From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Science Superior to Mysticism
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:30:28 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan20.230740.2061@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> [lots deleted]
> Some claim that science and mysticism are each appropriate for
> investigating very different aspects of reality. Is this really
> true ? Given time, will science eventually cover the same
> territory and questions which the mystics claim as their private
> preserve ? If so, the detailed methodology of science will
> yeild a superior picture of this territory. IMHO, of course.
> 


You seem to have a somewhat skewed idea of what mysticism really is.
As do most people, which is why the Amazing Randi and Martin Gardner
get to keep so busy, because there are so many 'mystic' frauds.

IMHO, mysticism and science are complementary. As to whether one is
superior to the other, to me it's liking asking if a car is better
than a horse. Certainly not if you are in very rough country. As to
the positive or negative effects of either on human life, reasons
based on 'mysticism' have been used to justify both harmonious
coexistence and wholesale slaughter. Reasons based on science have
been used to justify genocide, and it's misapplication has resulted in
a toxic planet, nuclear weapons, and the population explosion. 

I will give you the perspective of a scientist (nuclear physicist) who
is engaged in a 'mystical' practice (tibetan buddhist yoga). Science
is based in principle on reason and objective observation. The problem
here is that we bump into limits on both. Reason and objectivity are
limited by the blind spots, biases, and perceptual filters of the
'thinker'. The observer influenced observation is unavoidable,
especially at certain limits. Presumably, if we develop true machine
intelligence, or it develops itself, some of the biases will be
bypassed. However, there is the possibility that other biases will be
present. (See Godel, Escher, Bach, by Hofstadter, on this.)

With regards to mysticism. The popular picture of it is given by
newage cosmic fluffy-bunnies, westerners who did not know how to
properly translate eastern works, and con-men 'gurus' (of course I
will help you to become enlightened, now drop another ruppee in the
bowl.) 

There is a science to mysticism. Certainly as it is practiced in
certain parts of asia. I will use yoga as a generic term for such
practices. The technology of yoga is based on millenia of
experimentation. While the practices and mental states realized are
not amenable to verbal description, they are indeed reproducible. And
while we have gone on here and in sci.philosophy.meta about the
inability to transmit the experience to someone else, the fact of the
matter is that a yogic adept is able to observe characteristic
features of someone's practice, and 'see' whether the practices are
being correctly followed. The practices, correctly done, lead to
particular mental states.

In some of its forms, yoga is excrutiatingly rational, to the point of
being quite painful to our tender egos, for a while. Yogis will use
whatever they can get their hands on for the pursuit of 'ultimate
truth', and reason is a very potent tool in the kit. However, that
'truth' is beyond all the tools in the kit.

I'm afraid I cannot give a particular source to read for such a
perspective on mysticism, as this has been gleaned from reading a
library of books about various yogas in various times.
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************