Spiritism philosophy

[Otavio]

Hi Leo @Leo Gura and forum members,

Hope you all are doing well.

My name is Otavio Costa. I am from Brazil and I am currently living in Australia.

I came across some of your videos for meditation techniques and I really like your approach. Very straightforward with no bullshit of philosophy and religion. I also found your podcast very interesting with great insights.

The reason I am getting touch in with you is because I would like to make you aware of the Spiritism philosophy. I am a very pragmatic and sceptical person but those principles convinced me of the way our life works and the reasons why we are here on the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritism

Basically, this doctrine was established when mediums (individuals who can communicate to spirits) created a framework of questions that assisted them to understand the reasons for human life on earth, and aspects of the spiritual world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Kardec

http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-85872006000100003

This doctrine is very popular in Brazil. There are many high profile mediums there who have been helping thousands of people. The main ones are:

-       Chico Xavier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico_Xavier

-       John of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/João_de_Deus_(medium)

-       Divaldo Franco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divaldo_Pereira_Franco

Please bear in mind that I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything or even trying to promote any kind of religion since I believe the Spiritism is more a framework than ideology . I’m only trying to understand why a doctrine that is based on science and empirical research doesn’t have many exposure in the western society. Why isn’t the scientific community interested in understand more about those phenomena? There are mediums performing spiritual surgeries and healing people (exams have proven their body have been cured) and we are not tapping into those methods to understand how can more people benefit from those healers.

You seem to be a wise person with a distinct sense to separate bullshit from reality. I would love to have on thoughts on this matter.

Take care,

Otavio Costa

Edited November 22, 2017 by Otavio
add user

[Leo Gura]

@Otavio Why does science reject it? Because science is a paradigm which says that reality is strictly rational and material.

Science is not free of metaphysical assumptions. Not at all. Science is a conceptual enterprise, so it must be loyal to concepts over BEing.

[The White Belt]

@Leo Gura Not all science though right? You do mean in a general sense? David Bohm springs to mind. 

[Highest]

Mediums can speak to spirits because their consciousness is heightened enough. Science is limited and the western world will die spiritually if it depends on it for too long. To know existence, existence has to know itself trough itself.

The Shaman is the most hardcore being, he travels trough the spirit world after his absolute ego death, he knows what he is, immortal spirit. Death is nothing but a transition to the after life, the material world simply doesn't exist, and spirits/non-human entities are common. Science cannot know stuff like this, only consciousness can. Atheism along with materialistic science is dead, but the Shaman always knew that. 

[Otavio]

@Leo Gura

I think you're right. Science expects everything to be black and white and this kind of think is not predicable and really escape from their rational framework. But I would expect someone from the scientific (apart from Oprah who made a documentary with John of God) community trying to understand this phenomena.

If I can suggest a good documentary to you, I would say "Healing: Miracles, Mysteries and John of God (2008)". It is very inspiring and illuminating without any religious beaisis. 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Otavio
add user

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, The White Belt said:

@Leo Gura Not all science though right? You do mean in a general sense? David Bohm springs to mind. 

Mainstream science is a cultural construct. That's what I'm talking about. Of course individual scientists can vary from the average.

Yes, of course there are a handful of wise scientists around. Although surprising few. Even David Bohm didn't really grasp it.

I know of very few scientists who really understand the nature of reality, metaphysics, or epistemology. Science is simply NOT that kind of activity. Science's focus is elsewhere.

[Otavio]

@Leo Gura you should lead a research for a scientific study of the spirit. You have the audience, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find the funds. Even crowdfunding must work well. Unless, it is not a priority at the moment  

[ajasatya]

34 minutes ago, Otavio said:

@Leo Gura you should lead a research for a scientific study of the spirit. You have the audience, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find the funds. Even crowdfunding must work well. Unless, it is not a priority at the moment  

the science to study the spirit already exists. it's called self-inquiry.

[Leo Gura]

I would never be accepted in the scientific community. I would be called a psuedo-scientific, creationist quack who is trying to use science to backwards-rationalize his religious dogmas.

That's not a game that can be won in that way.

[art]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I would never be accepted in the scientific community. I would be called a psuedo-scientific, creationist quack who is trying to use science to backwards-rationalize his religious dogmas.

That's not a game that can be won in that way.

Common bro... Put it on your vision board! 

[Extreme Z7]

@Leo Gura Don't forget New Age hippie

[Pierre]

Sure, science is founded on the metaphysical assumptions that lie at the core of western culture. But its basic attitude is nevertheless one of humility, openness and rigor. And these are the same qualities we need on our journey to self-discovery.

[Leo Gura]

13 hours ago, Pierre said:

humility, openness

Not in practice. Moreso only in theory.

There is a big gap between the ideal of science (our cuture's myth of science) vs how it's actually practiced and held. Scientists are no less dogmatic than most people.

Good luck trying to get one of these "humble, open scientists" to seriously consider that evolution is non-random, for example, or that consciousness isn't happening inside a brain.

[Joseph Maynor]

On 11/22/2017 at 6:51 AM, The White Belt said:

@Leo Gura Not all science though right? You do mean in a general sense? David Bohm springs to mind. 

What is Science?  You should contemplate that before you ask whether something is or is not a Science.  You should first have clarity of the category of Science, no?

Edited November 26, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Joel3102]

@Leo Gura how would you demonstrate evolution is non random? Is there evidence? Or is it a direct consciousness kind of insight?

[Nahm]

It’s an illusion of now, happening within consciousness, vs a slow happening in the past, random, and without an all encompassing reason. 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Joel3102 said:

@Leo Gura how would you demonstrate evolution is non random? Is there evidence? Or is it a direct consciousness kind of insight?

Of course there is evidence. For one, try writing a computer simulation which uses random numbers to generate a useful invention of any kind, like writing an original 10-page research paper. You will find it is impossible, because the odds against it are larger than the number of atoms in the known universe by several hundred orders of magnitude.

If you left a super-computer running for 1 trillion years, it would still not be enough time to produce one original 10-page research paper, let alone something as complex and delicate as a mitochondria or the photosynthetic cycle.

Evolution happens, but it is highly non-random. It is intelligent as a motherfucker.

As information theory says: you cannot use noise to create information. Noise destroys information.

[Pierre]

@Leo Gura Who said it was random or unintelligent? That's what creationists who don't understand natural selection believe about science.

[Leo Gura]

@Pierre Modern science defines evolution as occurring through random mutations and natural selection.

Scientists will get very angry at you if you try to float the idea that mutations are non-random but intelligent. They will immediately reject that as superstitious nonsense.

Also, natural selection is not the same thing as intelligence. Natural selection actually works through a fairly dumb mechanism. It actually IS possible to use natural selection to select for useful traits. What is NOT possible is to use natural selection to invent a new useful trait. Because selection needs grist for the mill, so to speak. It needs a pool of already existent inventions to sort through.

So modern science has natural selection right, but random mutations wrong.

[Pierre]

@Leo Gura I like the idea of intelligence lying right in the heart of reality, being reality itself so to speak...quit taoist. I guess that's what you're hinting at. What I reject is a kind of cosmic intelligence ruling things with a very human-like purposefulness. The God of Intelligent Design.

I appreciate science for its honesty, but I'm well aware of its limitations. I just don't like people rejecting it because it hurts their nice woo-woo beliefs. I know you're not one of them.