However, one of your statements is too left brained, and therefore flawed (in my opinion):
|"Due to the nature of metaphysics, only pure, cold, rational logic and synthetic reasoning can be used to arrive at anything. Randomness and intuition is of no use in metaphysics. Experiences and sensations cannot help one understand metaphysics, because this field deals with what underlies reality and what underlies thought."|
This is evident in the massive variations of interpretations of the old teachers. Man can experience and feel certain things in those realms that man cannot yet explain in incontravertible, unambigious words or via specific science - to allow such things to be repeated at will, the same, by every person, every time. Because there are such variations in the things that various followers of meditation or other *mind related* areas experience (yet they *do* experience them), it suggests again that there may be no absolutes and no specific rules, *formulas* or *models* that can be applied to each individual *consistently*. Therefore, I cannot agree with you when you (or anyone else who holds the Metaphysical views that you do) use hardline words like "only", "must", "to arrive any anything.", etc.
We can feel, sense and experience things and not be able to reason them, or describe them - period. Happens every day to many of us.
Intuition: "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference"
Without evident rational thought, or reasoning, you have no logic, right!?
I like all 6 short paragraphs posted here:
I especially like the first paragraph, as Metaphysics is defined as:
Many new age, Buddhist, Eastern and other concepts agree with the above concept (i.e., "global consciousness" all affecting each of us). Since many of the aforementiond *religions* or *belief systems* are in agreement in the basic principle as per the above quote, when one discusses those in passing, they are naturally thrown in with the all-encompassing term, Metaphysics, which again is why I associate part of Philosophy in the right brain area and with such religions. They have *common ground* belief systems with the above definition. Does this finally make sense now? Do you see why I group Philosophy, at least partially, on the *other side* of the spectrum?Quote:
"all things are a part of one main source, and that each thing, animate or inanimate, should be respected for its particular form of this one main source; therefore each thing has an independent function and is dependent on every other thing, and all are contributing to the main source"
However, as we all agree, man and science cannot yet describe or fully comprehend into words each independent thing or function of the whole. Man can experience many of those things though. And, man can and has *experienced* many parts and functions of the whole via meditation that were attained without evident rational thought and inference.
Therefore, intuition is a factor in the equation. A person can immediately experience a random "feeling" or "sensation" or "deep thought" without contemplation, or reasoning. Why is it called "gut feeling", and not "mind feeling"? Because it doesn't come from mind rationalization. It comes from somewhere out there in the collective consciousness, maybe? Again, I do not profess to *know* for sure.
Also, I am referencing mostly Eastern thought processes, and you have stated "Western" thought in your Philosphy arguments. We could debate that all day too, but no need. The larger issue at hand is obviously more relevant.
I doubt the Dalai Lama, who has a Ph.D (oh no, not that topic again) equivalent in his own country of Tibet would agree with your statements and hardline *absolute* left brain mentality on these issues either. In fact, from listening to many of his CD's, and reading his materials, I'm sure of that.
Delta, in *certain* situations your belief system is correct and applicable, in others, it is not. As least as I understand you, you seem to hold too strong, that logic and reasoning basically revolve around all things, and I do not agree. You still hold the hard line left brain belief system that yours "must", "always" be applicable. That is where I believe you are in error, and is why I continue to say that you should come more to the middle, be a moderate and don't hold true to such convictions on the left or the right for that matter. You might broaden your horizons!