05-15-2011, 12:00 AM
I have the usual problem with this proclamation - the proclamation being that information only becomes knowledge through experience. Apparently this has only to do with physical experience, as noted, such as experiencing what it's like to get burned by a candle flame.
What about vicarious experience? What about spiritual experience? What about dream experience? What about fantasy experience? What about the experience of a shamanic journey, or of guided visualization, or of being hypnotized?
I believe in the efficacy of hypnosis because I've experienced it, both by being hypnotized by a therapist and via self-hypnosis. I suspect there are those who have no belief in hypnosis. Has my information about hypnosis then become knowledge via my experience?
Things begin to get tricky, in my opinion, when belief systems cannot be experienced. How does one experience being a Christian? How does one experience Zen, or Toltecism? If they truly cannot be experienced, does that invalidate them?
In regard Toltecism (assuming that's the valid term for the teachings of don Juan), I presume in order to have true knowledge, one must experience the nagual, second and third attention, pass through the seven gates of dreaming, engage in recapitulation, and apprentice to an acknowledged Nagual and obtain the guidance of a Benefactor. Without doing all these things, the information provided by Castaneda remains just that - information...there is no knowledge since few, if any, have experienced all the teachings, yet many believe in the teachings. Are they invalid, then?
The point is there are many beliefs (reincarnation noted in the post, for one), that cannot be experienced. Does that make them invalid? It's of interest that within physics, for example, there are theories which work to explain the workings of the universe but which cannot be experienced, yet remain valid because they DO work...for example, the theory of atoms - rather like the wind, which cannot be seen - only its effects.
What is implied in the post is that holding onto beliefs somehow is a hindrance to spiritual evolution, assuming the acquisition of knowledge equates to spiritual evolution.
... your beliefs hold you back from Knowledge, rather than moving you toward it. It is only when the seeker is fully aware of her [sic] beliefs that she [sic] might be able to access the power required to process those beliefs into actual Knowledge - a trait of only the most diligent seekers, because ultimately most human beings do not want to release their existing comfort zones (beliefs, faith, information).
I can say I have a belief in Zen, for example. My belief is not in traditional or formal Zen (that which is promoted and practiced in monasteries under the guidance of an acknowledged enlightened master), but rather in what I like to call "Essential Zen", that Zen which denies its own existence and which points whole-heartedly to full experience of the moment. Essential Zen may be experienced in the same manner aspects of Toltecism may be experienced - by reading about other's experiences, then trying them for oneself. Lucid dreaming comes to mind. Is it valid to cherry pick?
I think the point of the post needs to be more explicit. What is being criticized really is faith, which can be considered to be belief in something without any critical thinking about it. If so, what then of beliefs which have been examined critically, yet are still held to? Are they invalid because they cannot be experienced? And if so, so what? Perhaps the author of the post is attempting to say if your beliefs do not correspond with mine, they are invalid.
What about vicarious experience? What about spiritual experience? What about dream experience? What about fantasy experience? What about the experience of a shamanic journey, or of guided visualization, or of being hypnotized?
I believe in the efficacy of hypnosis because I've experienced it, both by being hypnotized by a therapist and via self-hypnosis. I suspect there are those who have no belief in hypnosis. Has my information about hypnosis then become knowledge via my experience?
Things begin to get tricky, in my opinion, when belief systems cannot be experienced. How does one experience being a Christian? How does one experience Zen, or Toltecism? If they truly cannot be experienced, does that invalidate them?
In regard Toltecism (assuming that's the valid term for the teachings of don Juan), I presume in order to have true knowledge, one must experience the nagual, second and third attention, pass through the seven gates of dreaming, engage in recapitulation, and apprentice to an acknowledged Nagual and obtain the guidance of a Benefactor. Without doing all these things, the information provided by Castaneda remains just that - information...there is no knowledge since few, if any, have experienced all the teachings, yet many believe in the teachings. Are they invalid, then?
The point is there are many beliefs (reincarnation noted in the post, for one), that cannot be experienced. Does that make them invalid? It's of interest that within physics, for example, there are theories which work to explain the workings of the universe but which cannot be experienced, yet remain valid because they DO work...for example, the theory of atoms - rather like the wind, which cannot be seen - only its effects.
What is implied in the post is that holding onto beliefs somehow is a hindrance to spiritual evolution, assuming the acquisition of knowledge equates to spiritual evolution.
... your beliefs hold you back from Knowledge, rather than moving you toward it. It is only when the seeker is fully aware of her [sic] beliefs that she [sic] might be able to access the power required to process those beliefs into actual Knowledge - a trait of only the most diligent seekers, because ultimately most human beings do not want to release their existing comfort zones (beliefs, faith, information).
I can say I have a belief in Zen, for example. My belief is not in traditional or formal Zen (that which is promoted and practiced in monasteries under the guidance of an acknowledged enlightened master), but rather in what I like to call "Essential Zen", that Zen which denies its own existence and which points whole-heartedly to full experience of the moment. Essential Zen may be experienced in the same manner aspects of Toltecism may be experienced - by reading about other's experiences, then trying them for oneself. Lucid dreaming comes to mind. Is it valid to cherry pick?
I think the point of the post needs to be more explicit. What is being criticized really is faith, which can be considered to be belief in something without any critical thinking about it. If so, what then of beliefs which have been examined critically, yet are still held to? Are they invalid because they cannot be experienced? And if so, so what? Perhaps the author of the post is attempting to say if your beliefs do not correspond with mine, they are invalid.