Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[JustLikeYou]

But what I'm not sure you understand, which is surprising since you look up to Newton, is that science is inherently empirical and that we address what we can be repeatedly observed under the same conditions.

I do understand this. That's why I'm not claiming that any of this (the Ra Material or my own expansion of the philosophy) is now a science. The genesis of a science is my goal, but I know I have a long way to go. Apart from inner resonance (a piece of emotional data which is undoubtedly meaningless to you), the reason I endorse the Ra Material is that the framework it contains is what I was already working toward before I found it.

The claims in this material are unobservable (unless you want every paranoid schizophrenic's anecdotal evidence constituting as a foundation for a robust model of reality), thus have no place in a scientific framework.

I understand that there is a data collection problem. The only way to resolve this is to use data only from those who themselves reliable sources. But how do you determine who is a reliable source? Well you need to be a reliable source first. And convincing others that your sources are reliable is a whole new area of complication. To use my Tralfamadore analogy, the possibility of a science requires first that the Cult of Vision achieves a greater degree of sensory consistency. A new culture must be carefully nurtured.

The claims in the Ra Material are observable on the condition that they are sharpened (which is what my "ad hoc" gap-filling is designed to do), but they are not easy to experiment with. I have had to satisfy myself with my own experience, measured against the attitudes that others have toward me. That is, the data I use is not only inner data, but also outer: I must judge my own reliability as an instrument of detection by whether other people think I'm crazy or sane (to use simplistic terms).

Trying to pass off personal made up theories as being just as worthy as verified, documented, peer reviewed investigations is worthy of scorn, even if the theory were 100% true.

I don't really know what you mean by "worthy." I never said a mythology is equal to a science, so I don't know where you got that idea. If you're referring to the post where I said "I get to believe whatever I want," I was not trying to insinuate this idea. I was rejecting your rigid all-or-nothing epistemology.

You have your own mythology and no one else subscribes to it. I guarantee you do, even if you call it a "philosophy" or a "cosmology." Human beings need mythology just as they need a physical theory. So which mythology will we choose to believe in?

You see, even if the claims were true (miraculously?) I personally cannot assume them to be honestly because there is no proof no reason outside of personal inclination, I may as well believe that reason I couldn't find my toothbrush this morning was because I was under psychic attack from an Orion crusader trying to infringe on my free will.

The personal evidence is whether it explains your experience more coherently, accurately, simply and comprehensively than any other theory.

Look, I'm with you about the Orion crusaders. It is an easy target to blame your own shadow avoidance on. I have never yet felt the need to invoke the psychic attack explanation for any experience I have had thus far. But I still don't discount the possibility. When you reach a requisite level of self-knowledge and familiarity with your own mental atmosphere, you learn to detect the presence of something foreign, especially if you are consciously attempting to separate the native from the foreign. Maybe I'm not sensitive enough yet, but I still haven't found anything foreign.

Why are you so fixated on absolute truth? You'll never get it and if you did you wouldn't know it. I call science a cartoon picture because it is. All scientific models are "idealized" which means that they are a caricature of the world we actually experience. Scientists will tell you this themselves.

Once you believe in this stuff it's less likely you're gonna be investigating the nature of reality without wanting to prove something in particular, which is a dishonest approach.

So I'm guilty by association? Everyone has pet theories. It is your responsibility as an honest investigator to recognize when a theory has become a pet theory and to abandon it if necessary. Besides, most investigations begin with a hypothesis.

I don't think you're a fuzz head you just remind me of all the intelligent but over confident people I met who adopted beliefs that would be unprovable allowing them to construct their own explanation that could never be falsified, allowing them to always be right (and never proved wrong) in their own mind. I don't wish to offend you've just sparked some memories.

I really think we'd get on better if you'd speak to me on my own merits. You remind me of people I've met before, too. I generally don't get into conversations with people who sound like hard-nosed skeptics, because nothing ever satisfies them. I can see that you are more complex than this, so I'm doing my best to recognize that I'm projecting my shadow onto you.

Besides, I don't often get the opportunity to speak to someone who is (1) familiar with western philosophy, (2) familiar with the Ra Material and (3) doesn't believe it. So I'd really like to learn something here, but I feel like you're straw-manning me without even realizing it. And hell, maybe I'm doing the same to you.

The circumstances are very, very different these days regarding the academic institutions.

Yeah, I know. That's why I'm not in one. Some insight would be helpful here. I'm still torn about whether I or not to return to academic philosophy. I appreciate that the analytic tradition forces rigorous thought, but it discourages creativity by that same token. (PM might be a better medium for this conversation.)

For what it's worth my role models are Bacon and Spinoza.

Spinoza, eh? I am definitely surprised. Pleasantly surprised, though.