|
Re: a debate my girlfriend and i were having
| quote: | Originally posted by davinox
OK, this is going to be difficult to explain, so hear me out. First of all, let me introduce to you my girlfriend. She's my age (seventeen) and very intelligent, which I consider myself as well, though in strikingly different ways. She is a staunch realist with a passion for the sciences (namely evolutionary biology). I don't want to blah blah blah about her abilities (placed second in Texas for Biology), but let's just say she knows her shit. She is, however, very close-minded to all other modes of thought. Religion and philosophy, in her view, are outdated and time and again crumble to the strict empirical method. The only way to truth, she says, is through observation and experimentation.
Now there's me. Rather than picking one field to dwell upon, I have dabbled in it all: religion, philosophy, science. I have spent most of my life contemplating the nature of my existence, several hours in each day. What I found was that there are many ways we as humans can explain existence. Some are far-fetched, but all at least, are possible. The Fundamentalist Christian argument is ridiculous, but it is possible. I then tried to think, well, since so many things are possible, what do I know is true?
Well, ontology is the philosophy dealing with truth, and it basically boils down to this one point. All existence can be put into a thing, or a thought, or an experience, this Isness that Is. All thoughts and ideas and abstractions, even the reasoning I used to come up with this concept, is an assumption that may not have anything to do with truth! Basically, this Isness, this thought or experience, is what we have, illusion or not. (of course, I cannot assume you have conscious thought, so saying we is an assumption) Whether or not this experience is 99 percent truth, 1 percent illusion, 99 percent illusion, 1 percent truth, we can never know. All we have is this experience. Learning about this experience is a relative truth, not necessarily an absolute truth.
So then, when we want to find relative truths, we turn to science, religion, philosophy, or some unnamed method. I think science is the most useful at the present time, since current technology makes it the most fruitful, but I do not diminish the religious experience which many scientists (including my girlfriend) do.
Which leads us to our present debate. I was talking about certain monks and yogi that have been rumored to have transcended beyond all instinct, so much to the point of death. This transcendence is not favored — you need your body to help out your fellow sentient beings — but it can occur. Now I don't know if this is true, but I think it's likely, as Nirvana is so remarkably transcending. (I have had a small religious experience while on mushrooms, and I know I had many many levels to go before Nirvana.)
I told this to my girlfriend, the possibility (though it's very difficult), of transcending all instincts into death. She thought it was the most ridiculous thing she's ever heard, and in the same realm as palm readers and Moses parting the water. Now, I told her that it was the logical end to the religious experience, which I told her, doesn't have to have any realm in truth, and could be a very scientific process of the brain, but the experience nevertheless exists. A end as such is forseeable, and I have read much more on religion and the mystical experience, so I considered myself an authority. She however said that it would contradict biology, and that it was no different that the contradiction of physics. Well, quite frankly, the debate started to get ugly there, me trying to beef up my case by mentioning neurotheology and psychosomatic cases with mind-over-matter, and her saying that denying the instinct to look at faces over other objects is too deeply rooted to remove and me laughing at how realist she was and how little she knew about the religious experience, having never done a drug or prayed or meditated.
But anyways, does anyone have any comments or know anything about how the brain reacts to mystical experience (neurotheology), or if you think it's possible to reach a state that denies ALL instincts? If not, any comments would be appreciated. |
I don't know about her views on religion, however I'd say it's incredibly foolish to ignore philosophy, though at 17, neither of you has probably had significant exposure to it. Philosophy doesn't necessarily conflict with observation, rather my personal favorite philosophy is centered on objectivity and rationality. I don't think people really take an interest in philosophy until they've matured a bit--it's a pretty deep rabbit hole.
The rest of what you wrote was a bit confusing to me. Too much mysticism and theory. I doubt you spend 3 hours a day sitting there contemplating your existence unless you're that bored in school.
My personal philosophy is very much akin to Objectivism. Sounds like your g/f would have an interest in it, though I wouldn't necessarily advocate it unless you've educated yourself on several other philosophies/philosophers and can see through the BS that the Neitzches, Kants, and Mills have purported. But that's just my opinion.
|
