Careful JB, your slipping into poetry . . . . and we all know where that can lead

You know, w.c., I have realized during self-examen that it has generally been more important to me to have good ideas than to convey good ideas. I have for years, thusly, been entering discussion forums and mailing lists, processing my ideas with a goal toward clarifying my own thinking. I would come away from such exchanges gratified if I had learned anything and not much concerned regarding any pedagogical value (lack thereof) to my contribution. I get less dense and more poetic and metaphorical when I feel moreso led into pedagogy, truly wanting to gift another with what I feel could be an important insight. Otherwise, writing for the masses has not been my charism. I content myself with gifting insights to those whose charism is to write for the masses.

Due to lack of time and not wanting to chew up more bandwidth than I already have, I did not more fully develop my idea of end-product, by-product and waste-product re: kundalini and such, but I thought it was a rich enough metaphor that it could return the thread to a more experiential level. IOW, some of you might inventory aspects of your own past/present experience and characterize them as such, perhaps with a better idea of how and why this happens. The more symmetry in our w/holistic endeavors, the more likely the soul recontouring will yield desired end-products, such as Phil attests to. The more assymetry, the more these processes will yield harmful, toxic waste-products. Sometimes, we experience by-products of intentionality, a recontouring of the soul that isn't ordered, necessarily, toward any discernable purpose --- but who knows?

pax,
jb

For those interested, I recommend Body, Soul and the Spiritual Unconscious by Jim Arraj. I do not understand it well enough, yet, to claim that my appreciation of the soul informing the body, as implicitly included in my above-musings, comports with the thomistic view. Of special interest are the diagrams of Maritain's ordering of the intellect, imagination and senses, to which I am trying to be faithful.



If you think about it, this is bassakwards from normal approaches and likely why so much of the "energy" literature caves in to the cartesian descriptions. Materialism, btw, doesn't avoid the cartesian mistake or eliminate it; it merely reduces it. The Catechesis of Chi, imo, needs to articulate the phenomenal descriptions of qi, chi, prana and such in classical aristotelian notions of causation. The efficacies of phenomemnal consciousness and intellect make perfect sense and the effects of intentionality on unified soul/body make sense, too.

Arraj writes:

quote:

We met another kind of this intentional existence when Maritain described how the chisel of Michelangelo was directed by the virtue of his art which passed through it - not entitatively - and directed its motion that led to the creation of the statue. There is nothing in the chisel as a physical object that can account for the beauty of the statue. A higher causality, "a causality superordered to it," moves through it, which is a certain intentional existence which, while it is not the esse intentionale of intellectual knowledge, is akin to it. Maritain writes:

"We think it would be of great interest to philosophers to study the role that esse intentionale plays in the physical world itself, wherein there undoubtedly arises from such existing, that sort of universal animation whereby motion puts into bodies more than they are , and colours the whole of nature with a semblance of life and feeling undoubtedly derived from it." (8)

In virtue of its informing power the human soul literally and entitatively informs the body, which is the finest and final fruit of the process of evolution. Thus, it informs and animates from within the elements, the molecules, and the vegetative and animal dimensions of the body. But the human form, precisely as a spiritual form, has an even more intimate way of communing with material forms. It can know them. In virtue of its spiritual nature expressed in its agent or illuminating intellect, which is the very spiritual power of the soul, itself, the human spirit bathes material beings in a spiritual light and allows them to exist for it as objects to be known, to exist with an intentional and relational existence which allows it to know them as they are.

pax,
jb
on the catechesis of chi

Finally, the use of the term, bioenergetic, is too facile and is unfortunate vis a vis qi and chi. Kundalini yoga and reiki and qigong are phenomenal descriptions for processes, as I described at length above, that, through human intentionality, primarily, may have as an end-result (end/by/waste-product) some epiphenomenal bioenergetic after-effects in the pre-existing physical realm of space-time-matter-energy but they have no independent being as a type of created energy in the space-time plenum. Instruments can measure epiphenomenal parts of the process but the parts they measure are not qi or chi but classical electromagnetic realities that have been scientifically explained already.

JB, I follow where you're coming from and going, as it seems an application of many ideas we've gone over through the years (extraneous causative formation a la Haught et al). I also agree that the "shape of the landscape" (what we've referred to in other threads as the vessel, or even "bodies") has a profound effect on the *experience* of energy--i.e., in determining its flow. What needs to be mentioned, however, is that this experience can come from a.) a change in the landscape/shape of vessel; b.) an intensification of energy through certain ascetical practices; c.) a combination of the above. You seem to be placing full responsibility on a., and I don't think that's true in many cases. I agree that intentionality is ultimately our best approach to integrating the energy, but it's also often necessary that something needs to be done at the level of energy as well--to calm things down, de-intensify, etc. Ultimately, we are talking about an interplay between form and matter/energy, and so work needs to go on in both areas, sometimes one more than the other. Diet, sexual activity, proper breathing, etc. aren't so much exercises in the interest of creating a proper form, but of "managing energy."

I disagree with your statement that "chi, qi, prana, vital energy, life energy and such, in my view, should be categorized as informational and immaterial and, hence, nonenergetic and therefore might best be described metaphysically and not physically." I view this as something of the water that flows, not the non-energetic river bed. Maybe the more scientific term, bioenergy, "is too facile and is unfortunate vis a vis qi and chi," but I'm not sure why you reach that conclusion. This is a fairly common intuition into the nature of this energy/experience, and . . . well . . . what's the alternative? What other kind of river of energy would you suggest people are experiencing flowing through the riverbeds of the soul? Given the four forces that physics gives us to work with, bio-electro-magnetism seems the most probable to me.

Good thread and discussion!

I follow where you're coming from and going, as it seems an application of many ideas we've gone over through the years (extraneous causative formation a la Haught et al). I also agree that the "shape of the landscape" (what we've referred to in other threads as the vessel, or even "bodies") has a profound effect on the *experience* of energy--i.e., in determining its flow. What needs to be mentioned, however, is that this experience can come from a.) a change in the landscape/shape of vessel; b.) an intensification of energy through certain ascetical practices; c.) a combination of the above. You seem to be placing full responsibility on a., and I don't think that's true in many cases. I agree that intentionality is ultimately our best approach to integrating the energy, but it's also often necessary that something needs to be done at the level of energy as well--to calm things down, de-intensify, etc. Ultimately, we are talking about an interplay between form and matter/energy, and so work needs to go on in both areas, sometimes one more than the other. Diet, sexual activity, proper breathing, etc. aren't so much exercises in the interest of creating a proper form, but of "managing energy."

Good clarification. You'll note that I do qualify intentionality as primary. I did this because I indeed do recognize other aspects of the body/soul at play here, some quite unintentional (as most of us can attest to) and some from ascetical practices (that variously have more vs less intentionality involved). I, of course, very much agree that work needs to be done at the level of form and matter, most (w)holistically, as would be Heartland's credo. This is what I had in mind when I mentioned biofeedback loops, reciprocity, circularity, co-influence, coevolution and such. I am glad you mentioned Haught inasmuch as I was borrowing from his polanyian metaphor for extraneous causation. So, no, that would be a misinterpretation of my position to say that I place full responsibility on intentionality. I place an emphasis there, to be sure. The putative ability of the immaterial aspect of our body/soul to act nonlocally is intriguing, whether that be through distance reiki or telepathy or after death communications and such. At the same time, the physical aspect of the human body/soul is no less marvelous and wondrously designed, still a mystery in so many ways even in this new millenium! I basically concur on your above points (and you'll note that I held back from charging a strawman fallacy .)

pax,
jb

I disagree with your statement that "chi, qi, prana, vital energy, life energy and such, in my view, should be categorized as informational and immaterial and, hence, nonenergetic and therefore might best be described metaphysically and not physically." I view this as something of the water that flows, not the non-energetic river bed. Maybe the more scientific term, bioenergy, "is too facile and is unfortunate vis a vis qi and chi," but I'm not sure why you reach that conclusion. This is a fairly common intuition into the nature of this energy/experience, and . . . well . . . what's the alternative? What other kind of river of energy would you suggest people are experiencing flowing through the riverbeds of the soul? Given the four forces that physics gives us to work with, bio-electro-magnetism seems the most probable to me.

The complementary/alternative medicine and related literature is laden with ambiguous usages of terms, so this may be part of the issue. For instance, look at this definition:

quote:

A traditional Chinese term denoting "vital energy flow." The creative or formative principle associated with life and all processes that characterize living entities. All animate forms in nature are manifestations of Qi. Qi is an invisible substance, as well as an immaterial force that has palpable and observable manifestations.

Chinese Medical Terminology

We are not dealing with a false dichotomy here. Physics vs metaphysics truly is an either/or description. Material and efficient causes are properly distinguished from formative and final causes.

The four forces of nature and the four fundamental aspects of reality already have names and scientific descriptions. Anything that is measurable and detectable and empirically demonstrable is part of that plenum of space, time, matter and energy, energy which is then further understood as weak and strong forces, gravity and electromagnetism. These can be objectively studied and scientifically verified. These are not what we are talking about with qi, chi, prana. These aren't just exercises in semantics or translation. The difference between qi and electromagnetism is the difference between physics and metaphysics is my understanding.

Now, maybe there is another approach wherein qi is being hypothesized as a particular manifestation of a particular combination of biological, electrical and magnetic phenomena or bioenergy? That is not my understanding of what is meant by vital force, cosmic life force, elan vital, universal life energy/force, even if the CAM folks casually use terms like bioenergy, biomagnetism, bioplasmic and such in relationship to their discipline. You are right that this energy-language derives from a fairly common intuition. This intuition does indeed actually predominate in the literature. This language isn't capturing the nuances of what's going on in Eastern spiritual technology and thus doesn't adequately discriminate between the physical and metaphysical, I believe.

The water that flows in my paradigm comes from the material space-time plenum and must come from nature's forces. No one claims that the universal life energy is part of this plenum or any combination or manifestation of these forces of nature. Most all acknowledge it as nonmaterial nature, don't they? That's why I see pranayama and kundalini yoga and reiki and such as processes that change the riverbed, through intentionality and, yes, also through holistic health approaches, various ascetisms and such that effect both body and soul. The river is just water though (forces already known to science), no novel energy. This I hold in principle. What's being measured by scientists is not qi. It cannot be measured. If it could be, it would be neither complementary nor alternative medicine, would it?

People are having very real experiences from very real physiological psychological interactions precipitated sometimes on purpose, some times accidentally, sometimes with this intent and sometimes with that, usually in accordance with a strict ascetical protocol. The bodily movement components of some protocols (e.g. yogic practices or qi gong, etc) would be expected to have some therapeutic efficacy vis a vis conventional medicine. The meditative and visualization and intentionality components of some protocols would be expected to have certain beneficial psychological efficacies vis a vis conventional psychology. However, as we all can attest, there is something WAY more than these run of the mill medical and psychological efficacies going on with the spiritual emergencies and psychobiological upheavals that come about from the assiduous disciplines and ascetical practices prescribed/proscribed by Eastern technologies such as yoga, pranayama, reiki, qi gong, etc From this, I think we can properly infer, from an increasingly compelling body of indirect evidence, that there are unobtrusive, undetectable formative influences that are most efficacious in transforming the human experience of body/soul. In order to marshall more practical proof, though, I think we need a more rigorous scientific approach and a more versatile metaphysics that is depthfully discriminating and breadthfully comprehensive. Let me rephrase: we have the metaphysics; it just needs to be more exhaustively applied to the topic at hand, imo.

I acknowledge that I have wildly extrapolated from one article about the putative nonenergetic nature of qi, and I know I am bucking the conventional wisdom and changing the language convention, and I am purposelfully being provocative in order to be evocative. I hope this exercise is as useful as it has been enjoyable.

pax,
jelly bean

A thought. I see some parallels here in my desire to properly articulate the relationship between metaphysics and science and in Maritain's critique of Bergson. Bergson's critique of scientism and his brilliant vitalist philosophy re: the elan vital profoundly influenced some of the thomists and phenomenologists who ended up having a profound influence on JPII, for instance. Still, it took Maritain's reformulation of Bergson's metaphysics to balance an appreciation for empirical methodology with an acute awareness of its limits. see Bergson & Positivism

I thus appreciate the elan vital approach embodied in the concepts of qi but want to be very clear on the distinctions to be drawn between metaphysics and physics and want to restore more appreciation for rigorous empirical methodologies than seems evident in the "energy" literature of complementary and alternative medicine and of Eastern spiritual technology. Like Bergson, CAM practitioners sometimes seem to over-react to the limits of science and, in my view, need to restore the very balance that Maritain worked so hard to regain. Once again, a critique by Maritain may open a way to avoid any disparagement of science, however implicit or unintentional that disparagement might be as I perceive it in C/AM.

pax,
jb

btw, this is my attempt to write a companion volume to Christianity in the Crucible , for, in the same way that Jim looks at modern conceptualizations of contemplation in the light of traditional spiritual norms and classical metaphysics, arguing for more consistency and coherence, I think there could be an analogous attempt to treat kundalini yoga, qi gong, reiki, pranayama and such in the same way, school by school, author by author But I have exhausted my resourcefulness in that regard, although new insights will surely come from everyone's critique of my critique of the critiques!

Well, JB, no straw man was intended, that's for sure. I'll grant you that chi/prana, etc. is discussed in different ways that sometimes suggest immateriality and sometimes not. I have been throughout this thread and others on this forum trying to account for the energy that is actually there and experienced by people struggling with the process. The literature has abundant references to this energy as prana, chi, etc. and in that context, it seems to me that what's being described IS on the material plane--a kind of electricity that flows through our systems along the nerves and perhaps through other subtle passageways as well. Obviously, this electricity would be affected by diet, breathing patterns, sexual activity--which deal with quantity of energy--along with immaterial formative influences effected by the will and one's general life stance. I might add, here, that we ought not be overly confident that science has a full grasp on the kinds of energies which constitute life, or that the existence of subtle energies can be ruled out simply because science cannot yet account for them.

Neverthless, all in all, I completely agree with your main theses, and I do believe that it's essential that any accounting for these esoteric phenomena be held up to sound principles of philosophical and scientific inquiry. Gopi Krishna promoted as much, btw, as do many others who study kundalini.

Hello again

Reading Andrea Judith's Eastern Body, Western Mind and Carolyn Myss's Anatomy of the Spirit, I can
see that my higher centers are more developed and my
work is constantly to bring the energy down into the lower centers. Yoga, Thai Chi and Reiki practitioners have confirmed this. I read Jack Kornfield and he shares about coming back to New York after 5 years as a Buddhist monk in Asia and experiencing high levels of consciousness and altered states, but he could not get along in relationships, on the job or with his family. I personally relate to his experience. I just got his book After the Ecstacy, the Laundry. It's laundry day and I sit here lookin at the pile.

thank you michael <*))))><

I might add, here, that we ought not be overly confident that science has a full grasp on the kinds of energies which constitute life

Good point, Phil.

For instance, even Roger Penrose continues to search for some material nonalgorithmic quantum entity that he claims could be an additional fundamental property (added to space-time-matter-energy). The search for a grand unified theory, the superstring hypotheses and such continues. The hard problem of consciousness persists (and some soft problems, too). Etc

or that the existence of subtle energies can be ruled out simply because science cannot yet account for them.

If subtle energies are material, my bias truly is that science would have verified them already. Falsifying them, like falsifying anything else, can be problematical. If subtle energies are immaterial, then they won't be detectable by classical empirical methods anyway, since, in principle, they wouldn't be demonstrable. However, this would not mean that a considerable body of indirect evidence could not be compiled, making for some extremely compelling inferences, providing a very practical type of proof. After all, it is also my opinion that these practical proofs re: Eastern spiritual technologies already superabound.

The question that perdures, for me, is: why do we use the word subtle to describe these energies ? I think we have teased out all of the related nuances to this question and that we have discovered that our sneaking suspicions regarding same differ, though yours clearly represent the prevailing consensus.

After all, going into almost any other kundalini forum and denying that qi is an energy might be considered trolling BTW, I was just pulling your leg about that strawman fallacy [It's a long story and a bad joke from another forum that I frequent a few times a year. I won't bore you with the details.]

Great discussion. Thanks all.

pax,
jb

re. subtle energy, see sample page 13 by Mantak Chia (along with those which preceded it and those which follow) for a classic description of a subtle energy based on a biochemical. I call that to our attention because, for many of us, the connection between sexuality and high energy experiences is irrefutable. Just what exactly is going on here I do not fully understand, but I can attest to the reality of the connection and a strong intuition that the reproductive fluids are more than a biochemical mass.

Fwiw, I'm not committed to any particular model when it comes to accounting for kundalini. As a Catholic, I accept the Church's teaching about the soul and how it informs the body; our philosophical tradition holds much potential for validating a wide range of metaphysical experiences. When it comes to experiences of "liquid light" and related experiences, I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I have a hunch that there are realms of light and energy that are real but are off the scale of the physicists' instruments. Such could not be measured directly, only by the effects they cause. Whether these effects attest to an energy or an immaterial substrate which forms energy I do not know; either one or both could work, in my view.

I might also share, here, that I have a hunch that the heavenly realm is one of a type of light and energy that is off the physicists' scale. I have often seen spiritual light, and I am sure that it's nothing that would show up on an instrument. I have a sense that this realm of light and energy is intrinsic to the more dense levels of light and energy that science studies. It might even be that our sojourn in the physical universe and its light and energies is an acclimation to our release into this more subtle realm, which belongs to Christ.

But, in the end, I don't really know much about any of this--not with any certainty, that is. . . just intuitions and hunches that have come to me in different ways, none of them deductive. It's very difficult for the mind to venture from the parameters suggested by the senses, is it not?

. . .It's laundry day and I sit here lookin at the pile. . .

Good to hear from you again, Michael. You bring up a very good point, namely that some people seem to have to "grow down" in terms of chakra development. The usual assumption is that we're (especially Westerners) overly developed in the lower "centers" and need to raise the energy and open ourselves to higher dimensions of reality. But some people seem to start there--including, here, people who experienced abuse. I sometime think they found a way early in life to withdraw from the emotionally painful aspects of life by dissociating and living in higher, intuitive levels. So the challenge for them is to re-connect with their sexuality, emotions, sense of power, trust in life, etc.--all classical lower chakra issues.

In Christian spirituality, we emphasize wholeness and authenticity in our ongoing quest for union with God. Higher states are fine, but not at the expense of wholeness. The experience you share along with the writings of Kornfield are good reminders of this.

Fwiw, I'm not committed to any particular model when it comes to accounting for kundalini.

To speak in haughtian terms, certain attempts to describe reality, however empirically indemonstrable, can provide an indispensable explanatory adequacy. As we move from one mode of knowing to the next - mystical, phenomenological, metaphysical/philosophical, scientific - or from one degree of abstraction or degree of knowledge to the next (Maritain), there needn't be any epistemological hegemony or hubris or claim to a privileged status but, rather, a recognition of how each realm of knowledge apprehends objects , both concepts and acts , from its unique perspective on reality. These realms yield up different types of proof from different bodies of evidence. What amazes me, sometimes, is how inductive methods, indirect evidence and practical proofs get throughly trashed, invalidated and disparaged by some who obviously can't see how much of modern medicine, pharmacology and physics relies on them.

In the area of personality psychology I cannot help but admit that the enneagram uncannily describes typologies and more than superficially corresponds to the more empirical accounts that derive from rigorously designed and statistically verified tests. I can see ways that its descriptions can be validated by the MBTI as further elucidated by Jungian thoughts, which are in turn further validated, imo, by neurophysiological evidence. What this suggests to me is that the phenomenological methods of the ancient Sufis (or whomever) were very discriminating, acutely observant and long-established by expert analysts of human behavior. (I wouldn't expect them to remain on par w/ modern explanations which are more depthful.) By analogy, the phenomenological accounts of TCM (traditional Chinese medicine), and the phenomenological models of Eastern spiritual technologies, I believe, are providing descriptions of reality that provide a compelling amount of indirect evidence bolstering many practical proofs re: "energies" that have positively resonated, even interculturally, with the masses down through millenia. In principle, some of the metaphysical claims of TCM and CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) will always provide only explanatory ideas and not empirical demonstration. In principle, the physical claims can be tested and verified or falsified, scientifically (e.g. endorphin hypothesis for acupuncture). To some extent, I suppose I find myself railing against any ambiguity in terminology that makes the separation of physical and metaphysical claims too sticky a widget. The concept of rigor is not merely in the provenance of the empirical scientific realm, it also describes how philosophy, metaphysics and phenomenology should be done. And, this leads to an important clarification. Much of my invocation of rigor has little or nothing to do with the claim that CAM and TCM and Eastern spiritual technologies have not been rigorous phenomenologically (although obviously I have taken issue here, too). Their persistence and appeal, which have perdured long into the modernistic scientific era, derive precisely from an uncanny accuracy in their descriptive accounts, accounts which seek to explain very real events in the human behavioral realm. This reveals their underlying rigor, phenomenologically. It is the ambiguity and lack of rigor in the lingo that can result in the misunderstandings I bemoan, such as confusion between the conceptual and ontological, such as a failure to discriminate between the metaphorical and the literal, the subjective experience and the objective actuality. In the same way that the chakra system is describing something very real but does not render a literal physiological account, CAM and TCM and Eastern spiritual technologies describe something very real but, for the most part, are not rendering literal physiological accounts. This is not an innate deficiency of phenomenology but an intrinsic epistemological constraint. When the phenomenological account is mixed with some scientific assertions/hypotheses, those hypotheses then properly belong to another epistemological approach, one that has its own set of strengths, constraints and limitations. Some of those limitations are systematic, but other limitations are clearly methodological. This is another important distinction. If you read carefully, Phil has well-emphasized some of the methodological constraints of science, properly noting, for instance, that lack of suitable instrumentation constrains us. I have tended to emphasize the systematic constraints that are proper to different epistemological approaches. It is important, however, not to too facilely label a claim as being methodological or we'll end up with the teapot orbiting Pluto connundrum. Nonetheless, we must admit that our energy upheavals don't usually lend themselves to controlled experimentation and instrumental observation (such as what D'Aquili and Newberg accomplished with monks and nuns). And there have been billions of unobserved energy events that have had only phenomenological and not scientific renderings as that is the nature of this beast. I have often wondered how much of my own personal experiences with "energy" were subjective dream-like experiences (knowing that sleep paralysis mechanisms were at work, in some cases, to prevent limb movement) and how much could have been objectively measured in my musculature and galvanic skin responsivity. Putting me in a lab and hooking me up to wires would have been one sure method to positively ensure that the numinous experiences would not occur.

As a Catholic, I accept the Church's teaching about the soul and how it informs the body; our philosophical tradition holds much potential for validating a wide range of metaphysical experiences.

For one thing, we don't have to come up with elaborate schemes, sometimes fanciful in themselves, to defend the paranormal, say like the CSICOP skeptics have to do. We can remain open, systematically and methodologically.

When it comes to experiences of "liquid light" and related experiences, I'm at a loss to explain what's going on. I have a hunch that there are realms of light and energy that are real but are off the scale of the physicists' instruments. Such could not be measured directly, only by the effects they cause.

And why don't some scientistic scientists recognize that this has often been the case in modern physics and modern pharmaceutical medicine? Like dust and gas trails in a vacuum?

Whether these effects attest to an energy or an immaterial substrate which forms energy I do not know; either one or both could work, in my view.

Again, ain't it great to remain open both systematically and methodologically. As far as invoking Occam's Razor, at times, doesn't the thomistic aristotelian account seem much simpler and yet more versatile in accomodating the paranormal than do the sometimes elaborate attempts of the skeptics to disprove an instantaneous healing, apparitions and other paranormal events?

But, in the end, I don't really know much about any of this--not with any certainty, that is. . . just intuitions and hunches that have come to me in different ways, none of them deductive.

I think the important thing (what I have been pressing) is that we properly distinguish between that which we know from intuition (Kant's big mistake was his lack of an intuition of being, perhaps?), that which we know from inductive logic, that which we know from indirect evidence, that which we know as practical proof and otherwise. We don't, in principle, disparage other degrees of knowledge, ways of knowing, and we don't hegemonistically grant them undue privilege but seek a balance, critique alternately critiquing critique. Our collective intuitions and hunches are powerful hermeneutical devices and tremendous epistemological resources. I say this confidently because, think about it, look at how powerful and tremendous the intuitions and hunches of Einstein, Aristotle and others were, individually !

It's very difficult for the mind to venture from the parameters suggested by the senses, is it not?

Maybe for enneagram 5's? Otherwise, precisely the opposite. I think the burgeoning fields of TCM, CAM and Eastern spiritual technologies, as well as the explosion of New Age approaches, as well as the reactionary embrace of the postmodernistic (with a concommitant disappointment in modernism) on so many fronts, all point to a credulity that indicates otherwise.

I think the more difficult exercise is venturing from the sensical and its parameters and then rendering an account of that venture that is externally congruent, internally coherent, logically consistent, interdisciplinarily consilient and hypothetically consonant - phenomenologically, scientifically, philosophically, metaphysically and theologically. That's why your upcoming Theology Institute is so important!

pax,
jb

In my pov, phenomenological descriptions will eventually yield to more objectively empirical explanations when scientific methodologies appropriate to any given study at hand are available. We see this, for example, with the enneagram. Why use it if better alternatives become available? The same arises with any alternative medicine or technology or ascetical approach. However uncanny its descriptive and even predictive abilities, when more conventional approaches and methodologies become available, why not switch to the newer, more comprehensive, more depthful paradigms? (Not at all suggesting we are at this point with much of TCM, CAM and such.) When it somes to the immaterial realm, however, those hypotheses will always require inferential conclusions, practical proofs, indirect evidence and such. When it comes to inextricably intertwined material/immaterial hypotheses, the material explications can change through time based on improved measurement techniques and instrumentation and the immaterial explications can change through time based on improved statistical analyses, more rigorous and more widely shared phenomenological data and more assiduous and dutiful application of metaphysical logic.

Just a point of info. Phil and I are not really debating perspectives as much as we are teasing out nuances for such a hermeneutic as we are in agreement on 99.9%. If this is too tedious, then that is only because that's what I do; I'm a tead, which is a sort of toad. I can't prove this empirically, but if you review this thread you will get all the practical proof you need.

pax,
jb

Dear Tead and others:

Phil said:

"I have a sense that this realm of light and energy is intrinsic to the more dense levels of light and energy that science studies."

My experience of this light, or nonmaterial energy, is characterized mainly by its intimacy, a presence of profound love that even makes saying the energy is awareness inadequate. This comes only in the gift of contemplation, and even calling it light is cumbersome. Quite a bit denser than this are the energies of K, and in terms of meridians I've had the experience of different nadis, with the central most a sweet, peaceful radiance that has virtually no sensuality in it at all (I've only experienced this twice). This nadi, whichever one it is in traditional descriptions, is a pure awareness with seemingly no polarity, except that the observer awareness remains (IOW, there's no more fussing internally, and no bliss either - just peace and a lack of conflict, although it does seem to arise from the faculties of the soul). But it does share an intimate nature with that transcendental pure love Presence that arrests all the faculties in utter silence, yet is beyond all faculties in origin (i.e, created and non created complimentarity?).

And so given this simplistic description, I'd offer that an intimate presence is characteristic of created energy by virtue of its uncreated origin, and, as JB says and Phil agrees, hasn't been, and probably won't be, measured by science until science invites the observer into the process more directly; then it would probably start inventing a new math based on some geometrical poetry, as in the Hindu Yantras or something.