Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Will Due

Insight or Evidence

150 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will Due
Posted (edited)

 

Insight or Evidence

 

Like with so many other things, there exists a contradiction in terms between Insight and Evidence.

 

Evidence often hinders a person's inclination towards spiritual exploration; while Insight excersises a person's nature towards spiritual discovery and growth.

 

Which of the two is preferable?

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Will Due said:

 

Insight or Evidence

Like with so many other things, there is contradiction in terms. 

Evidence often hinders a person's inclination towards spiritual exploration; while Insight excersises a person's nature towards spiritual discovery and growth.

 

Which of the two is preferable?

 

 

Evidence can tell us about that which is in the range of our physical senses and instruments. Insight comes from gifted individuals that perceive and receive information through the theoretical super-physical senses.

Evidence is something we can show to others physical senses and reason. 

Insight is the way we can get at the questions that really matter, the nature of reality and our life and is the more important. Insight is always more controversial than evidence as it can not be objectively shown to others through the physical senses and reason. Judgment on the quality of purported insight into the nature of reality is a more challenging endeavor then. 

For me, the only really important things that I know have come to me from the insights of the gifted and masters. I have found those I believe to be most gifted dovetail on the worldview I hold that includes insight into more than the physical realm of reality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Piney said:

Evidence doesn't hinder anything. 

 

True, if you're O.J. Simpson.

 

1 minute ago, Piney said:

insight points you towards evidence. 

 

True, just ask the folks who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
16 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Which of the two is preferable?

 

Well, in police work both are needed. So you can have both. 

Where are you getting this stuff Will? :hmm:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Just now, Piney said:

Well, in police work both are needed. So you can have both. 

 

Yes you can have both but not with making purposeful gains spiritually in my opinion. 

 

Just now, Piney said:

Where are you getting this stuff Will? :hmm:

 

From the evidence of insight of course. ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth

This seems like a false dichotomy. One can have insight based on the evidence they see or are presented.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

Yes you can have both but not with making purposeful gains spiritually in my opinion. 

 

Really? filtering out all the B.S. with evidence helped me adopt my current state. 

No spirits, the Bible is just stories and our tribal stories are just stories. I no longer need all the fluff of "medicine junk".

This just sounds like a lame justification for all the fallacies in the U.B. to me.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Piney said:

This just sounds like a lame justification for all the fallacies in the U.B. to me.  

 

This has nothing to do with the UB.

It has to do with hindrances vs advantages.

They work together and one usually outweighs the other depending on the circumstances when it comes to spiritual matters.

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

It has to do with hindrances vs advantages.

 

There is no hindrances I can see from using both. 

Edited by Piney
**** Atlantis
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
6 minutes ago, Piney said:

There is no hindrances I can see from using both. 

 

Which one do you see the most with?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
29 minutes ago, Scholar4Truth said:

This seems like a false dichotomy. One can have insight based on the evidence they see or are presented.  

Pretty much, I think. Ruling things out, though, because of lack of evidence, is shutting a door that needs not be closed, in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Which one do you see the most with?

 

 

You use both equally. One balances the other. My insights on digs combined with evidence helps reconstruct my past culture.

That was part of my job as a Cultural Resources Officer. The archaeologists found things (evidence) then looked to me for insights. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Piney said:

You use both equally. One balances the other. My insights on digs combined with evidence helps reconstruct my past culture.

That was part of my job as a Cultural Resources Officer. The archaeologists found things (evidence) then looked to me for insights. 

 

 

What do you think? Before the archeologists started their dig, did they use their insight more than the evidence to know where to start a dig like Heinrich Schliemann did?

Of course I know you know when it comes to digging for evidence of spiritual findings, most of the time if not always, insight is the only thing available to use.

Insight comes first.

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

What do you think? Before the archeologists started their dig, did they use their insight more than the evidence to know where to start a dig like Heinrich Schliemann did?

 

Schliemann used insight and evidence to find the Luwian city of Wilusa (Troy). Alaksandu (Paris) was known from Hittite accounts and the site was a pilgrimage spot throughout ancient times.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Just now, Piney said:

Schliemann used insight and evidence to find the Luwian city of Wilusa (Troy). Alaksandu (Paris) was known from Hittite accounts and the site was a pilgrimage spot throughout ancient times.

 

I guess you're right but before there was evidence Troy was very much considered a myth. Just like Atlantis still is today.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I guess you're right but before there was evidence Troy was very much considered a myth. Just like Atlantis still is today.

Atlantis was never a "myth" it was a "allegory" which Plato himself pretty much said he made up. It not found in any legends among any Indo-Europeans or Semites.  

It wasn't considered a myth or real place until Ignatius Donnelly and his racist theories and he was told by academia he was full of crap. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
10 minutes ago, Piney said:

Schliemann used insight and evidence to find the Luwian city of Wilusa (Troy). Alaksandu (Paris) was known from Hittite accounts and the site was a pilgrimage spot throughout ancient times.

Actually he didn't. He took over Frank Calvert's excavations on Calvert's own lands and it was Calvert who convinced him that what was found was Troy. Schliemann didn't believe it originally. 

cormac

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
8 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I guess you're right but before there was evidence Troy.

There was always evidence of Troy. It was a pilgrimage spot in the ancient Greek world.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Actually he didn't. He took over Frank Calvert's excavations on Calvert's own lands and it was Calvert who convinced him that what was found was Troy. Schliemann didn't believe it originally. 

cormac

 

So it was Calvert who had the insight into Troy then.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Actually he didn't. He took over Frank Calvert's excavations on Calvert's own lands and it was Calvert who convinced him that what was found was Troy. Schliemann didn't believe it originally. 

cormac

But there is a record of Alexander the Great and others visiting the spot. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, Will Due said:

 

So it was Calvert who had the insight into Troy then.

But he still had ancient records to pull from. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, Piney said:

There was always evidence of Troy. It was a pilgrimage spot in the ancient Greek world.

True. The most it ever was considered was as a legend. 

cormac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 minute ago, Piney said:

But there is a record of Alexander the Great and others visiting the spot. 

Also true, but Schliemann gets the credit for what WASN'T actually his originally. Calvert got robbed academically IMO. 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

How much do you think legends and myths invoke insight?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.