ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Peer Review and the Scientific Process

<< < (37/47) > >>

^ I think one of the problems is that the word "homeopathy" is often used to refer to naturopathy as well, and creates confusion as to what homeopathy proper actually is. But, as for homeopathy proper, I have no clue what would make anyone cling to that belief - it just doesn't make any sense.

If one had read the 1986 Cell paper (Baltimore), then one could have regarded homoeopathy as being scientifically founded - proven. With such proof, one would not have needed to "believe" in it.
However, if, after the debunking, one actually believed in it (absent the proof), then that would arguably be typical of a "religious" belief (irrational). Likewise, if, after the debunking, one still practiced homoeopathy, then that could be irrational too, but perhaps understandable if (say) practicing homoeopathy had been one's primary source of income and one could not afford to dump it, and so one cynically rode the bucking bronco. Arguably not much different to a soothsayer or snake-oil salesman, really.

The irrational twisting and turning of those who would persist in believing as true that which was clearly falsifiable or not able to be substantiated (not true). I find that twisting and turning, when their religio-political beliefs are challenged or threatened by reality, to be embarrassing and cringeworthy in the extreme - e.g., whether it's Climate Change™ (this thread), or religious faith (refer the Faith v. Science thread).
It seems to be classic Ahamkara, and we are all potentially susceptible to it.

The thing that puzzles me is - why do we have to make ourselves believe in A versus B in the first place, if A and B are things that we don't have any observable and conclusive evidence of that either of them is true, or more true than the other?
Instead of just preferring which one we would like to be true (like in the book "The Life of Pi"), why can't we just hold belief in abeyance? If one does that, then one can usually look at things with a more open mind and a much less cluttered paradigm.
Whereas Pi had a very good reason for believing in an imagined story rather than the brutal and agonising reality, most people don't usually have to believe in anything. Pi's irrational belief probably saved his sanity - it enabled him to escape reality yet still be able to function as part of this world - whereas we are not usually put in such a predicament.

So why do we seem to persist in living in an illusion - in Ahamkara?

^ You lost me.

Can you tl;dr what Ahamkara is? The page there just blathers on and makes it sound like nonsense. Does it just mean "delusion"?

^ You lost me.
Can you tl;dr what Ahamkara is? The page there just blathers on and makes it sound like nonsense. Does it just mean "delusion"?
-Renegade (April 27, 2015, 09:09 AM)
--- End quote ---

No, it doesn't "just mean 'delusion' ".
There's a definition in that knol. You do need to make the investment of time and cognitive surplus to read/understand what ahamkara is. I can't explain it any better than I do in that knol, which is already much condensed from the philosophy lecture notes and texts that I drew it from, with added examples.

It's actually a simple concept - a tool for understanding - but very profound and useful when one does understand it. I personally was slow to understand it. When the penny eventually dropped, it literally changed my life, my paradigms, and my way of thinking.
In a way, it's like learning TM - dead simple but it could take a while for one to get a grip on it.
Someone else on this forum got it in a flash - even thanked me for introducing them to it. We're each in a different state of receptivity to things like this. A Hindu friend of mine saw it pretty quickly too - he hadn't come across it before.
If you can't understand it or see what potential use it has, then maybe you are not "ready" for it yet. It's for "them as has eyes to see". I don't know. I'm no expert. I'm still learning.

FWIW, here's some of what Wikipedia currently has to say about Ahamkara:

Ahaṃkāra (अहंकार) is a Sanskrit term that is related to the ego and egoism - that is, the identification or attachment of one's ego.

--- End quote ---

Vedic philosophy teaches that when one's mind is in a state of ahamkara, one is in a state of subjective illusion, where the mind has bound the concept of one's self with an external thing. That thing can be a tangible, material object, or it can be a concept (such as the concept of the fight for peace). The ego is involved in constructing the illusion.

--- End quote ---


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version