> reject spirituality as incompatible with science or put more effort in rational attempts to integrate them

The paradox though is that scientific knowledge is knowledge acquired through observation and reason, both of which must present themselves to an observer. Specifically, it must present itself to an observer-beyond-quality (or present themselves within a field of observation) because if we find an observer that has qualities, those qualities would be perceived by something "earlier." That is to say, if a measurement or argument is made then to whom (or in what) is it made?

Science is always limited in scope. It can only describe that which is observable (or deductions made from observation). You could extend science to include philosophy (and consider even our discussion here as philosophy) and then the limits of reason allow you only to define its own limits.

This argument has been made in some form or another by Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Bohr, Godel, Susan Greenfield, Roger Penrose, and hundreds of others. The One (or the Zero) is the only way to solve any problem of hard consciousness, by allowing Knowingness itself to have modulations of experience within itself.

The proper integration of science and spiritualism would seem to be that each acknowledges the domain of the other. That is, if the discussion is about the observable or rational, it's in the realm of science and made more understandable by the methods and tools of science. If the discussion is about That, quality-free substratum in which observations or deductions are made, then it is an act of autotelic contemplation. That last statement is a bit absurd. It means one can contemplate the original substratum of the Self by just being without thinking, which is exactly what the various mystic traditions have taught.

It would be a treasure if someone were to articulate this simply for a modern, secular-minded audience, in a way that would convince them to keep quiet for a few minutes and let the experience of "zero-ness" become self-evident. Even this self-evidence appears in a substratum of course, but in that moment, there's a blissful aha that would put a lot of these long essays and discussions to rest.

That's good. This does seem to assume, a bit too strongly for my taste, that spirituality is only contained in the nothing/non-thought.

For another model, I see the way science and spirituality were integrated in the early days of the scientific revolution by folks like Kepler, Mersenne, Kircher, Descartes, Leibniz, Hooke, Newton, etc.

All adopted a spiritual frame of (roughly) "there is a universal harmony" and a scientific frame "I can articulate and understand this harmony through empirical data and mathematical modeling". The spiritual side deeply motivated them as individuals to conduct science. The data inevitably showed that their original ideas of universal harmony weren't quite right -- but that there was ample evidence for the real universal harmony, which were taken as both scientific and spiritual insights.

Absolutely, it's certainly auspicious when your life work is an act of devotion. And also it would be too strong for my taste as well to say devotion and contemplation is only contained in some sort of nothing-apart-from-something. To harmonize them would be to realize that nothing can be apart from Nothing (and so all is allowed).

> nothing can be apart from Nothing

Clarify? There are mysteries in the one, such as the fact that if there is something surrounded by nothing (like a black dot on a sheet of paper), that is already a Twoness, not a Oneness.

You can allow for conceptual twoness but both have to exist within the same space. Space itself is said to pervade the sheet, the dot, the pencil, etc. So if you take one more step back from space, then you say, in which common substratum do space, time, constraints, etc exist? What pervades these like space pervades the sheet and dot?

A panpsychist would say whatever this is, it must contain the most fundamental building blocks from which we derive conscious experience. But you don't have to go that far, you just have to sit still and inquire into that original zero point that allows for your own individual (seemingly dualistic) subject experience.

You could make an analogy (this is borrowed from Advaita): yes there are many waves on an ocean, but the ocean itself is one. Conceptually there are many waves but in reality there isn't anything such as a wave.

Similarly your own bubble of conscious experience is tied to local instrumentation (your eyes, your brain, etc). But like bubbles in a basin of soapy water, it's really not substantially apart.

If you think of matter probabilistically, you realize the best analog is just "information" — every experience of this information arises from something. Of course twoness in this information is a matter of fact, but it's easy enough to say yes, these are abstractions of One. Or these are abstractions of Zero.

It's just a matter of language and what you prescribe to reality or what you prescribe to conceptual illusion.

>However, I think we should either reject spirituality as incompatable with science or put more effort in rational attempts to integrate them.

By what principle do we determine that there isn't room for both even though they might not integrate at all?

Well, if the maps cover the same territory, they should align, no?