Search results

Mr. V. has done a fine enough job of explaining himself in the post just prior to this one. What he describes in his clarification is actually the way I took his "swine trough" comment to begin with: as a personal statement of his own experience instead of an outward-directed expression of scorn...

I wrote the following paragraphs several hours ago and then debated whether to post them. I'm still not entirely sure that I've made the right decision in doing so. But anyway. I have no dog in this fight. I offer the following words as an impartial observer. Bendk, you said, "I don't have...

Mr. Veech: I wholeheartedly agree with you. Enthusiastically, in fact. I think your point and Wilber's (and Corbin's) are complementary and mutually enhancing. An ardent skeptical materialist who was moved by the kind of argument you describe could still refuse to "look" at transcendental...

On this point, see Ken Wilber, who offers a cogent refutation in his essay "Eye to Eye." where he uses an idea drawn from Christian mysticism to mount an argument for epistemological pluralism and the necessity of undergoing the correct training to be able to see and know the truth of three...

Thanks for the thread, Quentin. Good idea, and good conversation thus far. As has already been said, I think some disambiguation of what we mean by "science" could be helpful. The standard use of the word refers to a field of knowledge for which the answer to the presiding question here is, I...