Eastern Mysticism

[Axiomatic]

I'd like to start by saying that I am in no way an expert on this subject.

Eastern Mystics are using scientific data to attempt to back up their claims on thier views and negations of objective reality.The justification goes something to the affect that since it is percieveable in Quantum Physics that an observer can change the outcome and results of the experimental data in certain quatum experiements that this is an affirmation and evidence for the premise than the universe is, at a fundamental level, changing and modifying itself in relation to subjective viewing of reality.

This premise then leads the eastern mystics to assert that ultimatly it is our minds that are creating the conditions for the world to manifest around us (like a ever-changing flux of relativism, that can be controlled and mastered by only a few highly skilled manipulators).

Eastern Mysticism is almost Kantian in its estimation of reality as being unreal and its assault on reason and knowledge. Here in the West, Kant asserted that the Ultimate reality is unknowable, and we should sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice itself (leaving no reward for ether ourselves or others). The mystics of the East however assert that through meditative techniques one can know the Ultimate reality, and gain direct insight and knowledge to confirm its existence.

They also assert that through knowing this reality one automatically assumes the role of a beneficiary to those 'poor souls' who are not privie to such special knowledge. They preach that one of the means in realitive reality to attain the goals of perception of the Ultimate is to develop an 'unlimited' and 'unconditional' love and compassion for 'all beings'. At the same time they nullify and relegate the Relative reality that we experience through the senses as an illusionary, magical display. This goes for all forms of Hinduism and Buddhism.

The mess of contradition and sacrifical dogma that these preachers are getting away with is overhwhelming in scale, especially since it is true that mostly intelligent and otherwise capable human beings in the West are now falling for this Myth of Shang Ri La nonsense. Worse than just subordinating reason to faith, these doctrines seek to use and eventually usurp and reverse the reasoning faculty of the conceptual mind, cutting the throat of reason itself.

Incidentally I'd be interested to hear what Objectivists think about meditation in general and whether there might be some beneficial applications that do not conflict with Objectivist metaphysics and epsitemology.

I know from the John Galt speech that a refutation of these terse philosophies can be done generally, but I think that a more specific approach may be nessasery as these creeds spread across the Western world.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Axiomatic

[softwareNerd]

A few earlier threads may be of interest to you:

Here is one on Quantum Physics (there are probably others), one on meditation, and one on Buddhism

[DavidOdden]

There is a causal connection in this relationship between certain trends in science and Eastern mysticism, in that science has been influenced by Eastern mysticism for over two millenia. There was an initial burst of influence in Ancient Greece and then a steady flow of ideas filtering westward, and then another spike that especially affected science in the later 19th century.

[Axiomatic]

Can you direct me to any material related to this causal relationship between science and mysticism in the 20-21st century? I'd be interested to study about this. Eastern Mysticism is so popular now that the Dalai Lama has a congressional medal of honor! Think of it, a self-confessed Marxist Monk with a Congressional Medal!? He incidentally has written and co-authored books on the parralels between Science and Buddhist Philosophy.

I can't say I'm all that knowledgeable in Science, although I have read a few Brian Green books on Physics and some Dawkins on Evolution. Can't say I know a lot about Greece yet either, though I am going to watch some of MrCropper's video's on Youtube when I get the chance.

[Jake]

I can't say I'm all that knowledgeable in Science, although I have read a few Brian Green books on Physics...

You might want to try Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. It doesn't speak to any Eastern mysticism in physics, but does talk about the epistemological errors of many string theorists.

edit: formatting

Edited December 30, 2008 by Jake

[DavidOdden]

Can you direct me to any material related to this causal relationship between science and mysticism in the 20-21st century?

I don't know of any studies on the topic, and what I know is extracted from general knowledge of "the time" and stuff I've been told. There was a significant western interest in Indian Philosophy in the 19th and early 20th century, giving rise to western takes on Indian philosophy such as Theosophy. I believe that Max Mueller had a connection with Ernst Mach. Mueller was the leading Indologist of the time and also specialized in religion. He edited a massive series Sacred Books of the East translating the fundamental Indian and Iranian religious books and thus making them generally available to the west. He happens to be the author of the first translation to English of Critique of Pure Reason. Ernst Mach is a well known physicist and philosopher, whom Einstein credits as a fundamental inspiration for the Theory of Relativity. Anyhow, this influence may be like the more recent rediscovery of Indian philosophy in the mid 60's -- a soft, ever-pervasive fog that penetrates many nooks and crannies.

[Axiomatic]

I'm not sure if I hit upon this with certainty in my post, and I know I ranted a lot so lets make this a little clearer. How I think Mysticism has made its claim on Science is in the supposid contradiction between the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The theory of Relativity, very simply, posits that things on a large 'observable' scale act in a certain manner. Quantum mechanics however says that on a much smaller, finer scale, things seem to act randomly and in contradiction to the laws of cause and effect. Not only that but in Quantum mechanics, the observer effects the results simply by the act of observation. This apprent contradticion (which is supposidly solved by String/M-theory) is exploited by the Mystics to the degree that they can split the world into two Platonic elements, one of the Relative reality, and one of the Absolute where there world of fantasy supposidly exists. The Realtive reality is negated by the fact that Quantum mechanics states that not only do, at a fundamental level, the laws of realtivity break down, but that they are effected by the observer. This leaves a very good case for the mystics to claim that our Reality is not truly real, and that it is our minds that are directly affecting the view of this world merely by the fact that we posses have an obervational faculty of conciousness. Not only that, but the mystics claim that we can develop a 'sixth' sense that can penetrate the unreality of our world and direct the unreality like a magician on a whim by the harnessing of powers that exist beyond the rational mind that percieves it. This metaphysical position serves to undercut confidence in the validity of our senses to receive full knowledge of the world, and thereby cuts mans very mode of survival at the root.

Now I realize that this has already been said by Ayn Rand in much better words, but its connection to modern science is what I find astounding. I also have a beef towards (and yes I've read the threads for and against) why Objectivists still wish to knock string theory, when it states that there is an uncuttable, definable, single attribute underlying this reality and solving the problem of Relativity vs Quantum. This seemingly would underscore the fundamental axiom that 'existence exists' by confirming 'how' in fact existence extists absolutely (being that a string, like any other phenomenon, would be an absolute).

I am new to Objectvism obviously, so If anyone wants to flesh out this topic a little in this thread, perhaps for thier own amusement or benefit, it would be much appreciated.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Axiomatic

[Ordr]

The EPR Paradox directly challenges QM theories against known, proven rules in classical physics.

[Axiomatic]

The EPR Paradox directly challenges QM theories against known, proven rules in classical physics.

I will have to read this later as this library is closing. Is there any chance that you could summarize it a little? I know its not in your self-interest, but come on man, spoon feed me a little.

[Ordr]

I will have to read this later as this library is closing. Is there any chance that you could summarize it a little? I know its not in your self-interest, but come on man, spoon feed me a little.

LOL, my own knowledge of physics is woefully inadequate. It's something I'm learning, though. Here's a brief excerpt of what I think is a summary:

The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable (but actually wrong, or questionable as a whole) conditions (referred to as locality, realism (not to be confused with philosophical realism), counter factual definiteness, and completeness; see Bell inequality and Bell test experiments), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor — as it turns out — does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions.

[Axiomatic]

LOL, my own knowledge of physics is woefully inadequate. It's something I'm learning, though. Here's a brief excerpt of what I think is a summary:

I'm also in the process of learning and that does seem an insightful tid bit, I will look into further when I have the time. Thank you.

[Axiomatic]

I just found this The Philisophic Corruption of Physics by David Harriman. Can't wait for the monetary oppotunity to purchase!

[Lazariun]

When you say there are certain experiments in Quantum Physics where the observer affects what he is observing, I believe you're speaking of those that use electrons to detect the position of other electrons. The only reason that this method changes the state of the observed particle, is because you have to throw something of equal mass at it to determine it's position, which then changes that position. For now, electrons are the smallest things we can 'throw' at matter to observe those qualities.

So it's not that we change the observed by dint of observing alone, but via the method of observation. It's become a common misconception, and one used by new agers and mystics of all stripes to try and have any scientific relevance.

[TuringAI]

The EPR Paradox directly challenges QM theories against known, proven rules in classical physics.

Just because something has been 'proven' doesn't mean it can't be disproved. Just because you don't like QM and similar such theories doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Ordr]

Just because something has been 'proven' doesn't mean it can't be disproved. Just because you don't like QM and similar such theories doesn't mean it's wrong.

I presented a link to the OP that might have been of interest to him based on the questions he asked. Nowhere did I say that I thought QM theory was wrong. Nowhere did I say that I disliked QM. Where are you getting your information?