Theism

I have been a bit stubborn not wanting to abandon theism, and some of my previous posts are ever so slightly coloured by this perspective. That might not be important, but anyway I now see that the concept of God as a "person" of some sort may have to be cleared out of my thinking. I do not think I can see any way of maintaining such a position. Once we envision the supreme principle in humanoid form, it is diminished, gaining the limitations and weaknesses of our own kind.

Another thing, related: If music is communication, of what does it speak?

Wittgenstein

I've been reading about Wittgenstein the last couple of days, and I must say someting about this right now. These texts about W that I have read are of a very superficial and introductory nature, but nonetheless I have come to a stunning and sudden realization. I have never read much about W before, because all that talk about language and what it can or cannot express seemed uninteresting to me, and this is seems allways to be what is focused on in texts about him. This is not unreasonable, of course, because the tractatus (which I haven't read, though I will) speaks mainly of this. The point, of course, is that this is not what it's about. All these learned men and women trying to give a simple account of W's philosophy, going on and on about language, are entirely missing the point. Here is a passage cut from Wikipedia's article about W. It illustrates my point accurately and clearly:

6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

This leads him to reassert the main point of the book:

7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

Some have chosen to interpret this as deliberate irony, others as outright performative contradiction.

The last sentence is the important one here. It shows how completely W is misunderstood by interpreters if this is what is commonly said about the 7th parapraph. The text above states that this is the main point of the book, and then goes on to say that it is irony or deliberate contradiction. Why would the genius W write a book that has a piece of nonsensical itony or contradiction as its main point? It's ludicrous!

Obviously, it is these readers who fail to understand what W is trying to say here. I can not understand why, it is quite simple, really, and he tells us in plain language: The point of the book is not what is said in it, but what it leads us to. The arguments are meant as guides on the road towards understanding, or as W himself calls it: the ladder. The words themselves are not trying to describe the truth as W sees it, in fact they can not, and this is his point. The central philosophical truth is spiritual, or "mystical", as he calls it, and thus cannot be expressed by words. This does not make the words meaningless, however. Since the truth cannot be spoken of directly, the purpose of philosophy is to show the way towards an understanding that the individual must reach on is own.

This is marvellous! This is very much the same as I am trying to express in my own clumsy and inferior way on this blog! What a wonderful revelation! I will read the tractatus in the near future.

Corrections from an unfocused mind

After writing for some time, I easily loose focus on the concept I am trying to write about, and end up writing some nonsense like the last part of my post about spiritual truths. It was of course my point all along that moral truths in fact can be determined like mathematical truths. That single moral statements can be verified by the resonance it creates in the soul.
Examples of this might be the golden rule of Christ and the Buddha, which must seem to most observers to say something universally true about the nature of morals. But, unlike mathematical truths, ethical truths can not be backed up by physical evidence. Even though the concept 2 + 2 = 4 can not be directly pointed to in the physical world, it can easily be demonstrated with the use of physical objects.
An ethical truth can not be demonstrated in this manner, and this is why I classify ethical truths as subjective, rather than objective truths. The mathematical statement above can be proven to someone else by the use of physical objects such as rocks. In the case of the golden rule, the truth of the statement must be determined individually by each recipient. You can make the statement to another, but you must trust him or her to see its validity his or herself by reflection free of prejudice and preconceptions.
Actually, the expression subjective truth might be a bit of a misnomer, as the truth itself is actually objective or inter-personal. It is the proof that is subjective, not the fact.

Attempt at criteria for truth in a spiritual science

Traditional science relies on objective, interpersonal proof of its hypotheses, as the objective, interpersonal reality is its area of study. If knowledge of the spiritual is the opposite of knowledge of the physical, it follows that if the last need objective proof, the former needs subjective proof. We are, however, used to thinking that objective proof is the only form of proof. That without empirical evidence, knowledge is not truly possible. I will attempt to show that within the science of the spirit, such proof is possible, and indeed the only possible form of evidence.
Now, all of this presupposes the excistence of some sort of spiritual substance. I will hold that such a substance does indeed excist, but I will not argue this point here, as the genre of the blog lends itself to shorter texts. I might return to this problem at a later date, even though it is my belief that it is actually impossible to prove such a thing; it is for the individual to accept or reject at his or her own whim. I do, however, have some arguments in favor of my position on this issue, and thus may return to this in future posts.
Anyway, the excistence of some kind of spiritual substance accepted (if for nothing else, only for the sake of argument), we can move on to trying to establish a base on which to build the knowledge we seek. The first tool we have at our disposal on this quest for knowledge is logic. Any argument in support of a particular truth must be logically consistent. I do see that there are problems with this approach. First, it must be admitted that logic is a tool of traditional science, which we have just defined as the opposite of the doctrine we are trying to establish. Second, as we can not directly observe the spiritual substance, we actually have no proof that this realm is governed by logic at all; it might be entirely irrational, inaccessible to logic.
At this point, I need to formulate a second postulate to be accepted by the reader. In addition to assuming that there is such a thing as a spiritual substance, we must also assume that we have access to this substance in some way. Without such access, everything we are trying to achieve here will be meaningless. The only way I can think of that such access could be possible is through the soul, which idea is the basis for the idea of a spiritual substance in the first place. The theory must be, that in some way (I will get back to this later), our souls are the part of us that belongs to the spiritual realm. The part of our consciousness that lies one level above our thoughts. We have access to this world through such excercises as meditation or other techniques for achieving what is called altered states of consciousness. In these states, where normal consciousness and the mind are removed from our being, we experience pure excistence within our own souls, and thus observe its nature. It is also what we catch a glimpse of when we experience epiphanies, short feelings of complete knowledge that evaporates as quickly as it materialised.
I stated earlier that evidence of spiritual truth must be subjective. What is meant by this is that such knowledge can only be valid for the subject, that is, you can never prove to someone else that your vision of the spirit is true or valid. It can only be proven within the confines of the self. Such knowledge can still be communicated, though, but each individual, when exposed to something claimed as a spiritual truth, must decide for himself whether it is valid or not. Keep in mind, however, that I am still not claiming that each and everyone is entitled to his or her own version of the truth, and that all religious-dogmatic superstitions can be valid as spiritual truths as long as the individual decides for him or herself that this is what he or she believes in because it is written.
No, this is where I arrive at my main point: What must be devised, is a method. A method through which the individual can test any claim to spiritual truth he or she is confronted with. Now, the method itself must be interpersonal, but it is of such a nature that it can only be applied subjectively. My first proposition for an element in such a guide is the principle of irreversability, as it might be called. Certain ideas, once scrutinized thouroughly, can not be rejected. A most obvious example of this kind of thruth is mathematics. Once you have learned a mathematical axiom, it can not be unlearned. It is an inescapable truth once accepted. This also presupposes an open mind, and a sincere willingness and perpetual readyness to abandon your convictions.
A cuple of issues must be addressed. First (indeed for this post, I think it must be the last, I must continue on this later), philosophical, ethical or metaphysical claims are not the same as mathematical truths. They are much more complex, and thus a lot harder to judge according to the method I describe above. In fact, any metaphysical claim, such as "God is red", can not be absolutely proven or disproven through this method, but in fact, this is not the point here. It is not the point of this method to enable one to do such a thing. It may seem that this invalidates the whole system, but I will try to explain why I believe that it does not.
Take the afforementioned epiphany as an example. If indeed this is an experience of the pure spirit (it may not be, though, but it still serves as a useful example). When you "come to your senses" after such an experience, you feel at a loss to explain the truth you feel you have grasped. I have stated in an earlier blog that I believe our thoughts to be the products of our physical brains and not our souls. Our brain operates logically (not necessarily in a strict, scientific sense), and our language even more so. Logic is dependent on categorizing, while the spiritual truth is a truth of the whole. Our logical brains can not fully comprehend the concepts of complete oneness or eternity, and our logical language can not explain them, for language is dependent on duality for its operation. Thus, the absolute truth can not be spoken, but words may lead you in the right direction, and it is on this higher level that the method must be utilized; as an overall judge of your complete body of knowledge rather than at the level of individual claims.
(To be continued...)