Forum:Philip Goddard's site on Self-Realization & Clear-Mindedness

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm a bit surprised nobody so far has brought this site here into attention. It's got quite challenging content, and a certain portion of it is of particular interest to me personally. A deal of cautiousness is adviced, to not be mistaken into believing it's just a "yet another New-Agey webshite", as some might get an instant opinion of it as such, just by looking at its design theme (actually it was once something like this, but later on much of the "spirituality" stuff was dumped away in favor of focusing directly on the topic of clear-mindedness). With that in mind, I would very much appreciate if some people with enough awareness and relevant expertise had done rigorous, open-minded, comprehensive analysis and review of its contents.

I understand that this is going to take a lot of personal motivation and time investment, however any steps towards such goal would still be appreciated. Here is a list of some page links for starters:

Yours sincerely, Protagores (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you said to go into this with an open mind, but the more I read the more I think it is just a new age-y webshite. All Mr. Goddard has done is mix a few Computer Science 101 vocabulary words in with the usual new age potpourri. (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on that please? Apart from bringing in lexicon peculiarities, that is. Protagores (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
New Age "one consciousness" claptrap. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 12:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I haven't exactly seen the term "one consciousness" anywhere on the site (except for some weird question in FAQ), but let me add my two cents on how I see what it is about. The problem with the definition of consciousness here is that - it cannot actually be fully defined, let alone any of its boundaries and alike. (Yeah, the glossary markup is glitchy and causes page scrolls at random on many browsers, that's a known issue.) This also means that common scientific methodologies (especially the falsifiability criteria) aren't so much applicable to the domain of consciousness in principle. What matters, however, is when a model based on observations can be proven helpful, rather than correct. Strictly speaking, this can't be established in an objective way, of course, but there are enough pointers that such observations are reproducible in regards to different people to some extent. Can't say if reasonably enough, however. ;)
As for the fundamental consciousness aspect, as it is presented on site, there's also its defining non-dualistic quality, because of which any attempts on distinguishing between "me" or "you" or "anyone else" on that level are pointless, and any concepts are meaningless. It can only be experienced, and the only people who perceive it supposedly in direct, undistorted manner, are those with fundamental clarity (i.e. "enlightenment", which the author claims to have gained most likely). This isn't the same as what those New Age (and indeed various spiritual traditions) folks are rambling about - it actually looks more like a coherent point. Make of it what you will. Protagores (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)