Spiritual growth is about losing FAITH and replacing it with INSIGHT, COMPREHENSION and FREEDOM.

This is not a logical process, but the process of living experience, here and "thereafter".

FAITH can masquerade as spirituality and LOGIC can masquerade as INSIGHT and COMPREHENSION.

I believe that we have an inalienable energy that seeks to break free of FAITH and LOGIC, and it is our experiences of both which gives us the insight to do so in our own time.

FAITH and LOGIC are important parts of a transition and should not be shot down as "wrong" or "retarded".

The best way to let go of FAITH and then LOGIC is to do so naturally.

sinequanon:
Spiritual growth is about losing FAITH and replacing it with INSIGHT, COMPREHENSION and FREEDOM.

This is not a logical process, but the process of living experience, here and "thereafter".

In english, this means?

sinequanon:
Spiritual growth is about losing FAITH and replacing it with INSIGHT, COMPREHENSION and FREEDOM.

I think we already have a name for the above.
It is called rationality.

sinequanon:

The best way to let go of FAITH and then LOGIC is to do so naturally.

And after faith and logic are gone, what exactly do we have left to make sense of our reality?

plaetton:


In english, this means?

"Living experience" means experience that you directly live through, as oppose to vicarious experience, which is experience that you glean from anecdotes and instruction.

plaetton:
I think we already have a name for the above.
It is called rationality

.

No.

Rationality is not what I mean. Rationalizing or using logic is one of the things that we can transcend.

Comprehension does not require rationalization or rationality.

plaetton:
And after faith and logic are gone, what exactly do we have left to make sense of our reality?

Comprehension.

Faith and logic are about filling gaps in our perception with guesswork, interpolation, extrapolation etc.

Comprehension focuses on removing the gaps in our perception by improving perception. One route (which I do not personally believe in adopting, is meditation). That is neither faith, nor logic. It is an attempt to improve receptiveness of perception.

sinequanon:


"Living experience" means experience that you directly live through, as oppose to vicarious experience, which is experience that you glean from anecdotes and instruction.

The problem with personal experiences is that they are only true to the perceiver.
It is an artificial reality that most times tend to be influenced by external factors such as one's social validation, as well as internal biological factors such as the dopamine levels in a person's neural cells.

So, personal experiences are not reliable arbiters of reality, especially if they are incongruent to universally shared external realities.

Secondly,
How does one ever comprehend without using the tools of one's rationality mind?

^^^

And yes, meditation is a good tool to sharpen one's perception and awareness. But an increased perception and awareness invariably leads to increased use of reason and rationality.
For me rationality means an ability to see patterns, to tie in relationships between disparate pieces, to see the inter-connectedness of events and realities.
And I do all of the above using the tools of my rational mind.

plaetton:


The problem with personal experiences is that they are only true to the perceiver.

Well, you've sort of preempted your argument by labeling the experience as "personal", but I can see what you are driving at.

However, there are shared experiences, which are neither personal, nor objective. An experience can be true to any number of people, without being objective in the sense that it has the rubber stamp of some imposing establishment or 'overwhelming' majority.

For example, you may decide, along with a number of other enthusiasts, that the 1977 vintage of Cabernet Sauvignon is exquisite wine. I may dislike it, and red wine in general, despite your well-established shared standards in oenology among your fellow enthusiasts. What you have is a creative, not objective, reality.

Why is non-objective experience a "problem".

plaetton:
It is an artificial reality that most times tend to be influenced by external factors such as one's social validation, as well as internal biological factors such as the dopamine levels in a person's neural cells.

So, personal experiences are not reliable arbiters of reality, especially if they are incongruent to universally shared external realities.

This is predicated on your belief in reality being absolute.

Such thinking held back the discovery, for example, of the theory of relativity, and is challenging traditional explanations used in quantum physics.

I was not even intending to approach the debate from a scientific angle, but you can see examples even there.

plaetton:
Secondly,
How does one ever comprehend without using the tools of one's rationality mind?

As I have said, rationality and logic are not comprehension. They are guesswork that fill in the gaps between comprehension.

In fact, rationality inhibits comprehension by replacing it.

Even science has good examples:

It was logic (extrapolation and interpolation) of common experience that led scientists to struggle over the question of the luminiferous ether. E.g logic seemed to suggest that if one person saw two events happen simultaneously, the so would anyone else witnessing the events.

What Einstein et aliter are associated with is the DUMPING the logic of simultaneity and absolute space. They didn't create something new. They got rid of "logic" to make the observations fit. The relativistic framework followed by getting what was left of the logic to explain their observations.

Less logic, greater comprehension.

plaetton:
^^^

And yes, meditation is a good tool to sharpen one's perception and awareness. But an increased perception and awareness invariably leads to increased use of reason and rationality.
For me rationality means an ability to see patterns, to tie in relationships between disparate pieces, to see the inter-connectedness of events and realities.
And I do all of the above using the tools of my rational mind.

There are no patterns in nature. There are only approximate patterns. What we are doing is making correspondences between approximately like scenarios.

We do this because we do not have the capacity to comprehend each individual situation.

For example, we do have the capacity to "know" or comprehend our children. We don't count them in and out. We recognize their presence at a glance.

Even a teacher gets to comprehend his class of 30 children, and may know without "counting" (logic) who is absent.

But at large numbers, or when dealing with less familiar entities like sheep, our comprehension runs out, and we have to resort to some logical algorithm -- counting or mapping.

But we can become lazy, and our logic can start interfering with our ability to extend our comprehension and reckoning without using slow and fallible algorithmic logic.

plaetton:


The problem with personal experiences is that they are only true to the perceiver.
It is an artificial reality that most times tend to be influenced by external factors such as one's social validation, as well as internal biological factors such as the dopamine levels in a person's neural cells.

So, personal experiences are not reliable arbiters of reality, especially if they are incongruent to universally shared external realities.

Secondly,
How does one ever comprehend without using the tools of one's rationality mind?

But in some ways the foundation of the scientific method is personal experience, given the fact that scientists are people to. External realities can and have been percieved differently hence different hypotheses for the same fact. To denounce personal experience therefore is silly. Science and many of its innovationa itself started by personal experiences of people.

UyiIredia:


But in some ways the foundation of the scientific method is personal experience, given the fact that scientists are people to. External realities can and have been percieved differently hence different hypotheses for the same fact. To denounce personal experience therefore is silly. Science and many of its innovationa itself started by personal experiences of people.

What are you saying? Are scientific findings not verifiable by everyone? How is it then personal experience?
Don't let your hatred of science kill your common sense.

sinequanon:


There are no patterns in nature. There are only approximate patterns. What we are doing is making correspondences between approximately like scenarios.

We do this because we do not have the capacity to comprehend each individual situation.

For example, we do have the capacity to "know" or comprehend our children. We don't count them in and out. We recognize their presence at a glance.

Even a teacher gets to comprehend his class of 30 children, and may know without "counting" (logic) who is absent.

But at large numbers, or when dealing with less familiar entities like sheep, our comprehension runs out, and we have to resort to some logical algorithm -- counting or mapping.

But we can become lazy, and our logic can start interfering with our ability to extend our comprehension and reckoning without using slow and fallible algorithmic logic.

There are patterns in nature.
Fractals.

Dapo777:


What are you saying? Are scientific findings not verifiable by everyone? How is it then personal experience?
Don't let your hatred of science kill your common sense.

Lol.
Sorry sir,
But common sense is not as common as we think it is.

plaetton:

There are patterns in nature.
Fractals.

lol, you just say anything.

It's as if you don't think before you post. Read carefully what you responded to, once again.

plaetton:

Lol.
Sorry sir,
But common sense is not as common as we think it is.

Lol