Are there phenomena which simple rationality cannot adequately explain?

[killtrocity]

Disclaimer: a lot of this language sounds like hand-wavy new-agey bullshit. Keep in mind that may be due to the limitations of language and not just actual bullshit

I feel the answer must be yes, because people are inherently imperfect and therefore can never possess total understanding of the way the universe operates.

The following dichotomy is proposed:

there are "trans-rational" (or "post-rational") modes of consciousness or experiences, and pre-rational modes of consciousness. This basically corresponds to the way in which phenomena are interpreted. An example is mythology. Myths can be interpreted literally, as in lightning is literally caused by Zeus, or metaphorically in an "as-if" way of thinking.

I'm not totally sure how to distinguish between the two nor am I completely sure of what "trans-rational" actually means, but by necessity a trans-rational world view or interpretation of something must ******* rationality while augmenting that in some way; perhaps this can simply be called high-end thinking.


One could also say pre-verbal, verbal, and post-verbal. This seems easier to understand, as most ideas accessible to us are shared through language and writing, and it would be difficult to convey most abstract ideas without the use of language. By contrast, and I think most people have experienced this, sometimes an idea formulates or crystallizes far more rapidly and succinctly than it can be articulated. Perhaps an entire book is needed to adequately relay something which you intuitively understand but cannot adequately share due to the limitations of language and the speed of speaking and writing relative to the speed at which thoughts are processed.

Yet another way to describe pre/trans rational ideas is preconventional and postconventional. Conventional is exactly what it sounds like, the established norm, the putative method by which understanding occurs. Pre-conventional or pre-rational would be akin to a belief in magic, literal interpretation of mythology, improper application of causes and effects (human sacrifices end famine, for example).

I don't totally know what this is all getting at, but I feel that A: the universe, experience and consciousness are far more complex than conventional methods can ever account for, and B: there are ideas or experiences which have merit but cannot adequately be explained by rationality alone.



The ideas given here are "elevation of the pre-rational" and "reduction of the trans-rational". Someone getting high from huffing keyboard cleaner, shitting his pants and claiming to know the meaning of life based on that experience I would assume to be "pre-rational", but how do we determine the "trans-rational"? If the trans rational includes rational thought, it should be subject to verification via empirical testing. But how does one verify a subjective experience? It's easy to verify the shortcomings of the pre-rational (Sylvia Browne says hello from HELL). Just test the prediction empirically. But how do we test the converse?

In terms of finding any sort of ordered meaning or spirituality in life, this makes more sense at the surface level than anything I've encountered, but what do you guys think?

[mxzombie]

yeah man

We're all gonna die

[reprise85]

This is a good topic for discussion.

As you've said, it is a failure of language in many regards that makes us unable to explain certain psychic phenomenon that could be interpreted as post-rational or even mystical. And further, there are ideas and experiences that must have rational explanations, but we just don't have a paradigm to interpret them in or we are not intelligent enough to grasp the underlying logic contained therein. That doesn't mean they aren't rational phenomenon, though.

The video eventually discusses Tarot, and how it can be used (and only really has any merit, IMO) as basically a framework to discuss whatever conflict or struggle or you are having. It is only as useful as the subject's imagination and ability to use the pattern of cards to insert a life event or period and see it in a new way. That is completely different from, as they say, someone who really believes it is predicting the future and pulling events from the past. But I don't necessarily see how that is trans-rational, either. We do that kind of thing every day with basic empathy and observation, interpretting things into a personal narrative that we carry around and call our selves, along with our "biological" personality (for lack of a better word) and memories. Everything has a place.

As to your question:

how do we determine the "trans-rational"? If the trans rational includes rational thought, it should be subject to verification via empirical testing. But how does one verify a subjective experience? It's easy to verify the shortcomings of the pre-rational (Sylvia Browne says hello from HELL). Just test the prediction empirically. But how do we test the converse?

Does something have to be strictly "true" or verifiable to have merit, even? It is based on the intellectual capabilities and past indoctrinations of the person on what kind of bullshit, for lack of a better word, they believe. For most people, it doesn't seem to be practical to acknowledge the limits of what can be known to them.

For other people, like you, you are coming from a place where there are things that cannot be explained and that is not okay to you. It either needs to be explained or needs to be thought of as useless. I do not know how to come to a concrete conclusion as to how to both accept that some things cannot be explained rationally either 1) because they are just too complex for us to see with our intelligence and advancements 2) they only have personal significance and are not truly real at all. But there we are again: Does something subjective not have (scientific) merit if it can not be proven or extrapolated to others' experiences? It would be nice to have a neat little answer for this, but I don't know what it is.

[redbreegull]

why haven't some of us figured out that you can't actually put anything in the first post in a thread? it's unreadable

[Future Boy]

seems ok to me

[slunken]

i only have that problem when i'm not logged in

[slunken]

get better computers

[slunken]

bigger monitors that should solve the problem

[redbreegull]

my answer to what I think you are asking is basically no. I don't think it is very likely that any sort of sub or super physical levels of reality exist in any kind of spiritual sense, i.e. there are no ghosts, no deities, no destiny or karma, no divining future events by reading omens, etc. The things which we perceive in the universe as defying rational explanation either are just in our heads or actually can be explained using the same (or similar) enlightened methods of scientific investigation into truth that we apply to anything else, and the complexity of such phenomena simply escapes what we are able to understand currently. But in theory, everything in the universe can be explained rationally given sufficient human knowledge and understanding.

[redbreegull]

for instance, it is not beyond the bounds of physical reality that the future could be discerned, but it would require absolute and total God-like knowledge of every acting force in the universe and the ability to calculate their influences mathematically. If we had a complete, quantified understanding of the first cause, we could predict with accuracy everything that will ever happen in the history of the universe. However, this kind of power and intelligence will never be achieved by humans (probably).

[reprise85]

yeah though guys skip the first post it's terribly hard to read

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

my answer to what I think you are asking is basically no. I don't think it is very likely that any sort of sub or super physical levels of reality exist in any kind of spiritual sense, i.e. there are no ghosts, no deities, no destiny or karma, no divining future events by reading omens, etc. The things which we perceive in the universe as defying rational explanation either are just in our heads or actually can be explained using the same (or similar) enlightened methods of scientific investigation into truth that we apply to anything else, and the complexity of such phenomena simply escapes what we are able to understand currently. But in theory, everything in the universe can be explained rationally given sufficient human knowledge and understanding.

I agree with you that things should be able to be explained scientifically, but if we are not able to explain something based on our limited resources, how do we discern what is untrue from what is true but unexplainable for whatever reason (limit in human intelligence or knowledge of scientific principles etc)?

[slunken]

there are tons of unexplained things in science stop thinking about false flags and ghosts

Spontaneous Human Combustion
Red Rain
Earthquake Lights
Jets and Sprites
Starjelly
Naga Fireballs
Marfa Lights


we need to understand electromagnetism more - ICP was correct in their thesis

[redbreegull]

I'm not any of those things constitute being "in science"

[slunken]

[slunken]

right and The Omega Concern is a total loony...

my point being if we're on a football field of unexplained phenomena this ghost talk is already 90 yards down the field. what about first down with how the pyramids were built or easter island

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by reprise85

I agree with you that things should be able to be explained scientifically, but if we are not able to explain something based on our limited resources, how do we discern what is untrue from what is true but unexplainable for whatever reason (limit in human intelligence or knowledge of scientific principles etc)?

yeah, I see your point. I'm not sure I can think of very many legitimate examples of things which science has actually attempted to explain and totally failed. These things usually are beyond quantification and thus the scientific method cannot be applied to them... and generally fall into the category of "no one really knows if this is true or not"

But I still see your point. I guess I just feel like the inability to apply science to a phenomenon should not automatically constitute THE UNEXPLAINABLE or otherworldliness or spirituality in our minds, because that just leads us down paths of magical thinking which I believe are not helpful to us as individuals or as a species as tempting as they are.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by slunken

right and The Omega Concern is a total loony...

my point being if we're on a football field of unexplained phenomena this ghost talk is already 90 yards down the field. what about first down with how the pyramids were built or easter island

ok, so in that vein, I don't really buy things like that as being "unexplained." That's like History Channel conspiracy theorist alien bating BS. The pyramids were built by many, many people dragging heavy-ass blocks across the desert and up ramps and shit, as difficult as it sounds. There is nothing about it that is "unexplainable" or physically impossible. When people say they think shit like that is impossible what I hear is, "I can't imagine doing it therefore no one could have." which is stupid

[Future Boy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ted-times.html

[slunken]

you always hear about ghosts being dressed in old-timey clothing and they are from the past but what if you lived in a modern building where something bad happened do you think you would see a ghost of a guy texting in the corner?

you wake up in the middle of the night and there's a ghostly figure hovering over your bed moaning "whatttsss youuurr wiiifiiii passsswwwwoooorrrrddddd"

http://media.npr.org/assets/artslife...f50-s6-c30.jpg

[redbreegull]

I mean I can't imagine how microchips were invented and it is difficult for me to conceive how data is stored as 1s and 0s, but it's also not hard for me to recognize that just because I can't personally understand something doesn't mean it's magic.

[Future Boy]

it probably is magic though

[slunken]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

The pyramids were built by many, many people dragging heavy-ass blocks across the desert and up ramps and shit, as difficult as it sounds.

ok but what about certain rooms only being made of a certain stone and why or the air shafts and how they managed to see in the dark while building the passageways (if there are no soot stains in some places deep within the pyramid). some of the stones used were reported to be taken from quarries over 80km away.

we don't even know what's on the bottom of our oceans.

[slunken]

http://www.ufo-contact.com/wp-conten...-Machines.jpeg

http://www.everythingselectric.com/i...d-seafloor.jpg

[Future Boy]

http://media.npr.org/assets/artslife...f50-s6-c30.jpg

[slunken]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

just because I can't personally understand something doesn't mean it's magic.

yes but even if you were the smartest guy in the world and you couldn't understand it or be able to explain it wouldn't make it "false" or "magic"

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by slunken

ok but what about certain rooms only being made of a certain stone and why or the air shafts and how they managed to see in the dark while building the passageways (if there are no soot stains in some places deep within the pyramid). some of the stones used were reported to be taken from quarries over 80km away.

we don't even know what's on the bottom of our oceans.

I'm not really seeing how these things are unexplainable. You seem to be pointing to things which obviously have real answers that we just don't know. The question of whether some things are unknowable because of lack of documentation such as the exact way the pyramids were put together is not really what I think killtrocity was going for. I mean we are never going to know what George Washington ate for breakfast on June 3rd, 1760, but that doesn't have anything to do with aspects of the universe that defy scientific explanation

[redbreegull]

although like I said in theory if we could perfectly measure first cause we could know that he ate eggs over easy and the hearts of his enemies or whatever

[Elvis The Fat Years]

how scotty hasnt been banned yet.