👈 || UNSAYING | CONTEMPLATION | TRADITION | MEDITATION | DISCUSSION | BACK MATTER || 👉

It was Thomas S. Kuhn who wrote of revolutionary scientific paradigms and the role that they have historically played in the expansion of scientific practice, and as well, their similarity to political revolutions:

What are scientific revolutions, and what is their function in scientific development?… In particular, …scientific revolutions are here taken to be those non-cumulative, developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one. …Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both? One aspect of the parallelism must already be apparent. Political revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created. In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature, to which that paradigm itself had previously lead the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution.⁠¹

This growing sense that a paradigm is no longer functioning adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature is present today in certain areas of science. The aspect of nature that is not adequately covered is that of the origin, character, and explicit causal nature of what we call consciousness.

There is a need recognized by increasing numbers of scientists and medical practitioners, many of whom have organized themselves into multiple global efforts, to expand the working paradigm of science in order to include non-material, as well as the non-material aspect of hybrid, phenomena within its purview — on an equal standing. However, I see that there is a necessary change that must first be made to the evidentiary standards used for the verification of scientific theories in order for this goal to be actually achieved.

In order to accomplish this change, insights from a phenomenology of advanced meditative states can be applied to the study of the non-material and hybrid phenomena so that valid scientific evidence can be obtained. Only in this way can the non-subjective event underlying the subjective accounts of these events be properly categorized so that the event, and not the subjective account, can be accepted as scientific evidence.

The need for such standards then, is plainly visible: non-material phenomena by their very nature cannot be verified by the existing normative praxis within science. The problem to be solved by developing the use of such a phenomenology is that to be scientifically studied, non-material phenomena must be intelligible, which they are currently deemed not to be.

By developing a phenomenology based upon the veridical recognition (imperience) of advanced meditative events that are expected to occur during a longterm dedicated practice, and applying that phenomenology to non-material, or hybrid, mental phenomena, we succeed in accessing the objective truth of such events prior to all ontological interpretations & structuring of these events, in order to find the non-subjective truth of the event, which is recognized as the event occurs.

ཨེ་མ་ཧོ། ཕན་ནོ་ཕན་ནོ་སྭཱཧཱ།

The following is a rational argument for the validity of such a phenomenology that is developed from a key insight into the nature of mind via an imperience of an advanced meditative state:

Given that: Advanced meditation techniques have been practiced for millennia (and longer) — by uncountable numbers of humans — with the authentic goal of having a direct recognition of the nature of mind. Note: this nature of mind has often been called by other names all of which point to the origin of all.

Given that: The accomplishment of this recognition event is universally accessible to those of keen ability, and attested to (has been well documented and for which the evidence has survived to the present day) in uncountable sacred texts, ways of living, and by living masters, the world over.

Given that: The accomplishment of this recognition event is categorically transformative of the understanding, motivation, and behavior of the individual, i.e., the accomplishment of this recognition is indisputable since it is actualized by the individual, rather than being a conceptual understanding.

Given that: the paradigmatic understanding of Responsive Naturing is derived from the transformed understanding that this recognition event actualizes in the meditator.

Given that: The derivation of the axiom of Responsive Naturing is potentiated by this recognition event.

Given that: The actualization of this derivation occurs when the attention is so directed that this derivation intuitively arises, is the reason that training/developing one’s attention is the first step towards this accomplishment.

Given that:

  • A) Advanced meditative events are expected to occur during a longterm dedicated meditation practice.
  • B) One of these events is the immediate impersonal recognition of the true nature of mind.
  • C) “Immediate impersonal” means that it is prior to being interpreted, or structured, by a personally-held ontological understanding.
  • D) The immediate impersonal recognition of this nature occurs as a mental event (that is immediately and impersonally recognized as it occurs, prior to any interpretation or structuring by a subjective ontological understanding), thus it is veridical. (For if it is not, then nothing whatsoever can be known.)
  • E) All mental events, being the activity of mind, are singularly of this nature.
  • F) All mental events that are immediately and impersonally recognized are not subjective prior to the application of a personally held ontological understanding.
  • G) All mental events that are immediately and impersonally recognized, but not subjectively interpreted or structured by any ontological understanding are necessarily a priori objective veridical facts, since all experience is subjectively interpreted and structured by an ontological understanding.
  • H) A phenomenology of these a priori objective veridical facts, based upon the advanced meditative event of an immediate impersonal recognition of the true nature of mind, will supply veridical facts about all such mental events.
  • I) Veridical facts are scientifically relevant.

Therefore, these a priori non-subjective veridical facts are necessary truth in the same way that mathematics are.

ཨེ་མ་ཧོ། ཕན་ནོ་ཕན་ནོ་སྭཱཧཱ།
👈 || UNSAYING | CONTEMPLATION | TRADITION | MEDITATION | DISCUSSION | BACK MATTER || 👉

Footnote:

¹ “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Thomas S. Kuhn, 1962, Fourth Edition, 2012, The University of Chicago Press, pgs 92–93

Share this post