How can you claim to understand the world without understanding a people’s purpose? if these taoist premises are true, we have found a genuione and grandiose purpose

_IF_ you could prove it scientifically from an objective outside standpoint,
then it would be SCIENCE.

But it is NOT science.

Spirituality could be almost defined by “trying to connect with something higher
than yourself outside of that which is reachable by science”.

FACT: It is impossible to explain the universe completely through science.

Proof:
By Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem, any system containing mathematics (i.e. the universe) can not be completely explainable through a finite set of laws. Since
science is built on a finite set of laws, there will always be an infinite
amount of the universe left unexplained, no matter how much scientific information is ever acquired.

Thus if we ever hope to acquire a deeper understanding of life, the universe, and everything, we must resort to methods that lie outside the scope of standard science.

It is reasonable to assume that if the universe contains information unreachable by science, then it might be reachable in other ways. Hence, spirituality.

Spirituality can really ONLY be verified on an individual level.

For instance, I KNOW for a fact, that the experiences and knowledge I gained
after the dark times in my life regarding the nature of life and universe is
100% correct (Evolution of Soul posts). There is no way I can prove it to anyone, but I don’t care. It has been proven to me and that’s all that is needed; I only revealed what I learned to those that might be curious. I’ll let the truth stand for itself, and concern myself not with the opinions of others.

But that is the nature of spirituality.

Reading about spirituality is not spirituality.
At some point you just have to dive in.

After some point of carefully considering different spiritual systems, a person has to, at some point, dive in and commit themselves to the system that they find the most plausible. If not, you’ll never progress. You’ll just learn about different things that might work, without actually having anything work.

Yes, there is a risk that any given system is “just brainwashing”, but that’s what the preliminary investigation is supposed to ferret out. As long as you carefully considered the system before beginning, and as long as you keep an open mind throughout, there is not much more a person can do.

However, if you wait until it has been completely analyzed to the point that it is verifiable by science, you’ll never get anywhere and you’ll have wasted your life waiting–because as mentioned before it’s not science.

Best,
Steven

>>any of the topics I have presented here are incredibly basic.. they are just presented to a taoist forum..<>as long as anyone can sucessfully argue that chi kung is a mental programming system that creates believers then it will need to be proven in some other form..

i personally think it is true but that is not going to do much good for who people have no experience of it and cannot see it on an mri..<<

It it up to them to *get* some experience of it then!

I think you have got things absolutely upside down here. How about if I say this: as long as conventional medicine and pure materialist science claim they are 'enough', people who feel otherwise will continue to look outside of their auspices for something else.

You can trust people's feelings to lead them where they need to go. All scientific discoveries start off as somebody's hunch or intuition. In the case of spiritual systems, what happens after that is hard to prove objectively and even when it is, many people prefer not to believe it. Science could be seen just as much as a 'mental programming system that creates believers', and in my opinion has become this. Not the method per se, but the materialist and technologist external worldview which is currently resulting from it. These have their own momentum.

At this time in history, to most scientists, most spiritual stuff appears to be bunk, and even if it doesn't, to retain tenure they have to *say* it's bunk. You aren't going to change that in a hurry, and certainly not by simply saying again and again, "something needs to be done!!!!". If you *really* think something needs to be done, *do it*! Organize a set of experiments yourself, obtain funding, and attempt to publish – I'm sure Michael would be happy to contribute, he is very game for this sort of thing.

But in fact, you *don't* have to personally present an irrefutable argument to the entire world before deciding that you think a taoist formula has general importance. It can be important for reasons that would not be explicable to most people, and I would regard that as a good thing. Why wait for the groupmind to catch up?

This 'global map of objectives' is actually completely unnecessary in my opinion, but if in your opinion it *is* necessary, why don't *you* be the one to make it? Why is it always, 'someone has to…'? Why can't it be you? Why can't *you* tell us the connections between the holy books of different systems, *your own* thoughts on whether why and how people 'have to be good', the results of *your* research comparing spiritual practices using entheogens with those that don't, etc.?

Because to me it looks very much as if, like I say, you are considering nervously one question after another but answering none of them.

You don't have to wait for everone else to celebrate, before celebrating yourself. You don't have to wait for everyone to be completely convinced before being convinced yourself.

Best NN

The below were excised from Wikipedia:

“Crowley claimed to use a scientific method to study what people at the time called spiritual experiences, making ‘The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion’ the catchphrase of his magazine The Equinox.”

“Like the Golden Dawn mystics before him, Crowley evidently sought to comprehend the entire human religious and mystical experience in a single philosophy.”

“Crowley was a habitual drug user and also maintained a meticulous record of his drug-induced experiences . . . Crowley also experimented with psychedelic substances”

It felt like I was reading your biography.

I’m just kidding. Don’t take offense. 🙂

In all seriousness, it appears to me that Aleister just
borrowed pieces from the Kabbalah and Eastern mysticism, and kind of
threw them together with ad-hoc beliefs along with his famous “sex-magick” stuff.
He seems kind of too scattered.

I’ll stand by my original opinion . . .

but we need people like you to stir the pot once in awhile 🙂

For those that want to read up on Aleister Crowley themselves . . .
Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

Stop the words now.
Open the window in the center of your chest
And let the spirits fly in and out.

“People do not buy from some one they like people buy from some one that likes them.”

That’s a profound truth and beautifully stated.

“I have been working on being clearer and more to the point.”

And your spelling’s improved too.

Smiles, A