Confirmation of emanation?

Hi all. I'm a huge science nerd and I scour the interwebs for random articles. A friend sent me this one, which focuses on the nature of black holes and how they may not be singularities as once thought, and I can't help but view this as possibly a hint or reflection of the outflow of our universe (what we call the corporeal, physical world) from the spiritual world. If it's true, of course.

Tell me what you think

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/black-holes-are-portals-to-other-universes-according-to-new-quantum

I think it is mistaken to think that empirical evidence and scientific argument can get us anywhere regarding spiritual realities.  This notion tends to have good intentions, but ultimately it places science over Truth, as it attempts to make the divine respectably cohere with empiricism, logic and the scientific method.  This train of thought is embedded in the pseudo-philosophy of positivism in the first place, which cannot be called philosophy (love of wisdom, which is always rooted in spirituality, and is no longer philosophy proper when it is sundered from the divine), but rather a kind of scientism for dianoetic logicians.  It has its own anthropomorphic baggage; say the idea that the divine operates on the same logic we humans do, and that thus we can go around searching for scientific proof for everything, like we were good little scientists doing an experiment.  

Reason is incapable of seizing Truth.  Even those empirical truths (with a lower-case 't') of our own world, viz. verificationist truths (cats are felines, turtles have shells, etc.), have no real necessity, only empirical validity.  In this world of illusion and flux we live in it seems so, but there are others in which it is false, that are well beyond human logic, and operate in ways totally beyond us.  Empirical truths can only verify what we mortals encounter and conceptualize with our hubristic and arrogant minds, to think we must squeeze the Gods into this tiny, weak frame is a serious error, in my view.

I think it is mistaken to think that empirical evidence and scientific argument can get us anywhere regarding spiritual realities. This notion tends to have good intentions, but ultimately it places science over Truth, as it attempts to make the divine respectably cohere with empiricism, logic and the scientific method. This train of thought is embedded in the pseudo-philosophy of positivism in the first place, which cannot be called philosophy (love of wisdom, which is always rooted in spirituality, and is no longer philosophy proper when it is sundered from the divine), but rather a kind of scientism for dianoetic logicians. It has its own anthropomorphic baggage; say the idea that the divine operates on the same logic we humans do, and that thus we can go around searching for scientific proof for everything, like we were good little scientists doing an experiment.

I don't think so, actually. I say that there is only one Truth — split by virtue of this cosmos' Aether-Purusha/Chaos-Prakriti paradigm into a material and an etherial aspect. First of course, each must be understood separately, but, I think, the further one's understanding progresses on both sides, the more it is evident that they are not separate — we can see Aether in Chaos in a similar way in which one can see the whole fern leaf in a single segment, or can conceive of the shape of the die by examining the coin it has stamped.

Nevertheless, though I'd certainly consider myself some measure of a scientist, my science would be dismissed with a dumbfounded "are you really serious?" face by much of contemporary science because, I see that the material world must be shown to fit with the divine world, not the other way around — the deadly trap into which contemporary science has fallen. We cannot fit God into human logic. We must strive as much as we are able to fit reorient the self to its rightful state, with the God-soul governing and the Titanic-soul serving. Yet the paradigm today seems to be to give the Titan-soul free reign, to such an extent that the God-soul's very existence has been forgotten by so many, leaving the Titan-soul, perceiving only, as it is only able, the element out of which it arose, and which it has fallen into believing is the only one that exists.

What many contemporary scientists call 'reason' (the use of the word I assume you are referencing), I agree, can never hope to see Truth, because it is only a half-reason, a reason with one eye shut, that either denies or has forgotten entirely its other eye's very existence.

True Reason comes from Heaven alone, for a source knows itself and those things out of itself, but the death-bound begotten of Earth look only to the depths. They wear their green spectacles in their Emerald City, and are none the wiser.

I agree with the idea of both sides of the material and etherial, etc.  But I still don't think that empiricism or scientific argument have any place in this.  How do you think they do?  That is, if we are in fact fundamentally in disagreement.  The need for hard material evidence seems to me irreconcilable with the notion of a spiritual reality in which our laws of physics and logic have no place, a "surrational" reality enveloping and containing our own reality.  

But I do not reject the idea of say, discussing the elementary physics of light or water and seeing a way to subordinate it to traditional metaphysical principles.  But I'm suspicious of the idea of looking for confirmation of spiritual realities in the natural world/universe.

Confirmation was probably a bad choice of words. I don't think we can empirically prove anything spiritual, nor did I intend to convey that. My bad

Empirically, no, I don't think the spiritual side of reality can be proven. Empiricism only concerns itself with the corporeal, and is incapable of investigating or providing evidence of anything which lies outside the corporeal.

However, I do believe that the corporeal world manifests/flows out/etc. from the incorporeal, spiritual world. The material world would then contain incomplete reflections of it's origins. If it flows from a spiritual world, then just maybe the natural laws of the physical universe will contain hints of this flow, pointing to reflections.

I wouldn't consider this seeking empirical proof. This doesn't prove that there is a spiritual world which this material world emanates from, but this possible reflection, an imperfect reflection, merely a shadowy symbol of the real thing, causes me to marvel and wonder. ^^

Out of Phlegethon wrote:I agree with the idea of both sides of the material and etherial, etc.  But I still don't think that empiricism or scientific argument have any place in this.  How do you think they do?  That is, if we are in fact fundamentally in disagreement.  The need for hard material evidence seems to me irreconcilable with the notion of a spiritual reality in which our laws of physics and logic have no place, a "surrational" reality enveloping and containing our own reality.  

But I do not reject the idea of say, discussing the elementary physics of light or water and seeing a way to subordinate it to traditional metaphysical principles.  But I'm suspicious of the idea of looking for confirmation of spiritual realities in the natural world/universe.

I think our disagreement is more one of phrasing and technicalities. I do think empiricism and scientific argument have a major place in religious discussion, but what I would call empirical and scientific would not likely fly in most scientific circles. For instance, I don't separate the Orphic doctrine of matter's ensoulment and servitude to Aether from its tangible reflection in the scientific reality of life's reliance on the Sun, the Eye of Aether. They are the same relationship. That is empirical evidence in my book. Though to a 'pure' empiricist, I admit, it would not hardly be so.

I say that the laws of physics and logic are identical with the Divine Laws. If our conceptions of them do not match the divine ones, then there is some misunderstanding on our mortal part. Whereas you describe the material and etherial domains as rational and super-rational, respectively — I, and others of my faith, I imagine, would describe the material world as 'sub-rational/irrational' while the etherial is truly 'rational.'

Per the Ἱερὸς Λόγος, divinity and identity with the Rational/Λογικὸς are effectively indistinguishable.

Yes, I think you are both correct regarding technicalities/word choice. Erodius, the notion of our (sub)reason and the reason of the divine powers is fine with me. And I know what you mean by saying your sense of empirical/scientific would not fly with most definitions currently popular. This is why I try to stress that the nature of the divine powers is beyond our own sense of reason; because the scientific community has accumulated such power over the entire ideological field of Western society, that something as puny as an empirical truth seems to make Truth impotent-- And reason is the banner it marches under. And if one looks at the legacy of the Enlightenment (very popular with contemporary "New Atheists," many of whom are scientists) it would indeed appear that it is not the sleep but the march of reason that creates monsters (look at the rationalism of the French Revolution).

Once dianoetic rationality is separated from the divine, civilization succumbs to decadence. I do not mean moral decadence, but the spiritual decay of a civilization's true roots in the divine. Often times this is done in the name of the naked object-- That one desires the mere flower, without seeing its maker, for example. Or that phenomenological reality engenders an experience that will outlast metaphysics, which seeks to entangle everything in its net, as this train of thought informs us. In any case, these crusades against God in the name of humanism, individualism, and the scientific method are in themselves a naked object! They try to take you to realize nothing, to concede to the meaningless of the universe by denying metaphysical truths and values, for the express purpose of... Nothing. The circularity of this motion resembles an engine that feeds only off its own entropic energy in the mechanical bowels of a train that is going off the rails (and has been for centuries); though for the voices of positivism, this is pure thought, philosophy incarnate; this is, according to our rationalist Western legacy, the very work of Socrates!