Ah, there you are.
"Evidence".
Yes, evidence. For someone who calls himself a
"philosophizer," you seem amazingly unwilling to actually
try to tackle some of the basic questions of philosophy.
For instance, let's start with epistemology, shall we? How
is it, exactly, we know what we know? How can we have
any degree of certainty of the correctness of a given belief,
especially given the readily-observed fact that the human
mind is very adept at what might crudely be called "fooling
itself." In short, how do we distinguish what is "true" from
what we merely think or would like to be true? How do
we know which of our perceptions, if any, we can actually
trust, and for those cases where they cannot be trusted -
are there any procedures we can follow to compensate
for this? There are endless questions that you really need
to think about before you can so casually dismiss the
notion that evidence and reasoning are good tools in the
search for truth.
I know it's true because I've felt Her presence in my Root Chakra.
This is prima facie evidence of Her reality, in my universe. There
is no possible way for me to show you the flow of Kundalini I felt
when my Chakra opened, especially if you deny the very existence
of Kundalini itself! You'll _never, ever, ever_ be able to see that
which you are invested in denial of.
Again, I neither deny nor accept the existence of "kundalini" or
"chakras" or any of these notions. They're very interesting concepts.
But I seriously doubt that any of these have been a part of your
personal belief system since you were born. At some point, you
decided that these things were "true" (while by necessity deciding
that certain other things were "false"). If you didn't do this based
on the evidence available to you at the time, and your own
reasoning - then how did you make these decisions?
But, if you choose, you _could_ heal your own denials, judgements,
You clearly make you own "denials, judgement, etc.," as well, as
is evidenced by:
etc, and actually _observe_ a larger Reality than what's generally
Right there is the judgement, on your part, that what you propose
is a "larger" (presumably, this equates to "superior" or at least
"more complete" version of reality - and yet, why should anyone
accept that this is so?
Imagine that we are both being interviewed by a hypothetical
alien observer who has absolutely zero existing beliefs in this area;
we are each asked to explain our particular views of "reality," etc.,
to this being, so that they can decide which to accept, if any. Why
should you expect your position to be accepted, simply on the basis
of a vigorous assertion, if you can't give any reasons behind it?
Bob M.