Re: Non Physical Experience
Norman K. McPhail (norm@SOCAL.WANET.COM)
Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:04:36 -0700
John J. Kineman wrote:
>
> OK, I'll play too. However, I'd like to point out that there is value in
> "endlessly debating back and forth," which is not necessarily aimless.
> These are not questions we are likely to answer. We are developing not
> answers, but perspectives on the problem. Each of us is building his/her
> own perspective and wondering how much value it will have. The discussion
> is extremely helpful for me in improving my ideas and forming a view. A
> consensus view is likely to become a political statement, because some of
> these views are just different, not incompatible. They have to be developed
> before we will know their value, and perhaps only future generations will
> know that anyway. There may be no way to amalgamate these views in an
> editorial exercise without removing what makes each of them uniquely
> valuable. Also, stating one's view in a quotable form is not the same thing
> as proposing how to build useful models. Finally, I believe that all of
> these views that have been proposed are true. We are not placing limits on
> nature by our statements, but rather stating aspects of reality that we
> think are important and useful to focus on. I don't believe that any of the
> 7 statements made so far are disprovable. These are worldviews that provide
> a frame of reference for thought, and their value is not tested by
> consensus or experiment, but by their ability to frame useful lines of
> inquiry and the extent to which useful theories can be formed and tested
> within these views. I belive that the view I propose, for example, provides
> a useful model of science and a means of integrating scientific inquiry
> with experiential and spiritual inquiry, say from inward meditation or
> study of one's own psyche. I think it also allows for a more complete
> understanding of evolution and ecology, which I have called "autevolution,"
> and the formulation of more synthetic (integrated) theories. All these
> claims have yet to be demonstrated, but that can only be done by developing
> the implied approaches and seeing if they become more generally useful than
> others. The view itself is neither right nor wrong, but one test is if it
> is generally consistent with all we know so far.
>
Well said John. I couldn't agree more with these views.
Norm McPhail