. This was not like me. The nature of the feelings and thoughts indicated an empathic response - and I identified who it was. At that realization I was able to 'objectif'y the experience and in 'healing' myself hopefully some healing went to the person who was feeling this despair - though not to the point if suicide (remembering that the empathic response is always more intense than the original emotion is in the originating person - totally unfair).

From just the little bit I have shared you can see that this is not a minor undertaking - it is very much a transformation of the entire being - as new capacities are being forged. The Path of Knowledge is the Path of Power - and it is a power that is oft time wielded for personal gain. Many 'fall' in this way. That is the sure and certain path to destruction when such capacities begin to be used for self. Happens all the time - all around us - we hear the rail and rant against those who are 'suppose to be' better, wiser - yep. Try it - see how far you go before you stumble. Luckily there is only one way but forward - and while the universe is exacting it is also forgiving.
 
Last edited:
. . .
I tell the above as an illustration of knowing the boundaries of the self. Generally we are a mass of feelings, desires, errant thoughts - and we identify it all as 'us' - when in fact it is not so. I knew someone whose empathic response was so keen that they could not be present in large groups of people.
. . .

Beautiful - so many things I want to respond to, but I want to sit with this for a while. I have the above experience with groups of people (I find it particularly so in churches (Christian) because I believe people release a lot of things inside a church that they otherwise hold in) and so does my mother - I have gradually slipped into a reclusive life as a result - but I always have hope of mastering this and you have provided some additional tips in figuring out what's mine and what is someone else's - thank you!
 
I know very little about theosophy and other occult systems, but would like to call attention to the apparently extrasensory perception of subatomic particles in the first decade of the 19th century by Annie Besant and William Ledbeater, evaluated in this online article in the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Abstract - A century-old claim by two early leaders of the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluated.
Their observations are found to be consistent with facts of nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their assumption
that they saw atoms is rejected. Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of matter is shown to agree with the
string model. Their description of these basic particles bears striking similarity
to basic ideas of superstring theory. The implication of this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal observations of subatomic particles
and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither fundamental
nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists currently assume,
but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.
 
When you are talking about Primordial Consciousness is this what you're talking about:

"While the relative vacuum of the substrate can be ascertained by means of the cultivation of meditative quiescence, the absolute vacuum of the dharmadhātu can be realized only through the cultivation of contemplative insight.10 The mode of awareness with which one ascertains this absolute space is called primordial consciousness (jñāna), which is the ultimate nature of all individual continua of consciousness." Source: Vacuum States of Consciousness: A Tibetan Buddhist View” B. Alan Wallace ( p 8 ). http://www.alanwallace.org/Vacuum States Essay.pdf
Or are you talking about something else? Please clarify with some reference to your source.

Phenomenologists use the term 'primordial consciousness' to refer to the state of awareness in which we exist while still in a pre-reflective relationship with the world around us. The difference between pre-reflective and reflective consciousness is expressed as follows in a paper (linked below) that compares Heideggerean thought with Eastern thought:

Ordinary consciousness is intentional or focal awareness – awareness of something. Yet awareness as such (‘pure awareness’ in Indian terms) is essentially non-intentional -being that primordial spacious field or clearing (Lichtung)
which is the pre-condition or ‘field condition’ for our awareness of
things. Western phenomenology, noetic science and consciousness studies however, all still fail to acknowledge this non-intentional
dimension of consciousness – that pure and spacious awareness field which, like empty space itself, both embraces and transcends everything we are or could be aware of within it, all possible contents of consciousness."
Heidegger uses the German forestry term "Lichtung" (an area cut into a forest to admit additional light to encourage new growth) as a metaphor for the space that awareness opens up in Being -- a clearing in the being of what-is that when understood {reflected on} discloses human consciousness as being "ek-stase": a standing outside what-is at the same time that one stands in it.

Merleau-Ponty elaborated Heidegger's description of consciousness coming to awareness of itself on the basis of prior pre-reflective consciousness (i.e., awareness) in terms of Gestalt psychology in its attention to the relationship between figure and ground in perception. MP develops this line of thought in his first two books, The Structure of Behavior and Phenomenology of Perception.

Here is the link to the paper I quoted above, which recognizes similarities and differences between Heideggerean thought and Eastern thought:

Essays on Heidegger, Phenomenology and Indian Thought | Peter Wilberg - Academia.edu

Ufology wrote:
I'm not suggesting that consciousness is a ready made computer. When I mentioned the theatre of the mind, I was alluding to the Cartesian Theatre in an effort to differentiate between the phenomena that phenomenology is concerned with as opposed to the state of consciousness itself by comparing consciousness itself to the state of being aware in the darkened theatre before the show begins, and the show, which constitutes the phenomena that phenomenology concerns itself with.

[edited] So far in this discussion it has seemed to me that you think of consciousness as a production of the brain-in-itself responding to invisible physical fields rather than as the result of embodied experience in the world in which aware beings respond directly to perceived stimuli in the world with increasing focus and receptivity, gradually moving from pre-reflective consciousness to reflective consciousness. I've tried to distinguish the phenomenological analysis of consciousness as the analysis of directly felt as well as seen phenomenal appearances of things encountered in the physical environment, developing to a point where consciousness becomes aware of itself as standing apart from the environment in its perception. Phenomenology studies the phenomenon of consciousness itself as much as it studies the phenomenal appearances of things. It describes consciousness as building upon bodily exploration of the tangible world to reflection on experience acquired therein to thinking (in concert with other consciousnesses on the basis of a multiplication of their perspectives on things) toward shared understanding of the nature of reality {what-is}. My guess is that the brain itself develops in concert with the development of embodied consciousness from its primordial base in awareness, and that all of this takes place because of a direct transaction between what is given in nature (on perhaps many levels of awareness) and the consciousness that evolves out of nature and becomes able to contemplate its own relation to nature. Consciousness moves from sensing its presence in the natural world to reflecting on its experience in and of the world and then interrogating that experience to disclose the structure of what-is existentially and ontologically.
 
Last edited:
There are obvious differences between the Eastern mystical and Western phenomenological conceptions of primordial consciousness which Tyger and Steve will be able to sort through and respond to better than I can. But I think that their shared desire and attempt to reach an understanding of the ground of consciousness is significant.
 
To me, Tyger's post that begins: What follows is Occult knowledge of the organization of the human being. does a good job of providing a working definition or concepts that can be discussed in this thread and is within the scope of the Wikipedia definition.
Am I to conclude then that for @Tyger, the Wikipedia definition quoted is in agreement with his views as well as yours, or do I just presume that from his response above?
As to why it should be taken seriously - for me the answer is personal experience. There is lots of information available describing practices and many initiatory orders that will provide guidance in these practices. Basically, you do the practice and see what happens for you.
According to the definition then, it would be for the personal experience of developing practises based on magical thinking in order to substantiate beliefs in non-measurable claims of the paranormal. Forgive me if I don't see why that should be taken seriously at all. The only benefit I can see for being exposed to it is for the purpose of gaining an impartial textbook knowledge of it for the sake of discussion, and possibly to point us toward the phenomena so that it can be studied rationally. Otherwise there is no reason to think that it's anything more than nonsense. And let's make no mistake here, the word nonsense is perfectly accurate because if it cannot be understood as being rational, then the only alternative is to consider it nonsense. This isn't to say that there aren't phenomena that remain unexplained, but simply being unexplained doesn't automatically make them occult. If believing in the occult was still our primarly way of explaining things, we'd all still believe thunder is caused by Thor's hammer.
Other reasons it should be taken seriously is the demonstrated intelligence and knowledge of the subject in Tyger's posts and the importance of these ideas in Tyger's world-view and the fact that these teachings are wide-spread today and have been present throughout history, these ideas have survived and anything that survives deserves to be taken seriously. This does not make them true and it does not mean you have to believe them or that you shouldn't critique them.
What that translates into is that we should take it seriously so that we can understand how so many people after all this time still come to delude themselves into believing in nonsense. It cannot be argued that the mystical, magical and religious beliefs associated with the occult remain prevalent in today's world, and therefore acknowledging that fact may help us learn how to better deal with irrational people. But that's not the context I was referring to. Why should we take it seriously in the first place? What is its purpose? What goals does it accomplish? What objectives does it facilitate? Can these be explained without invoking occult language?
 
I never claimed that "phenomenology accounts for the causal factors of consciousness itself rather than the phenomena associated with consciousness." Where did you get that idea? Where is it you think I claimed that or even suggested it?

Back in this post I said:

"Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors. The phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are given to consciousness, in their immediacy ( Wikipedia ), so in either instance ( physical or mystical ), phenomenology plays a role in the examination of what is taking place within our consciousness ( our waking experience ) rather than what gives rise to it in the first place."​

Then you responded here with:

"Where did you get that idea? I'm sorry, ufology, but you're going to have go deeper than wikipedia for an understanding of phenomenology. I can suggest some sources if you like."​

So your response clearly suggests that I am error, and from that it logically follows that if I'm wrong, then it's not true that phenomenology doesn't account for what gives rise to consciousness in the first place, which in turn means that phenomenology does account for what gives rise to it in the first place. Yet you have provided no reference to back up that position, and without it, you have no basis for dismissing my comment. Does that help clear things up? Perhaps you need to rephrase your response?
 
Am I to conclude then that for @Tyger, the Wikipedia definition quoted is in agreement with his views as well as yours, or do I just presume that from his response above?

According to the definition then, it would be for the personal experience of developing practises based on magical thinking in order to substantiate beliefs in non-measurable claims of the paranormal. Forgive me if I don't see why that should be taken seriously at all. The only benefit I can see for being exposed to it is for the purpose of gaining an impartial textbook knowledge of it for the sake of discussion, and possibly to point us toward the phenomena so that it can be studied rationally. Otherwise there is no reason to think that it's anything more than nonsense. And let's make no mistake here, the word nonsense is perfectly accurate because if it cannot be understood as being rational, then the only alternative is to consider it nonsense. This isn't to say that there aren't phenomena that remain unexplained, but simply being unexplained doesn't automatically make them occult. If believing in the occult was still our primarly way of explaining things, we'd all still believe thunder is caused by Thor's hammer.

What that translates into is that we should take it seriously so that we can understand how so many people after all this time still come to delude themselves into believing in nonsense. It cannot be argued that the mystical, magical and religious beliefs associated with the occult remain prevalent in today's world, and therefore acknowledging that fact may help us learn how to better deal with irrational people. But that's not the context I was referring to. Why should we take it seriously in the first place? What is its purpose? What goals does it accomplish? What objectives does it facilitate? Can these be explained without invoking occult language?

I am interested in pursuing this topic and I hope Tyger will have more posts on this thread. Constance may have some interest as well - you may choose simply to ignore these posts if you wish and that's OK with me - we can continue the other parts of the discussion on phenomenology and consciousness in general.
 
I am interested in pursuing this topic and I hope Tyger will have more posts on this thread. Constance may have some interest as well - you may choose simply to ignore these posts if you wish and that's OK with me - we can continue the other parts of the discussion on phenomenology and consciousness in general.

Why should I ignore it? I asked some pertinent questions at the end of my post. Do you not think they are reasonable questions? For your convenience:

linksListBullet.png
Why should we take it ( the occult ) seriously in the first place?
linksListBullet.png
What is its purpose?
linksListBullet.png
What goals does it accomplish?
linksListBullet.png
What objectives does it facilitate?
linksListBullet.png
Can these be explained without invoking occult language?
 
Last edited:
What that translates into is that we should take it seriously so that we can understand how so many people after all this time still come to delude themselves into believing in nonsense. It cannot be argued that the mystical, magical and religious beliefs associated with the occult remain prevalent in today's world, and therefore acknowledging that fact may help us learn how to better deal with irrational people. But that's not the context I was referring to. Why should we take it seriously in the first place? What is its purpose? What goals does it accomplish? What objectives does it facilitate? Can these be explained without invoking occult language?

Why should we take it seriously in the first place? What is its purpose? What goals does it accomplish? What objectives does it facilitate? Can these be explained without invoking occult language?

I think the answer to the last question may be "probably not" - and that should answer the previous questions as well.

But I'm sure I cannot answer your questions to your satisfaction. Other than that - all I can say is that this is a topic I intend to pursue on this thread and that I hope Tyger will post more information.
 
Why should we take it seriously in the first place? What is its purpose? What goals does it accomplish? What objectives does it facilitate? Can these be explained without invoking occult language?

I think the answer to the last question may be "probably not" - and that should answer the previous questions as well.

But I'm sure I cannot answer your questions to your satisfaction. Other than that - all I can say is that this is a topic I intend to pursue on this thread and that I hope Tyger will post more information.

Can you find a way to make your pursuit relevant to the thread's title: Science, Philosophy, and the Unexplained? If not, then perhaps your pursuit would be better off on the Magical Thinking thread? Personally however I would like to see if you can make the occult relevant to science, philosophy, and the unexplained. That would be interesting, and the questions I asked are intended to point us in that direction, so perhaps you can act as kind of an interpreter between my hard line critical thinking mode and whatever you see that's you think is relevant, but I don't ( if that makes any sense )?
 
Can you find a way to make your pursuit relevant to the thread's title: Science, Philosophy, and the Unexplained? If not, then perhaps your pursuit would be better off on the Magical Thinking thread? Personally however I would like to see if you can make the occult relevant to science, philosophy, and the unexplained. That would be interesting, and the questions I asked are intended to point us in that direction, so perhaps you can act as kind of an interpreter between my hard line critical thinking mode and whatever you see that's you think is relevant, but I don't ( if that makes any sense )?

That's an interesting thought . . . I'll spend a little time mulling it over. Tyger will have to decide too if there is interest in pursuing the topic - By the way, I skimmed the JREF forum and that is not a pretty crowd, man - I just don't understand the rudeness that so many posters seem to indulge in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's my witching hour and other obligations call.

Ufology, if after everything I've posted you still have those questions, there is very little I can add to help you out. It's a matter of being able to comprehend text at this point. Maybe a bit more reading - though I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia so much at this point. Just saying.

'Nite.
 
Back
Top