postlinearity - Latest Comments in Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Local Swingers — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:50:33 -0000

great post

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Compromise Agreement — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:14:15 -0000

I like the way you have written the article. Extremely infomrative!

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

natural tinnitus cure — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:53:18 -0000

If science finds ways of detecting subtle energy, that's great.

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

TITI Direct's Blog — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:58:46 -0000

When you look inside the radio for the source of the sound you are not allowed to think that it might be transmitted from elsewhere.

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Computer Repair Stockport — Sat, 08 May 2010 09:39:19 -0000

English is a very clumsy language for talking about the mind

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Capitol Hill Chiropractor — Sat, 08 May 2010 09:22:52 -0000

Science had helped us so much regarding with our development for several things especially in technology and medical fields

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Skiing Goggles — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 10:11:46 -0000

Thanks for sharing

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Dual Sim Phone — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:50:30 -0000

couldnt agree more

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Watch Phones — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:08:17 -0000

very informative

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

edinburgh dentist — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:26:59 -0000

there are some specific terms in sanskrit for different layers, such as sukshma sharira, karana sharira (subtle body, causal body), which could lend itself to the interpretation that there are discrete levels .... and just because the mind uses words, and words are a bit chunky, and mind is a great categorizing machine, making differences in order to do its job, lets say discrete is how it is....

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Cotton Yarn Exporter — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:12:31 -0000

“Western science defends a mechanistic world view-if something cannot be measured or observed then it is not real. Modern science, and subtle energy concepts do not happily coexist, as the very definition of subtle energies, is that they are unknown/too refined to be measured by present levels of technology.”

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

gregorylent — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:12:42 -0000

i agree with you ..

thanks much,

gregory

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Duff McDuffee — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:50:27 -0000

Most people in our materialist culture tend to want to defend their interior experience (which is more direct) with the indirect knowledge of science, saying things like "eventually science will catch up and prove that subtle energy/mind/love really exist." But I think that's backwards.

I say, "eventually science will catch up--and it is beginning to catch up--and realize that the whole notion of objectivity is flawed, that there is no observed without an observer, and that therefore subjectivity and interconnectedness is more primary and real than this abstraction called objectivity."

If science finds ways of detecting subtle energy, that's great. But science can't even detect or understand love! Most psychological science still believes that mind is an "epiphenomenon," a myth created by neuronal activity. Are we to argue that love is biochemical and neurological to justify our care for each other? Seems ridiculous to me! It's time to say my experience is real, dammit, and I'm not justifying it through that-which-can-be-measured.

Measuring is also good to not get too carried away, which is why I appreciate people like Dean Radin who are looking into the effectiveness of things like distance healing/prayer, psychic phenomenon, etc. Integration of mind and heart is very important so that you don't make an ass out of yourself! :)

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

gregorylent — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:03:03 -0000

wow, i love this from you .. "By using the metaphors of physics, we subtly reinforce the materialist reductionist paradigm, the idea that all of the universe is reducible to physics." and what follows ...

that should be an entire post right there ..

i was thinking about radio waves, prior to radio receivers, (would they have been "real" to the scientific mind?) and growth in the subtlety of instrumentation ...

a lot to consider in your great comment, language, conceptual systems ..

let me say thank you for this, right now, and then maybe revisit it later...

wow, again

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Duff McDuffee — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:47:55 -0000

Great article. I've been thinking lately about the use of the word "energy" in reference to chi/kundalini/etc.

"Energy" is a word that refers primarily to physics, as is "force" as in "life force energy." By using the metaphors of physics, we subtly reinforce the materialist reductionist paradigm, the idea that all of the universe is reducible to physics. This pisses off scientists--because one can't measure "subtle energy"--and confuses the matter. "Subtle energy" is not objective...but then again, neither is physics, as "objectivity" continues to be revealed as being a myth.

What are some alternative words for "energy" which capture the subjective reality of this phenomena? Well, we could simply use chi, kundalini, n/om, shakti, etc., or we could use English words like vitality, aliveness, or even *gasp* spirit.

Personally I think we should strongly advocate for subjective language like spirit instead of attempting to fit into the fundamentalist materialist paradigm of physics, thus solving the problem of subtle energy by rejecting the frame of the discussion.

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

geneveive — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:36:53 -0000

thanks.

sorry you're thinking of retiring the blog

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

gregorylent — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:21:48 -0000

i agree with your whole statement :-)

there are some specific terms in sanskrit for different layers, such as sukshma sharira, karana sharira (subtle body, causal body), which could lend itself to the interpretation that there are discrete levels .... and just because the mind uses words, and words are a bit chunky, and mind is a great categorizing machine, making differences in order to do its job, lets say discrete is how it is....

and experientially, let us say continuum, from gross to subtlest ....

perhaps this is why the metaphor of a path has been so popular, continuous journey, milestones along the way ....

and why it is at first gently suggested, and then later insisted upon, that the mind is not completely useful in getting where we are going ....

one thing about meditation, it expands things in such a way that seeming opposites become reconciled ...

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

geneveive — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:53:23 -0000

thanks for opening up such a great area for discussion. About the senses existing at subtler levels......do you think the subtle is a discrete thing interacting with the gross? or are the two on a kind of continuum? with our minds just finding it useful (?) to make a distinction about the different ends of that.

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

gregorylent — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:58:31 -0000

nice observations ..

the senses themselves exist at subtler levels, and consciousness has subtler levels, is one of the understandings in eastern cultures, especially those in which spiritual practices evolved.

real? dunno. experience-able? yes. imagination? according to science, probably .. to yogis, maybe not:-) ...

my feeling about science, they could go a bit faster, by allowing a bit of the eastern viewpoints into their models...

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

geneveive — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:26:54 -0000

Maybe a change in western attitudes to subtle phenomena will come / is coming from broader cultural changes.

Science has been so successful at what it does that it's been given special status in the west as a means of knowing that is believed superior to other means of knowing.

And as far as i can tell, its territory has been exploring what can be known, directly or indirectly, by the senses. And I'm not sure how you define subtle phenomena,.........but I'm thinking of phenomena that are not detectable by the senses. And if those things are so, (and they may not be), then maybe science doesn't see this as its territory of investigation ... ...(the denial of such possibilities is another story, sure).

And change may come through society giving more value to the methods of enquiry which already exist for exploring subtle phenomena - I'm thinking meditation, some kinds of artistic enquiry, there's probably more.... If these practices were given more respect as means of knowing, the 'legitimacy' of the subtle would grow and our understanding of it would likely develop.

And then maybe if the whole culture opened up to the subtle in a conscious way, science would follow, and who knows what would come .......

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

tweetip — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:54:06 -0000

Thank you. The Princeton EGG project uses random bits, we use random words. Our goals are very similar - quantifying a feeling.

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Escape into Life — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:43:49 -0000

woops

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Escape into Life — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:43:15 -0000

I find it interesting that you find Woolf overrated . . . what's the basis for this?

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

Escape into Life — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:42:49 -0000

i meant to direct my comment to Shefaly

Re: Science and the Problem of Subtle Energy

gregorylent — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:32:27 -0000

ah, not me, the reply is to shefaly above ..