techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Quote:
Is there any meaning to the claims of "enlightened gurus"?
To the individual, perhaps. At large, no.
The world is under no obligation to make sense to us.
I was thinking about this a bit on the way to work.
It seems like our very ability to harness the laws of nature - whether in science, smooth living, or simply good interaction with other people, it comes down to how well a person can conform to the laws of the universe. One of the things that AMORC and most of the Rosicrucian orders are really big on is cosmic law and finding one's way toward mastery of life through constantly bringing yourself closer to conformity with the real. Not to adamantly claim anything supernatural about it, just to point out that it does seem like there's a coherent goal to shoot for - ie. accurate living and thinking.
I recall a remark by Einstein, a sort of marvel of 'rightness' that the laws of the universe ran with the laws of the mind. That the laws of the mind enabled us to discover the laws of the universe.
I recall a remark, attributed iirc to William James, though a cursory search turns nothing up, as to the connection between the method chosen to investigate a phenomenom, and what is discovered and said about it. That this assumption that the truth of a phenomenom just is whatever the particular investigative method turns up was troubling.
I share the suspicion of the latter remark.
I don't think there are singular, non-contradictory laws of life. I hold to pluralism, rather than an integrated monism. I think the 'real' is a shadow, an inference.
_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.
You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.