Mysticism: Why do/don’t you care?
Just spotted a post by someone commenting on the difficulty of engaging discussions about mysticism.
It seems to me the major problem for people willing to engage in this area is that there is a whole quagmire of personalised terminology to wade through, and that once they’ve done all the work and reached a point where they understand how and why certain terms are being put to use by who they’re trying to engage with, they may find there is nothing at all they really find of any interest or use.
My general assessment is that discussions surrounding mysticism are very prone to having the requirement of an ‘initiation’ period that the willing participants, through experience, rarely (if ever) find any actual value from.
I find that mysticism has a lot in common with literary theory and general hermeneutics, as the participants have to be less willing to ‘combat’ (debate) during in the first several phases of explanation or they’ll find themselves finished before the other has even begun.
Basically it requires patience without interruption combined with a willingness to put aside any initial disagreements or concerns about the practical use or reasoning involved.
What are your thoughts about mysticism and what experiences have you had when you’ve honestly and genuinely tried to engage with others who try to espouse their thoughts and ideas about/within ‘mystic’ ... er ... ‘methodology’?
It seems to me the major problem for people willing to engage in this area is that there is a whole quagmire of personalised terminology to wade through, and that once they’ve done all the work and reached a point where they understand how and why certain terms are being put to use by who they’re trying to engage with, they may find there is nothing at all they really find of any interest or use.
My general assessment is that discussions surrounding mysticism are very prone to having the requirement of an ‘initiation’ period that the willing participants, through experience, rarely (if ever) find any actual value from.
I find that mysticism has a lot in common with literary theory and general hermeneutics, as the participants have to be less willing to ‘combat’ (debate) during in the first several phases of explanation or they’ll find themselves finished before the other has even begun.
Basically it requires patience without interruption combined with a willingness to put aside any initial disagreements or concerns about the practical use or reasoning involved.
What are your thoughts about mysticism and what experiences have you had when you’ve honestly and genuinely tried to engage with others who try to espouse their thoughts and ideas about/within ‘mystic’ ... er ... ‘methodology’?
Comments (431)
Perhaps the way to approach the issue is to talk about talking about mysticism, rather than talking about mysticism.
One way of engaging the issues is through mutual understanding and experience of an established mystical tradition, such as can be found in Hinduism for example. But this is fraught with difficulty too, because the analysis, or academic understanding, or interpretation of the tradition in question easily becomes confusing, opaque even secular. This combined with the degree of, or personal interpretation of the tradition, or lack thereof, by the person engaging in conversation. Also mystical understanding is intensely personal and is often gained through personal experience. Such an experience may be either unintelligible to the person, or uintelligable to another. Or how do you find the words, or do the words mean the same thing to another.
In my experience the best mutual understanding I have achieved with another is through spending time together, spending time with people in an ashram and having a teacher disciple relationship with another. I have had interesting experiences with gurus, but again there are problems sharing understanding with gurus. I found this was overcome by repeated worship in the presence of a guru in puja.
This investigation viewed in hindsight was just one of a number of formative experiences and explorations in my path towards a mystical understanding. Part of the reason for coming to sites like this was for me to try to integrate some of this with the philosophical tradition, but this has not been easy, not withstanding my belief that they are not incompatible. I find the philosophy quite rigid.
Any thoughts?
That would’ve been a perfect title for this thread! :)
Personally I’ve found that a greater appreciation of human behavior and psychology can help the ‘uninitiated’ persist where otherwise they would’ve just given up and moved on. If something is clearly of serious importance to someone, that - in and of itself - is a very intriguing case from a psychological or behavioral perspective.
I certainly agree that observing is better that trying to participate initially, if that is what you mean by Quoting Punshhh and having interesting experiences.
Maybe that is the key point. To simply have the experience of someone who has a strong mystical tilt and do no more than observe - reserving judgement and holding your tongue when you feel you require ‘clarification’. A suspicion is necessary, but some emphasis on the ‘suspicion’ that there may be something of use beneath the seeming misuse and misapplication of words (such as with the Tao Te Ching).
Yet, my experience with mysticism, which doesn't amount to much I'm afraid, has been less than satisfactory.
Firstly, the goal seems rather too ambitious and in being thus, there's the high probability that mysticism is going to miss its target by a mile or even more.
Secondly, the goal, as knowledge of ultimate reality, is not something radically different from that of non-mystical traditions and so not much of an advancement there.
Thirdly, the methods employed in mysticism - insight and its ilk - seems to be utterly useless as a method of sharing knowledge gained through its use for there are no arguments in mysticism, no arguments that could be studied and understood.
All in all, mysticism doesn't offer anything new and its methods lack the universal accessibility of reasoned arguments - the lifeblood of non-mystical traditions.
Mysticism to some extent involves the concept of freeing oneself from the constraints of the mundane (viz the whole monastic tradition is a separation from the worldly).
Comparably, scientific theories or worldviews can sometimes become trapped in dead ends, which require a radical rethinking of core beliefs (paradigm shifts). Likewise individuals can become trapped in self-reinforcing frameworks of prejudiced beliefs.
So if mysticism aims explicitly at deconstructing mundane reality in order to work towards actualizing a more idealized version (as in the example of a monastic community) then I would say it absolutely does offer the possibility of something new, and potentially meaningful. Certainly at the very least as an exercise in self-discipline or introspective awareness.
[quote=Google]Mystic: a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.[/quote]
[quote=Wiki]Mysticism is the practice of religious ecstasies, together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.[/quote]
So do you want to talk about 'whatever ideologies' or 'self-surrender,' or 'the practice of ecstasies', or what? Is there a 'philosophy of' any of this that is worth discussing?
It's not that i don't care, but I wonder if there is anything in the abstract to be said. I practice gardening, and I talk about gardening with other gardeners; I don't make threads about it on the forum.
Well, that clears everything up..
Yes I agree about the stage of watching and learning, especially where there is someone on the path to observe. A study of human behaviour, nature and of their place in this world. Along with an inquiring, questioning and free mind. This would include a similar study of the personal self and an appreciation of ones position in humanity and the world. I think in a sense of seeking an individual, personally shaped interpretation, knowing of these things. Also this is often accompanied by an enquiry into religion, or God in some way.
I think there are people who for whatever reason find themselves in this position and who naturally follow this path, rather like the shaman.
There are others I think who are more driven as well and seek out with a passion experiences and answers to these issues. Personally I was more driven in this way, driven also to explore philosophies and religious and mystic teachings, theories, practices and experiences.
The issue I think here is not so much a discussion of what happens up to this point in a person's development, but rather what happens next. If it can be described, or discussed in an analytical, or impartial way within a philosophical setting.
This I think is where the big stumbling blocks rapidly emerge, of the language, do you use language from one tradition, or another, can you agree on the terminology, can you forge a path, so to speak through this minefield. Also rendering personal experience into language which can be effectively communicated. Even trust, "beware false prophets" etc.
Also there is secularisation within mysticism, which I am about to get embroiled in I expect with a couple of other posters.
This all seems rather unenlightened indeed. And there is lots of viable material even in the wiki-drivel. Seeking "by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with..the absolute" is prima facie perfectly comprehensible. There have been many threads around stoicism and asceticism; and asceticism, can also be interpreted as a kind of mystical exercise. Max Weber compared and contrasted the two standpoints extensively I believe.
Personally, I wouldn't start a thread about it either. But I sure wouldn't denigrate it.
"Those who know, do not take the piss; those who take the piss do not know." Un Tzu.
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting Pantagruel
I am more brave.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6287/the-most-wonderful-life/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5119/i-ching-the-metaphysics-of-flux
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6185/the-emotional-meaning-of-ritual-and-icon/p1
Denigration is in the eye of the visionary. I was asking not to diminish, but to find the topic. When I want to philosophise my garden, I discuss Ecophilosophy. You can look for those threads of mine too if you like.
Me and you both. I honestly don’t know what I can say about the Tao Te Ching that is solid, and not overly reliant upon aphorisms and artistic interpretation.
Maybe it’s just useful for creativity in some way - freeing up thought and that shabang?
I guess it's just your style. I never held with the "conceal to reveal" philosophy of writing. Say it plainly or don't bother is my preference.
Nicely put.
I appreciate your take on these issues, however what I am concerned about within mysticism is described in this phrase in your Wiki quote. All the other phrases there are more platitudinous in nature.
You say yourself that you have little experience of mysticism, so you might learn something new.
Not quite, that is a description of the Catholic tradition, although I have little to argue with in there. If one is to talk about talking about mysticism, how the exhalted state is achieved might be of interest.
That was a reference to Wittgenstein who used to talk about the book he did not write, and whereof one cannot speak and reserved a large space for the mystical, as exactly that which is not and cannot be talked about, but perhaps can be 'shown' in some way.
Quoting Punshhh
I might well. Or I might experience something new. I might be transformed such that I have to change my name! Go on, I dare you! Transform me.
Here's a thing. How is one to talk? I like to use a little humour, as above, but the real question is the place one adopts. I speak as one who is not transformed, as one who is unenlightened. And I speak with that expertise. Now if someone thinks they can look down on me in this regard, I reserve the right to expose their hubris without mercy.
Those who have had mystical epiphanies should contribute more. Please do.
Yes, I know. You sent a ripple in the aether requiring serious meditation to unravel. Thanks a lot. :razz:
I'm a mystic - what do you want to know?
You're silly.
I guess I have to agree with you. I was very interested for a long time in yantric systems. I was totally enamoured with the idea of associating shapes and colors and sounds with particular meanings. Sort of like phonemes, but non-linguistic. I found this fascinating book that had a god name associated with every inner triangle in the Sri Yantra. I was charmed how upward-pointing triangles are male energy, downward pointing female; circles, spheres of knowledge; squares, intellect, with 'gates' on the side permitting various entrances and departures of understanding; chakras as energy centers; spirals up and down between them as movement of consciousness; and maps showing how colors correspond to various things.
But everyone I tried talking about it retreated behind this wall of inner certainty, derived somehow from uniquely granted perception of the infinite or whatever, and then when I shared other such perceptions similar as theirs, do you think they were interested? On the contrary, not at all, moreover, they would get a little annoyed and aloof if other people had different opinions, and I say opinions, Im afraird, because thats the most I could ever make of it after a long time trying, lol. Now I kind of just gave up on the whole thing.
I think there is a problem in the west of vanity, or glamour when it comes this subject. To illustrate, I once knew a Guru who was put on a pedestal by his western followers. He would never touch them (except within the established religious rites) and they would intellectually if not physically cower, or revere in his presence. Whereas with his Asian followers there was a lot of physical contact, no intellectual cowering. It all seemed more relaxed and natural like family. He once ran his hand through my hair out of the blue, in a casual setting and I was aware of a ripple of a reaction through the western followers, I sensed some of his greatness had rubbed of onto me in their eyes. There was also a feeling of jealousy amongst devotes who had not received such treatment over years of devotion and yet I had only been there a week. There was a tangible difference in the way everyone reacted to me afterwards.
There is also the peculiar vanity and fear around not knowing what one is talking about, which might explain why in your case the others where reluctant to engage. There is a sense amongst western followers of a secret mystery, or knowledge which the guru (by definition) understands, but which is not bestowed upon the followers. This can cause a sense of inadequacy in which the follower feels stupid, that he/she cannot even understand the simplest thing about what is going on. Indeed one can feel like an empty vessel intellectually just going through the motions of the practice with a gaping hole of emotional and intellectual inadequacy inside.
All these things are western vanities which one has to overcome before one can make progress, I think many people never get past this stage. I don't think the practitioners in the original cultural setting where the guru came from experienced any of these problems. This not to say that they didn't experience another set of culturally developed problems of their own.
What I am saying is that there are a host of cultural problems in attempting to transfer Eastern practices to the west.
Where is the focus of your mysticism?
Indeed. The methods of mysticism are new but they lack credibility unless you want to take the mystics' words on it.
I noticed, I didn't want to speak (say anything), but maybe I should have.
The methods are not new. Anyway, credibility is not important, rather an interest is what is important. I would point out though, that the laymans understanding of mysticism doesn't quite cover it. Rather like a laymans understanding of quantum theory as jgill pointed out. Pantagruel has got a handle on it, I think.
I’d rather they go somewhere else and do that. The point of the thread is to question how or why we should engage in any kind of rational analysis of mysticism in general and/or texts that have nysticsl attributes.
Clearly Plato, as well as many others, throughout philosophical history have exhibited attitudes that appear ‘mystical’. I’m pretty sure you’ll find a large number of people interested in philosophy as equally dismissive of anything tagged as metaphysics as they are anything tagged mysticism.
The funny thing is the very idea of such delineations is a clear sign of something metaphysical at work - meaning a cognitive distinction of knowledge whose mechanisms we are unable to fully appreciate (that’s why I mentioned literary theory as one such point that is perhaps easier to access?)
I would call a method credible when it is known to produce desired results. The problem I see in mysticism is that the desired results, some articles refer to it as insight, aren't easily expressed in words. There's another occasion where we may fail to express our understanding, and mysticism is about understanding of some kind, and that's when we're confused. How am I to know whether the mystic has truly achieved a valuable insight or that the mystic is just confused?
The idea of gaining insight minus the logical labor we usually think is necessary is new isn't it?
Mysticism doesn't lend itself very well to rational analysis, because it is often based on intuitions and personal experience. While both can be great sources of wisdom, they're hard to convey to someone who hasn't experienced the same things.
A constructive discussion about mysticism would require all parties to be aware of this. Proponents of mysticism should not expect their words to be taken for truth. Critics should appreciate the possibility of genuine intuitive understanding and the great (inter)personal wisdom it may lead to.
It's worth noting that many famous intellectuals and scientists expressed mystical views. Perhaps that is reason to consider at least the plausibility of some of these views. Without the latter, a constructive discussion is impossible.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't think mysticism and logic or reason should be separated. In fact, I think they should be inseparable.
An intuition or profound experience can form the basis of a concept that can (and should) then be tested by logic and reason. Of course, the genuineness of the experience can only be verified by the one who experienced it, which is why I think mysticism is first and foremost a personal endeavor.
Quoting jgill
When I was young I used to have these profound experiences, which were separated by months or even years. I must've had somewhere between 6 and 12 of these.
During these experiences I lost awareness of my body and experienced a feeling of timelessness, inner peace and omniscience (though, I never gained any tangible knowledge from these experiences). While the experience was profound and timeless, they seemed to last no more than a second. My relatives never noticed anything peculiar. The experiences always occurred at seemingly random moments, on a sober mind. Additionally, as a child/young adult I was an outspoken atheist.
When I tried to explain to my parents what I had experienced, they did not seem to understand me, so as a child I took these experiences for granted.
It was later in life when I started hearing the echoes of what I had experienced in works of philosophical literature I read. Uncovering the meaning of these experiences, if any, has since been a pursuit of mine.
I rarely share these experiences with anyone, for obvious reasons. I'm all too aware that words do a poor job at describing something that is so alien to anything else I have ever experienced. It is more likely to lead to misunderstanding, distrust and ridicule, but alas.
If logic must eventually have a decisive role in mysticism then mysticism is redundant. Punshhh was quite clear, or so I think, as to how mysticism diverges from the mainstream view that rationality should be the preferred path to knowledge.
Meditation aimed at inducing peak experiences a la Maslow.
Anything that seeks to describe reality ultimately aims to be rational, so I don't see why one should consider the two as separate. I certainly don't. Then again, "mysticism" is used to describe such a broad array of different practices and views that it is rather unwieldy. I may be arguing with a very different image of mysticism in mind than you.
Nice, I hadn't come across him. If I were to go down that route though, I would use contemplation as the primary means, although meditation would be some help in relaxing into mindfulness.
My focus would be the assimilation, or synthesis of the self with nature, which is rather like Maslow's actualisation, but not only actualising the person, but also the something beyond the self which could be described as something within nature, which is also in the self. The goal being in some sense a transfiguration of the self into a part of nature while also an actualised self.
Insight in mystical terms does not require logic, it does require a mind, but that is as an instrument of experience, the intellect is not necessarily involved in this.
I wonder what you mean by this, particularly after relating experiences that you still pursue the meaning of.
Do you mean a transcendence of meaning, as found in poetry, or a story?
I agree about the Tao Te Ching (I'm a bit rusty on that one)
Are you suggesting that there should not be secularization within mysticism? If so, why?
Quoting Punshhh
This may be slightly off-topic, but I wonder if these experiences can be described as a combination of pronoia and derealization. To understand each other we surely must grasp something somewhere.
No, rather that it can become an obstacle in discussing mystical experience, philosophy etc. I mentioned it because for me mysticism is primarily about the self, not religion, or God. This is not to deny anything about religion, or God, but rather they are not of importance within the practice. Others may disagree.
Yes, mysticism is one of those "proof is in the pudding" things. My perspective is that the primary results are personal, and that that personal growth then also tends to have inter-personal and social benefits. But that this all should take place, sotto voce, as it were.
It’s only an obstacle if you don’t belong to the same tribe. :razz:
I agree with you though.
Just replace every instance of "mysticism" with "god" in your OP and you are explaining the same problem. If the meaning of the word is subjective, what is the point in discussing it?
Is this problem evidence that we do have private languages that we translate into public language for communicating with others in a shared, causal world?
Quoting TheMadFool
This is based on the assumption that knowledge of ultimate reality can be obtained by other means, and that those means would appealing.
You pointed out that many others might find these other means quite appealing, but not everyone. The fact that not everyone finds the same means appealing needs to be explained in a way that doesn't contradict the explanation that many do find the same means appealing. This explanation would be objective in the sense that it would apply to all - the reason why there are many different means, and if there is a correct one. What do you think the means of providing this explanation would be?
I've used a kind of invigorating mantric meditation to induce a pentacostal experience - something I connect to Maslow's peak experience.
Don't take what appeals to me or anyone for that matter as bearing any significance other than indicating my (our) failure to use logic in the proper way. People like us are then naturally drawn to what is presented to the public as an alternative - mystical insight. We feel better about ourselves when we see that what we're not good at is claimed not to matter. However, this is all a smoke and mirrors: there is no alternative route to knowledge other than by the application of rigorous rules of thinking - logic.
By the way, are we talking about the same thing? :chin:
Indeed it is exactly that and if the pudding has to be eaten by all who wish to understand what a pudding is then it means, perforce, that the pudding can't be put into words. Have you ever "understood" anything that simply can't be worded? Is ultimate truth like feelings, not the common garden variety kind for which we have words like sadness, happiness, etc. but the more complex kind that are ineffable.
Ok.
Well, if understanding represents something in addition to what is explicitly presented in a proposition, then by definition it is "beyond words." So perhaps all understanding has this dimension; and it is just more evident in some types of claims than others. I am leaning in the direction of hermeneutics now.
I don't know. Is your goal to feel better about yourself, or to obtain knowledge?
Ideas that make one feel better about themselves at the expense of obtaining knowledge are generally referred to as delusions (delusions of grandeur).
How can you say that you understand it if it can't be worded, unless the problem is that you don't have the vocabulary for wording it. Sometimes new ideas require new words, but words that still embody the idea.
Anyway, I think that talking about mysticism is like talking about sex; why talk when you can do?
Because it's sexy.
Mysticism is harder to discuss than other subjects because, by definition, it's about stuff you can't talk about. It would be very Wittgensteiny of me to say that that settles it, but that would be premature. The word "ineffable" is a logical contradiction, because it's a word for things there aren't words for, but we can still use it.
I would say that talk about mysticism must be rooted in mystical practice, and ultimately circle back to it.
We can meaningfully talk about a place we've never been or an experience that we've never had.
An intuition or experience can give us a starting point from which to investigate further, but it should always hold up to the scrutiny of logic and reason, or we risk ending up with delusion.
In the context of my personal experiences, I can use logic and reason to discern the genuineness of my experiences. If I conclude that my experiences were likely genuine, I can use logic and reason to try and filter understanding out of these experiences.
Alternatively, intuition can serve as a guide. Doesn't a quest for an answer often start with an intuition of the general direction of the solution?
Intuition and reason both seek to work towards understanding. I advocate to use them both, because intuition can be a powerful tool, like logic and reason.
Many throw out the baby with the bathwater. Intuition leads to things that one cannot measure with a measuring stick, so many conclude it must be useless.
I admire intuition. But I don't know what it is.
Well said.
Quoting Tzeentch
Or go the other way and devalue reason. :grimace:
Yes, unique perspectives I expect. Perhaps this is why it is best to spend time in person with the person in question. For me the best understanding of the mystical experience of someone else was achieved by spending a few weeks together with another aspirant.
I am not familiar with literary theory.
Anyway, a lot of emphasis upon taking your experience as your experience without being in a rush to say what they are about. A silence.
I have no idea about what it all means. But that stopping for a beat is interesting. I can compare that with other events.
Mysticism, to my knowledge, is always about the ineffable, no? If mystical knowledge could be put into words then, that would be a contradiction - amounting to saying I can express the inexpressible.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I wish you'd not judge people like me so harshly. We don't have delusions, especially of the grandiose kind. We simply find linear thinking difficult. Thus we look for alternatives. Too, it's possible that some knowledge can't be gained by the mere application of logic to certain sets of assumptions.
If it can't be expressed (in words), it can't be understood.
Yes I agree with this approach, for me treading the path of mystical enquiry is rather like how we deal with ordinary life, a process of having experiences, living mentally and emotionally with them, analysing them where they are of interest, or problematic, seeking more where of interest, less where problematic issues are identified. But differing from normal life where more disciplined, or structured practices are undertaken, for example meditation, or contemplation of an esoteric text. Such alternative processes can give a different take on experience, so that one can cross reference in the spirit of, or part of a structured attempt to break out of previous conditioning.
Along side such practices there are processes of introspection, in which one analyses yourself, this can be structured, or intuitive. So as to identify conditioning, trauma, weaknesses, strengths etc within your person. This then becomes like a kind of preening (to use analogy).
Alongside such practices are those in which one attempts to reach out, to commune with the wider world, or a divinity of some kind. The aim being at a later stage, re orientation with the divine, or nature, so as to deconstruct and rebuild the self as a transfigured individual, rather like zzoneiroCosm's Maslow practices, of self actualisation. The main difference as I see it between my reading of the process and his is that for me the transfigured self is seeking communion and deeper, or underlying, alignment with formative process in nature, or the divine nature, particularly in which one becomes a divine agent within a greater purpose. For me this agency is not conscious, for many reasons, but rather like a grace, or fortuitous happenstance.
Nice summary, do you study, or practice?
Do you believe that when Pythagoras first grasped the relationship between the squares on the sides of a right-angled triangle it popped into his head in propositional form?
It seems pretty clear to me that there is an incipient event of understanding which is pre-verbal and intuitive. Any kind of reasoning about the nature of learning and theorization would never get started if the mind were not capable of intuitively grasping something novel. You would be in an infinite circularity of already known propositions.
The secret for me is I always maintain a hypothetical or experimental attitude. I'm not looking for any kind of particular confirmation (which is where I think the search degenerates into something contrived). I am just....continuously gathering information.
When I was younger I was intrigued by Zen, but was never in a position to give it ago. However I have been in retreat in the Himalayas, where I exercised techniques equivalent, also Hatha and raja yoga.
As I see it there are two kinds of insight then. One kind, something Pythagoras might've experienced, can be expressed in words - clear propositions - and the other kind, the mystical variety, that simply defies any attempt to word them.
I think this is a difference of degree, and not of kind. Mystical experiences are not impervious to communication (I don't limit myself to language here, because I think communication is more fundamental than language. You can have communication without language, but not language without communication). They are just more difficult to communicate. Think Kant's antinomies of reason. Both sides of the antinomy can be formulated, but the antinomy arises out of the juxtaposition of the two contradictory positions. Is, in essence, the "gap" or tension between the linguistic forumlations, which nevertheless produces an insight.
Quoting TheMadFool
These two are distinctly contradictory. If credibility is obtained through reaching desired results, then just as the thing desired is something personal, than so is credibility. So you would have no choice but to take the person's word for it because only that person knows what is desired and whether the method fulfils that desire.
I suggest however, that it is the second statement which is wrong. Credibility is produced from proof, logical demonstration, and justification. It cannot be a matter of producing the desired results, or else people would always be fudging the evidence, making deceptive demonstrations for the sake of producing the desired results, and this is the very opposite of credible. This is why credibility is based in a judgement of truth, rather than desired results, which is personal.
Quoting Punshhh
Quoting I like sushi
Everyone has mystical experiences: living is a mystical experience. The question of this thread appears to be the distinct types of approach we which we make to mystical experience. Some people, it seems, have been trained to suppress their own mystical experience, denying its reality, until they get to the point where they haven't the means to relate to it anymore. So they grow up lacking this unique aspect of emotional development, they cannot relate to the mystical reality of their own being. Then you'll find them in places such as this forum, insisting that mystical experience is something we cannot relate to. Others however, will learn to recognize their own mystical experience, and seek to better understand it. This will drive them toward associating with people who have the same object, where they can discuss and learn about mystical things.
Meanwhile, the people who have successfully suppressed the mystical from their lives will see those discussing the mystical as speaking nonsense, insisting that they're talking about something which cannot be talked about. It's a sort of taboo. It's not that we cannot talk about it, it's that they have been trained not to talk about it and therefore have not developed the means for talking about it.
I would agree precisely. "Mysticism" is no less a valid experimental or theoretical domain than any other. It is just a question of the nature of its "utility" - most people labour under a very parochial concept of utility, which modern media (driven by de-valued/monetized objectives) promotes.
Then why are you even here trying to put it into words? Why are you even trying to express something that you say is inexpressible?
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't see how non-linear thinking would be easier than linear thinking. If you want to abandon logic, then you are abandoning coherency. Just go back and read the above. It is incoherent - contradictory - to claim that mysticism is inexpressible while at the same time trying to express it. If that is truth to you, then we might as well part ways.
It's not that you find linear thinking difficult. You just don't like the answers it gives. You want to feel special - important - and logic doesn't give you that. Your feelings are in conflict with the conclusions of logical, reasonable thinking.
Because expressing an opinion about mysticism was the subject of the thread.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Non-linear dynamics is not illogical, it represents a different form of logic, one in which order is revealed in the apparent disorder which characterizes complex-natural systems.
Likewise, reason does not reduce to logic, but is a communicative process in which defensible hypotheses are supported by reasons which are not reducible to material facts, but may constitute 'plausible narratives' (depending on the subject matter, as in this case).
The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. Maybe people are confusing the two, or are they the same thing - is mysticism a kind of opinion - if so, then an opinion about what? If mysticism is ineffable regardless of one's opinion, then what is the purpose of even talking about your opinion of it? If mysticism isn't necessarily ineffable, but can be also be expressible, then we are talking past each other, and not sharing opinions about the same thing.
Quoting Pantagruel
Logic reduces to reasons. If you don't have reasons, or your reasons don't support the conclusion (as in a contradiction), then you simply aren't being logical.
That seems to me to be a bit of a non-starter. Everyone is always talking about their own opinion of whatever it is they are talking about. You can purport and pretend to objectivity, this aspect can never really be discounted. You are splitting hairs.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Sorry, but this is just not true. There are lots of solid systems based on reasons which do not equate with logic. Popper's entire method of critical realism. I just finished two books by Habermas on communicative action which provide an extremely robust account of the evolution and reification of reason as a social construct. Your position is simply narrow.
Moreover, logic does not reduce to reasons: logic is a system of formalized relationships. And reasons certainly do not reduce to logic (although they may utilize it of course).
Edit: ie. https://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/RandL.pdf - why logic is not reason and vice versa
Yep
These concepts seem unfamiliar to me.
The experiences I had did involve a profound feeling of goodness and inner peace, but they involved only myself. I know some people who have mystical experiences express a feeling of oneness with other people. I did not experience that.
I also did not see my own body (like derealization describes), but I lost awareness of it. I always saw some blue visual, which I can only describe as 'cosmic', like a star. The visuals only played a minor role, though. The sensations of inner peace and omniscience were much more profound and made a bigger impression on me.
Haven't you noticed? I'm not in support of mysticism. I think mysticism is nothing more than a bunch of people who've failed to understand something, here the truth about reality, the normal way, using reason, and are trying out alternatives and the only tangible results have been soft-spoken, half-asleep, long-bearded individuals with a cult following.
Quoting Harry Hindu
By "linear thinking" I meant logical argumentation - moving from a set of premises to whatever conclusions that follow. Mysticism, as I have been saying all along, involves an arational, not irrational, mode of thinking and that's going easy on it. I don't see any sense in abandoning traditional logic/rationality just because a problem seems unsolvable with them. The fault may lie with us and not in logic/rationality. I've heard people say "we're waiting for the next Einstein" (to make the breakthrough). What does this indicate but our inability to solve some of the biggest problems in science, philosophy, math, whathaveyou? At no point do we expect the next Einstein to be mystic who'll claim to have knowledge, for instance, the theory of everything, but then goes on to say that each one of us, to know it, must do so on faer own.
Yes, but in my humble opinion, I wanted to keep things as general as possible. A knife's credibility, taking into account its purpose, is all about the results we get when using it. If it cuts well then it gains credibility points, no?
Likewise, the credibility of mystical methods rests completely on whether it produces the results it claims it does. Also, the fact that credibility requires logical action e.g. proofs and evidence, mysticism is ultilmately a logical enterprise. Then why claim it to be different alternative to traditional methods involving logic.
It’s like love. When people have a strong experience if it it’s incredibly hard to appreciate that others have experienced anything similar and not ended up screaming, jumping and shouting about it.
It’s also prone to induce certain paradigm shifts that leave people floating in a void (aka some form of insanity).
We can sing and dance, spout poetry and chant. Mysticism is something like that imo but, well ... this is the problem. What I’m talking about isn’t likely to be close to what many people mean.
In tangible terms what I was hoping to talk about here was the artifacts of mysticism - ie. texts revered by all manner of people (the Tao Te Ching is certainly something that can act as a common point of focus, as can other revered works - and make no mistake, many of these texts are regarded as important reflections of the common human experience).
Ridicule is often the default mode when people mention ‘mysticism’. Choosing to show interest in such a human experiences/ideas can be useful. That is not to say there are many, many pitfalls. I’ve seen people post some crazy shit and I have a pretty good idea what got then there, but also realise - in many instances - there is little I can do to reach them.
From a scientific perspective there are some threads of research that explore these things tangentially. At the moment there is too much that is pure speculation, but not a very long time ago if you were interested in studying ‘consciousness’ in the neurosciences it was almost like ending your career as it was regarded as taboo.
Most of the time when the mystery of something is lifted people prefer the fantasy that came before. The so-called ‘mundane’ day-to-day living is the most extraordinary thing. If that was attended to more often things might go more smoothly.
What is unbelievable is just that. The best text I’ve read expressing this is the Tao Te Ching - that said aphorisms can be vicious things that can be put to horrible use. Rhetoric certainly plays it’s part in befuddling the most honest attempts to ‘discuss’ what can’t be ‘discussed’ and many a crackpot will unwittingly spoil the broth.
I could literally go on writing for days without stopping and give, at best, a possible glimpse of a gist of what slumbers within. It’s the human condition. It’s practically the same for everyone.
There is clearly nothing abstract in your scenario. If any part of the brain is involved it isn't the neocortex and I believe the neocortex is exactly what mysticism wants to engage although via different methods.
I was just trying to point out that words are more pliable when the subject matter has little substance. So suggesting ‘understanding’ is only possible if it can be articulated is a hard sell (for me at least).
I have the citation somewhere, but I think it was von Bertalanffy who said that what justifies any metaphysical theory is ultimately its elegance.....
That's your opinion.
Quoting Pantagruel
So is this Gilbert Harman's opinion of logic, or is he getting at what logic actually is?
The problem is that if we can only ever talk about our opinions, then what is the relationship between our opinions and what they are about? What information does one's opinion carry about the thing their opinion is about? If we can only talk about our opinions, then how do we ever know that our opinions are themselves about something? If our opinions differ, then how do we know our opinions are about the same thing?
Quoting Pantagruel
Exactly - a relationship between reasons (premises) and conclusions.
Quoting I like sushi
It's like god, as in "God-of-the-Gaps".
An unexplained experience is the same as an ineffable experience. The problem is that you explain it by naming it "mystical", or implying a mystical, or supernatural cause. Mystical, like god, is just a gap-filler in our knowledge of something that we haven't been able to explain yet.
In saying that an experience is "mystical" seems to be a loaded term that implies supernatural causes, whereas just saying that the experience is unexplainable is being more precise.
Hard to interpret what you mean here. I don’t think there’s any doubt that mystical experiences correlate to a particular brain state. What that brain state appears to be is a deactivation of the DMN (default mode network).
Quite. That is one of the core questions of epistemology isn't it? We are constantly fighting a battle to find a universally valid methodology for stepping outside of subjectivity. The scientific method is one, and it works well, to the extent the the subject matter is amenable. Systems theory uses a more abstract set of fundamental entities, but follows methods that are still essentially scientific.
Anyway, I've re-read my replies on the distinction between reason and logic and they are clear and well-founded, so I'm not going to waste time trying to persuade someone who clearly isn't open to reasoned arguments that don't coincide with their own presuppositions. Possibly they will be useful to someone else though.
Quoting Pantagruel
I believe I already addressed your concerns about the relationship between the subjective and the objective, per above. I didn't pretend to solve it, I just situated it in a context of rational discussion.
Quoting Pantagruel
But according to the other statement you asserted, someone else only has access to their opinion of your opinions, and what they would find useful is their own opinion, not your opinion, so then no one can really ever find use in any else's opinion because all they have access to is their own opinion.
Quoting Pantagruel
You could start solving it by backing off the statement that all we ever talk about is our own opinions because it leads to an infinite regress and doesn't seem like you actually believe it.
Other people may or may not be implying some ‘supernatural’ stuff (which frankly, is a contrary term in my mind so I just default to ‘ganz andere,’ WHOLLY other not HOLY other.
Mysticism doesn’t have to involve woo woo. I understand that many people view Plato as woo woo, but it’s hard to deny there is actual tangible content to mull over - maybe it’s a matter of cultural heritage? The New Age caused a bizarre fetishism in the west for all things ‘eastern’.
What does thinking involve? I think we should start from there. Words?
People are looking for answers to questions that science just hasn't been able to answer yet. Some questions have been answered by science and many people don't find those answers appealing because it doesn't make them feel important, or have a purpose. When their own culture doesn't provide appealing answers, then they look to different angles to answer the question. The assumption, though, is that our answers should be appealing. When you don't like an answer to a question, then is your dislike sufficient reason assert that it is an non-answer to then keep looking somewhere else, or with different means?
Assuming these individuals and their 'cults' are genuinely happy, why does this bother you?
Being happy is one thing. Being knowledgeable is something else. It bothers me when someone confuses one with the other and expects me to have the same confusion, by not being clear about what their goal is - knowledge or happiness.
I think it may be more accurate to say that it's a means of obtaining insight, or at least that's the way many think of it.
Personally, I make a distinction between 'spirituality' and religion. I'm not sure if that's common.
As I understand it most recorded mystical experiences are given within a religious or cultural framework. Absent any framework there is nothing to say about an experience except via poetry or allusive language. But then poetry has its inevitable cultural moorings, even in the absence of an explicit frame.
This assertion highlights a common misunderstanding vis-a-vis the range of mystical experience.
Mystical experience as induced by certain meditative practices is not at all a "mode of thinking."
Let me shift to the first person: As a mystic, I'm quite capable of self-inducing a mystical ecstasy. At the same time, I'm quite capable of following or deploying a string of logical assertions. The first we call an experience, the second we call a "mode of thinking."
Say praxis obtained some insight into himself (obtained knowledge about himself) using mysticism as a means (whatever that really means we'll ignore for the moment). Could you, Tzeentch, or I use the same means to obtain the same insight into praxis? What method would we use to gain the same insight into praxis? It seems to me that, logically, we'd have to use the same method to obtain the same knowledge, but will we? Why, or why not?
What method seems to work for everyone in gaining insight into reality itself - to the point where we can manipulate it on a planetary scale and extend our senses beyond the solar system?
Quoting Janus
Exactly. Peyote is often taken to cause mystical experiences in the context of a religious ceremony, but if I take some Peyote for the psychedelic experience and for mental experimentation, I don't think of it as a mystical experience.
So it seems to me that you would already have some assumptions that you are basing your interpretation of the experience on. If you already believe in spirituality, mysticism, supernatural, etc. (name your favorite anthropomorophic buzz-word that makes humans special creations separate from nature), then you are likely to interpret some ineffable experience as such.
Would you agree that the people in the elevator believe that they are having a mystical experience?
That's an odd use for "credible" you've got there.
Describe the logic by which you arrived at this broad-brush conclusion. How can the above be known to be true?
Before the invention of language, was nothing understood?
Many boats to float. One sea.
I believe that mystical experiences correlate to a deactivation of the neural default mode network. A couple of the basic characteristics of that brain state are a loss of a sense of self and a depatterning effect on the mind. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine the sort of insight that could be gained from this kind of experience. In any case, one benefit is existential anxiety relief.
Any method to deactivate the network could work, like meditation, psychedelics, electrical fields, whatever.
The video is hilarious, btw, and looks like real reactions.
Quoting TheMadFool
I see a contradiction in the above. Do you?
Not much experience, yet happy to rest on a bold conclusion.
I wonder if you would mind mentioning the names of these two books.
This is what's known as a stereotype. Best avoided if you'd like to have an accurate picture of the world.
Thanks for this reference. It's illuminating. :smile:
What else has mysticism achieved?
I was being honest. What about you? Are you a mystic yourself? Not to be offensive but you too are making some very bold assertions.
Yeah but you get the picture.
Quoting Tzeentch
It doesn't bother me at all.
Stick around and listen to what some of them say and you might find there is a bit more to it than people staring at their navels.
Brain Greene on Joe Rogan (20 mins): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpStPNAB7Cw
I just "realized" something. I've always wondered about the difference between "understanding" and "realization". My opinion on the matter is that the latter involves some kind of feeling and the former doesn't. I guess people would prefer realizing to understanding because of the added positive emotional experience to it (or maybe not).
Given the above, mysticism is, to my reckoning, just the emotional aspect of realization which is, unfortunately, not accompanied by any real understanding of anything at all. Mysticism, my interpretation of it, is like masturbation - you experience the ecstacy of ejaculation but you actually didn't have sex :chin:
A structured mystical practice changes the person and has an effect on the people around them. This is real and documented. Religion which is a kind of mysticism and changes the adherents and has an effect on the people around them, indeed on the course of human history.
In some cases yes, in other cases perhaps not.
First, lets talk about insight. Not every person is capable of understanding quantum physics, and to do so one cannot just read a single book about quantum physics and expect to be an expert. Truly understanding physics is a long process, perhaps even a lifelong quest. It is insight stacked upon insight. Mysticism works somewhat similar, yet people who dismiss mystical philosophies as nonsense will scarcely read more than a single Wikipedia page, if they bother to read anything about it at all.
Additionally, mindset is important. Someone who is either consciously or subconsciously convinced that mysticism is nonsense, will probably never gain any insight into it. This is due to the intangible nature of many things mysticism deals with, and the lack of 'hard' evidence. One must a least be willing to consider the plausibility of the things they read. I guess it is comparable to psychology in this sense.
Secondly, mystical experiences. Even though methods have been conceived to produce mystical experiences through practice or, for example, drugs, this has proven problematic for a few reasons. Some persons will not experience anything despite a lifetime of dedication. Others may want to experience something so badly that they may start to deceive themselves. Drug-induced experiences will, in my mind, always remain a question mark in regards to their genuineness.
— Punshhh
I need to tease out what I am saying, during my practice I am not adhering to a religion, or seeking a contact, or communion with God. As opposed to other practices in which one carefully follows a prescribed religious practice, or is praying, seeking a communion with God, as an integral part of their practice.
For me the integral parts of the practice are between myself and some aspect of nature (including aspects of myself) there is no prescribed practice and there is no effort to interact with a God, or God like being (although I have done these things in the past).
An important thing to realise, which is often not grasped by people enquiring into mysticism is that there is a subjugation of the ego and in a sense the personality to some other power which then directs one's development. As such an enquiry into the other power, or ones relation to it is, or its purposes, are not important. What is important is in allowing the channel between yourself and the power to flow freely.
I realise that this might sound weird, but when one looks into prayer, or religious based mystical practice this is also going on between the self and God. Such interaction is an important aspect of mysticism. This is not to say that it is necessary.
One sea, many waves.
This correlates to my experience. There was what seemed like an extremely bright( but not bright in the sense that it lit up the room), but when you looked into it it was to bright to make anything out. Also there was the sense that it was spatially concentrated, like the tardis in Dr Who. There could have been whole worlds of beings in there. There was the feeling of peace and omniscience and I could sense someone talking inside it, that I was aware of. They were discussing whether I was ready to be taken, or it wasn't my time. After giving it their careful consideration they concluded it wasn't my time and it moved and faded away. But the feeling of awe and wonderment, the deep feeling that everything was going to be alright (in the sense of after death), the deep sense of peace and benevolence and omniscience remained with me for quite while and the whole experience is still vivid to me now 30 years later.
While this is certainly true, mystical experiences also happen to individuals who are not primed in any way.
The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society
The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 2: Lifeworld & System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason
Tough reads. Das Kapital is candy compared to those.
Only a mystic would know.
In my case, two words sum it up: peace and glory.
Thanks. I have Legitimation Crisis around here somewhere.
I make bold assertions because I have twenty years' experience with mystical illumination.
I didn't say that. I said our own opinion about whatever it is we are talking about. You have missed the nuance of the statement.
Then I must defer to your better judgement.
Just curious. What have your discoveries been so far?
Humble discoveries. In short: Certain forms of meditative practice give us access to a self-induceable energy and tranquility. Exorbitant creative energy; exorbitant self-creative energy; and a self-reliant tranquility.
I once had a mystical experience
The likes of which were few
With practice makes perfect they say
In secret they only knew
So celebrate your secrete with earnest
Realize words are few
Maybe one day you'll reveal
That others like you too
So your argument is, we can only talk about our opinions and our opinions are about whatever it is we are talking about? Whoah, that one made me dizzy. :vomit:
If our opinions differ, then how do we know our opinions are about the same thing?
What do you mean for your talk to be of your opinion that you wouldn't mean for your opinion to be of the thing it is about? If you already assumed that your talk is of your opinion, then what prevents the infinite regress of assumptions to then assume that the opinion is also of something?
It just seems to me that not everything we talk of is only our opinions. Is "I have written this post in English" an opinion or fact? If there are some statements that are of opinions and some that are of facts, maybe trying to figure out the pattern of which statements are facts and which are opinions would be a good place to start.
So when you explain your experience as a deactivation of your neural default mode network, is that the insight/knowledge about you that you are talking about obtaining?
Are you saying the insight the experience gives about you is that it correlates to some neural state of yours?
If mystical experiences are by definition ineffable, and you just explained your "mystical" experience as such, then doesn't that make the experience natural, rather than mystical?
Is that explanation unappealing? Is that why people seek something more - something that separates them from the natural world and natural explanations and makes them something more than a natural part of the natural world?
1. It is a fact that we are communicating now.
2. Because I have presented this fact, it is (trivially) my opinion that this is a fact.
3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating).
4. Nevertheless, you can't dispute my opinion that 1 is a fact (that's what makes it an opinion).
It isn't a regress or a circularity, it is simply that the fact does not exist in some kind of perfect, objective vacuum, it is situated in a specific context, which is permeated by subjectivity. It isn't one thing, or the other, it is both. You can attempt to abstractly isolate one or the other. That may even be a legitimate exercise, depending on the reason. It doesn't alter the fact (that facts qua statements of beliefs) are likewise opinions).
If I dispute the factuality (btw, what's the difference between factuality and fact?) of 1, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing - us communicating? I've asked that question three times now. It seems to me that my dispute is what communication is.
I agree and don’t find it unappealing, though I imagine that many do. It’s only unnatural in the sense that it’s uncommon, in my opinion, and ‘mystical’ in the sense of it being an altered state that is completely internal (others can’t experience the same thing like they can with external places and things). Also, some describe it as trans-rational in being a non-dualistic kind of consciousness.
We know that we are talking about the same thing when we achieve consensus. Then our communications are co-ordinated. I fully admit, this is an intersubjective (social) approach. That's consistent with Popper, Habermas, generally, the direction in which I am moving now. If you don't have any use for a consensus/communication perspective, well, then we aren't going to be able to communicate, are we? From my current philosophical perspective, there is no rationality at a purely individual level; rationality necessarily emerges as a social (cultural) phenomenon.
The mystical-natural dyad is a commonplace but inaccurate bifurcation. Certain kinds of mystical experience are as natural as the sky or the sun.
Commenting in the hope of maybe augmenting the given expression of “subjugation”. In my current understanding, there’s often a critical difference to be found between typical mysticism and typical religion: whereas the latter often concerns an experienced relation of power-over, the former is typically concerned with an experienced relation of power-with.
This being my presumption of why mystics and mystical traditions have often been deemed dangerous heretics or heresies by those who are religious fundamentalists.
To me, one relatively well-known example of this is the obliteration of the Gnostics by the Christians which resulted from the first Council of Nicaea: The Gnostics – which I interpret to be mystics – generally sought power with Sophia as divinity; this, roughly, being the personification of wisdom and of knowledge of right and wrong – which, according to the Gnostics, JC was instructing other about … JC to the Gnostics being one in spirit with the serpent from the garden of Eden: wanting to combat the ignorance of right and wrong which the “Lord” (to the Gnostics, Demiurge) wanted to enforce. Here, “power-with” was not about gaining “power-over” in relation to others but about the obtaining of oneness with what can be interpreted as ultimate reality. In contrast, to the Christians that labeled the Gnostics heretics and disposed of them, their relation with divinity was most often one in which divinity held power over them, a power that had to be appeased via prayer, likewise a power that was deserving of fear.
From my readings, I find the same intent of oneness via power-with in Sufism, in Hindu aspirations to become one with Brahman, and so forth.
Curious to learn if this meshes with what you were expressing.
Depatterning may threaten to disrupt whatever order presides. Nixon claimed that Timothy Leary was "the most dangerous man in America."
Very true. But implicit to this is a presiding order of "power-over" relations. No?
I agree with the distinction you make, however as I see it there are many subtleties and nuance here. Perhaps in the case of religion "power over" is dictated for purposes of controlling the members, or population, over whom the high priests rule. Whereas an individual adherent might foster a more "power with relationship" in private.
When it comes to the mystical aspirant, or master the "power with is" stressed outwardly, while the individual might have developed more of a "power over" relationship, or aspiration in private.
Also for the mystic there is a more nuanced distinction in which the mystic is in many ways free to do, or think what he/she wants without fear or favour. While having a trust that an ineffable power is in some way directing their bahaviour and thinking, for some greater purpose, in which the aspirant is essentially offering service. This relation can take the form of the aspirant identifying an aspect of themselves which is of the ineffable realm in an imminent sense and there is a communion, or dialogue between the two. In which the distinction of power over/power with is lost, because the relation is within one's self. Also there may be the consideration of a hierarchy of ineffable connections/activities which the aspirant can't expect to, or be expected to have personal agency in, or understanding of. Such a scenario can only really be described as power over, although the aspirant is cooperating, or giving permission for the ineffable agency to operate through him/her self.
This is an interesting introduction I think into the role of agency and purpose in mystical practice. I would be interested in exploring this further.
Yes, like a communion with animals and plants. One might remember that one is an animal too.
It's also a matter of experience. Experience is fundamental and fundamentally defines itself better than the second-hand report of language ever could.
Some people see a cloudy day. I see the stereotypical, mystical dimension.
I always found abstraction itself to be somewhat mystical.
The truth is, no matter how eloquent the communication, the raw experience is always what was real.
Yes, nature mysticism.
I think a lot of young sensitive souls hit on this entree to mystical experience. It was my first taste. Especially the deserts of the southwest US; more especially, Monument Valley and Joshua Tree. A perfect mirror-metaphor for the emptiness of the soul.
I made use of “typically” and “often” with the intention of allowing for such exceptions to the generality I presented. So, yes, I very much agree.
Quoting Punshhh
What got my interest initially was the use of term subjugation (of the ego). Not sure what avenues you’d like to explore, so I’m mentioning the first thing that came to mind:
Mircea Eliade wrote a rather long book documenting cases of shamanism, what I take to be one variant of mysticism. It can be expressed in different manners by different cultures, and its expressions are normally from pre-scientific times, so I take the following summation to be largely allegorical. From memory, and from a typical European account (Australian aborigines, for instance, express a similar process making use of jewels, best I recall), the pre-shaman enters solitude or is sometimes exiled by the village/tribe into the forest. There, the pre-shaman is, basically, torn to shreds by the spirits and deities, till all that remains is the skeleton. Here he enters into the otherworld, and is often expressed to be dead … maybe neither dead nor living? He then basically needs to place his flesh back onto his skeleton, this to become one of the living again. I interpret this as a regaining of recognizable self. Fast forwarding a bit, if he’s successful, he then reemerges from the forest back to the tribe as a medicine man or healer. OK, that said for background, I give this example of this one form of what I take to be mystical traditions so as to present a situation where the ego is not subjugated by divine power – nor obtains some form of instant bliss – but instead, in a sense, battles with greater powers so as to maintain integrity of being and, thereby, make oneself whole again. And, throughout this whole process wisdom, gnosis, is gained. Though this is very archaic and esoteric, I intuitively find parallels in this to both mythos regarding JC and the Buddha. So, both these guys supposedly underwent periods of extreme solitude (JC in the desert and the Buddha starving underneath some tree) where they gained some understanding or gnosis, after which there were great and sometimes unpleasant temptations offered to them to deviate from their newly found understanding; then, after holding fast, each emerged out of their solitude into the village, so to speak, to become healers (of the mind, to not say soul, if not also the body). I can also liken the same (non-new-age) shamanism tradition to the mythos of Osiris and Isis (guy was cut into pieces than placed back together) as well as to Nietzsche’s parable of the camel turned carnivore turned newly-birthed infant: here, the beast of burden’s broken back parallels the pre-shaman’s death and entrance into the otherworld, wherein the transformation occurs; the dragon of “thou shalt and shalt not” stands for the temptations and tribulations which must be combated or resolved; and the newly birthed infant to the same world stands for seeing the same old world for the first time with newly found eyes.
I know these are personal opinions. May they be taken with as many grains of salt as is required. And, to be explicit about things, I’m in no way here arguing for what is factual. Nor do I address the aforementioned as though it were the only mystical tradition – but, in my opinion, it does represent one well documented path. Again, my reason for expressing all this is that while there might be a sense of losing one’s self or ego, here it is plainly not about becoming dominated by greater powers one unquestioningly follows. Instead, apparently according to mythos, its about holding onto some form of integrity and gnosis despite the challenges … and coming out of it a better, and in some ways transformed, person.
That said, I'm imagining the experience of transcending one’s own (former?) ego to be something akin to what is expressed in the lyrics of a song by Dead Can Dance called Song of the Stars:
We are the stars which sing
We sing with our light
We are the birds of fire
We fly over the sky
Our light is a voice
We make a road for the spirit to pass over
Maybe (I’m guessing) those who are mystics simply think those who lack the given gnosis as just unaware of so being, and of so making a road over which the spirit passes? I’ll link to the song for context, though it’s mostly instrumental, and long.
What is "unnatural"? Life itself doesn't seem to be a common feature of the universe. Does that mean that life is unnatural?
How do you know that we don't experience the same thing when we have an altered mental state as the result of taking some peyote? The difference seems to only be in how we interpret that experience - how we explain it based on our prior assumptions, like mystical/supernatural experiences exist - just like the people in the elevator assumed ghosts exist - hence their reaction in the elevator.
The "ghost" girl in the elevator is an external thing, yet I wouldn't interpret the experience it the same way as the people in the video. I don't believe in ghosts.
I was hoping that some great examples of mystical experiences that are as natural as the sky or the sun would follow such a grandiose claim.
Quoting Pantagruel
But that was my point, and your point in step 3. - that we aren't reaching a consensus. If you make the claim that we are communicating, and I dispute that, then we aren't reaching a consensus thereby contradicting your step 1. - that it is a fact that we are communicating.
It seems to me that you have to rational prior to being socialized, or else how do you make sense of your experiences of other beings that are more or less like you in appearance and behaviors you can emulate?
Would merely having the potential for rationality be a sufficient condition of socialization?
It also seems to me that you would have to understand object permanence - to understand that people still exist even when they are not part of your experience. It seems like this has to be done prior to being socialized.
I was socialized in a Christian environment and I was initially a believer in the Christian god, yet as I got older, I began to question the "rationality" of the social order that I developed in. How does one escape their social upbringing and take a up a position that is in direct opposition of the "rational" socialization one was indoctrinated with if they don't possess some inherent, rational, private language with which to do that?
Except that capacities emerge phylogenetically, not just ontogenetically. So for any individual capacity you can equally well point to its collective origin. I think trying to authoritatively say what something is instead of acknowledging that most things have multiple dimensions or aspects is one of the biggest sources of unnecessary conflict.
Which origin are you referring too? The origin of self-replicating molecules, the origin of sex and males and females, the origin of warm-blood over cold-blood, the origin of social behaviors that began well before the existence of humans, or what?
To say that something has multiple dimensions is the same as authoritatively saying what something is. The conflict between you and I is whether or not things do or do not have multiple dimensions or aspects. If something has multiple dimensions and aspects, then how do you distinguish between things? It seems to me that the multiple dimensions of one thing would overlap with the multiple dimensions of something else thereby blurring the boundaries of our mental categories.
In saying that some thing has multiple dimensions, are you saying that you can represent one thing in many ways? If yes, then the problem is that you are confusing the many ways of representing, or viewing, something with the thing itself.
Just a quick thought, I will give a longer response later. The aspirant when surviving the ordeal of the destruction of his/her conditioned self realises that the ineffable power who is the object of their effort to transcend the ego, or self, is in fact him/her self already. So again we have power over and power with integrated and the distinction desolving in a synthesis of self with creator. So power is both over and with in one unity.
The conflict between you and I is that you will never settle on a middle ground for anything. I've read that in others' responses to your posts and seen it in our past discussions. You relentlessly pursue your own very specific narrative without attempting to moderate or adapt your perspective to allow any kind of co-existence with alternative perspectives.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm well aware of the dimensions of a great many philosophical issues and know where I stand on them. To my knowledge, there is no universal consensus on almost any issue you might care to pick. There are current favourites, but those also evolve. Anything I might say is a summary of what I believe as well as a brief account of the reasons for that belief. I'm always careful to point out what is my opinion, I never claim to have an authoritative answer.
When faced with expressions of 'mysticism' I've found it helps to remember that they are (almost always and entirely) 'non-inferential, dispositional utterances' (avowals) without propositional contents (claims), and not to be confused with ineffable 'mystical exercises'. Just as mysteries only beg questions, 'mysticism' concerns that which can only be shown but not said; and I agree with Witty: any attempt to 'say the unsayable' (whether inadvertantly (e.g. category errors) or intentionally (e.g. zen koans)) amounts to nonsense.
So I'm always on the lookout for egregious nonsense with a very precisely calibrated *woo-&-bullshit* detector (re: "new agey" tarot-crystals-astral-yogic "metaphysics"; bible / quran-thumping; pseudo-scientism & other garden varieties of magical (i.e. conspiracy) thinking).
On the other hand, I'm not a reductive philistine and have had a lifelong interest in - and my share of 'limit-experiences' with - shall we say, altered states. The term 'mysticism', as I understand it, shares with 'mystery' the etymological root mú? which is Ancient Greek for 'eyes shut' (or mouth closed à la mute) ... which connotes, at least to me, perceiving-in-darkness (or speaking-via-silence (i.e. without words)), that is, without apparent distinctions, neither semantic nor existential: 'pure experience' without experiencer-experienced distinction (not so unlike Husserl's epoché or Pseudo-Dionysus' via negativa or Shankara's advaita ). Freddy's 'musical jubiliation' comes to mind as well as Schop's aesthetics of 'music-as-nonrepresentational-analogue' of the Will.
My preferred - idiosyncratic - notion is 'ecstasy' rather than 'mysticism'; ecstatic practices - what Iris Murdoch calls "unselfings" - rather than mystical, or spiritual, exercises (i.e. union with (some) 'transcendent' X); ego-suspending via everyday living (i.e. encounters (à la Buber) - prayer, meditation, or contemplation via e.g. making / performing / experiencing art; free play; intimate sex; compassion-care; etc - and/or hallucinogens) rather than ego-killing via ritualized ascetics (e.g. monasticism, militarism, etc). Not religious, not spiritual, not mystical - but I am (an) ecstatic.
:death: :flower:
Quoting Pantagruel
:up:
Quoting praxis
:clap:
Quoting TheMadFool
:lol:
Quoting Punshhh
This 'ego-less/loss channeling' reminds me of Spinoza's (acosmist) scientia intuitiva aka 'blessedness'.
Quoting javra
Oh yeah, this vibes powerfully with my decades-old Gnostic-interpretation of Freddy's eternally recurring 'self-overcoming' as the highest form (Sophia-as-Dionysus) of the will to power. Affinities with Spinoza's immanentism as well. And Abraham Heschel's (hasidic-qabalistic) God's Search For Man with its evocative mitzvah for us to partner with G_d in the process of perfecting creation - creating (power) with - or tikkun olam. :fire:
Buddhists see past lives, Christians are one with God, some people see ghost girl... and yeah, cults and religions are built around these experiences. People like Timmothy believe they’ve found the way to free the mind and save humanity or whatever. At the risk of philistinism, it’s all bullshit. An asshole is going to be an asshole after ‘enlightenment’. They might even be an asshole with a more inflated ego, because they’ve experienced selflessness, oddly enough.
I don’t think we can begin to imagine what is beyond our little fishbowl of experience.
That you consider the claim grandiose is a sign that a dialog on this subject will prove fruitless.
But in case there's fruit to be had: Lying on one's back staring up at the sky can evoke a mystical revelation. As can a fixed gaze at a sunset.
This is a welcome circumvention of the corrupted descriptor 'mystical.'
I would only add that certain kinds of mystical practice induce - you might say the obverse of ecstasy - placidity.
My practice is a kind of balancing act: placidity and ecstasy (and of course the hum-drum day-to-day).
Yes: Always back to Freddy and his funny pal Z. I was listening to that astounding genius on librivox this morning.
You likely know your Freddy better than I do, but my feeling was that he would have adored Saint John's Revelation with its repetitions around the word 'overcome.' A psychological reading of the book gives us the destruction of the old self (or world or mind or Last Man) in Chapters 1-20 and a creation of the new self (or world or mind or Superman - taking the Superman notion to be a thing easily projected, from any point in time, indefinitely into the future) beginning with Chapter 21.
Just a curious nexus between Nietzschean and Christian phraseology.
Absolutely my experience as well: God exists only when I am god.
The implication is an agnostic day-to-day coupled with the violence of sudden ecstatic, or the emptiness of a sudden placidic, gnosis.
Priests and popes hate mystics because mystics can get to 'god' on their own with no help from priests and popes.
This is not the subjugation I was referring to initially. What I was referring to is the process of the alignment between the self and the guide, to use another analogy. The self and God, the self and soul, the self with nature, with spirit. This is another important aspect/process on the path and likewise not much progress can be made until it is tackled. This process presupposes the breaking free of the limited self that you refer to.
This process of alignment, orientation has various aspects including some sense of giving up ones freedom. This is something which is offered freely in the knowledge and surety that nothing is lost because what is gained thereafter is that which was feared to be lost along with the added component of being guided by some ineffable power (I am using this phrase only because it follows on from the phraseology I was using earlier). Which is known to be oneself already, but just an area of the self not realised. So as I suggested earlier, it is not a subjugation to a power over, but rather a power with and power over simultaneously, synthesised into a unity.
An illustration of this is spoken by Jesus in John 12:44-46
"If you trust me, you are trusting not only me, but also God who sent me. For when you see me, you are seeing the one who sent me. I have come as a light to shine in this dark world, so that all who put their trust in me will no longer remain in the dark"
Nice, I'm envious. I mentioned animals in particular, they have a special significance to me as they are in a sense me without the ego. Or at least there is a glimpse of this in a communion with them. Ref' St francis of Assisi.
I hear you loud and clear, it doesn't need to be either/or though, it can be both, or a creative synthesis. Tailored to the nature of the individual.
“I overcame myself, the sufferer; I carried my own ashes to the mountains; I invented a brighter flame for myself.”
Nietzsche
I have almost no experience with this kind of communion. I used to get a mystical kick out of staring at certain distant birds. But never a St. Francis kind of magic.
:cool:
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
A band name or song title? :smirk:
:up:
It's easy to say 'I'm an atheist'; more difficult to be one. The mind wants what it wants. And having the power to create some kind of god will sometimes insist on creating it - where culture, habit, repetition, superstition, give it room.
To say 'I'm an atheist' can be a kind of superstition. Like knocking on wood.
I feel like I've known more women than men who have this kind of connection to animals. You're probably lucky to have that side to you.
The history of Taoism is helpful in this regard. Most of the literature is devoted to how it gets talked about in unhelpful ways.
I think it's important to add as little as possible and to learn to add less and less. Especially linguistic interlopers. It's good fun to talk about this stuff on a philosophy forum but it's just a - though a far more positive - Beckettian silence.*
*Referencing Samuel Beckett's obsession with silence and achieving silence alongside a fairly continuous production of new and interesting literature.
We should not take our new experiences for granted. Nobody gave them to us. That is what many old farts were trying to say.
Yep, new or old.
Quoting Punshhh
I see a discrepancy here between these two statements, a sort of inconsistency. I've always thought of the mystical experience as an experience where the importance of the self rises to the forefront. But I've often heard it described as an overcoming of the self, a negating or losing of the self; the self being apprehended as unimportant. You can see how the two perspectives are somewhat opposed.
So I'm more inclined toward Punshhh's description here, of "the true self emerging", where there's a sort of divided self. The past self, the limited, subjugated self, must always be left as inferior in relation to the new and improved self going forward from that moment in time. Even the very simple act of merely recognizing this, produces an improved self.
This is the nature of being, as living at the present. In a sense, what has happened in the past has made me who and what I am. This is the limited self, that I have been determined by my past to be what I am today, and there is no question of me being otherwise. The past self is absolutely restricted. However, going forward from this point in time, I am free to make my choices and improve upon myself, no matter how desperate my situation is, such that the person I will be in the future will be a product of my own choices, and so I am capable of giving myself a better life simply by making the choices which make me a better person.
That is pretty much the song I sing to rise up each day. But all these other factors crop up. I do see the effective result of accepting the world upon the terms I make for it. But there are other things that do not care about any of that.
You mean other people?
Yes, other people. But who are these other people?
It is fun to be on the winning team and imagine all the crappy stuff that happens to others.
What does another point of view look like?
What you say resonates with me.
I take the following to be complementary to what you’ve expressed.
I’ve heard some word it as surrender to a higher power, rather than a subjugation. Even so: In my understandings it’s not about surrendering to any other. I still get bad chills of sorts when I hear people praising the virtue of obedience to others as a spiritual goal (obey your priest, your spouse (esp. if you’re a woman), your … anything and anybody that’s supposed to be of authority, sort of thing … don’t dare question anything they tell you or instruct you to do). As you express as well, to me there can be no I-thou relation in this surrender. Imperfectly phrased: if it’s a surrender, it’s a surrender to a greater version of you, one which you’ve tacitly yearned to be. Well, this is kind of Hindu slanted in that the phrasing implies there being a “greater self”, a Brahman if you will. But so articulated for a Christian audience, for example, the mystic or ecstatic experience as goal is likely that of becoming one with Christ, to be a Christ-within-er – such that Christ’s ethics, sensibilities, and virtue become one’s own, as well as the responsibilities, this in due measure. This stands in contrast to obeying Christ in an I-thou relation – which is what I most often experience in Christians. The first is a scenario of intrinsic values; here, one knows what is right and wrong and acts accordingly from one’s own volition. Whereas the latter is a case of extrinsic values, more along the lines of doing things due to punishments and rewards imposed by others: a scary thing to me ... one that in a way reminds me of Son of Sam in a worst case scenario way.
Then things can get weirder when interpreting things from along a Buddhist angle, in which this greater self one surrenders to is actually a non-hyperbolical selfless state of being, what I take at least some Buddhists to consider being the state of Nirvana that awaits to become actualized. I, for example, heard the Dalai Lama in a documentary claiming he still has very very many lives to yet live before he actualizes this state of being – and he’s said to embody the Bodhisattva of compassion. Personally, I don’t subscribe to anyone who claims to have obtained or actualized Nirvana, just because they’re still a self, an ego. But the Dalai Lama I can respect.
So in terms of loss of freedoms. Freedom is always relative to something. A flying bird is free from the requirement to walk, but is yet bound to, unfree from, forces of gravity and the flow of air currents, etc. Supposing the individual’s transcendence of his/her conditioned self can and does occur, they still remain a self, an ego, afterwards – albeit one that is no longer conditioned as they once were. And every self, ego, is yet limited by a distinction of I and other (if nothing else). I’m supposing that what the individual likely gains – here expressed differently for different cultures – is an understanding of Christ-nature, or of Brahman, or of Nirvana (the gaining of Buddha-nature), or of Ein Sof, and so forth. Which, I’d like to believe, might be different labels for the same exact given: Something that without these culturally loaded terms would best be understood as nameless, ineffable, and universally applicable – neutral to all cultural biases. But, then, it wouldn’t be communicable even in principle. Furthering this line of thought, if the individual gains awareness of this state of being to which the individual surrenders, so to speak, he or she would yet be limited by virtue of yet being a self, an ego – and would not be the limitless nature of being which was cognized. But in having gained an understanding of one’s true nature – again, which one has yet to fully actualize – to which one as a self has willfully surrendered, one obtains the freedom to pursue this desired end as one deems fit. And I gather that in this there might be a sense of freedom and serenity. This though life as always still has it pitfalls and obstacles. As one example, the Dalai Lama still hasn’t liberated Tibet, though I’m sure he’s content in having tried his best throughout.
Maybe this is too stream of consciousness. My bad if it is. Posting it anyway out of curiosity for feedback.
I am cool with stream of consciousness expression. What I write will also be like that, although some formulation has already been composed. I find it hard to reference scholastic material in this because there immediately becomes an issue of terminology and interpretation of the source, or criticism of the source, or of me, in which what I am trying to say becomes sidelined.*
I want to stress that what I have to say about this alignment in the self is a subject for a whole book and that I don't feel I have expressed it sufficiency as yet.
I want to stress the word orientation, because as I use these ideas in contemplation, I find the concept of changing myself through the fine tuning of my orientation easier to countenance. Firstly because I am not changing myself, but turning something in me, fine tuning a relation. Secondly because I realise that the goal is not a change in myself, but either a freeing, a realisation, an opening. Third I like the concept of an ironing out of the wrinkles in myself, or stilling the ripples on a pond. Fourthly that I am confident in the sentiment that that which I strive for, reach out towards want to free myself for, or to achieve is already here, I am already it, I am already there, if only I were to realise that fact, to re orientate inside myself that it shine through.
*I can reference my principle source, but on the condition that it is only a source in that it provides a skeleton of structure from which to work and that I dont endorse any other aspect of it. Or following it word for word, or agree with the premises of the work necessarily. That if someone then criticises the work, or my use of it that I would ask them to return to the discussion without derailing in these ways.
I agree, I see the overcoming the self, negating, or losing the self, narrative as one of a number of practices developed in a school which has become over emphasised in its, perhaps, being taken out of context. I am sure that it has some merit as a practice in a Tibetan monastery for example, but I have only ever found it to be something unattainable and pointless, or what is it that is to be achieved through doing it?
I think that the orientation referred to here is a matter of finding one's temporal perspective. There is a "turning" which is required because common empirical knowledge is derived from the past, so we tend to be always facing the past in our epistemological perspectives; yet to move forward in time in the most efficient and effective way requires that we turn and face the future itself. This is not easy because the future, as completely nonexistent in the empirical sense, looms as an abyss from that epistemological perspective. The future is therefore the source of all fear and fright.
It is much easier to live within the epistemological bubble that we have created, which draws on our empirical experience of the past, applying some mathematical principles of inversion, directing this knowledge toward the future, in prediction, than it is to turn around and face the reality of the future, and the fact that what has not yet been determined cannot be predicted with certainty, and this is the deficiency of that epistemological perspective. Facing that uncertainty which inheres within the future, due to it's very nature, is what we avoid, because of fear. Hence we are not inclined to turn around, and we accept the epistemological illusion and live in the epistemological bubble.
This turning of the person, towards the future, to apprehend the future as substantially distinct from the past, necessitates a division within the properties of the person. The self is commonly represented as being at the present, and now we need to distinguish properties related to the future (immaterial) from properties related to the past (material). This makes dualist principles inescapable as the true grounding principles for any acceptable epistemology. We might call this turning of the soul, to face the true nature of the future, a revelation, because it reveals to us the necessity of dualist epistemology in any attempt to understand the nature of reality. So from the metaphysical perspective, dualist sympathy is commonly associated with such a turning of one's orientation.
I accept that time is involved in these processes to quite a fundamental degree. I want to draw you back the what I am aiming for which is a relation between, in a sense different apparatus in a person's psyche, or being. The easiest way to explain this is if one considers that we have a soul, this soul is (for arguments sake) pure and divine. It does though have life, a past, a present and future and it is myself, but ordinarily I am somehow not aware of it, or at least can't distinguish it from the limited self. The orientation is to achieve an alignment of the person of the limited self and the person of the soul, such that the goals, desires, understanding and motivations of both is one and the same. The soul though being perfect cannot change, so the limited self being imperfect will change to become perfect.
The mysticism I have a limited introduction to is kabbalah, which entails finding hidden meaning in biblical texts. The study is typical of other Judaic study in that it involves textual study (in partucular, the Zohar). That is to say, it's an organized study and doesn't suffer from the nebulousness you describe and if you asked someone for a discussion of it, you'd be given all sorts of study materials.
The object of kabbalah is likely that of all mysticism, which is to find meaning in the world. Specific to orthodox judaism, they believe in the divine nature of the Torah, this leading to deeper analysis of the text (including counting the times a word is used or noticing the order of letters in deciphering meaning). That is. If God said these things, every mark and dot must be impregnated with infinite meaning.
And that leads to the next step, which is to state that each event in the universe was created for a higher purpose, and the kabbalah of life would be to decipher (or at least recognize) the meaning behind each blade of grass blowing in the wind.
It seems to me that one can do these things and not have a mystical experience. So, what makes these experiences mystical for one and not another?
In saying it is mystical, what are you actually saying - that there is knowledge to be obtained, or that there is happiness to be felt, or something else entirely?
I think you just posted examples of how we imagine what is beyond our little fishbowl of experience. What distinguishes imaginings from reality is the process of falsification.
A lot of mystics believe there is knowledge to be gleaned from mystical illumination. The sort of knowledge that might give rise to proclamations about the ins and outs of the universe. As a philosophical skeptic - Sextus Empiricus is an old friend - it seems silly to me to make claims about something as large, clunky and mysterious as the universe. There is certainly knowledge to be gleaned about the construction, mechanics and potentialities of the mind.
In short: to my view, mystical experience is a psychical phenomenon and can only teach us things about the mind.
Most mystics don't situate their illuminations on such a skeptical ground. That makes for a ton of philosophical muck and mockbait.
Desire and determination are key. The word 'seeker' comes to mind along with the old phrase 'seek and you shall find.' The obverse reads: do not seek and you shall not find.
So instead of addressing the point, you would rather engage in ad hominems. :roll:
Look who's talking. It seems to me that if we can't agree on whether things have multiple dimensions or aspects or not, then we are both not settling on a middle ground. Can you point to the post where you settled on a middle ground with me?
I guess you missed this part:
Quoting Harry Hindu
So, if I am so entrenched in my beliefs, then how is it that I did a complete 180 on my beliefs earlier in my life? It is because I began to ask questions that weren't being asked and any answer I received didn't integrate with the rest of what was known or being said.
As part of our conversation, I have taken your position and then, like I did with my Christian beliefs, I began to ask questions and integrate your answers with the rest of what you said but, as I have shown, it is inconsistent.
So it seems to me that you are guilty of what you are accusing me of. Hypocrisy.
Quoting Pantagruel
Wrong. I am pursuing your narrative and asking questions about it - questions that you should be asking yourself, but you aren't, because you "relentlessly pursue your own very specific narrative without attempting to moderate or adapt your perspective to allow any kind of co-existence with alternative perspectives." - specifically that things have multiple dimensions or aspects.
Quoting Pantagruel
I don't understand how you could be disagreeing with me if all we ever talk about is our opinions.
This also contradicts this statement of yours:
Quoting Pantagruel
Which is why I asked how we know that we are talking about the same thing if there isn't a consensus, which you avoided and then attempted an answer that just contradicted another previous statement of yours, which I showed, and so now you respond with hypocrisy and ad hominems.
So, who is it that needs to re-think their position again?
So how is this not the same thing as what I have said in that you already have to believe in mystical, supernatural things to go seeking it out? You already have to believe in ghosts to be scared by them, or use ghosts as an explanation for the "unexplained" sounds in your house.
If the mind can do a thing, that thing is not supernatural.
The 'seeker' is seeking new vistas in the mind. It's a question of will; although belief - namely, a belief in the corruption, laziness and littleness of most minds - does play a role. The 'seeker' sees the people in his world and hopes the mind can do more than this. He seeks the more the mind can do. Nothing at all supernatural in that.
Mystics who get plump with ego - or overexcited by young revelations - are the kind who make assertions about ultimate truth or minglings with the supernatural. You can divide mystics neatly into humble and ego-plump.
Did I? The things that I mentioned are pretty unremarkable and I think show the how limited our imagination is, and not how otherworldly expansive it could be in an altered state. Like our dreams, visions in altered states may offer insights about ourselves or the mind in general, but the elements are comprised of our worldly experiences. Even if there were a premonition that proved to be true, it is still limited to the world we know and human concerns.
Nicely put.
This would suggest to me that we are not going to figure it out with our little minds, but rather it is revealed to us, or not, as the case may be.
RIP Little Richard.
:death: :flower:
[/quote]
Ha!
OK, but I'm having difficulty grasping what you mean by "pure and divine", "perfect". I've been told before, that if I want to better myself, I need to apprehend this (let's call it an ideal), because I won't be able to truly judge better from worse, without some sort of scale which would be based in the ideal, the notion of perfection. But I don't completely apprehend that need. Can't I just judge one thing as better than another thing, in relation to a third thing? So the one thing is closer to the third thing than the other thing, and therefore better. This would make the third thing the best, of all those three things, without the necessity of being perfect. Now I need to question what makes this third thing the best, and I can't just relate it to a fourth thing, and a fifth thing ad infinitum, so maybe I really do need an ideal to ground the notion of "better".
To put your perfect soul, in relation to the temporal terms which I used, I would say that the perfection, or ideal, which I am looking for, is the perfect division between past and future. This would be the perfect and unchanging 'now', the eternal present. All change, and activity which has already occurred is in the past, and all possible change, which hasn't yet occurred is in the future. At the perfect 'now', as the division between what has occurred, and what has not occurred, there cannot be any change, just the pure and divine division between past and future. That is where we find the soul, at this dimensionless point which divides future from past.
But that seems all wrong. In reality, all change and activity occurs precisely at the present. The past, as what's already occurred is fixed, static and unchanging, while the future is full of static possibilities which do not change until time passes to bring them forward, and fixed in the past. This leaves the present as an imperfect division, because it is that time when things are changing, and perfection is defined in terms of unchangingness. Shouldn't we place the soul, as existing at the present, within this category of being imperfect? Now my ideal, my principle, or scale for judging better and worse, is grounded in imperfection rather than perfection. My ideal is an ideal of imperfection. My goal can be described as moving away from imperfection, rather than moving toward perfection. But if I'm moving away from imperfection aren't I necessarily moving toward perfection? Even if I have absolutely no idea of what perfection is, having only been shown imperfections, by knowing that I am moving away from imperfection, I know that I am moving toward perfection. But I've really just made a circle. Again, how do I know that change is associated with imperfection? I only got that idea because people have said that changeless is associated with perfection, so I associated change with imperfection. What if change itself is really the ideal, perfection?
I will try to address your concerns here. But first I want to put in context what I have been talking about in this thread. What I am referring to is a set of mystical practices, practices which are precisely targeted at a process developed to help a natural growth within a person, rather like practicing Yoga for your health. In this the concern is relationships between aspects of the self of the practitioners so entirely internal. It is the case that the practitioner is living in our world simultaneously to this, but the practice is the focus and in this time is of little importance other than its role in the animation of events. I do accept that time does on occasion become the focus of such practice.
So going back to your concerns. People may tell you to look to perfection of some kind to better ones self, but it is nothing more than a platitude I think, like if you eat more carrots you will have better eye sight. As for judging better from worse, this depends on the perspective when the judgement is made. In mystical practice this is contemplated, but no judgement is made other than what is perceived to be appropriate for the practice. Of course one is free to come the judgements for personal consideration, opinion etc, but this is separate from the practice. I should point out that I don't think the human mind is equipped to understand reality, this is not to say that it is not equipped to behold it, but rather to work it out unaided.
I think that attempting to position the soul in your time theory might be useful, but I don't think we can find the truth of the situation, but what makes sense to us. I am familiar with your thoughts on the metaphysics on time, which I broadly agree with, but haven't enquired into much myself as I am not so concerned with the metaphysics of physical reality. Rather that physical material is a tool for the expression and development of being and that being is of more interest.
I perceive a problem for the human mind in coming to a definitive metaphysics, due to not having any idea where reality begins, or ends, or how deep it goes. Rather like trying to peddle without peddles. I am open to being corrected on this, but don't hold my breath.
Exactly. It would be natural.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
This post contains two contradictions:
The first part seems to me a delusion of grandeur - the type you equate with "mystics who get plump with ego" later in your post. It would fall into your ego-plump category.
If a mind can do a thing, and that thing is not supernatural, then expecting more than the mind can do would be expecting something supernatural, not natural, from the mind.
You said,
Quoting praxis
Obviously, we have begun to imagine. We may be the first imaginers in the universe.
Now, you're saying that our imagination is limited. Well sure, nothing is infinite, except maybe the (multi-)universe in space and time. If what you mean is that fact may be stranger than we could imagine, then we could talk about that.
No one said anything about expecting the mind to do more than it can do. That's a phrase you invented.
It's a question of will: willing the mind to do more than most minds can do. Again, nothing supernatural in that.
As I said at the outset: A fruitful dialog between the two of us is unlikely. You're entrenched. You want to negate and not to understand. That's your prerogative. But I'm not interested in continuing our talk.
:meh:
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
:roll:
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
:meh:
Quoting Harry Hindu
:roll:
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Yes, I am entrenched in my idea that ideas need to be coherent and consistent to qualify as knowledge.
Your entrenchment is taking a toll on your reading comprehension. You're projecting contradictions.
Experimenting, with a will to psychical expansion and odyssey, to determine if my mind can do more than most minds - is different from:
Quoting Harry Hindu
You see a contradiction because you haven't absorbed my words in good faith. Fruitless. Enjoy the day.
is a great example of the thought process of Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
The fact that you don't see the former as an example of the latter is an indication that you are probably talking about yourself as someone who thinks that their mind can do more than most minds - I mean how egotistical is that?
And why would a mind that can do more than most minds want to communicate this fact and what it can do to those minds can that can't do what it can do, other than to gloat?
Is critical thinking no longer a requirement in philosophy?
Many, many minds can do more than most minds. :fire: :halo: :fire:
This puzzle piece doesn't integrate with the rest of the puzzle that you presented. This piece is for a different puzzle.
I wasn't claiming that we can't begin to imagine.
I agree, "being" is the starting point, the point of interest. But for me, "being" leads straight to temporality. It's a temporal concept, and there's no avoiding this. Sure you might prefer your type of mystic approach, go to the guide and say lead me, but the guide will inevitably lead you down that winding path toward temporality, because there is nowhere else to go with this interest in "being".
In English we have a term, "happening", which means occurring, as events. And "being" in modern, western lingo, is sometimes replaced by "happening". Notice that "being" might signify a static unchanging existence, while "happening" signifies activity. Happening is similar to the ancient concept of "becoming", which is often contrasted with "being". "Being" signifies something staying the same as time passes (the suffix "ing" indicates that time is passing), while "becoming" signifies something which is changing while time is passing. Time is the underlying theme. So I approach "being" from a western background, seeing the world as happening, and wondering what is happening. From this empirical, scientific background, there is no "being" for me, being is some sort of mystical ideal, what you've called a platitude.
So there is this mystical concept, "being", which doesn't really relate to anything real in the world, in the way that I understand the world, as consisting of events, happenings. But let's say you and I have both had an interest in this mystical concept, "being", so we've delved into it. You appear to have opted to enroll in some sort of formal mystical training, with a guide, while I have taken the philosophical approach, which is to look into as many different philosophies as possible, approaching the subject from many different directions, and in a sense to be self-guided because I can choose my directions of approach. So I'll refer back to your opening post in this thread:
Quoting Punshhh
I think you express the wrong attitude toward the philosophical approach here. The opposite of what you say about the rigidity of the philosophical approach, is actually closer to the truth. In the philosophical tradition there is a vast array of different approaches to the same issue, being. As you know, philosophers do not agree. The problem with the philosophical approach though, is that there is far too much variance, so unless you go to an organized school, a university or something, and have professors, as guides, who point toward the appropriate material, you might get lost, overwhelmed by the vast material, perhaps wasting a lifetime getting nowhere. So you have chosen a guide instead, but the guide gives you that rigidity of a singular approach, the way that the guide knows. Unless you recognize when you have gotten as far as that guide can take you, and you move along to another guide, in the same way that we switch professors and courses in university, you will not get as far as you might want to get.
Quoting Punshhh
Notice how you describe your progression as a type of growth, which is a becoming, rather than a being. This is an odd tendency. We want to refer to ourselves as beings, human beings, such that the self has a temporal extension as the unchanging "I", yet when we describe ourselves we describe a changing, growing creature.
The natural inclination appears to be to relate to ourselves as beings, something which is, like Descartes said, "I am". However scientific endeavors demonstrate that what we are is changing, growing, evolving things. By what means would I say that I am the same "being" that I was twenty years ago? So science provides no place for the "I", the self. The perception is that expressed by ancient Greece as "becoming". Plato and Aristotle demonstrated and incompatibility between being and becoming, so the concept of "matter" was proposed to reconcile them, to bridge the gap.
I think that the concept of matter provided the basis for a revolution in western mysticism. In pre-Socratic times mysticism consisted of ancient myths concerning the relationship between the gods and the world, as well as the relationship between souls and bodies. These relationships were not well understood, and the myths were very sketchy. After Aristotle the main focus of western mysticism became the nature of matter, whether it's real, whether its inherently evil, etc.. Matter is a central concept in the western world, but there are two very distinct ways of looking at matter. The scientific approach takes matter for granted. The mystical approach does not attribute any necessity to matter.
Quoting Punshhh
I see this as the key point, and the reason why time becomes so important. We apprehend ourselves immediately as "a being" because we have memories which provide the base for an "I" or "self", extended in time. However, we also have to relate to what you call here "the animation of events". And this is a very practical issue, which opens up all the questions of freedom, constraint, and agency. We simply cannot deal adequately with any practical issues without having the required understanding of the role of time in the animation of events. The extent of the requirement varies by degree, depending on the subject. But to ourselves, as beings, time only appears as a particular extension, or dimension, of existence. The temporal extension of the self provides the testimony for this. So there are two seemingly incompatible notions of time at play here. One plays a role in my static identity as "I", and the other plays a role in the animation of events.
The Far End of the Garden
at the far end of the garden
I kneel and weep for the world -
in the simple shelter of tall beans,
old fence, fragrant dill, and
sweeping asparagus fronds,
it is there that I weep for the world
in the silence of morning light.
it is the ecstatic summer.
it is the song and the reconciliation.
it is the ripened fruit.
it is the rain, the earth, and the impossible sky.
(at the far end of the garden,
I am born, grow old, and die.)
it is the sweet clover and the mint,
it is the beetle and the syrphid fly,
it is the borage blue and the burning bush.
it is the ecstatic summer.
like one who has finished his work
and knows so for certain,
I examine a tattered leaf.
spontaneously present,
without fear or expectations,
I study the movements of a worm.
Statilius
You say being is the starting point and is of interest and then limit it in your view of it as a concept and therefore subject to time. This seems to not see the baby in the bath water.
You do acknowledge here that there is at least the notion of being as something beyond the temporality of concepts. You then reduce it to a meaningless aspect of the physical world.
Likewise, I am a veritable magpie for collecting philosophical, religious and mystical concepts and traditions. It has though become distilled into a very simple philosophy and view.
What I have been doing here is suggesting some ground rules from which to explore the issue. Just like the philosophical foundations, or ground rules which are required for a discussion of metaphysics for example. These ground rules are necessary so as to be discussing genuine mysticism as practiced down the ages by people who take the discipline seriously. Rather than skirting around the edges which people tend to do who have not studied the discipline, just like with metaphysics.
I haven't really been discussing my personal view, or practice, but rather the equivalent of an academic approach, but for mysticism. Which unfortunately doesn't have much in the way of a formal academic structure in western learning.
Yes some varied background reading and approaching from more than one established path of entry into the discipline. Along with talking with a diverse group of adherents does help one to get a rounded take on the discipline. I suppose what I was getting at in my first post that you reference is that often the philosopher one engages with will require you to use established terminology, follow the ground rules and will be critical, or dismissive of anything which does not fit therein.
This falls into what I described a minute ago as skirting around the edges of the issue while not adhering to the ground rules. I hadn't gotten around to any ground rules regarding being, or self, or "I"
Mysticism delves beyond the intellectual, or mind derived understanding of being, self and "I".
I don't really perceive a problem, or crisis within mysticism from the modern views and discoveries about matter, physical material.
Yes you point to a potential conflict between temporality and permanence/perfection. Like I have said physical material, as far as I am concerned in this endeavour, is a tool of expression of being. Time and space, spacetime is an aspect of physical extension and material.
I know that this last point could become a point of contention here and I do accept that mysticism does become concerned with matter and time. But only really at a more advanced level and we would need to have established the ground rules of discussion before reaching a point where this can be adequately expressed.
I don't see your point here. Being is a concept. If you are thinking of something other than a concept, you are not thinking about "being", but "a being". And any concept is limited by the way it is understood. But that's a big issue, because the way that we understand a concept is tempered by our education and cultural background, and the conditions for understanding extend into intuition and innate factors. So I might understand "being" in a way completely different from you, and this fact makes Platonism (within which a concept is supposed to have independent existence) very doubtful.
To me, this elucidates a very important distinction between empirical knowledge and mystical knowledge. In the empirical sciences we observe physical things, and describe these objects according to the limits of the thing, as observed. In mystical knowledge we are describing limits which inhere within the knower. These limits are mysterious, because we do not directly observe them, and we cannot truthfully say that they are a product of the culture. So for example, my education, and my culture, contribute to the limits of my understanding of "being", but I go beyond this in my imagination and speculation, producing new, original limits, which are distinct from those that others impress upon me. Since the nature of these limits, how they get created or where they come from, is very mysterious, the study of these is properly mysticism.
Quoting Punshhh
Right, because "understanding" implies limits already produced, so to approach the process which creates the understanding, and this is the truly mysterious, we must delve beyond the understanding itself. This type of knowledge cannot be properly called understanding.
Quoting Punshhh
I don't understand this criticism. By "temporal concept" I mean a concept based in time. And I don't understand time to be an aspect of the physical world, it's more like something which makes the physical world possible. As such time is therefore mysterious, and a subject of mysticism. It's existence is not evident through any senses and so it is not revealed to, and cannot be a subject of empirical science. In this way time is very similar to matter. We never sense matter itself, only various configurations of matter, the configuration rather than the matter is what is sensed Both time and matter are taken for granted by empirical science, but since they cannot be in anyway sensed, they are beyond empirical science's capacity of study, being limited to things observed. That's why the nature of these things falls into the category of mysterious, and it is only mysticism which can properly apprehend them. Life, the soul, falls into this category as well. All three, soul, time, and matter are aspects of being, and are subjects of mysticism. It wouldn't be correct to reduce mysticism to the study of one or the other, because one cannot be properly apprehended without apprehending its relation to the others.
Quoting Punshhh
I don't see the distinction between metaphysics and mysticism. Metaphysics deals with the very same subject matter as mysticism. If anything, one might be a form of the other, like metaphysics might be a form of mysticism, or vise versa. But since we can go either way with this, metaphysics is a form of mysticism, or mysticism is a form of metaphysics, this induces the probability that they are actually both just different words for the same thing. As such, I can see that it would be an extremely arduous task to establish proper ground rules, or any principles which would be used to recognize a "genuine mysticism". However, in metaphysics it is not difficult to distinguish the different degrees of seriousness which people assign to the discipline. The serious devotees are identifiable by the quality of the discussion.
Quoting Punshhh
There's very good reason for skirting the edges when approaching a subject , and this is to avoid narrowing it down too soon. It's very easy to get distracted by one particular aspect of a thing, and focus on that aspect, as if it is the only important aspect, or the essence of the thing, or something like that. Then you don't get the whole big picture, zooming in quickly to focus on one particular part. So the skirting is necessary to determine the required scope of the enquiry, prior to laying down any ground rules. Circumscribing the whole of the subject is an act of unification whereas singling out a particular part without first establishing a strong unity, would be divisive. Notice, a form of synthesis is prior to analysis, because we need to establish what it is which is to be analyzed.
I think that in the case of mysticism it might be a very good idea to keep skirting for a long time. The subject matter, by its very nature, is not immediately evident, hidden, mysterious, so we need to take our time in finding the things which belong in this category. What I find is that there is an element of the mysterious which permeates all knowledge, of all things, so there is a need to apply some mystical principles in all of our practises, making allowance for the unknown. Mysticism is what protects us and saves us from things like superstition and paranoia in our endeavours, which are a fear of the mysterious.
Quoting Punshhh
As you can see, I'm not big on ground rules of discussion. I think ground rules may be a little bit counterproductive to the mystical process. By limiting the subject through application of ground rules, we might sort of create an understanding, thereby negating the mysteriousness which is actually supposed to be the subject. Understanding is created by dispelling the mysteriousness. So I think we really need to relax the rules, allowing freedom of discussion, until we develop a better idea of what we are talking about.
Generally speaking I imagine it's much of the same. Either the acknowledgement or attempt to study or understand or for some even control and pursue the metaphysical or supernatural, usually for some tangible benefit to the individual. Premonitions, auras, thetan levels, chakras, chi, the list goes on.
I remember a while back I was reading about 'magical thinking' and how it should be avoided. The author of the article mentioned if/when Jesus walked on water it was not just 'magically done' rather the particles of the water were adjusted so they were much more dense and able to be walked on, intentionally of course.
Something to keep in mind though. There's a popular story in a certain religious book of two high priests by an altar, each with an offering, and each aligned to an opposing entity both together for the purpose of showing their followers whose would be accepted/consumed by fire from Heaven and thus is real. Story goes one poured water on their offering and shortly after it was consumed with fire while the others were not. Then I remembered an old chemistry kit I had a while back. Two bottles. One was a powder. The other a liquid solvent, not too different looking from ordinary water. You could mix the two and after a while a bright, dazzling flame would appear and burn for a pretty good while. Who's to say their offering wasn't coated with this powder and their 'water' was not this solvent? Another example. Say a high priest comes to an enemy kingdom in Biblical times holding a staff and demands to see their high priests. Saying they have been misled and are worshipping false gods and that he has been instructed to show them 'the truth' by ways of a divine act so their people may be saved. They agree to see him and he offers them to inspect his staff to see that it is real. They all pass it around and examine it very closely. Now say the staff has been coated with a fast acting and dissipating hallucinogen that he has become immune to by frequent exposure. He throws it by their feet and 'calls forth a snake' over and over making hissing sounds in the process. Let's say the staff is also very identical in appearance to one. They all may very well 'see' one before their eyes then shortly after 'see' it turn back into a staff and immediately inform their rulers this kingdom is sent from God to save them. To name a few examples.
Point being you can easily place yourself in a position where you avoid rational thought and skepticism when you place 'mysticism' foremost. Some say "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and they may be right. Imagine being in the 9th century with a lighter. Or the 12th century with a printing press. Even today in some places. Imagine seeing a lizard regrow its tail, a starfish regrow its limbs, or an 'immortal jellyfish' become mortally wounded and revert back to a polyp only to live again. You'd be amazed. Sure we're told these things happen because 'that's just how their cells are' and 'that's just what they do'. Ok? Lol. If you say so. Maybe the cells in God's brain create humans, disasters, and raise the dead because 'that's just what they do' while you're at it. Rambling but just my thoughts on the subject.
But these limits you talk of are intellectual constructs, my cat knows nothing of them. I know more of the being of my cat through sitting with my cat than through intellectualisation. Where are the limits in this sitting?
Mysticism is the study of things beyond intellectualisation, as I have repeatedly pointed out. A fact which I keep pointing out to Banno, in which he finds himself speechless. Quite a good response I think. Oh, indeed here it is referenced in your post:
How are you going to address that which is beyond intellectual understanding, other than through mysticism?
I think the key here is the phrase, spacetime, as far as I am concerned space and time are two sides of the same coin, both necessary parts of extension. Matter, material and it's attendant time, is an innate product of this extension and cannot exist, or be regarded as existing absent the time involved in that extension until the duration of it has ended. This is what Einstein told us, is it not.
I agree that time and material are of interest to the mystic, but as I have already said, it is not what is important initially in mystical enquiry and the study of it is only in regard to how being is developed and expressed through extension, or incarnation. This is very complicated and for more advanced levels of mysticism, as I understand and regard it.
The distinction is simple, metaphysics is the study of what the intellect can say about existence and is couched in the history and dictates of academia etc. Mysticism rejects this initially and enquires into the same through other means namely life and experience. The intellect is necessary to do this, but only in the interpretation and understanding of it. Also in the contemplation of it, but not in the intellectualisation used in academia. This is perhaps a controversial distinction, which is partly why the mystic steals clear of academia initially.
Yes, I accept this, although I think it necessary to define what mysticism is and how it differs from philosophy and visa versa. So as not to confuse metaphysics and mysticism.
Mysticism avoids this by focussing initially on the self, the person and not getting bogged down in what is not understood about the external world. These can be looked into much further down the line when the aspirant understands the distinction between mysticism and the sciences and academic knowledge.
I think you misunderstand me, I simply mean to define mysticism and what it is doing, what it involves and which does require at least one assumption. The assumption that there is some kind of the spiritual, for want of a better word, in the world we find ourselves in. If one were to work on the possibility, or conviction that the world we find ourselves in is nothing more than a place of material as described by science, then mysticism become irrelevant.
"Sure we're told these things happen because 'that's just how their cells are' and 'that's just what they do'." You are misunderstanding something. We do not listen just because they say so. We listen because we trust the facts that are presented. So, there is sufficient evidence that backs up the reason to believe why cells behave the way they do. However, we do not have a good enough reason to suggest that God's brain created humans, disasters and raises the dead. That is just assumptions and guessing. That doesn't mean the possibility is ruled out. It just means we cannot measure that idea in any way; therefore we restrain from that field, scientifically-speaking.
when Jesus walked on water it was not just 'magically done' rather the particles of the water were adjusted so they were much more dense and able to be walked on, intentionally of course.
That is a possibility. But that still implies 'magic' or some sort because how did they change the particles? With their mind? If so, that is a poor attempt at justifying the incident. It is possible for us to change the particles of water but that requires a highly-advanced knowledge in biology or some sort. I am too illiterate in the fields of biology to explain it precisely but I do know that is a possibility that can happen. The only thing that differentiates every living being and every living thing are the combinations of DNA. If we happen to change those combinations we can probably yield some amazing results.
I see here two distinct meanings of "being". To say my cat "has being" is to use "being" to refer to a property attributed to your cat. To say my cat is "a being" is to make "being" refer to a type of thing, and classify your cat as one of those things. We need to untangle these two distinct meanings in order to avoid the confusion of equivocation. Would you accept that "being" as a property, in the sense of "my cat has being", signifies something conceptual? It is a quality which you perceive that your cat has, and so when you claim your cat has being, this statement is a reflection of your mental judgement that your cat has this property of "being". We might proceed further to enquire what constitutes "being", and this would be to define that concept. On the other hand if you say "my cat is a being", then "being" signifies a category of things, a type of thing, and we might proceed to enquire as to what qualities distinguish this type of thing from others. In this case as well, you might judge your cat as fulfilling the conditions for being called "a being", so "being" signifies something conceptual in this sense as well. The difference is that In the first case, "being" signifies a particular quality, and using the term requires judgement that the thing referred to has that quality, while the second case doesn't require immediate judgement of particular qualities. It is a less restricted sense, requiring a simple judgement of a thing, that it might be classed as a being, without necessarily citing the particular quality or qualities which constitute that class of things called "beings".
There is as well, possibly, a third sense which may be implied by your statement, this is the sense of "my cat has a being". If this is what you mean, I find it very ambiguous and confusing. It's as if you would be saying that your cat has particular property, and this property is itself a being. How could this be the case? Your cat is itself a being, so how could it have another being, which is other than itself in order to say "my cat has a being"?.
Quoting Punshhh
Here, you are using "know" in a very strange way. You are saying that if someone or something, such as you or your cat, experiences something, then they know that thing. So you claim that you, and your cat, each knows its respective property of being, simply by experiencing that being. But that's not consistent with any acceptable use of "knowing". Simply experiencing something is not sufficient to produce knowledge of that thing, other factors are involved. Knowledge requires memory and some sort of association, as well as experience. And, we remember particular events particular instances, while being is something general. So we do not remember being, it is an abstraction, requiring intellection. Therefore, in as much as your cat may have knowledge through memory and association, it doesn't remember being, because being is something abstract, and it, like you, remembers particular things.
Quoting Punshhh
We address these things through metaphysics. But as I said, metaphysics is the same as mysticism.
Quoting Punshhh
I reject this distinction, because I see no reason for creating such a divide between metaphysics and mysticism. Metaphysics will expose the limits of what can be said about being and existence, but it does this by demonstrating the vast portion of reality which we have not the means to talk about. We call this "the unknown". We can't say anything about it (describe it) because it's unknown, but we could also call it "the mysterious", both refer to the same vast portion of reality.
Language is a social construct. What we can or cannot say about existence is determined by our language. And this is a reflection of our knowledge, both intellectual abstract knowledge, and other knowledge. So when we cannot say something about something, this is a reflection of a deficiency in our cultural knowledge. We simply do not have the knowledge required to say that. Maybe the subject was taboo, we never had the need, or we could not develop the knowledge. But since languages and knowledge evolve, and progress, this situation can be rectified. So by outlining the limitations of language and knowledge, metaphysics will expose the areas where what needs to be said cannot be said, i.e. exposing the unknown, the mystical.
Quoting Punshhh
The path you describe as mysticism is the very same path as the metaphysician's. The metaphysician must reject all former knowledge, as a skeptic, and start from the bottom, to understand from the perspective of life and experience. But what we might do, as metaphysicians, is inspect fundamental epistemological principles, from that perspective of life and experience, to see where these principles might create illusions which hide the truly mysterious, or unknown aspects of reality through a false knowledge. So whereas the simple mystic, which you describe, might be interested in being expose to the mystical, the metaphysician might be interested in exposing the mystical to others. This is the duty of the philosopher, as described in Plato's cave allegory. After being exposed to the true reality, the philosopher has a duty to go back into the cave in an attempt to lead the others to see the light. Even in your description of mysticism, you refer to a guide. The guide is like Plato' philosopher, the metaphysician.
Quoting Punshhh
I think such a division is counterproductive. The type of person which one culture calls a metaphysician, another culture might call a mystic. Of course distinct cultures are going to have distinct approaches to the same subject matter, but if each person is studying the same subject matter, then they are doing the same thing in their own way, as determined by their respective cultural background. We ought not shun the other person just because they have a different way of doing the same thing. Having a different way indicates a different knowledge base, and when the subject is the unknown, or the mysterious, seeing a different way is beneficial for obtaining insight.
Quoting Punshhh
I distinctly did not mention "space" as a subject of mysticism. This is because space is an empirical concept, it is supported by sense observation, and the resulting conceptual structure is geometry which is not a mystical study. Time however, cannot be placed into this category so the union of space and time in "spacetime" is one of those epistemological principles mentioned above, creating an illusion which hides the truly mysterious and unknown nature of time itself behind false knowledge.
Quoting Punshhh
The spiritual is self-evident. That's fundamental, a first principle in philosophy, basic philosophy101. Those who deny this are undisciplined. They claim a philosophy which is actually unphilosophical. So if this is what is necessary for mysticism, we're both on the same track. And if this is the type of ground rule which your talking about, then I can accept that.
To butt in slightly, there are experiential knowns. If one experiences X – though knowledge that X is as one experiences it might require more than brute experience – one’s experience of X, as experience, with be a factual given. And, hence, will be a known. For instance, I see a tree while strolling in a park. What I visually interpret to be a tree might, in fact, be an elaborate statue that someone’s placed in the park I’m in and, therefore, not the tree that I visually experience at this juncture. Nevertheless, that I visually experience seeing a tree while so visually experiencing seeing a tree will, of itself, be a known fact to me. Though maybe different in some ways, this is at the very least related to what is termed knowledge by acquaintance. To here rearticulate the point I’m making, my acquaintance with X is known to me simply on account of my acquaintance with X – this irrespective of whether or not X is in fact as I experience it to be.
Then, in reference to experiential knowledge of being: To know one is a being (which to me does not entail a conceptualization of being a thing … I, for example, experientially know that I am – hence that I hold the property of being – without in any way conceptualizing myself to be a thing) all that is required is a tacit awareness of acting and reacting relative to that which one experiences as other – which endows one with direct experiential knowledge of being un-other, or what we term a self, in relation to other. In this sense, a cat has experiential knowledge of being, even though it cannot articulate this experiential knowledge via concepts that it linguistically expresses to itself or others. Its experience of being other than, for example, the mouse it is after or the dog it is standing in relation to will be all that is required for the experiential knowledge of one's own being to occur.
This is at least my take on what @Punshhh was here saying. To the extent we differ, I'm sure Punshhh will elaborate on his own views.
I haven't found myself in this position, perhaps this is a quirk of intellectualisation.
This may be the crux of the issue, the knowing you describe as acceptable is the result of intellectualisation. A knowing via rational thought, Aristotelian. This kind of knowing is entirely an abstraction of the results of experience.
The knowing I refer to is an innate knowing of experience, this does not require intellectualisation, although intellectualisation can be employed in its contemplation. Memory and association both occur in my cat, just as they do in me (absent my intellualisation). I know this because we are both mammals, closely related. The difference being that the memory and association probably occur unconsciously in the cat, whereas I tend to ignore this in me and follow the route of intellectual reference to memory and association.
Well I will agree with this on this occasion, for purposes of discussion, as you have repeated it, but I do maintain that there is the difference in the use of the intellect. Namely the metaphysics requires an intellectual result, or product to determine the course of progress, whereas mysticism rejects this in a preference for natural, or spiritual processes to determine the course of progress. This is why when I engage with a metaphysician, she tells me that it has to fit the rationality before I can go there and if it doesn't, it may as well be a unicorn.
This is not exhaustive, Things can be known and conveyed about existence by other means. This means is through being a part of nature and communing with nature. When I commune with my cat, this is what I am doing. All one is required to do to see this is to contemplate the idea that life is a direct expression of being and that everything else is a construct provided for the expression and development of life/being. If you spend a few hours in a quiet natural setting you will have a glimpse at some point of this, provided you can spot it. If you then spend many hours, or years training yourself to be able to commune with nature and forego intellectualisation, you will find it easier, indeed natural.
I am happy to go with you in your description of space and time for now, as the understanding of these things by metaphysics is adequate at this stage. As I say in mysticism this is only to be tackled at a more advanced level.
I presume you are referring to theology here. Spiritualuality is unfortunately nebulous in the way it is treated by academia, like mysticism. There may be as many different types of spirituality as there are people who say they are spiritual.
You do realise presumably that on the assumption of spirituality, there is a flip of authority here, as metaphysics takes a back seat and mysticism a front seat. For example, the kind of knowing I am using becomes the primary form and intellectualisation becomes a frail attempt to explain the perfect, or pristine by a limited, embryonic mind, emerging from nature.
This is clearly not true, due to the nature of time. And that's why I brought up the importance of time. As each moment passes the world changes, some say that the world is born anew at each moment. So having experienced something does not necessitate that it is known, because it must be remembered. This is the problem Whitehead encounter in his process philosophy, which he tried to solve by positing what he called "prehension". He found that in experience, events of the past must be somehow related to events of the present, not simultaneously but one after the other, and this is necessary to account for identity. So he assumed something called prehension.
https://www.pdcnet.org/8525737F005826D7/file/C125737F0061E26EC125756D005F66BE/$FILE/ipq_1979_0019_0003_0003_0013.pdf
Quoting javra
You are not accounting for the fleeting nature of time. The visual experience of "seeing at tree" requires an extended period of time. Remember, a period of time can be as short as a Planck length, and you cannot see a tree in such a short time. So the visual experience of seeing a tree requires an extended period of time. Some sort of memory, or "prehension", must tie those short periods of time together, connecting the past with the present in order for such an experience to be created.
Quoting javra
You're missing the point. To know that you hold the property of being requires that you conceptualize the property of being. Otherwise you would not know what the property of being is, and you couldn't know that you hold the property of being for this very reason. We can say that we know something without actually knowing it, so you can say that you know that you have the property of being, and that's a fine statement, but unless you know what the property of being is, your statement is false.
I am very critical of your use of these two words, intellectualisation, and academia.
You describe mysticism as an exercise of the human intellect, but then you want to separate this from metaphysics, by saying that metaphysics is an intellectualization. In reality, mysticism and metaphysics are both forms of exercising the human intellect, and so your distinction based on intellectualization is unwarranted.
Furthermore, you class science and philosophy as academia, and then you want to separate mysticism from this. But "academia" refers to any institution of education or training, so mysticism cannot be separated from academia. In western universities we have a separation between science and arts. Though it is not often taught as such, mysticism would be one of the arts. It would be a branch of philosophy, the one that we call metaphysics.
See, you deceptively use words like "intellectualisation", and "academia" in an attempt to separate mysticism from philosophy, but no such separation is warranted. You just create an illusion of separation, with the way that you use those words. And to what avail? As metaphysicians and mystics, we ought to work together, in unity, having the same goals. What is the point of such divisiveness insinuating that one, metaphysics, or mysticism, doesn't qualify to be associated with the other?
Quoting Punshhh
I've read this numerous times and it still makes no sense. Your using a language in which there is only being? Everything you say means being? I don't understand, it appears like you're skirting the issue, trying to claim that it cannot be spoken about, or something like that.
Quoting Punshhh
This is your disturbing, derogatory use of "intellectualisation". Look, as human beings we are all intellectual creatures. You cannot remove the intellectuality out of the human experience, to say that you are following this practise, mysticism, in which you will not use your intellect at all, so that there will be no form of intellectualization. That's nonsensical, if you could remove your intellect you would no longer be a human being.
Your position is no different from the materialist who assumes that the world would be exactly as perceived, without a perceiver. That's nonsense. And so is your attempt to remove intellectualization from your thinking. Instead, we are much better off to distinguish different types of thinking and training, as I described above. But metaphysics doesn't get classed with science, just like visual arts doesn't get classed with science. And mysticism gets classed in philosophy, right there with metaphysics. To say that one involves intellectualisation and the other does not, just doesn't make sense.
Quoting Punshhh
If you recognize this, what you say here, then why would you have said that your cat knows its being in the same way that you know your being?
Quoting Punshhh
Again, I don't see the need for the separation here. The intellectual result ought to be natural and spiritual. If the intellect wavers from this, then these intellectual principles are not true, that's what I tried to explain last post. There are many types of human character, and some will introduce intellectual principles which are not true. That's what we need to be wary of. If your metaphysician friend offers to you, as a proposition, a rational principle which is not consistent with what you apprehend as natural and spiritual, then you are obliged to reject it. This is how we judge metaphysics. I'm sure you would do the same with your mystic course, if the trainer led you on a path which was inconsistent with what is natural and spiritual to you, you would choose another trainer.
Quoting Punshhh
Yes, I completely agree with this, with one exception. I would actually call this a form of intellectualisation. In fact it is probably the highest form of intellectual activity. Communing with nature brings the intellect in line with it's proper position, as subservient. So it has to be an intellectual activity, a submission of the intellect. The intellect must submit. The reality of this gives reason not to separate mysticism from intellectualisation, because that submission is an intellectual act. Allowing that it is a form of intellectualisation. gives it it's proper position as the highest form of intellectualisation. Disassociating it from the intellect denigrates it in the eyes of many.
Quoting Punshhh
As I said, I don't agree with your separation of mysticism and spiritualism from metaphysics. I think it's misguided. I do agree with your sentiments, because I do have a mystical perspective, (calling it metaphysical), but I don't agree with the way that you divide up the different types of knowledge.
Regarding intellectualisation, I may have to veer further away from what is described in the WAC here. I consider that there is more than one level or form of mind conducted in the brain and body. In such a way that the intellect is one of a number of mental processes. It appears to me that WAC reduces the person to a singular intellectual individual (II) and doesn't allow for much else that equates to mind going on in the brain, or body. This reduction appears to insist that all understanding, knowledge and intelligent action must pass through the prism of this intellectual individual (II) and as such can be fully analysed and be rationally dissected through intellectual thought and science.
This essentially reduces a human to a unit of intellectual activity divorced from the body of that individual, for the purposes of analysing its mental activity and that logic can be exercised, applied and imparted on this (II). Thus any aspect of experience is regarded as a psychological, or rational process exercised by this II.
I am not criticising the results of understanding a human through this process that is achieved, but rather what it ignores, or insists must be rendered through this intellectual prism.
As an alternative to this analysis of a human, I come to it from a different direction, in which there is a being, a being, expressed through an organism who through the good fortune (or not) of recent evolutionary development has developed the ability for intellectual thought. That prior to this development there was a mind, a being, an experience. This can be observed in animals and plants around us.
Also I come to it from an appreciation of life as an animating force. Animating rather like the way idealism describes the world. But rather than viewing it from the perspective of the individual human, I view the whole biosphere as one individual and each human is a part of it. This biosphere being an expression of a being via material.
Also I come to it from the appreciation of a spiritual dimension of which the being of the biosphere is an expression. An expression in which humanity embodies the development of an awakened mind. But a mind newly emerged, which is having to learn a new.
There is a difference in emphasis, in which I do not attempt to explain human experience through the prism of mind of (II). Indeed this is a minor consideration. There is greater emphasis on ones position in the life of the being of the biosphere and ones communion therein. It's true that the intellect is involved in this, but only as a tool of articulating thought in an integrated organism.
Perhaps this is enough for this post and I can address the other questions later when this has been looked into.
As your reply just reminded me, we disagree on the nature of time. While I don’t want to turn this tread into a discussion of time, to me the present is experienced to be extended and not duration-less – nor is it experienced to be extended via Plank lengths of time, which is already a model derived from what is experienced (and thereby experientially known) and not the experience itself. As one example, my presently hearing a bird’s chirp (to be clear about temporal extension, for a bird’s chirp has duration) occurs in the present – from the beginning of the chirp to its end; my memory of a bird’s chirp (even if one I recently heard) references an aspect of the past; and any prediction, for example, of when I might hear another bird’s chirp is an aspect of the future. Yet neither my memory of what has occurred in the world nor my forethought of what will occur in the world reference what I experience to be presently occurring in the world around me. The present is ever changing and fleeting, yes, like a current (hence, "the current moment"); and the present we adult humans find ourselves in is [s]always[/s] typically for most and most of the time (editing the "always": a common example: when one spaces out there sometime is experienced only the present sans any past or future) in conflux with cognizance of both past and future, yes; yet the present, of itself, is experientially – is experienced to be – extended. And this experienced duration of the present occurs in manners that cannot be easily, if at all, quantified – the duration of the experienced present moment certainly cannot be plotted onto a chart.
Again, I don’t want to turn this thread into a discussion of time. But because we approach the nature of time differently, we approach the issue of experiential knowledge differently. I’m happy to leave it at that on this thread.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No. The point was one of experiential knowledge. A concept is a generalized idea of which one is aware, abstracted from what else if not concrete instantiations of experience? And how can a concept be known if at least some of the concrete instantiation of experience from which the concept is abstracted are not themselves known (hence, experiential knowledge)? But I’ll reference back to the first part of this post.
I wanted to explain this a little more, it may be difficult to put into words what I mean, but for me being is present where there is life, in a certain sense it is life, but not physical life, more an underlying essence. I may have to stray into Hindu terminology to explain this. An essence of Atman,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)
If you are familiar with Hindu cosmogony it might be easier to use that terminology, or to cross reference.
My cat has Atman and I have Atman, we know our Atman through family bonding, or communion.
We need to consider the word "tradition" here. The academic tradition in the western world is a tradition of change. Knowledge is changing and evolving at an increasing pace. So what you call "academia is changing. I agree that the trend is away from mystical training in all universities, and I do not know modern theology, but I would think that there is very little mystical training as it has been outcast in modern western society. However, it has played a large role in academia in earlier times.
We could start with Plato's numerous recitals of ancient myths concerning the immortal soul. Phaedo, is a very good example, but in many instances he stirs up the imagination through recanting ancient myths about the soul. You might argue that this is not, strictly speaking mystical training, but it is training based in mysticism. Remember, Plato insists in the cave analogy, that after seeing the light the philosopher will be impelled to teach others, to lead them from the cave. His method of teaching is the written word. The fact that it is in words, and what you called intellectualized makes it no less mystical. The point is that the mystic, Plato in this case, went beyond any existing limits of knowledge, delved into the mystical world, and things were revealed to him so he sought ways to tell others. His most reliable way was through ancient myths. It is the need to communicate with others which produces the intellectualization you refer to.
Plato's Timaeus is very mystical. When I first read it I couldn't even understand it, but at the same time it was very childish. It was full of mythology and didn't seem to make sense. Then I found out that this writing was highly respected in Neo-Platonism and early Christianity, so I had to read it a couple more times to start understanding. Neo-Platonism is recognized as mysticism, and provided tenets for early Christianity. St-Augustine went through Neo-Platonist training. The interesting thing with the Timaeus for me, is that Plato brought the independent, immaterial Forms, out of the world of mysticism, and gave them intelligible existence. But to do this he had to posit a receptacle for the Forms in the sensible world, and this was called "matter".
So he brought the soul, mind, Forms, and being, out of the mystical realm, into the intelligible, and left "matter" there in the mystical, as a replacement. Aristotle went on to define "matter" as potential, what may or may not be, making it an exception to the law of excluded middle, and therefore inherently unintelligible. So at the time of Neo-Platonism there were numerous different mystical sects such as Manichaeism, with significantly different approaches to matter. Matter, being associated with the body, and original sin, was sometimes believed to be inherently evil. In the western tradition, mysticism is involved with how we approach matter. The soul, intellect, and Forms, are taken for granted as immaterial existence. This is expressed by Descartes with "I think therefore I am". But matter was not taken for granted, and as unintelligible, it was mystical. That is expressed by Descartes' doubt of the physical world, and Berkeley. That was the western tradition, but Newton changed this with his laws of motion. He assigned a fundamental and essential property to matter, inertia. Doing this gave "matter" intelligibility, and brought it out of the mystical, such that the conceptual development could explode in growth, into energy etc.. But it pretty much put an end to western mysticism. It created the appearance that the mysterious and unintelligible aspect of the universe, matter, which was only approachable through mysticism, was suddenly known and understood. Now there was no need for mysticism in the western world.
Quoting Punshhh
This is similar to Aristotle's "On The Soul". This work demonstrates that the soul is necessarily prior to the body of the living being. Plato's Timaeus also claims that the immaterial Form is prior to the material existence of any material object. In western mysticism, such as Neo-Platonism, we attempt to put ourselves into that position, as a soul, prior to having a material body, and get a glimpse of that relationship between the soul and the material body. The immaterial soul, having been logically demonstrated as necessary is taken for granted. Since the existence of matter is not necessary, as the immaterial is, matter becomes incomprehensible. So there are numerous mystical approaches. But from this perspective, all the separation between us, division, disunity, individuation, all pain and suffering, is a consequence of the existence of matter, and we might wonder what is matter, or what is the purpose of matter.
Quoting javra
But how is that not completely illogical? The bird's chirp has temporal extension, so you hear the beginning of it before you hear the end of it. At any given time while the bird is chirping, you are hearing that part of the chirp, not the part before, or the part after, so it cannot be all simultaneously at the present. Think of a piece of music, a melody. You hear a note, then the next note and the next, and so on. You do not hear it all at the same time. And, the reason why you recognize it as a piece of music (just like the way that you recognize the bird chirp as a bird chirp), is that you are relating the parts that have already gone past, through the use of some form of memory and system of association, to the part at the present.
Musical notes are representational models of what is heard – an intellectualization of what is experienced, so to speak. “Notes” in English usage only retroactively reference the very sound that a note otherwise represents. Otherwise, one might as well speak of sounds, and not of notes. Even so, musical notes have duration embedded in them via their note value. So each note one hears in the present holds a specific duration of time. Be it via a piano key being struck, via the plucking of a guitar string, as so on.
There is no such thing as a duration-less sound – to be even clearer, no such thing as the experience of a duration-less sound. When we speak to each other, for example, we do not apprehend what is said at any given present moment by relating past beginnings and future endings of particular verbal sounds within some duration-less present.
There are sounds we hear in the present, there are sounds we remember, and there are sounds we anticipate. Those that occur in the present can only have duration.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
A bird's chirp, just like a musical note, has a duration. Like a musical note compared to an entire song, a bird's individual chirp is not the entirety of the bird's song. The temporally extended present moves through the duration of both songs while hearing individual chirps an notes in the present. But each bird's individual chirp, like each individual note of a melody - with both chirp and note having a beginning and end to a duration - will be apprehended within the experienced present, not the experience past nor the experienced future.
I'll reciprocate the same tonality by asking in turn:
How is the concept of a duration-devoid present wherein sound is experienced not "completely illogical"?
Right, that's my point. In the sensible world, there is nothing sensed that is without duration. So to perceive anything as a sensed thing, or even for physical "things" to have any real existence, requires what I called a sort of memory, what Whitehead called "prehension", to connect the past with the present constructing the existence of the objects of sensation, which according to experience (empirical observation) have temporal extension.
Quoting javra
I'm not talking about a duration devoid present. I am talking about how experience exists. I believe that understanding what I am describing, necessitates a twofold understanding of time, a two dimensional time. Time has "length", what we call temporal extension. But since the intellectualized "present" is used to divide one part of this extension from another, past from future, as a point in time (your duration-less present), yet the present necessarily has duration, as you describe, we must allow for this duration at the present, by giving time width, what I call the "breadth" of time. You can search this idea online, but it's difficult to find much information on it because it's mystical, and physicists who experiment with multidimensional time use a completely different approach with different presumptions.
I find with the western tradition it stems from attempts to understand existence through reason, hence the development of philosophy. This is not to diminish mysticism in the Christian church, but there is a seperation between this and reason/philosophy/science. Such that Christian mysticism seems to have been discarded by the later. I find the Eastern traditions far more of use.
So my mysticism is fashioned around the Hindu traditions. In which rather like what you describe in reference to Plato, material is a tool of expression and that the mystical path is concerned with a refinement of that expression specifically through the vehicle of the human body and mind. Any purposes in this, in relation to that body, or the wider world are (I noticed you referred to the purpose of matter) not important as they are a deep mystery, other than the natural processes of the personal development of the mystic.
So when I use the word mysticism, I am referring to this process of refinement and development of the individual and through this the refinement and development of the being of the biosphere. This is necessarily a big subject.
I’m somewhat baffled. Namely, if this was your stance all along, why all the fuss in relation to what I’ve been saying. Such as your accusation of “complete illogicality” in reference to hearing a bird’s chirp within the timespan of the experienced present - prior to this experience becoming a memory of what once was and, hence, the experienced past.
At any rate, glad to see that we agree on the temporal extension of the experienced present.
I agree that Christian mysticism, in any organized form, is pretty much gone, and I believe it is because of the reasons I described. The mysticism is centered around matter, and the discipline of physics has produced the illusion that matter is understood. That this is not the case has recently become increasingly evident in quantum physics. I think that the dead ends which modern physics has come up against, have produced a renewed interest in mysticism. There is no organized tradition of mysticism in the west, so many people turn toward eastern traditions, because they provide some sort of structured training.
In the east, the tradition might be an effort to maintain with consistency over millennia of time, a similar practise. In the west, we have a rapidly evolving educational structure so the tradition of mysticism has been to revisit the past. This is to look back at ancient texts, and find principles which persist through time. I wouldn't call this an intellectualizing, it's more of a simple memory preserved through written material, which is carried forward as the principles remembered are still applicable today. It's a preservation timeless principles, but these principles are themselves mysterious.
Plato lived in a time where writing was much younger than it is today. He looked back to myths which were perhaps a thousand or two, maybe even more years old at that time. This was prior to the time that these people had writing. He tells us about how the stories were carried down from one generation to the next in the form of verse, songs and poetry. These myths contained mystical knowledge, moral lessons and information about the gods. I believe the information was put to print around the time of Hesiod and Homer, and this is roughly the same time that the Old Testament of the Bible was put to print. It also contains stories previously told in oral tradition.
The mystic tradition in the west seems to have always been a communal practise involving words. If you've ever gone to church there's a lot of hymns and psalms, things recited without most the people, especially the young, even truly understanding what is being said. It's as if getting together in a group, and chanting the same thing (Gregorian chants for instance) is somehow meaningful, even if they do not know the meaning. I'm not familiar with eastern practises, but I imagine there is a communal practise of getting together, maybe some chanting, and inspirational words, but maybe the words spoken have not developed to the same level of intellectual meaning that we find in the west. But even in the west, the meaning of the words is a matter of interpretation, and this is one thing which might separate mysticism from intellectualism.
Quoting Punshhh
I see an issue here with the question, "why?". What Plato assumed, or claimed, is that people have a fundamental curiosity, "wonder", and this is at the root of philosophy. So we can't simply dismiss the importance of "why?". If you commune with nature, as you say, you'll see that other animals possess this curiosity as well, they are often inclined to check things out. So there are some things which are a deep mystery, like matter, but it is natural for us to be curious. Now when you say that something is or is not important, this is relative to a person's individual perspective. All people have different character and traits, and when a person has the philosophical perspective of wonder, delving into a deep mystery might be the most important thing to that person. Of course we cannot say that it is wrong for the person to see great importance here, because it is not immoral or anything like that.
Quoting javra
I guess it depends on how long the bird's chirp is. I find that the beginning of the chirp is out of the experience of the present, by the time I am hearing the end of the chirp. That's why I argued that. The reason why I called it "illogical" (I apologize if that was a little harsh), is that we proceed in logic, from accepted premises. In measuring time it is accepted that there is a point which separates before from after. Therefore it is illogical to say that the entire bird's chirp is at one time, the present which divides past from future, because this would be saying it is simultaneous. So that would require a definition of "present" which is unconventional. On second thoughts though, I realize that there probably isn't such a thing as a conventional definition of "present". But that's another reason why time is mystical.
And that is a shame. Christianity would be much richer had it not abandoned the pathways championed by Teresa of Ávila and others. I suspect she and her followers were able to employ certain kinds of lucid dreaming in their spiritual lives. When I first experienced the Art of Dreaming, my immediate thought was, This is how religion started.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Wrong. Quietism? Teresa's walks through her mystical mansions? Vows of silence?
Philosophers should either practice a mystical art or refrain from talking about them. They know not of what they speak. (I might say the same about mathematics, but I won't :cool: )
It's more about continuing a lifestyle in which mysticism is to a degree a part of everyday life in the community and the mystics, the sadhus and gurus play an integrated and revered role within the community. I saw this first hand on many occasions in India. Indians are adept at adopting modern ways of doing things, but behind this there is always this deep connection with a living vibrant mystical tradition, going back unchanged for thousands of years. If you go the puja, the religious ceremony everyone present is open to and indeed expecting something magic, or the divine to play out before them. The congregation will naturally adopt this stance, equivalent to the exhalted mystical state of a sadhu.
Here in the west all this was lost millennia ago, although there are ocassional exceptions in places like Lourdes, or Ireland where something magical happens. Religion became corrupted by power and then distrusted by science.
Yes, when I said purpose is not important it is my personal view, but not without good reason and others do agree on this point. Purpose for me is a curious thing, it can only be known by the agency whom for whatever reason adopted it and inline with the aspiration of the mystic of following the course of one's higher nature, or spiritual guide, for lack of a better word, that purpose is naturally deferred to a higher power. Indeed it scales up through the hierarchy of exalted beings to the very top. Meaning that the purpose of anything that happens in the world of the mystic, or indeed in the world of being is expressed for a higher purpose the nature of which is unfathomably profound( profound, only in the respect of being far reaching, beyond what a limited mind can comprehend).
So just like the mystic differs their agency to a higher purpose, also they defer their reason why, or the purposes for what they do, to a higher power. This both means that the mystic is not at all interested in why, or for what end they do what they are doing. But also and crucially, their purposes, their motivations, their wants and desires are aligned with this higher goal and don't differ from it. In the sense that in following the higher goal they are not foregoing any freedoms, rather they simply agree with the higher goal, because it equates to their own personal goals.
I believe that purpose, due to its vague and general nature, cannot even be known by the person who has the purpose. Within us, the reason for doing something, purpose, starts as some sort of unintelligible, strange feeling which inspires us to act. So for example, there is the feeling of hunger, which is just an odd sort of discomfort which you wouldn't recognize as hunger unless you've come to know it. But the conscious mind does come to recognize that feeling, and directs its attention toward something particular, something to eat. We then can say, the reason (purpose) for this particular action, eating that thing, is to satisfy this general feeling. Notice that the feeling (which constitutes the purpose) comes from somewhere external to the conscious mind, remaining inherently unintelligible, while the mind simply recognizes it and understands the particular actions required to fulfill it. But the realm of human actions is extremely varied, and we say that these are purposeful actions. So, each one of those particular actions must be inspired by some unintelligible general thing which is outside the individual's mind. There are two important points concerning "purpose" here. It originates from outside the individual's mind, and it is not particular, it is something general.
What I believe is very consistent with what you say then. If you follow your own nature, purpose is necessarily deferred to a higher power, because that vague and general feeling, which constitutes inspiration, and the reason for doing anything, comes from outside of one's own mind. Further, being general in nature, and not directing one's attention toward any particular thing or action of necessity, it is not a feature of the sensible or physical world, which consist of particular things and actions. If the inspiration to act came from the sensible world, it would direct your actions toward this or that particular thing, but it's clear that this inspiration, or "purpose", allows one to choose from a vast array of possible actions. So we must attribute purpose to something outside of ourselves, but not part of the sensible world, this is what you call a higher power.
But that puts purpose in a curious place, as you say. I understand it to be in a place slightly different from what you described though. Since I do not allow that it is properly "known", even by the person who carries out the purposeful act, we are left in a sort of deficiency of knowledge with respect to purpose. We do not ever properly know why we do what we do, what we ought to do, or if we are doing the right thing. This causes us to seek confirmation and consultation from others, assurance that we are doing the right thing. And that is the reason why meaning, as what was meant by written words for example, cannot be attributed to the purpose of the author of the words. The author doesn't even know one's own purpose. The purpose, as the inspiration for action, and therefore what was meant, and meaning, actually comes from an external source, the higher power. So our acts of discussion, between us is how we attempt to actually determine the meaning, and that's why people say meaning is something public. We cannot simply refer to what the author meant, because the true purpose is something outside the mind of the author, which inspired those acts.
Quoting Punshhh
Yes, meaning is beyond what a limited mind can comprehend, but now with communication we have a multitude of minds which can work together on the same problems. This is where I think western mysticism excels. We have come to recognize the power of communication in uniting our minds, to work together. But there is a very dangerous pitfall here as well. Some people in the west apprehend this unified group of human beings as that higher power. Instead of seeing our unity as an effort to work together toward understanding the meaning from the higher power, they apprehend this unity as the higher power, the creator of meaning instead of the interpreter of meaning. This syndrome, or condition, makes us into the fallen angel, or Satan, the false believe that we are the higher power, which is derived from a misunderstanding of where the inspirational power actually comes from.
Quoting Punshhh
I don't agree with the second sentence, and perhaps this is the difference between eastern and western mysticism. In the west we have what is called a revelation, and this is when something is revealed to a person from the higher power. Now, according to what I described above, the meaning of the revelation cannot be properly under by the person who has received it. Therefore the person must act within the community if the meaning of the revelation is to be brought out, and the purpose intended by the higher power is to be brought to fruition. We cannot say that the mystic, being the person with the revelation, is not interested in why they are doing what they are doing, or else they would not carry out that act; the act being the attempt to determine "why?", which is the meaning of the revelation, why the thing revealed was revealed, the purpose of it.
This is very similar to the philosopher in Plato's cave allegory. The philosopher catches a glimpse of the true reality, and we can say this is analogous to the revelation. According to Plato, the philosopher has a duty to go back into the cave, and teach the others. But under the scenario I described above, the mystic who has had the revelation cannot properly understand it, and needs to go back to consult with the others to actually understand what has been revealed. So it is not exactly an act of teaching the others, but more like consulting with the others to describe the experience in an attempt to understand the meaning, through the help of the others. If we say that the mystic is not interested in why the revelation occurred, then the meaning will not be understood, and the revelation from the higher power will be in vain, recognizing that the purpose is from the higher power.
Also, Regarding the purposes of said higher power, I don't think we can come to any conclusions about the nature of their agency, or degree of awareness of what they are doing. Although I agree that processes of their living bodies, or vehicles will to a certain degree dictate what those purposes may be. I caution in this way because the lives of such beings may be inconceivable to us in multiple ways.
Also if one factors in that purposes are deferred up the hierarchy of being, then the being initiating the purpose would be uniquely inconceivable, even to exalted beings below them in the hierarchy.
I agree with what you say in the last paragraph, but with the qualification that this is only one of numerous ways in which revelation becomes imparted. We are not here discussing revelation, that is another subject.
I agree with what you say, it is like a relativism of purposes and meaning. Again I make the distinction with regard to mystical practice. The mystic realises that the purpose acted out, or contributed to by herself is necessarily unknown or unknowable for her in her practice, while the meaning may be revealed. The meaning might be revealed through revelation, or epiphany, in the orientation of a beholder looking upwards towards the higher power which may be represented as a form recognised by the mystic. Whereas the purpose of the same circumstances cannot be apprehended from below because the orientation is downward from above viewing the hierarchy from the exalted position wherein the purposes where conceived.
The conception of the purpose requiring the full cognition and consciousness of the exalted being to behold. Although I expect that the mystic can be taken up to behold the vision directly, which would require their mind to behold that level of cognition, this would be an exceptional event and would result in the mystic being transformed to the extent that she would become unusually exalted on earth, making social interaction problematic. There are examples of this in the lives of the saints etc.
Due to unnecessary complications like this (not to mention complications with the ego, or personality)it is more appropriate for the mystic to relinquish any concern for such matters and to simply follow the practice and service in humility. I have myself found myself in situations where if I were to ponder purposes, or meanings, I would become distracted in what I was doing ( when I say what I am doing, I am referring to practice, in which I have already accepted that I don't know the purposes, or meaning, or what is going on, not personal things that I am doing in my day to day life, which I do know about).
This is questionable. If a lower being can conceive the purpose of the next higher being in a hierarchy of being, then there would only be an inconceivable purpose if there was an infinite regress. But you've already assumed that there must be an initiator of the purpose, so there is no infinite regress. The very nature of "purpose" is that it is what we posit as the end to an otherwise infinite regress, hence the Aristotelian term for goal or aim is "end". One of the most glaring problems with physicalism and materialism is that they always run into infinite regress. This is because they refuse to take into account "purpose", being immaterial. In this way "purpose" is as you say, a curious thing. It appears to us as if it is unintelligible, but assuming the reality of it is what makes things intelligible. This is what Plato said about "the good", it makes intelligible object intelligible, just like the sun makes visible objects visible.
Quoting Punshhh
Revelation is not really another subject. You described a significant aspect of mysticism as coming into contact with the higher power (God). In the west, this is called revelation.
Quoting Punshhh
Again this is that same matter of personal difference. You might find that pondering meanings distracts you from what you are doing. This would indicate that you value what you are doing as more important than pondering meanings. However, for the person whom pondering meanings is for some reason important, this will be what that person is doing, finding doing other things as distracting from this. Aristotle identified contemplation as the highest virtue. Accepting "I don't know the meaning of this" can either inspire one in an attempt to determine the meaning, or turn one away in futility.
I would point out also that getting to concerned with material initially is a distraction and likely to lead to dead ends. My primary concern is not with material, but being (I do consider being to be material in some form, along with the immaterial but not physical material).
Yes, but we were discussing purpose, I see purpose, even when acted out by a person on the lowest rung of the ladder of purpose, as something which is not revealed and not any kind of revelation. I mentioned it when responding about meaning, which is more commonly revealed.
Yes, I draw you back to what I was addressing when I pointed out what I meant when I say mysticism, "So when I use the word mysticism, I am referring to this process of refinement and development of the individual and through this the refinement and development of the being of the biosphere. This is necessarily a big subject". This refinement includes the alignment of the individual with the hierarchy of being, that the higher purpose be realised in some way. As such the motivations, purposes of the individual are the same as those of the hierarchy of being, there is no seperation. And as I also said earlier in my response to Javra, the individual hasn't lost any autonomy, or agency, or freedom in this, the purposes of the individual and the hierarchy of being just happen to be the same, hence " I and the father are one" John 10:30
Yes, but as I say this has already been accepted and the person has already agreed within themselves that the action, or service is primary and their personal inquisitive interest is secondary and can be contemplated at leasure after the event, provided this doesn't become an impediment to the enterprise.
I don't see how a lower being could get to the point of understanding the procedures which one is involved in, without conceiving the purpose of the higher being who directs the procedures. You could be a pawn simply following orders, a cog in the wheel, carrying out your activity in a perfect fashion, but you need to understand what the wheel is doing in order to truly know what you are doing. It may be the case that this type of understanding is reserved for exceptional cases, but that simply means that the majority are satisfied in simply going through the motions. Having mystic minds, we want to see beyond the physical motions. Aren't those inclined toward mysticism already exceptional cases?
Quoting Punshhh
I don't see how you can separate purpose from meaning in this way. Meaning is commonly defined as what was meant, And to know what was meant is to know the purpose. So for instance, if the person on the lowest rung of the ladder is given instruction, that person might understand the instruction and follow the order, carrying out the requested activity precisely, without having a complete understanding of the meaning. This is because there is also a hierarchical structure in levels of meaning. To understand the words of the instruction and to be able to carry out the requested activity, is one part of the meaning, but how that instruction fits within the larger context of what the person giving the instruction is doing, is another part of the meaning. The latter is often concealed and this is the root of deception.
It may be the case that modern linguistic analysis would not consider this 'deeper meaning' as part of the meaning, but then they have no principles to separate honest use of language from deceptive use of language. Unless complete understanding of the meaning requires placing the statement into a larger context, the same statement has the same meaning whether it's spoken honestly or deceptively. Modern linguistics has made faulty divisions, and presents us with a representation of "meaning", which excludes the sincerity of the spoken word from being part of the meaning of the word. "I love you" would have the same meaning regardless of how it is used, except as distinguished by referring to distinct definitions.
When the concealed, deeper meaning, is revealed to the person on the lower rung of the latter, we might call this a revelation. You might see forms of this in the type of mysticism you practise. You might learn a particular procedure, and get proficient at it. This indicates that you understand the first level of meaning in the instruction, you can proceed with the requested action. As you carry on and learn more procedures and grasp how they all fit together, you might look back at the first, and see that it now has a different meaning.
Quoting Punshhh
Right, I see this as the same thing as I described above, said in a different way. The biosphere is the larger context. To completely grasp the meaning of what one is doing, is to understand it within that context. As an example, consider that you might prioritize your actions in relation to your personal goals. That would be a low level of meaning. Then you might prioritize them in relation to your family, and that would give them a higher level of meaning. You could prioritize them in relation to your community or the entire human race for an even higher level. Or, the entire biosphere is an even higher level.
Notice that in order for what you say here, "the motivations, purposes of the individual are the same as those of the hierarchy of being", to be true, the person must get the glimpse (revelation) of the higher purpose or meaning. Otherwise the person is carrying out activities prioritized by lower levels. That "the purposes of the individual and the hierarchy of being just happen to be the same" is natural because that's how purpose within living beings is structured. And this is why you and I see exactly the same thing, though we come from completely different directions (east and west), and use completely different words and imagery to describe it. It's what's built into, inherent within living organisms. In seeing this we do not lose our autonomy we just facilitate our own decision making by relieving the stress of not knowing one's position in the world, and thereby being unsure in decision making.
This is similar to the distinction which Christian moralists make between the real good and the apparent good. The apparent good is what appears to the individual as good, but it may not actually be good. Because of the deficiencies in the human mind the apparent good may not be consistent with what is good in relation to God; this is the real good. If an individual apprehends the real good though, the person will choose the real good necessarily. This does not mean that the individual has lost one's freedom to choose, being necessitated by the real good, it just means that the apparent good has become the same as the real good. It is natural, the person still has the power to choose otherwise, but has no desire to because of that natural tendency.
I don't see the requirement for the lower being to truly know what they are doing. Provided this being is happy to and able to, carry it out there is no requirement for this. Aren't we all pawns anyway, with a little bit of freedom thrown in?
Let me give an example which for me was a profound example, once I realised it. Let's say my body is a colony of cells, which cooperate to form a whole which acts as a larger organism, a human. None of these cells are aware of the purposes exercised by that human organism. But they carry out their role in the cooperative and the fact of their not knowing why they are carrying out their role does not hinder their effectiveness in playing their part. Likewise I am a cell in the body of the biosphere and the biosphere is a cell in the body of the Sun, or the galaxy for example. The cell in my body is also carrying out a role in the body of the biosphere by carrying out its role in me and also its role in the body of the Sun and the galaxy. But in all of this the hierarchy of purpose means that the most senior purpose being carried out in this scenario is the purpose of the being whose body of expression is the galaxy. Now I know that the cell in my body I refer to couldn't understand this purpose and likewise, I could not understand it, it is to all encompassing from my perspective and I would have to know of the affairs of that larger being to have any conception of the purpose we are all engaged in, likewise for the cell in my body.
I don't know the answer to this, although there is a good reason which I have identified. These people inclined towards mysticism are human and subject to an extent to human nature, meaning that they are compromised by human frailty. I will give an extreme example, let's say that you or I were given a revelation of a greater purpose, or plan and inadvertently during this revelation, next weeks winning numbers for the state lottery were revealed. What would you, or I do on the run up to the lottery, would you buy a ticket and use those numbers? I would find it very difficult not to do that. Because I am embedded within the society and culture, which includes money worries, or with relations experiencing money problems. Or I could do with a bigger house, or better car etc. There are many other repercussions and problems caused by this unfortunate revelation and many other less extreme examples like this, where human frailty can become exposed.
I only separate them because of the difficulty of imparting the purpose of the being at the top of the hierarchy as I have pointed out. Otherwise I don't disagree with what you are saying.
Yes, this could be a problem, better that the pawn doesn't know the purpose and meaning.
You do realise, presumably, that the mystic was aware of the requirement to forgo any knowledge of the purposes, or meanings that they are going to cooperate in before they follow that course. It is one of the preconditions for discussion, I was going to provide earlier. There are a number of preconditions like this which a budding mystic must offer to cooperate in before they are a suitable pawn for service in this fashion. There is no compunction for anyone to follow this path, it is the choice of the mystic.
Yes, I agree, but as I said earlier, I don't see any requirement for the mystic to be privy to the purposes they are to become involved in. Their actions could be directed intuitively, or unconsciously, thus avoiding the exposure of their human frailty.
Yes, this is the point I was making. However if it is going on within a person, it is more comprehensive and transformative.
I agree, it's not a requirement. It's clearly not necessary. Your example portrays this well. And that's why I said, when we first started talking about purpose, that the purpose of action is not ever really known even by the person carrying out the activity. In the west, we commonly represent a intentional agents as having a purpose in mind, then acting to fulfil that purpose. But it's not that straight forward. As Aristotle demonstrated, we do one thing for the sake of another, which is for the sake of another, and so on, such that each end turns out to be the means to a further end. He suggested we ought to posit an ultimate end, happiness. Whether or not we actually need to end the apparent infinite regress in this way is another issue.
Quoting Punshhh
Once the person, who is the lower being, accepts it as reality that there is a hierarchy, a need is produced within that person. So it is not necessary that the person recognizes the hierarchy of purpose in order to carry on with one's tasks, but when it is recognized that this exists, a need to understand (the philosophical curiosity) is produced. And this same type of need is what is probably responsible for the person coming to see the hierarchy in the first place. So we cannot exclude requirement or necessity absolutely. In the case of beings acting for a purpose, the being has to produce one's own activities according to the situation it is in, so we cannot say that the being's activities are directly determined by the higher being's purpose. Since the being has to determine one's own activities there is some need to know the higher purpose.
There is a type of necessity here which is not exactly a logical necessity. From the perspective of the higher being, what is required is that the lower being carry out the task, and nothing more. But the higher being is not there to tell the lower being what to do in every changing situation. So the lower being has within, an inquisitive nature, which creates a want, a desire, a need to understand, which is associated in human beings with the desire for freedom. That needy nature is inherent within the beings right down the chain to the very bottom, because the beings are left to fend for themselves in uncertain circumstances. The higher power never really determines exactly the action which the lower must engage in, and this is why there is a need for the lower to understand the purpose of the higher. The lower must understand the purpose of the higher in order to know how to behave in changing circumstances.
Quoting Punshhh
This example would not fit with "revelation" as I described it, and understand it. I don't think that the meaning or purpose is actually revealed in the revelation. The person simply recognizes significance, and must present the material to others for a proper interpretation. I think it requires numerous people in consultation, discussion, to bring out the true meaning of the revelation. This is why people are still interpreting ancient traditions and ancient passages.
Furthermore, the revelation could not contain things of such personal advantage, due to the distinction between real good and apparent good which I described already. The revelation cannot be simply produced by the mind of the person experiencing it, or else it would be completely imaginary, and the higher power would be irrelevant. It would not be a "revelation". So there must be something (the higher power) responsible for producing it, let's call it "nature". If nature produces the revelation then the revelation must be consistent with nature, therefore consistent with the real good. So it could not inspire a person to act in a bad way. That means that a revelation could not contain the type of information as in your example. And if someone managed to get such information it would be in some way other than revelation. Something which appeared to be a revelation, but inspired a person to act in a bad way is not really a revelation, and this is known in mental illness.
And that's another reason why I say that the true purpose or significance of the revelation must be interpreted by numerous other people, because the individual on one's own, cannot properly distinguish between revelation and mental illness.
Quoting Punshhh
There is a distinction of before and after. The mystic is not privy to any such information prior to starting. However, there is the will to start, which is the manifestation of the need for such information, as described above. Simply through proceeding, the mystic comes into contact with that information.
Quoting Punshhh
I think we may have reached a need to distinguish between what goes on within the person, and what is proper to the person's relations with others. This is because the person, on one's own, does not have the capacity to properly distinguish reality in these matters, as is evident by mental illness. This is why we need mystical training as you describe, and interpretation of revelations, as I said. So the "comprehensive and transformative" experience is not completely represented as something going on within the person. It might be better described as something going on in the person's relations with others. Otherwise we might have trouble distinguishing mysticism from mental illness.
What you are saying about the intellectual understanding of the consequences of the mystic's action (during practice) makes sense, but from my position is largely irrelevant. Because the mystic may not have the capacity to understand, or conceive of any meaning, or purposes. Also such understanding would be an impediment unless it was some endeavour initiated by the mystic for the purposes of doing one thing for another in her small world.
As per my analogy what business does a cell in my body have in understanding that I am running to catch a train which leaves any minute now and I'm still a hundred yards away from the station? It is irrelevant, the cell simply carries out the duties which it has signed up to in being a part of the colony of cells. The situation is the same for the mystic, but on a more complex level. Any curiosity, interpretation, vision, or need is irrelevant and it is the choice of the mystic whether to forgo any such impediments as identified.
Regarding revelation, my lottery number analogy is relevant. Let me give another equivalent example. Let's take the crucifixion of Jesus. Now I have always thought that he did not know exactly what was going to happen and at what moment, because if for example he knew the horror and pain that he was imminently to endure. There would be a fight or flight response in him due to his human frailty, or survival instinct to take avasive action. If it had been revealed to him what was about to happen, which it may, it would have taken tremendous powers of self control for him not to take evasive action. Whereas if it had not been revealed he would have not needed these powers of self control, or only some of them. When he shouts out "God why have you forsaken me" (my words), presumably he did at that moment behold the true nature of the event, initiation, he was involved in. By that point he was powerless to take evasive action and so that knowledge was not an impediment.
Or another example, let's say a mystic where given the powers to move objects at a distance, or to make them disappear and appear somewhere else. Likewise human frailty would become exposed again.
For reasons like this, presumably, it would operate on a need to know basis only.
What you say about drawing a distinction between what is happening inside the mystic and what is external is important here. Namely most of what the mystic does in their practice is internal. What is external is nothing more than good neighbourly relations and some kind acts, consciously at least. What is going on unconsciously, or behind the scenes could be anything and is of little concern to the mystic. For example the sole act in a Mystics life which is of value might be to turn right instead of left at a crossroads at a certain point, on a certain date. It is the role of the mystic to be impressionable enough to the hierarchy of being, or some guide so as to somehow impell, or guide them to that place and that time and to cause them to turn right, when they might have turned left. This might require a lifetime of preparation within the mystic to reach that level of impressionability. Also there is an issue with mental illness, I would think though that were this to occur then the mystic would fail to carry out anything meaningful and would follow a path often followed by people in general.
I see that we disagree on the roll of necessity, in the sense of need. I like to think of a purposeful action as being carried out through a sense of need by the agent which acts. Judging by your examples, it appears to me like you attempt to conceive of purposeful actions being carried out in a mechanistic way. You seem to think that the so-called pawn we were talking about, could continuously carry our one's task without apprehending the need or purpose for this task. This would be like a machine, carrying out its activity by the necessity of the forces of physics, rather than a living being which acts according to some perceived need. Without perceiving the need for the task, the living being would wander off and start to do something else.
Quoting Punshhh
So here for example, you describe the mystic as partaking in mystical practise without perceiving any need for that practise. What kind of thing, other than a machine, could act in this way? Surely when a living being acts, it has in some way perceived a need for that act and this is why the act is carried out. How do you think that the mystic could wander into mystical practise and remain in that practise without any purpose? And if it is just a small purpose, in a small world, then we cannot dismiss it as irrelevant, because it is the reason why the mystic is carrying out the practise and clearly not irrelevant. Therefore I do not see how you can dismiss purpose as if it is irrelevant, and portray the mystic as going through motions just like an inanimate machine, with complete disregard for any purpose to these motions.
Quoting Punshhh
In this analogy, you are assigning importance in a completely disproportionate way. You are assessing the conscious judgement of "I must catch the train" as extremely important, probably because it is a conscious judgement, so the act of running which proceeds from this judgement, you assign importance to. Then the activities of the cell within your body you assess very little importance. In reality though, the need to catch the train is for the purpose of getting somewhere else, which is for the purpose of doing something else, which is for the purpose of some further thing, and so on. Since catching the train is so low on the chain, many other acts could sufficiently take its place, so it is really of very little importance. This conscious judgement, to run for the train, and the activity which follows from it, is really not very important at all. Now look at the activity of the cell, and the information which it has with genetics and DNA. That cell could very well know more about the reason why you are running for the train, than your conscious mind knows.
Now we need to know what you mean by "the duties it has signed up to", when you are talking about the cell. This is because unlike a machine, a living being has some degree of freedom in relation to what activities it will carry out. Because of this we have to consider the need. What makes the being behave in one way instead of another? We does the cell sign up for duties? And we cannot even say that the cell acts like a machine, because there are many strange mutations and things like that which could happen. So even the cell behaves the way that it does because there is some need for it to behave that way, and it is somehow affected by that need. How is that need, which makes the cell behave as it does, any different from the need which makes you run for the train? I think they are both from the same source of need, and your conscious mind grasps this need no better than a cell in your body grasps this need.
Quoting Punshhh
I still don't see the relevance here. Jesus sacrificed himself willingly, so this was a strong showing of will power. He decided what needed to be done and he did it at the cost of personal pain and suffering. The revelation to Jesus was that this sacrifice had to be carried out. His death was planned. There was no matter of fight or flight, just will power and determination to carry out what he believed needed to be done, as revealed to him.
So it does take will power to carry out the actions called for by the revelation. And again, this is the situation in Plato's cave allegory, the philosopher, after seeing the light, must go back to teach the others, and this is a very arduous task, due to the attitude of the others. But the actions called for by the revelation, as difficult as they might be, are good actions. There could be no temptation to proceed with a bad action as the result of a revelation, because that would not qualify as a revelation, it would be mental illness or something like that.
Quoting Punshhh
So here we're back to this issue of need and purpose again, which we disagree on. Let's say that the purposeful thing for the mystic to do is to turn right. But intrinsic within, the mystic has the capacity to go either way. Nothing is determined in a mechanistic way. So the person requires a reason to turn right, and this means to be impelled by some sort of need. How could there be any degree of certainty, higher than a 50/50 chance, that the mystic would turn right, unless the mystic perceived some purpose for turning right?
So let's say we have a devout vicar who is interested in mysticism as part of his service. If he didn't know, or understand what God is upto, Gods purpose as expressed through his ministry. He might feel like a mindless mechanistic pawn and wander of and do something else instead? This is stretching the point rather.
The purpose of the mystic is to offer service for the betterment of humanity, or nature, or the biosphere. That is an end in its self.
It is implicit in the choices entailed in this enterprise (the enterprise of mysticism) that the mystic may be called on to express some higher purpose, which may be unknown during their practice, or life. This is not to much to ask is it?
The point of the analogy is that it is obvious that the cell in my body is not aware of the bigger picture. That I really want to catch the train. Also that it is plain to see that the cell does not need to know about this in order to carry outs role in the body. It's that simple.
Yes, it might be better tuned in the purposes of the biosphere. But one thing is for certain, it doesn't know that I am running the catch the 11.15 from Paddington station. Which is what the organism embodying the cellular colony of which it is a part is doing.
The duties of the cell are those entailed in being a particular part of a healthy multicellular organism. Any more than that is labouring the point, and the cell is not likely to go of in a huff and join another body, or go fishing, or something like that.
You don't know this and on the assumption that it is on a need to know basis, Jesus does not need to know the specifics of what is going to happen until the point where he shouts out God why have you forsaken me, when the whole reality of the situation is laid bare. Also I consider that that laying bare was required for the specific initiation that Jesus, the Christ, was undergoing.
Let me give you another example one which did actually happen to me so was very real. A number of years ago I lost the end of a finger in an accident at work. Of course I didn't have any idea it was going to happen and from the moment it happened, my body went into shock protecting my psyche from the horror of what happened, I was in a delirious state of shock, I felt no pain and psychologically I was in a dream like state, which enabled me to get through the trauma unharmed psychologically.
Now let's consider that I knew this was going to happen beforehand, a day or two beforehand. Imagine the psychological impact and the state of mind as the event approached, or even the urge to place my hand somewhere else at the last moment so that the accident didn't happen. I would have to fully consciously place my hand into the machine knowing what trauma was about to happen. It would have been a Herculean task and I don't think I would have recovered psychologically from such trauma. When in reality it was not traumatic at all, there was no pain, just Some shock and ruffled feathers and I was over it in a few days with no psychological trauma. This was done on a need to know basis and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Happenstance, the butterfly effect. The mystic has developed a means of receiving direction from a guide of some kind, a nudge process.
Really this is basic stuff and we will end up chasing our tails. Perhaps it is time to actually lay out what mysticism entails and look at it in more general terms.
You're missing my first premise. I said that no one really understands any purpose, not even when the purpose appears to be one's own. So there is not a question of whether anyone understands what God is doing. We don't even properly understand what we are doing so we're very far from understanding God's will. The issue is whether we ought to try and understand as best as we can. If yes, the vicar stays. If no, the vicar wanders off and does any random thing.
Quoting Punshhh
It is too much to ask. If the person has no desire to do this, there is no point in asking one to do it. That's the point, why would anyone want to do that, what you call the mystic's enterprise? To offer service to the betterment of the biosphere, is surely an end in itself, but what I'm talking about is why a person would desire to do this. This is where a revelation could play a roll. Something may have been revealed to that person to make them realized that this is what they ought to be doing.
Quoting Punshhh
As I explained, I think you present the smaller picture as the bigger picture. You wanting to catch the train is the small picture, very low priority, a completely insignificant and unimportant act. But because you have chosen that act with your conscious mind, it appears very important to you in your intellectualizing. The cell, on the other hand is involved in very important actions, and because you do not fully apprehend these acts with your conscious mind, you dismiss them as insignificant in relation to your conscious acts.
Quoting Punshhh
I see that you really do recognize the importance of the acts of the cell. The activities of the cell are necessary for the health of the organism, and this is far more important than you catching the train. This is why we need to adequately weigh the risks, and don't let the conscious mind rush us into dangerous situations. You could trip and fall while running, injuring yourself. And all for what? Just to catch a train.
The conscious mind leads us, and misleads us, into thinking all sorts of different things are important. That's why we need to consider this question of why would a person want to do what a mystic does. Is this a case of the conscious mind leading the person, or is it a case of the conscious mind misleading the person (like thinking that catching the train is important is a case of misleading). Simply directing ourselves toward an end is meaningful only at a very base level, because we need to determine the appropriate end.
Quoting Punshhh
I still can't see the relevance of your example. You are mixing up intentional acts with unintentional acts (accidents) If it were revealed to you, that for some reason you needed to cut your finger off, to make some sort of statement or something, and you felt very strongly about this, then you would proceed with this act. The psychological trauma would not be as you describe, because it's a willed event, just like suicide. The issue though, is whether this act of yours, to intentionally cut off your finger, is inspired by revelation or by mental illness. In the case of most suicides, we'd say it's illness, and we'd probably say the same if you intentionally cut off your finger. But in the case of Jesus willfully having himself sacrificed (accepting my interpretation), we'd say it was revelation. What distinguishes revelation from mental illness? One produces good ideas and the other produces bad ideas?
Quoting Punshhh
Right, so this is the point. If it's a 50/50 chance of a good idea or a bad idea, and the mystic gets nudges or guidance toward good ideas, then we must be able to say that the mystic has found a way to be consistent with the higher purpose. And going back to the beginning of this post, this does not mean that the mystic knows the higher purpose. We really do not understand purpose to a very significant degree at all, but the mystic has developed some special incite, allowing a clearer capacity for good ideas.
Quoting Punshhh
I've been trying to get at these general terms, but you don't agree. All the features of western mysticism which I bring up, you want to exclude from mysticism in general, because you seem to think that only features of eastern mysticism qualify as genuine features of mysticism. Perhaps we can start with a most general definition. I propose, interest in the mysterious, what is beyond human understanding. Feel free to change or adapt that to your liking.
Rather tenuous and not a requirement. The mystic is free to work out, learn, take an interest in an understanding of anything they like. This understanding though, does not constitute the route to mystical practice, although It may help the individual adjust to it.
The mystic has already freely chosen this course of action.
Yes, this is commonly called a calling.
You have misunderstood what I am saying and portrayed me in this light.
Going back to the hierarchy of being, there is a progression in being from a small expression to a larger expression. This involves an evolution of complexity in what is apprehended by the individual being in that hierarchy. So the cell, if it is apprehending anything, it is something to do with its interaction with the surrounding cells, the enzymes etc in circulation and its own processes of life. Whereas the person running for the train will have whole libraries of information on the shelves at home, interact with complex situations with numerous organisms and their constructions, and has developed things like personality and ego for example to process all this apprehension. Likewise further up the hierarchy of being the being of the biosphere, Gaia, there is likely to be a larger step up in complexity of apprehension, the likes of which we really couldn't imagine. As the the importance of actions of beings, then we would need to refer to the being at the top of the hierarchy whose purposes we are acting out, somehow Idoubt we would understand if she told us.
My example was to show how performing acts which go against our animal instincts, human frailty, is difficult, causes personal trauma and risks the task not being carried out. Why go through all that when if it is carried out on a need to know basis, none of that comes into play. Also you seem to think that we can determine if an act in our life is of importance, necessary. We don't know if my injury was as necessary, or not, as was the crucifixion of Jesus.
A mystic can't become the arbiter of what is of importance in regards to the purposes of being, this is an elementary realisation.
Yes, but as I say the insights which the mystic develops are a side issue, because the practice is concerned with procedure. Although there is a psychological aspect to this and a healthy philosophical mind is advantageous for that.
Do you remember that I suggested this at the start and you said it would be better to go round the houses first. I was saying what it means to me, what it means and entails will be different for each individual, so it is probably a case of agreeing on some common principles and referring to relevant schools, or teachings to cross reference.
I agree an interest in the mysterious is a good start, a desire to understand reality somewhat. Or what is often the case, the individual has a calling of some sort through some kind of revelation. Giving them a motivation, or desire to delve into these matters.
When it comes to mystical practice, the individual would have read, or been taught about mysticism in religious practice. So would be motivated to get involved in some kind of practice.
When it comes to what is necessary to carry out this practice, the individual will follow a path of discovery perhaps of what is entailed. This is where some ground rules come into play as I mentioned in the beginning.
Then there are more advanced levels of practice and involvement, which can be evidenced in the lives of the saints, or bodhisattvas and deities. This might entail yogic practices, or practices with the goal of reaching enlightenment, or nirvana, or union with God, for example.
Yes, so the point is why does one choose this action. What is the purpose?
Quoting Punshhh
You are doing the same thing now, which you accused me of earlier. You are basing your hierarchy on material characteristics. I presented you with a hierarchy based in something immaterial, purpose, and you come back with a hierarchy based on observed complexities of material organisms.
This is the problem with your desire to remove intellectualization, it leaves you incapable of a true understanding of "hierarchy", which is an intellectual structure based in some value. So instead, you are left to construct your hierarchy on simple principles of material observation, big and small, more or less complex bodies, when a hierarchy really ought to be based in a system of values.
Quoting Punshhh
I really can't understand what you mean by "on a need to know basis". You've used it numerous times. There is fundamentally no need to know anything, knowing is voluntary. However there is a need to know, in the sense of a want or desire to know. You don't seem to differentiate between these two senses of "need".
The need to act precedes the need to know. In other words, we need to act (experiment) to learn, in order to know. And, there is a desire to know. There is always the desire to know. So it makes no sense to say that we ought not act unless there is a need to know, because there is always a need to know, therefore always the need to act. Action produces knowledge
Quoting Punshhh
Yes we do know this. You described the act as an accident. Therefore it was not necessary, by that description. No one decided that it was required. The crucifixion of Jesus was not an accident, it was determined by someone as necessary. This is what "necessary" means, having been determined by someone as required.
Quoting Punshhh
See, here it is, the desire to know, right here at the base of mysticism. So all this time you were attempting to remove this desire to know, this need for intellectualizing, from mysticism, arguing that this is not an essential aspect of mysticism. Yet when we come to define mysticism in it's most general sense, you agree that it is some sort of desire to understand. Therefore the "need to know" is inherent within mysticism, essential to it, just like philosophy. And the need to know is what produces reasoning, what you call intellectualising.
Quoting Punshhh
Right, so would you agree that this motivation is some sort of "need to know", which is within the person who wants to get involved in mystical practise? It is a need to know which drives the person to mystical practise, in the same sense that hunger is a need to eat which drives a person toward food.
Quoting Punshhh
So, I do not see the need for ground rules. I think they would be counter-productive. What the mystic is interested in is the mysterious, and that is the unknown. If there were rules to follow, then it would be a pretense, that the unknown is already known through this organized practise, and these are the rules to follow in this organized practise of understanding the mysterious, or unknown. But if the mystic is interested in the truly mysterious, which is the most deeply unknown, then one cannot follow rules, because if there were rules to this experimentation which the mystic would be involved in, then it would not be truly mysterious and unknown.
I agree there is the desire to know what may be lying beyond everyday reality, to experience something beyond the normal world. Teresa of Ávila had the burning desire to know Jesus. A Zen student might want to know the truth about one's "I" . But too great a desire may very well be a hindrance to knowledge.
I am illustrating that different beings have different expressions when they incarnate in physical material. These expressions are like a surface layer upon a subtle being, their complexity is dictated by the nature of the being. So by highlighting the differences in expression I am illustrating the difference, or from a perspective, the complexity of the being. I am talking about beings again, as I repeat physical material is a tool, of expression of the beings.
The rest of your post is in reference to the person who falls into my first and to degree the second category of, stage of the development of, a mystic*. The other categories are concerned with mystical practice which is an internal practice within the individual and comes after the point where the mystic has thought rationally about their philosophy and reached a personal philosophical grounding which works for them. The practice itself is not any more philosophy it is a practice of internal metamorphosis, where the only two points of focus are the self and the divinity (I leave this undefined as it is unique to the individual).
I have been talking about this practice and keep repeating this, but you just want to go around the houses and talk about purpose, need, desire etc in ordinary life. The mystic chooses to do something else, an endeavour of rebuilding themselves. It operates under different processes because the mystic develops along a path of initiation.
*1: I agree an interest in the mysterious is a good start, a desire to understand reality somewhat. Or what is often the case, the individual has a calling of some sort through some kind of revelation. Giving them a motivation, or desire to delve into these matters.
2: When it comes to mystical practice, the individual would have read, or been taught about mysticism in religious practice. So would be motivated to get involved in some kind of practice.
3: When it comes to what is necessary to carry out this practice, the individual will follow a path of discovery perhaps of what is entailed. This is where some ground rules come into play as I mentioned in the beginning.
4: Then there are more advanced levels of practice and involvement, which can be evidenced in the lives of the saints, or bodhisattvas and deities. This might entail yogic practices, or practices with the goal of reaching enlightenment, or nirvana, or union with God, for example.
OK, if I understand, you are saying that the physical body is an expression of the underlying being. So if the physical body is more complex, so is the being which expresses it. We call that learning about the cause through the effect.
Quoting Punshhh
Is this a change in the underlying being, mentioned above. Can a being itself change in this way, or can you explain why you call this a metamorphosis rather than an understanding, or a revelation? Being a relation between the self and the divinity, I would call anything which result form this relation a revelation rather than a metamorphosis.
Quoting Punshhh
We seem pretty much in agreement here at #1.
Quoting Punshhh
This is where we start to go our separate ways. I don't see why the mystic needs to take up an organized, structured practise. If the focus is on a relationship between the self and the divinity, and one already has an inclination in this direction as described by #1, what is the purpose of such human rites? These rites are just a ceremony, creating the illusion of importance, when what is really important is the relationship between the self and the divinity. And the path to the divinity is through the inner self not through some pompous ceremony.
Quoting Punshhh
So we continue on our separate ways now. In western mysticism there are no such rules as to how one must proceed. The relationship is between the individual and God, and any rules involved are produced by this relationship. We do not abide by the rules of other human beings when communing with God, as this would be counter productive. The idea is to get the message directly from God, not through the medium of some human sacrament.
Quoting Punshhh
Is this the point where you can drop the sanctimonious nonsense of rule following? To me, such rule following is to participate in a religion, but the mystic doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular religion.
Yes.
It is distinct from a revelation in that it is a growth, through stages. Also, by describing it I am referring to bodily processes rather than intellectual, or things being revealed to the mind. I agree in that there is some overlap between this growth and revelation, where the growth involves the mind.
There is a stage of trying to break out of, or free of one's conditioning and establishing an outpost, or free place, free of conditioning, in the self. Where one can retreat from the world, one's conditioning. This has to be more than simply an intellectual exercise, it requires a psychological change, in which the person fashions something new in them selves and grows into it sufficiently that it can become an alternative dwelling place in the self. I used to call this questing, the aspirant is trying to break free and some kind of schooling within a tradition is useful, because at this stage the aspirant, as a novice does not really know what they are doing.
I accept that we may go our separate ways here as you don't recognise what I am talking about. Your depiction of these processes is incorrect in saying pompous ceremony etc. And yes the path is through the inner self. I am talking of the processes involved in forging that link from the self to the divinity.
Precisely, now perhaps we can stop going round the houses.
It is more complicated than that because, the God, or divinity is not acting in this endeavour, it is the mystic. So how does the mystic know what to do? Praying on its own won't cut the mustard. When I say ground rules, it is a clumsy phraseology, because there is not much terminology around for this and what there is tends to fall within different religious traditions. What I am referring to in reality is natural processes in the human psyche and body which occur as this process develops. This is what I mean by initiation. A point where a threashold is reached and broken through, after which the narrative used before the breakthrough is insufficient and a new one is developed. This might be done through revelation and/or contemplation, or simply an adjustment in their daily lives, if they dont understand what happened. It is unique to the individual.
Are you bored, or don't you like my tone? Yes I agree about not adhering to a religion, the mystic operates alone, in terms of their own development.
Let me point out one of these rules (for use of a better word), I have already pointed this out, but it was ignored. The mystic reaches a threashold where to continue without offering up freely their autonomy, they risk inflating the ego and becoming an arbiter in their own performance. The ego must be subdued and used as a tool, or mechanism, not given control of the self. If it is the mystic will not progress past this point and will diverge into a fantasy of their own creation.
So as to avoid inflating the ego, humility and offering up of autonomy is exercised. Once this point, or threashold is passed the ego falls into line, does not become inflated and the mystic can move forward.
I guess I was a bit bored so I thought I'd spice up the conversation a bit by down talking religious rituals. I've never been very interested in these procedures and I've considered mysticism as a way to practise spirituality without the necessity of any of these religious ceremonies and rules. I really don't think that mysticism requires adherence to any religious practises. That's why I disagree with your claim that the mystic needs to follow ground rules. Rules, and particular practises are the elements of specific religions, but all religions have aspects of mysticism. So the various rues of practise are unique to the various religions, while mysticism pervades all religions as an aspect of spirituality. Therefore we ought not say that any particular rules are necessary for mysticism.
Quoting Punshhh
Would you agree that a being is a composition of body and mind, so the "growth" referred to here is a growth of both body and mind? Or maybe it's an improvement of the relationship between these two.
Quoting Punshhh
I accept that schooling is useful, but in the broadest sense. A person might be self taught, looking at the practises of one religion then another, and another, and so on, learning from them all, without taking up the practise of any of them. There is no necessity to follow precisely to one particular tradition.
I can see how it would be useful to adhere to a specific practise, if one was trying to "break free" from another practise. This would be like taking up a new practise in order to break free from an old habit, but if the person is not currently involved in any type of spiritual practise, then on might be already free to dabble in many different religious practises while maintaining a strong spiritual inclination.
Quoting Punshhh
The point is that you are describing one such path, which is not the only path. And you talk about this path as if it is the genuine path. However, I believe that the most important aspect of mysticism is that there is not one particular path or process which one must follow. Each individual is different, and may forge the link between self and divinity in one's own way. There is no need for the mystic to proceed through a religious course. And adhering to such a course would most likely be detrimental because the religion would be an intermediary between the self and the divinity, impeding the desired relationship.
Quoting Punshhh
I disagree with this. God must act, or else the presence of God, to the mystic, is simply made up, imaginary. In order that the God apprehended by the mystic is the real living God, this God must act, and it is through this activity that the mystic know the true actual God has been encountered.
Quoting Punshhh
It was ignored because you pulled this from a premise which I disagree with. So I argued the premise, and not what was derived from it.
Quoting Punshhh
I really don't see what ego has to do with this. I think you throw this in as a ruse. I believe that the mystic must offer up freely one's autonomy as a condition before even entering into mysticism. That's why I persisted so long in questioning the reasons why one might enter into a mystic course. So what you call subduing the ego is a necessary condition prior to becoming any sort of mystic at all. One might enter into a course of religious training for any of a variety of reasons, but this does not make the person a mystic. What makes the person a mystic is the reasons for entering into religious studies.
Quoting Punshhh
Perhaps it is this condition which separates the mystic from someone who is simply engaged in religious activities.
There are good and bad forces out there. Rather, some that can be harmful.
If you're a skilled philosopher. And some kid comes up to you saying wisdom is stupid, prove me wrong or you're a fraud. Just exactly how inclined would you be to do so? Meanwhile.. others will be more than happy to oblige. Usually for a non reciprocal purpose.
The ground rules (this is my phrase and may not describe what I am referring to very well), could be viewed as a set of preconditions before spiritual development may occur. Indeed you do agree with the only ground rule I provided in your post, which I have bolded.
Both, this covers a large area of study, so would require a lot of teasing out.
Yes and this is the course I followed, but eventually I would always go back to the same source because it worked well for me, became a suitable template, structure to work with.
This is your interpretation, I am talking of what I know, as each path is unique, how could I talk about another.
Yes, however I am trying to focus on universal traits within mysticism, traits, or processes entailed in all the routes due to the nature of the human body and humanity. There are certain processes which the mystic will inevitably go through involving body and mind as they grow. These are the ground rules I refer to, without them happening the mystic remains an observer rather than an actor.
Again, this is complicated a subtle relationship which requires a lot of teasing out. I a man simply saying that the divinity with which one is forging a link is already at the required stage of development, whereas the mystic is not and has to change herself to improve the connection, the divinity does not change to accommodate the mystic. Or if it does necessitate this, the divinity which changes is not actually changing, but appears to be to the mystic.
But you do agree with it, in this post (bolded).
well I would say that where the line is between who is a mystic and who isnt is debatable and each commentator will draw their own view.
As a rule of thumb perhaps, although I think there are many people who engage in religious activities who are practicing mysticism, but who don't see it in that way, they might only see themselves as living a humble and caring life. I would say that are more appropriate definition is one who wishes to connect in some way with nature, or divinity, to develop an interactive relationship, so I a sense every human is a mystic as you said in the beginning.
So there's only one ground rule then, and this is respect for the divinity, what you called subduing the ego. That's what I described as a need, which manifests as the desire for spiritual development. Recognizing this need is what is required for such a spiritual development, and the consequent actions. The first step to the spiritual development would be the recognizing of this need. The spiritual development must always be consistent with the need, as a natural need, or else it is not a proper development. So for example, the desire for food, what we call hunger, is the conscious recognition of a need. We can pursue the desire for food in many different ways, but not every way will produce a healthy diet. We must maintain consistency between the underlying actual need, and the things we consciously desire, which we will eat, to fulfill this need properly. It is not necessary that we understand every different element of nutrition, and the exact amount required, we maintain consistency in our diets in other ways which are more mystical.
This is the reason why I wanted to emphasize purpose, because needs are always relative to some end. The conscious desire for spiritual development must be made consistent with the natural need for spiritual development in order that it may result in true spiritual development. This is an adapting of the mind, which if the mind is not already so inclined, would involve a changing of one's attitude. But this changing of one's attitude is already an essential part of the spiritual development, so it's better not to call it a precondition. The only precondition is the natural need, which we are all endowed with. Then recognizing its existence and shaping one's conscious desire around it, is already a mystical practise. It's a mystical practise because those who do not recognize the natural need do not see the reason for the practise.
Therefore in order to have true mystical practise, and not some behaviour dictated by mental illness, or some random ideas, we must have some understanding of that natural need, and its related purpose. I'll agree to calling this a ground rule, if you'll agree that the knowledge required is intellectual, and provided through some sort of academia. It is not necessary that we understand God's purpose, or anything like that, (just like it's not necessary for us to understand all of our nutritional requirements in order to eat healthily), but only that we understand a simple reasonable principle, like if there is a need there must be a reason for the need, some sort of deficiency. And of course different individual mystics can recognize different reasonable principles, like if there is an effect there must be a cause, and various other possible grounding principles, for one's own form of mysticism. There are many different possible mysticisms. But if one does not follow a reasonable grounding principle, then one's actions would be random or misguided, and likely the actions of psychosis or deception, rather than the actions of a mystic. We could call failing to subdue the ego a form of psychosis.
What I was referring to when I said ground rules is as set of stages, or accepted conditions, undergone, or accepted by the aspirant. Prior to any real moving forward on the path. So if I put them as points.
1:A natural spiritual need. The human propensity to look to a divine agency.
2:A personal desire to get involved in some real way. The idea of some kind of spiritual service, or development.
3:A calling, this can take many forms, either a revelation of divinity, or a concerted choice, or determination in the aspirant.
I would make a seperation here between the preconditions above and the development of practice below. What the aspirant does next after satisfying the preconditions.
4: The action of seeking out some guidance, some direction, or study and to become involved in this study.
5: A recognition of one's frailty and the preparedness to address it as part of the study and practice.(there are subdivisions to this point which could be added later), but to simplify, a desire to tackle trauma and conditioning in the self, so as to become a reborn person free of these impediments.
6: A preparedness to leave the social group and act independently, this would vary greatly depending on the circumstances. In the modern world, it might just be a preparedness to become independent of the general atheism, or creationism in the society, for example.
I would make a seperation here between the first steps above and what is encountered along the path below.
7: the test of devotion, or a tenacity to proceed even when in doubt of the truth of the divinity.
8: the subjugation of the ego, the taming of the ego, it's control, its tying to the post of the will.
9: the offering up of personal autonomy.
10: the agreement not to deviate from the chosen course, not to use any gained freedoms for ill, evil, of personal gain in the world. This would be done on the acceptance that if the agreement were to be broken it would seriously jeopardise, or finish any prospect of proceeding on the path.
The next points would be more advanced stages, so I will leave it at that for now.
I see where you're going, but I don't quite agree. I think that the stages, or rules, points, or whatever you want to call your numbered items, cannot be accepted or agreed to beforehand as a precondition, because the precise nature of these stages is determined by the process, and what is revealed to the mystic through the process. So the mystical process is very individualized, and this is important to recognize because it accounts for all the differences between the various religions. Further, development in the earlier points is required for accepting later points, so one cannot be expected to accept more than the first point when entering, then build up the knowledge required for the next point, and so on. This is the same as any type of learning.
So as we climb your numbers, the lowest numbers outline the most general requirements, so they are the most accurate at describing what is common to all mystics. And, it is common to all people, as we could consider any person as a potential mystic. But the majority of people in our society are trained to suppress these inclinations. By the time we get to #6 you have already acknowledge a great variance depending on circumstances. So I believe that in this second stage, which you call development of practise, we need to include something concerning learning the capacity to adapt to the circumstances. This is what reveals one's frailty (#5), recognizing the difference between what is possible and impossible, and it also helps to relieve one from a variety of emotional difficulties like frustration, anxiety, and the related stresses. It is important in relation to the question of the op, as a benefit of mysticism, because it helps a person who might otherwise be a lost soul, to find one's place in a rapidly changing environment. This relief from the stresses of the environment (social and natural) which this early stage brings, is probably important in encouraging the person to continue on.
Furthermore, this is what gives the mystic a unique and individualized perspective, understanding oneself as a unique and individual person, with unique and individual strengths and weaknesses, positioned in a unique situation. We might call this accepting yourself for what you are, because you cannot change the person which you are, in the position you are in, but this in no way precludes the possibility of change absolutely, because it is only a recognition of a real, environmentally imposed distinction between possible and impossible. Working toward developing a strong aptitude for distinguishing possible from impossible in a rapidly changing environment (quick-witted), which in practise often becomes the distinction between probable and improbable, is beneficial, allowing the unique and individual person to make the most of one's special position in the environment, to be a special person.
The next step for the mystic, I think, the third stage would be to determine the difference between better and worse, so that the person could act on possibilities associated with a change for the better. But by this time, the mystic's path has already become so individualized that I think it would be very difficult to list particular points.
At #7 you cite a devotion to the divinity, but you have not clearly outlined the mystic's recognition of the divinity. At #1 you refer to a natural tendency to look toward the divinity, but I interpret this more as a looking for the divinity. Now at #7 one must have devotion toward the divinity. So I think we need to posit something between #1 and #7 to support such devotion. Therefore I would move this whole section (7-10) further up the ladder, making it a fourth section, and insert a new third section which involves distinguishing bad from good.
This whole notion of #1, spiritual need, and divine agency is aroused by, and directly related to the need for distinguishing and choosing the appropriate course of action. This is deciding right and wrong, good and bad. Devotion to the divinity requires the belief that such a distinction can be made. so this belief must be somehow supported, and I believe that this is a very important and critical support section, required as a foundation for 7-10. Those items mentioned in that section involve a strong will, determination, and this must be cultivated. Such a will power only proceeds if one recognizes not only that a particular option is possible, but also that it is good. This is why purpose and the nature of the divinity itself, must be brought into the recognition. The divinity, as some unknowable, untouchable, ineffable Being cannot support such a devotion, and the will power required at this stage of development. So we need some ideas of natural good and purpose to support this will power. Not only does the person need to develop a strong sense of what is possible, but also an equally strong sense of what is good. Believing in what is good, and adhering to it is what defines devotion. We touched on grounding the hierarchy of good in the divinity earlier in the thread.
IMO wrong from the outset. The divine is not required.
Forgive me for being blunt, but this conversation is like two guys throwing frisbees in a meadow discussing how to pilot an SR-71 Blackbird. Are either of you serious mystics? If so, I will humbly retreat. :worry:
You should tell us what constitutes a serious mystic, in order that we can properly answer your question. Otherwise we'd just be making meaningless assertions.
This definition is more inclusive than one positing some aspect of the divine. Have either of you had such a "mystical experience"? If so, please describe them. How did you enter into the mental states that led to revelations beyond normal sensory or introspective means? Did you meditate? Was there an epiphany at some point, an astounding and memorable moment?
Philosophizing about such internal adventures seems so remote from actually having them. Like discussing Citizen Kane without having seen the film.
I don't mean to be rude, but this is an area of which I have had some limited first hand knowledge, and so I see the disparity between participation and external ruminations. If all you wish is to speculate and discuss the analytic parameters of mysticism, then I beg your pardon, please continue.
Also with mysticism there is that thing you get with the enlightened, if someone says they are enlightened everyone assumes they aren't, or they wouldn't have said that. It's the same with mysticism. I have spent 40 years practicing something, I have concluded that it is mysticism, but it might not be, it might be spirituality, insecurities not dealt with, as some people have said. Who knows. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.
Please have a little patience, I think we might be getting somewhere soon.
P.s. Oh and I too didn't think that the divine is required for many years, but know it's more that is is largely irrelevant, rather than not required. But it becomes problematic to discuss on a forum like this if it is not referenced, initially at least.
Subjects mentioned in my last post, things like distinguishing between possible and impossible, right and wrong (good and bad), qualify as non-sensory, non-introspective features of knowledge. And, I believe we all experience these. But, as I've argued since the beginning of the thread, most of us are trained to overcome these mystical experiences, ignore them, and replace them with what is presented to us as the norms of society.
I do not believe that recognition of the divine is necessary for mystical experiences. But I think it is required to make any personal progress in mysticism, as the principle of orientation in any hierarchy.
This is a matter of understanding the mystical experience, which is what I think "mysticism" is, but Punshhh tried to dismiss as intellectualising. However, as I argued already, some degree of intellectualising is required to make any progress in mysticism, because the mystical experience is completely meaningless unless understood to some degree. So we use words to understand it, and as Punshhh says, "divine" is an apt word, and I use it as a principle which makes higher or lower on any scale of values intelligible.
You are familiar with mathematics. By what principle would you say 10 is "higher", meaning a greater value, than 2?
Of course. :cool:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The "Looking at one's hands" principle. :smile:
OK. Forgive the intrusion. I was curious about first-hand knowledge of the topic being discussed. In other philosophical areas, like panpsychism, this is not a consideration. For several years I belonged to a forum in which a lengthy thread dealt with various aspects of mind. One participant had practiced Zen for thirty years, and we had some interesting conversations about his epiphanies and how they might have related to brain activity.
So if we were to imagine a mystic, in our minds eye, who had passed through the 10 stages I have outlined and what would concern this person, what they would do next, what sort of experiences they would have. Then we would be discussing what is involved in mysticism, rather than continually going back to everyday human psychology, and/or getting bogged down in discussions about the first 6 points and not actually reach a point of discussing mysticism at all.
This notional mystic would be at the level of your average guru, saint, or prophet.
Yes, perhaps this would be between 3 and 4, with a corollary somewhere between 5 and 7, where it is acted upon and progress made.
Yes,
Yes, perhaps you can make a suggestion for this section.
I had not focussed in on these capacities, seeing them more as associated with the development of intuition and not so much a stage, but a capability developed throughout the process. But now I see it's relevance here.
I see what you are saying here, personally I posit an intermediary between the self and the divinity here, namely the soul, or an aspect of the self/being, which is very real, but which is not tarnished by incarnation in the way that the personality is, rather a higher self so to speak. This soul/higher self is what one is actually forging a connection with, rather than the divinity, the divinity being near absolute. So via the development of intuition the mystic develops a communion with their higherself, which bestows a grace upon the mystic. Or in other words, the purposes, desires, motivations of the mystic become aligned, reoriented in alignment with those of that higher self*.As this link becomes developed, the sense, of right from wrong, better from worse etc, improves. Until in a later stage becomes a revelation in action of good, grace and wisdom.
*In Hinduism this is described as the development of the sushumna between the 5th and 6th chakra.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadi_(yoga)
Perhaps much of the confusion about mysticism can be resolved by changing "knowledge of ultimate reality" to "experience of ultimate reality"? However, the terms "ultimate reality" imply a kind of knowledge. So we could just dump those words if we wish. And we are left with experience.
An example may help? Say I eat a carrot. There is nutrition in the carrot no matter what my knowledge of carrots might be. My opinions of carrots also have no impact upon the nutritional value. So we could perhaps describe mysticism as experience which has psychic nutritional value which is largely unrelated to one's knowledge or opinion of the experience.
As I experience it, mysticism (or whatever term one prefers) is just a change of focus from the symbolic realm to the real world. It's thought itself that is the source of the illusion of division. To the degree we lower the volume of thought, the unity with reality which has always existed becomes easier to experience.
The beauty of it, from my perspective, is that it can be a purely mechanical exploration, which thus makes it available to pretty much anyone. If we see immersion in the symbolic, (ie. thought), as the primary obstacle to experience of the real, and see thought as just another mechanical process of the body, what some call mysticism can be made very simple.
Of course, being human we are likely to then want to explain the experience, which introduces philosophy and an infinite universe of endlessly complex abstractions etc. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as one doesn't take it too seriously. We're human, we think to survive, and so won't be living permanently in the mystic. Ok, price of doing business, no big deal.
Yes, mysticism (at least as I'm using the word) is meaningless. That's the whole point. If you can do completely meaningless, I applaud you! :-)
It could be argued that the most rational manner of talking about mysticism would be discuss how to do it. If a reader finds a useful method in the pile of suggestions, then they can have their own experiences and craft their own explanations. If they follow their own trail far enough they might some day find the experiences themselves are sufficient, and then no longer have a need for the explanations.
It seems that philosophy and mysticism are in a sense opposites, in that the philosopher attempts to build an elaborate house of sophisticated ideas, whereas the mystic is more concerned with dismantling the house. The philosopher explores symbols which point to the real, the mystic explores the real.
I must admit that I don't really understand what you're talking about here. Are you trying to make a distinction between discussing mysticism and discussing discussing mysticism? I don't see the point. Don't we have to first discuss mysticism before we can discuss the discussion. Or, are your ground rules personal conditions for such a discussion? Isn't this like saying I will only discuss mysticism under my terms, not under someone else's terms? What's the point in that, you'd only be disallowing the perspectives of others?
Quoting Punshhh
I think intuition is very important in all aspects of decision making, but one's intuitive skills vary depending on the aspect of the judgement. So in relation to the two aspects I mentioned, distinguishing possible from impossible, and distinguishing better from worse, a person would need to develop one's intuition in both of these aspects.
Quoting Punshhh
All right, now I think I'm starting to understand. In the religious way, the religious practises, rites and ceremonies, even rules and laws, serve as the intermediary between the individual, and God. We are exposed to God through these services and we are expected to have faith. And until this point, this is how your description of mysticism appeared to me, as involving a religious practise, which served as an intermediary between the person and the divinity. But now you are saying that the true intermediary between the person and the divinity is the soul, and this makes much more sense to me.
Can we use this as a feature which would help us to distinguish mysticism from religion. Religion wants us to accept the reality of God or some divinity through faith, and it cultivates that faith through ceremonies and various procedures. Mysticism on the other hand aims to have one accept the reality of one's own soul, so it cultivates this acceptance through a completely different type of practise. Instead of attempting to show you God, the mystical practise attempts to show you your soul.
Now here's a question you might be able to help me with. From the perspective of a mystic, what is intuition, and where does it come from? Is it a property of the soul itself?
By working on the assumption that the subject, the mystic is past all that stuff, one can actually discuss something of value to the mystic, or the person who has a serious interest.
Yes, I see what you mean, however personally this is all either far in the past, or an irrelevance. Because in intuition, I don't make any judgement unless it is absolutely necessary, which very rarely happens. Rather, I witness the experience and any light shone on it intuitively. So I am baring witness, not determining an intellectual assessment of the experience. Also when it comes to what is possible and impossible, likewise, the question doesn't come up because I don't want in the course of my practice to do anything, other than the simple natural, or normal activities that a rounded person would do. Or to view it from another angle, I am not doing anything other than growing a communion between myself and another part of myself. So the question of the possible never comes up. As regarding the question of whether enlightenment, or nirvana or something like that is possible, again it doesn't come up, because I am of the opinion that the development of my being like that of a plant (lotus for example) determines what is going to happen. A lotus only flowers when the plant has grown to the point of developing a bud ready to open through entirely natural processes. Again, the mind in the human is not what brings the flower to bud, the fully awakened mind emerges from the bud.
I see it as a mental faculty which evolved prior to the development of the thinking mind of the modern human. Like an instinct, an unconscious means of determining the right course of action. Something that in animals increases the chances of survival significantly. Crucially, it is independent of the thinking, or rational mind.
It would seem to be in the spirit of mysticism to look at it as simply, and perhaps humbly, as possible. So for example, instead of seeing mysticism as a ladder one climbs to some higher position, it might be seen as an act of routine maintenance of one of the body's mechanical processes. We have to eat, sleep, eliminate, procreate etc on a routine basis to stay healthy. Such acts aren't a path to somewhere else, but just the price of doing business as a human being. Thought is just another one of the mechanical processes of the body. It requires maintenance to remain healthy just as all the other processes do.
How one considers mysticism would seem to depend on how one defines the problem one is attempting to solve. If one sees the problem as arising from incorrect thoughts, then a philosophical approach seems warranted. If on the other hand one sees the problem as arising from the nature of thought itself, then building the pile of thoughts even higher may be an act of poring more fuel on the fire, a step in the wrong direction.
Quoting Nuke
Is being = soul? The conversation has turned philosophical. :chin:
I agree with this, humility and the realisation that you are in a sense already where you wish to be, if you could but see it. There is also the path of the mystic, which some may choose to tread, if one wishes to help in the enterprise of human development.
That's an interesting question, thanks. While I generally don't have a lot to say about souls one way or another, your question has stirred my curiosity. Hmm...
Being can be thought of as a form of death, as what we typically consider to be "me" is to some degree or another set aside. Our opinions, personality, memories, desires etc, put on hold to some degree. And once that very distracting pile of things is muted, there is more attention available for the real world.
On some occasions an interesting thing happens. If the pile of stuff we call "me" is set aside to a sufficient degree, there is sometimes the experience of attention, but not an experience of someone attending. Attention just is, or so it can feel.
And so being might be described as being dead, in the real world. We're here, and yet we're not. It doesn't seem unreasonable to compare this to the soul, which is generally assumed to be ever present and eternal, and yet unseen.
Perhaps this is sloppy, and I wouldn't argue over any of it, but it seems you're raised an interesting subject.
Yes.
To translate this in to religious lingo, it could be said that we don't need to get back to God, we just need to realize, or perhaps experience, that there is no where else we ever have been or ever could be.
In secular lingo mysticism might be described as an act of transcending the division distortions generated by the nature of thought. Once we are not looking through a lens whose purpose is to create divisions, the unity of all things is easier to see and experience.
Quoting Punshhh
If you'd like to expand on this further I would read with interest. How does the mystic facilitate human development in your view?
You seem to describe an experience of observation, "baring witness", and an experience of growth, "the fully awakened mind emerges from the bud", without anything to reconcile the difference between these two, or unite the two. One is to be passive, the other to be active.
If I take the active perspective, you say that what you are doing is culturing a relationship between two parts of yourself. Since you actually say between yourself and another part of yourself, I would say that the other part is the passive intuitive part, and yourself, being active in growing the relation, is the active part. What I was hoping you would recognize is how much intuition enters into the active part, by influencing decision making. So I don't believe we can separate the passive "baring witness" from the activity of growing the mind in such a straight forward way.
And, since the active and passive seem to be thoroughly blended throughout all the aspect of living beings, while you are describing them as separate, I think that what you are really doing is culturing a separation between these two rather than a relation between them. If you are not dividing the other part of yourself from yourself, for the purpose of analysis, or some other philosophical goal, then what is the purpose of this?
When I mentioned the intuition required to accurately distinguish what is impossible, or improbable, from what is possible, or likely, what I meant is how do we recognize the former, what is impossible. We very easily recognize what is possible, and this is fundamental to any activity. We proceed with any activity, because we apprehend the proceedings and outcome as possible, so we proceed. The issue though is to recognize when one ought not proceed because the desired action or outcome is impossible, or at least improbable. This is where good intuition serves us well in decision making, telling us not to proceed on a chosen path, even if one has already gone so far, because the desired outcome is starting to appear impossible. It is important to be able to turn back, because failing to, in this type of situation may lead to severe emotional stress, frustration etc..
So I wonder about your activity of "growing a communion between myself and another part of myself" Isn't it the case that this communion already exist within the most fundamental aspects of your being? If so, then surely you're not trying to establish a separation between these two parts of yourself, because that would be something impossible and extremely frustrating. So what are you doing other than trying to understand the communion between these two parts? And if this is the case, doesn't that put you back into the category of passive observer? You're not growing the relationship, nor dividing it, simply observing and trying to understand it. Then I might ask you, for what purpose are you doing this? And your answer would put you back into the active category.
Quoting Punshhh
As intuition clearly influences conscious decisions, how can you say that it is independent of thinking?
That's exactly how my old friend, a thirty year Zen devotee, described it. Empty awareness. We can all have this sensation from time to time when completely relaxed, unfocused, and awake.
If we apprehend "a person" as a being, we perceive a unity. But if we see that a person has a soul, and that the soul is a part of the person, then we apprehend a division. So the question is, how can the conscious mind commune with the soul itself, without utilizing such a division. Any way that we understand "soul" necessitates such a division. This is why philosophers are led to dualism.
It's not at all difficult to see the unity of things, that is the natural perspective. We apprehend things, objects, as unities. What is difficult is to apprehend the meaning, and fundamental nature, of unity, and this requires that we recognize the parts which make up a unity.
By turning down the volume of that which is generating the division. Thought.
If you're talking with a friend and you can't stay focused on what they're saying because the TV is blaring in the background, you turn the TV down or off.
Philosophers, new age gurus, spiritual pundits, wannabe babas, theologians and others with a bias for complexity are often skilled at making such things sound very exotic and esoteric etc. Maybe such issues are exotic, or maybe this is a simple mechanical problem which can be addressed by simple mechanical means.
Is it true that thought operates by dividing reality in to conceptual objects? For example, the noun.
If that is true, then the experience of division would seem to arise not from some particular philosophy, not from the content of thought, but from thought itself. Evidence: every ideology ever invented seems to inevitably sub-divide in to competing internal factions, suggesting that division arises from a factor which all ideologies have in common, what they're all made of, thought.
If thought is the source of the experience of division, and thought is just another mechanical process of the body, then we have opened the door to mechanical solutions.
Mechanical solutions are not so appealing to philosophers perhaps, but they would seem to have the advantage of being far more accessible to far more people.
You seem to describe an experience of observation, "baring witness", and an experience of growth, "the fully awakened mind emerges from the bud", without anything to reconcile the difference between these two, or unite the two. One is to be passive, the other to be active.[/quote]
It is the being who bares witness, the thinking mind is only a faculty of the being, exercised when reasoning is carried out. It is the being which grows and its expression, the body adjusts accordingly inline with the growth.
It is not that simple, the inactive part is and never was inactive in my description. But that it was merely inactive in respect of the mystical process itself, which is an endeavour of the active part, or self. But really to try and analyse such things in this way is overly reductive and I can see leading to confusion. I am happy to try, but I find myself trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
By baring witness, I mean observing an experience as a direct result of having it, while not engaging the mind in its interpretation, or developing narratives. At that time of the experience. My cat bears witness of my drawing of a Jabberwoky, she does not use her mind to interpret what she sees. But she has most certainly experienced a drawing of a jabberwoky. Likewise I might have experienced my being outside conventional, or normal time and not used my mind to interpret it, at the time. This does not preclude me from thinking about it later, but I focus on the act of witness of a real event.
I view myself as having seven parts, like layers on an onion, so I am seven beings in a sense, cooperating as a unity, but with some barriers of some kind between them.
As for intuition and communion, I am working on an assumption that my personality and parts of my mind are separated from my higher being (soul) due to evolutionary conditions and that the intuition and practice of communion are employed in bridging this divide. As I said, I am only concerned with this internal bridging in my practice, not anything else in my life. I do contemplate these other things etc, but I separate the activities.
I can't see the point in you analogy. If your being is composed of a multitude of parts, you cannot turn one part down to concentrate on the other part, because the thing doing the concentrating is itself composed of parts. So in doing this you would incapacitate your ability to concentrate.
Quoting Nuke
No, I don't think this is the case. I think that sensation perceives boundaries, and it is the perception of these boundaries which makes us think of things as distinct objects. Conception doesn't naturally create objects, it create subjects, which are categories for classifying objects. The categories overlap and there is not really distinct boundaries between them unless we assume something like a dichotomy.
There's a form of realism though, Platonic realism, which for simplicity sake, assumes that concepts are just another form of object. But this is just a simplification which does provide a good representation of what a conception is.
Quoting Punshhh
I think of myself as actively creating my experience. Of course most of the creating is done at the unconscious level, but nevertheless the direct causes of what I consciously experience are all within my being, and I really cannot say that any of the external stuff which I sense is a cause of my experience. So the subject of observing my own experience is a very difficult one. I might say that as the creator of my experience, I am a biased observer. This is where intention and attention would mix. I would be trying to pay attention to my experience, to be a good observer, but at the same time, unconscious (instinctual and intuitive) forms of intention would be active in the creation of the experience, creating that experience for some purpose. Since I really don't know the purpose involved here (as described earlier), I don't know how this underlying intention is shaping my experience, and also shaping the way I observe it (the observation being part of the experience). So I assume that my capacity to observe my own experience is very limited.
Quoting Punshhh
Observation requires taking note of what occurs, that's what observation is. So you might attempt to remove observation from the simple experience, but this would remove remembering it, and memory is a fundamental aspect of experience. Remembering is actually an interpretation because the thing remembered is the memory, not the experience itself.. If you remove memory from experience, in an absolute way, I would insist that you are not longer talking about experience.
Quoting Punshhh
I think you are fooling yourself if you think that you can remember what happened at a past time without interpreting what was happening at that time when it was happening. This is because what is remembered is the mind's interpretation of what happened, not the real happening. But I will admit that some of this interpretation could be happening at a subconscious level. And I think it's a vague grey area of the mind where the unconscious is supposedly separated from the conscious. We might say that some actions are clearly conscious, and others clearly unconscious, but the majority are a mixing of the two.
Quoting Punshhh
Can you briefly describe for me, the seven parts?
Quoting Punshhh
Do the divisions between all the seven parts get bridged by the same principles, or does each division have a unique bridge? In other words, if intuition and communion bridge the divide between mind and soul, do different forms of the same thing, intuition and communion, bridge the other divisions?
Going back to the mind, I have been referring to the thinking mind, by which I mean the sentient thinking being, I think, therefore I am. As distinct to the subconscious levels of the mind, or intuitive levels. These other levels are largely unconscious, or at least not deliberated on and directed by the thinking mind (ego/personality).
actually a distinction needs to be made between 'experience' and 'realisation'. Why? Because experience is a transitive verb. Experience implies a subject who experiences something, whereas 'realisation' encompasses a domain which transcends experience. It comprises insight into the nature and limitations of experience.
Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, a Tibetan monk who lived and taught in New York and Melbourne, had this to say:
I don't think there is a counterpart to the term 'spiritual realisation' in current philosophical lexicon, whereas it is at least implicitly present in much pre-modern philosophy. Since medieval times, Western thinking has progressively divested itself of the sapiential dimension of philosophy. And as it has gone, so has the capacity to understand what it referred to. Part of the implicit condition of modernity is the sense of oneself as an intelligent, separate subject in a domain of objects (and other subjects), whereas in the pre-modern world, the world was experienced as, or realised as, an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive. Having fallen out of that, it is impossible to recall or imagine what has been lost or forgotten.
In some vital sense, the 'unio mystica' is the breaking down of the sense of otherness or separateness. That is why it naturally gives rise to compassion, insofar as 'the sage' sees others as him or herself, which naturally gives rise to a sense of empathy for others.
This all makes sense to me, but I don't see the specific need for seven, instead of five or nine or something like that. And since you don't lay out the distinction or boundary between each, it appears sort of random to me. For instance, I can somewhat see the need for the higher and lower mental body, but this could really be divided into numerous distinctions, because the boundary between the two seems quite vague, and could afford the imposition of more boundaries. Then the "three more subtle bodies" are even less well defined. Are all these parts meant to be "bodies", or is that just figurative? Referring to "bodies" seems to be an attempt to objectify the subjective.
Quoting Punshhh
The difficulty I have with this point, is that I do not apprehend these divisions as natural divisions. They seem to be artificial, created through some form of intellectualizing, imposing boundaries, to say that this is separate from that, when perhaps it is not. So I see the mystical practise as actually creating these separations rather than bridging them. If they were real separations, with something real dividing them, we could point to that divisor, and say that this divisor needs to be removed to unite them. But if there is nothing real dividing them then there is no real separation which needs to be bridged, and you are creating an imaginary separation.
Here's an illustration. Suppose there is an object and one end of the object is black while the other end is white. There is a grey area in between, where the white fades to black. You see black and white as distinct, and needing a separation, a boundary of division for the two to have separate existence. So you impose an artificial division, saying this side is black, the other side white, and now you have two separate parts. Once you have separated those parts, you assume that we need some mystical practise (or something like that) to bridge the separation. Then you create the artificial bridge which unites the two by bridging the artificial separation. In this example, the whole process is an artificial creation of the observing mind. In reality, there is no division between the black and white, they fade into each other by degrees. Then you create the artificial division through some form of intellectualizing, just so that you might bridge that separation, and unite the black and white. Now the bridge you have created is not at all representative of the real, natural bridge which actually already exists as the grey area, because you have over looked the grey area in the original act of dividing the black from the white.
Quoting Punshhh
So that is how I see this supposed distinction between conscious and subconscious, as a grey area. The mind is always active, both conscious and subconscious, and the activities are constantly going back and forth, crossing through the grey area. So to make a divide between the conscious and the subconscious is to make such an artificial separation, an analysis not based in reality, which one might later try to bridge in an intellectual practise of synthesis. But that bridge would not be representative of the natural, existing bridge.
It seems a good goal for such conversations is to offer a variety of options for approaching such subjects so as to make them accessible to as many readers as we can. If true, then instead of looking for a "one true way" we might be presenting as many different ways as we can. In that spirit, I have no argument with anything you've said.
It seems natural that in very many aspects of life we would learn from our experiences, ie. have realizations. And we will often very reasonably consider experience to be a means to the end of learning. So far, so good.
To me, if what we're calling mysticism uses such an "experience to learn" model, then it's just philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, but if it's philosophy, then it can't provide an alternative to philosophy. And on forums like this I'm guessing quite a few of us could use an alternative to philosophy to balance our compulsive over thinking. I certainly do.
An alternative to the "experience to learn" model would be to value experience for itself, not as a means to some other end. As example, if I eat a tomato I will receive nutrition whether or not I know anything about tomatoes or learn anything from eating them. Like that.
While this is not a one true way, it has some advantages to recommend it.
First, we can approach such experiences through purely mechanical means, which makes them much more accessible to many more people. Philosophers tend to find such practical simplicity distasteful :-) but we are 1% of the population, so who cares.
Second, if we take emphasis off of the realizations, and just leave them alone to do their own thing, we're gone a substantial distance to preventing ego from hi-jacking the operation. To illustrate, let's return to the tomato example. Eating a tomato is just a simple act of maintenance of bodily functions. It's not a path one climbs to some higher station. You eat a tomato, and then a few hours you have to eat another one. Routine business which continues until you die. It's pretty hard to turn eating a tomato in to some kind of glorious ego becoming trip.
I think "mystical" experiences can be viewed that way too. Our mind overheats from excessive use, so we cool it down. It overheats again tomorrow, requiring another fix. Maintenance of a mechanical function of the body, just like eating, sleeping, elimination, exercise sex etc.
If you're reading a book while eating the tomato, you still get the nutrition. We don't have to focus on the tomato, we just have to eat it.
I would argue that it's the quest for realizations, the climbing of a ladder to someplace else, trying to get somewhere, accomplish something, achieve, learn, advance, mature, grow, become, which is the source of the fixations.
I would describe what we're calling mysticism as being the opposite of that. Not becoming. Being.
Nicely put, I keep coming up against this like a brick wall when trying raise this issue.
As I said a few posts back is that what I am presenting is this teaching as a means of talking about mysticism. The practice itself is more ineffable and less structured and would be virtually impossible to convey in this kind of linear intellectual communication. There are ways of conveying less linear kinds of understanding where relations can be conveyed in a poetical, as proverbs, or axiomatic structure. For example I can converse in a triadic form in which everypoint can be seen through a kind of trinity of understanding. Also there is a kind of numerology which I find useful. For example if we go back to the seven levels I describe. It can be seen as two trinity's, a higher and a lower, with a pivotal layer, or point between them. This pivotal point can be considered as a kind of overlap between the two trinity 's, such that it can relate to either, act as a bridge. For example an average human can be seen as having 4 levels with the pivotal one associated with the lower trinity with the focus of their life being in the lower trinity. Whereas a more spiritual person could be seen to have their life focus in the higher trinity with the pivotal level associated with this trinity. So the normal person has a division of 4 and 3 (4 below the pivotal and 3 above) and a more spiritual person a division of 3 and 4 (3 below and 4 above) of the aforementioned 7 layers. Also at some stage the spiritual person would shed the bottom layer (the physical) and attain and new layer at the top (the monadic). Thus becoming 2 and 5.
I hear what you say about the grey area, but as I say, I am describing a structured mystical teaching. The decisions and separations as described in this structure do relate to aspects of the real nature of people. The use of black and white and grey are to convey understanding of aspects of people, being and self which cannot be easily distinguished within oneself without some kind of structure. But they must not be confused with the personal understanding, or nature of the individual mystic, which as I say is ineffable and not easily communicated, if at all.
So are you reducing the sentient thinking person to a agglomeration of numerous subconscious levels, with the illusion of choice? And if so, what about the ego, where does that fit in?
Through pursuing some kind of service, this could be doing good works and/or offering oneself as a vessel to convey divinity of some kind for acts of service.
Indeed. You might notice my relative scarcity around this forum of late, that's because I'm thoroughly sick of banging my head against said brick wall.
Sounds like a tricky business. Uh oh, here come ego, slapping his little hands together in glee.
The precious.
I don't see the need for such multiple divisions in a mystical perspective. In the west the tradition is one division, the distinction is between the body and the soul. Then each has properties, mind is proper to the soul, and desires and emotions are derived from the body.
The problem I have with creating structure for understanding these differences is that the entire living being is a system, or systems of activity, and each activity crosses any proposed divisions. So if we assume any type of layering, then unless the layering is some sort of layering of activity, each activity which occurs within the living being will cross over through the layers, and we won't be able to adequately assign a specific activity to any particular layer as where the activity is located. And, if we layer according to distinct types of activities we'll find that interactions will cross the layers.
But if I take my conscious mind as my point of perspective for observation, (the only place I really have for this), I find that there is two directions in which activities are passing by this observation point. From outside of me activities are entering into me, in the form of sensual encounters. They stir me, having an effect on my conscious point of observation, so I know they are activities, active causes in arousing my attention. These activities having a source independent from me can be given a spatial presence relative to my conscious observation point Also, from deep within me come urges to move and do things, and these also stir me so they must be activities as well. Desires and intentions are active in directing my attention. I cannot give these activities spatial location though because they just sort of move me from the inside. If my conscious observation point is a point, they come from inside that point. Further, from my conscious observation point, I seem to be able to manipulate these two distinctly sourced activities. In the process of thinking, contemplation, I can divert the activities, making them go around and around, or opposing them to each other, preventing the externally sourced activities from going deeper and changing my mind, and also preventing the internally sourced activities from causing me to actually get up and do something, changing the external world.
So I think the black, white, and grey is actually a very good analogy. The externally sourced activities appear to be the white, easily sourced, and studied in broad daylight, as being locatable and analyzed by scientific methods. The black could be the internally sourced activities, dark and mysterious, and this is the real source of activity of a living being. The conscious mind is in the grey area, of activities passing by, right and left, or more accurately inward and outward. The average person will not take the time to look at these activities passing through the mind, and learn about direction. We might say that they live in a confused world, having very little understanding of their own activities. It is only if we take the time to look at the inner activity of one's own being, like a mystic does, looking toward that dark and mysterious inner source of activity, that we can understand our own activities. Since the internally sourced activity is activity which cannot be spatially located, being inside the conscious point, it appears to be activity which cannot be intelligently spoken about according to conventionally accepted principles of motion. Thus we have the appearance that the mystic deals with the ineffable.
I don't believe in this form of "ineffable" though. I think it is a faulty or false determination of what is impossible, and one which is very misleading. The restrictions on our capacity to communicate and speak about various things is a product of the cultural conventions, the direction which the society has turned in its communicative practise. If there is an aspect of reality which appears to a particular culture as ineffable, it is because that aspect has been neglected by that society. They do not talk about it, therefore they haven't the means to talk about it. Ability comes from practise. This is why different cultures have differing capacity for talking about things. So there is no aspect of reality which is in itself ineffable, it's just a matter of starting to talk about the thing which appears to be ineffable, and in this way we build the capacity to talk about it.
\
So the mystic doesn't really deal with the ineffable, only going beyond what the present communicative capacity of the society allows, and these societal limitation create a false sense of impossibility. So this is why we get various practises, and various description of different layering etc., because the subject dealt with is activity which is not understood by the conventional understanding of activity.
Quoting Punshhh
The problem is that only a very small portion of activity which is going on within a human being is evident to the conscious mind. This small portion is the activity of thoughts in the conscious mind. All the other activity must be understood to be in subconscious or unconscious levels. The grading of various levels of activity would be very difficult because this activity is outside the conscious mind. So we have to examine things on the edge of consciousness, as they enter and leave the zone of thinking, to get an idea of what the different levels are. What I see, as described above, is two distinct directions for the entry of activity into the mind. The fact that the conscious mind can create a circle of thought in contemplation, and produce an abstinence through will power, thereby breaking any chain of causation which these activities could be involved in, indicates that freedom of choice is very real.
Above, I described internally sourced activity as the dark and mysterious, but this might just be an illusion, and perhaps we ought to turn this around. The internally sourced activity is really what is nearest and dearest to us. It includes all our desires and intentions, our projects, ideas and schemes, plans and conceptions, and these are the "objects" which we actually know the best. On the other side, what is external to us is actually the dark and mysterious, as we only have our sense to tell us about that world. That is why traditional western mysticism has made matter its subject. The problem is that huge advancements in modern science have given us the illusion that the external activities are well known. This gives us the idea that the dark and mysterious is what is within.
I will not comment about the ego, only to say that I am not familiar with Freudian terminology, and this term is too ambiguous, used in too many other ways, for me to say anything useful. I understand the Freudian "ego" as some sort of intermediary, but I don't think I would agree with the Freudian division which the ego mediates between.
Whatever works for you.
I dont see a problem here, The system I refer to is a tool, of use from time, the use a botanist makes of the biological classification and scientific understanding of plants.
I agree with all of that.
I agree, also I can work with that because it lends itself to the triadic axiomatic system (for want of better words) I use.
So the dark aspect I would equate with the father, God, will power. The lighter aspect with the mother, the Holy Spirit, nature(physical material) The grey area with the son of the father and mother, the Christ, the human mind. So I can draw a correspondence as follows.
1, first aspect............the dark,....father,.....God.....soul.......will
2, second aspect.......the light....mother.....Spirit....Body....Intelligence
3, third aspect............the grey....son..........Christ...Mind....agency
Although I prefer to swap 3 for 2 here in the trinity so we have father, (dark) and mother (light) at either side/side end and son (grey) in the middle.
So father is will, the creator, purpose.
Mother is the universe, the bearer of life, wisdom.
Son is humanity, the creation, mind, or agency.
I only meant ineffable in terms of trying to understand the mystical experience of another mystic, something not easy to convey.
I don't think you can say what this, that is a restriction in itself and may inadvertently elevate the limited, frail human mind onto a pedestal of importance. I have had mystical experiences which I cannot express in words, or thoughts. Never mind convey to another person. I am not saying such things are ineffable in nature, but rather from our limited perspective.
Agreed, the distinction I continuously make is between the conscious mind in the sense of what is orchestrated by the conscious, sentient being of the self, and other unconscious activities of the mind.
I should point out at this stage that when I describe the mind as split into two categories, I include all that we are talking of here in the lower division and only the highest manifestation of intuition, or the activity of the soul, or the like in the upper division.
Agreed, I will refer to it as the emotions, the emotional aspect of the personality, or body. The emotional body, as opposed to the physical, or the mental.
If there is a problem, it is that all such discussion is made of thought, which is proposed to be the primary obstacle to mystical experience.
There is a widespread notion that mysticism is like other topics, where one calculates a path to some goal. This works for a million things so it's natural and understandable to try to apply it here too. And perhaps that is a useful path for some.
It seems to me that what makes mysticism interesting, what makes it worthy of investigation, is that it is an exploration which heads in the opposite direction. It's not just another philosophy, but rather what we might label "aphilosophy", that is, not of philosophy.
So what is there to talk about then? Plenty. How to let go of thoughts, how to let go of goals, how to let go of becoming etc. Not forever, not permanently, just to some degree to create a balance with all the thinking, goal seeking and becoming that so dominates our every day lives.
If we turn mysticism in to just another thinking, goal seeking, becoming trip, where is the balance? What is the point?
The triadic system, or trinity, is very useful in understanding the nature of reality because it provides the basis for understanding the unity of the two distinct aspects outlined by dualism. A common attack against dualism by monist materialists is that the two distinct aspects proposed by dualism, the temporal and the eternal, cannot interact. But this is a very naïve criticism because the problem presented was actually resolved by Plato long ago with the introduction of the tripartite soul. And we can bet that Plato took the principles from somewhere else, so the problem has likely been resolved for as long as there has been dualism In this conception he explains the relationship between mind and body as occurring through passion or spirit, the third element.
In Plato's description the spirit might ally with the mind, so that the human being acts in a reasonable way, or in a corrupt soul, the spirit would ally with the body making the person act in a way contrary to what the person believes is the reasonable good. Notice that positing this third element, spirit, allowed Plato to account for the moral dilemma resulting from the observed reality that people will do what they know is bad. The sophists claimed to teach virtue, but Socrates demonstrated a problem with the idea that virtue could be taught as a form of knowledge, by showing that even if the person knows what is right, this does not necessarily impel the person to do what is right. This is a fundamental feature of free will which creates problems for moralists.
If we take Plato's median position, the spirit, and say that there are actions coming from the bodily source, through the spirit to end at the mind, and there are also actions coming from a mental source to end at the body, this would mean five distinct parts. If the median position, spirit, is different depending on which direction the action is going, we'd have six partitions, two distinct parts of each of the fundamental three, depending on which direction the activity is proceeding. How would I derive the seventh? Do these two distinct trinities, being distinct because the activity flows in a different direct through the three parts, require a further part to unify them? Could this be a third position of the median part? Could it be the will itself?
Augustine has a treatise on the trinity where he describes the three aspects in terms of the intellect itself. The intellect, he says, consists of memory, reason, and will. Notice that reasoning is an activity, will is the source of activity, and memory provides the static objects which are moved in that activity. But any degree of contemplating this trinity will reveal that things are not as simple as the simple trinity indicates. We cannot take the existence of static objects in the memory for granted, so we need to account for the creation of these objects, memories. In the conscious mind we can see that we reason, come to conclusions, and through the will we submit the conclusions to memory. But this reasoning still requires material, subject matter, which is provided by the memory, and being prior to the conscious effort of submitting to memory, it must be produced without conscious effort. So we have "matter", static objects in the memory, which have been created without conscious effort. Using the way that the conscious mind produces memories through reasoning and willing as an example, we can assume that there is a subconscious process very similar to reasoning and willing, which creates those subconsciously created memories. Now we have one process which utilizes memories (as subject matter) in reasoning, and another distinct but similar process, that creates memories, which cannot be called reasoning because it's more basic as more of a bodily process Therefore I see the validity in your layering of trinities.
Quoting Punshhh
I think that this is an important point to respect, and failure to do this is a problem which is very evident in modern cosmology. We need to differentiate between what is impossible due to the limitations of the human being, and what is impossible due to the limitations of the universe. The human mind has intrinsic deficiencies because of its dependence on matter. As expressed above, the material element is memory, and we cannot simply assume that the mind is immaterial in an absolute way and therefore unlimited in its ability to understand material existence. We must respect the material element which inheres within the mind as expressed by the trinities. Therefore the human mind's capacity to understand is limited. So when scientists approach extremely difficult subjects such as the nature of matter itself, and the origin of the universe, their capacity to understand is limited. There is a disturbing trend in modern metaphysics to assert that this inability for us to understand these aspects of the universe, is a feature of the universe itself. Instead of recognizing that the human mind is deficient in its approach to these aspects of the universe, and that's why we cannot understand them, these metaphysicians will assert that the universe has aspects which are completely unintelligible in an absolute sense. You can see how this is very counterproductive to the scientific enterprise and philosophy itself, which is the desire to know. If we dismiss certain aspects of reality as fundamentally unknowable within themselves, instead of recognizing that they only appear to us as unknowable because of faults within our capacity and technique, then we lose the inspiration required to develop the means for dealing with these deficiencies. I think that's why mysticism is extremely important, as being a means by which a person can confront one's own deficiencies. Only by understanding our own deficiencies can we properly apprehend the deficiencies of others.
I don't object. I'm offering my thoughts as part of such an intellectual examination of mysticism.
Quoting Punshhh
It can. It will. And in doing so a great many people will conclude that mysticism is about doing even more thinking. For them it will be just another philosophy and/or religion. So be it. I'm not proposing that I can do anything about this.
Quoting Punshhh
Imho, it is widely regarded as woo for the same reason religion is so often regarded as woo, because of all the ego becoming trips etc which are so often layered on top of it. As example, nobody considers the experience of love to be woo. That is, until someone in a clerical costume comes along and says that we need them to interpret the experience correctly so that we can advance in holiness and be elevated like the cleric and so on, and then the woo alert alarms may start going off.
Whether we are talking about Christian love or Eastern mysticism, there is the experience and the explanations. The woo lives in the explanations.
Can we just dump the explanations? Most of the time, probably not. We're human so explanations are probably going to happen, especially if one has a philosophical nature. But we don't have to take the explanations too seriously, especially given that doing so is usually an act of taking ourselves too seriously.
Again, I think it really depends on how one defines the problem which we're attempting to solve. If we see the problem as arising from incorrect thought content then philosophy seems advisable. If we the problem as arising from thought itself, then perhaps philosophy should be treated with some caution.
Just another angle to explore perhaps.
Do you think that the mystic ought not take oneself seriously?
It's a matter of degree I suppose. Mysticism is a form of psychological death. So in those moments when we're taking ourselves seriously, that's probably not it.
Well said !
We have two trinities the lower (physical body, the emotional body, the lower mind) and the higher ( higher mind, soul, spirit). This is the incarnate human, but there is also that present, which is not incarnate, or is prior than incarnation. This level is the level which is expressed in the six levels of incarnation, I Refer to monad here it could be seen as God or Brahman.
So the expression manifests as 6, but that which is expressed is also present in its unexpressed form, making 7.
There are numerous different classifications of the levels in a human, it may depend on the school one is referring to, or the particular subject one is addressing. My preference is for the Theosophical system, particularly that of Alice Bailey, thus;
You could view a human as the three inviolable principles;
Spirit......Atman
Soul.......egoic body
Mind......manas
Which becomes prostrate on the cross of incarnation as;
Lower mind
Personality
Emotional body
Physical body
Mind, or manas is separated into the the upper and lower. The lower mind is a product of the incarnation into a body, so the true seat of mind is in the higher trinity. Also physical material is not treated as a principle, but more as a substrate which is not used when the person becomes resident in the higher trinity. Also during transfiguration, the emotional body merges into the egoic body and the personality into Atman. A new level becomes present above the higher three, the monadic, so we then have the higher cross of the heavens.
Monad............God
Atman.............spirit
Egoic body......soul
Manas.............mind
Personally one can dump the explanations, provided you are able to plot your own course. Its when discourse is contemplated, or engaged in that the explanations become relevant. I agree that we really don't have to take the explanations to seriously. This is what this thread is about, can we enter into meaningful discourse about something which is an intensely personal experience? Well I think we can, because I hold the discourse within my self with myself, albeit that I already have shared the experience with the other part of myself, prior to the discourse. This does still leave out the experiences which I can't even hold a discourse with myself about. These can be discussed under the heading epiphanies.
I don't think the discourse should be taken as a replacement for the genuine mystical experience.
Yes, that's what normally happens, agreed. But even in discourse the explanations are not necessary. Discussion could instead focus on how to have experience. We can observe how practical information like that is typically missing from discussions.
Quoting Punshhh
Ok, but if one dumps the explanations then there is no course, other than to the experience.
Quoting Punshhh
I'm not arguing against such discourse, just trying to add to the discourse. This is a philosophy forum, so of course I'm supposed to say the opposite of whatever somebody else is saying. :-)
Mystical events, which are only incompletely communicable in words, cannot be fully understood by those untouched by such experiences.
~Max Weber
Quoting Pantagruel
I made this point some time back, but the two central protagonists on this thread enjoy discussing philosophical perspectives of mystical experiences that are, themselves, better understood by actual practitioners.
This problem is solved if we stop trying to understand the events. :-)
:up:
I just thought I would share. I find that the works of great thinkers are invariably sprinkled with aphoristic gems that are like little bubbles of clarity. I like to think of them as "core concepts" that transcend and bridge the larger philosophical contexts of dispute.....
Or question them.
I enjoy discussing philosophical perspectives of mystical experiences too. Here I am after all. I'm just exploring what the relationship between experiences and explanations might be.
Does one have to understand the processes of digestion in order to receive nutrition from a tomato? No. One just has to eat the tomato. Eating the tomato does not advance one up some ladder. It just gets one through another day.
There's nothing wrong with reading up on digestion. But that's not where the nutrition comes from.
But eating a mushroom might. :cool:
Is the seventh, as prior to incarnation, an absolute then?
Quoting Punshhh
I believe that in traditional western mysticism, which I think has very little remnants today, the subject of incarnation becomes central. The prior, immaterial existence, what I called the absolute above, is taken for granted, understood as a necessary condition. But this opens up the question of what have we done to deserve incarnation, the incarnated state being an inferior state. So we have mystical teaching about Satan and the fallen angels. Satan, I believe was created by God as the archangel. But in seeing his great power he believed himself to be God, or equivalent to God, and therefore was exiled by God.
Instead of looking forward toward the higher trinity you describe, we as western mystics look backward to see the reason why we have been cast into this fallen condition. This is why matter is an important principle, because a lower trinity is always separated from a higher trinity by a material separation, matter exists by degrees. And matter is a principle of temporality which succumbs to corruption. So in the west we are stressed by our past. Why have we been thus saddled? We have been given this less than perfect conditioned, burdened with the deprivations of matter. We cannot rise to the higher trinity which you describe, to obtain freedom, unless we come to understand how we are chained to the weight of matter, and release the bonds which hold us.
Quoting Punshhh
This ought to be self-evident, because without the genuine mystical experience there would be no description of it, or discourse about it, whatsoever.
Quoting Nuke
What I think and I described earlier, is that one cannot adequately understand the significance of such an experience on one's own. The mystic might apprehend that the experience is significant, and meaningful, but the meaning itself, or significance, will not be understood unless that person relates the experience to something else, and this is best done through explanations, descriptions, and comparisons with others. That is what brings out the true meaning of the experience. So to experience, just for the sake of the experience itself, without any discussion or explanation, leaves the experience completely meaningless.
Perhaps that's true. In a Zen monastery those who have practiced the techniques, along with their mentors, may discuss their internal adventures and receive some clarity. But to suggest that philosophers may assist in this effort is naive, if not laughable. However, mine is but one opinion and others may disagree. :chin:
I could get into the experiences I have had on mushrooms, but critics may devalue them as hallucinations caused by the drug.
Ok, I take your point. I have been trying to have the discourse I have been having with Metaphysician Undercover on this forum for a number of years now. So now that it is happening I will continue, but I am happy to also discuss more directly mystical experience. Although, I cannot really comment on Zen, as I haven't practiced it, I would have liked to but the opportunity never arose.
My experience is with Hindu puja practiced in ashrams and in India and Raja yoga which I practiced at the Theosophical society in London. Although at the time, this was the early 90's, I was so on fire as an aspirant that I would try anything that I could get my hands on. So also Christian worship and prayer, the full range of New Age stuff and practice, even the Ashtar tapes of channelled extra terrestrials.
I have had many mystical experiences of varying type, although nothing so transformative as some of the New Age practitioners I met. For me it was more a truth seeking endeavour rather than a transformative one. Do you have a kind of experience, or practice in mind, as a starter?
Huxley wrote a book called "The Island" about the doomed utopia of Pala, a technologically limited but socially advanced society. Mushrooms played a key role in the awakening of the citizenry, quite extensively explored.
That may very well be true. If one sees experience as a means to the end of understanding, then that could be a problem. If one sees experience as having it's own value independent of anything else, then not understanding the significance isn't such a problem.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. If we're lucky, completely meaningless. That is, a full immersion in the real, undistracted by the symbolic.
But, that's pretty ambitious, especially for we over thinking philosopher types. A more common and realistic scenario for us is that we will instinctively create some meaning story or another. And then the question is, what is our relationship with that story? If we take the story really seriously that could be a problem, probably an ego hijacking operation. But if we just watch the meanings we create float by like clouds in the sky, not such a problem. Here it comes, there it is, now it's gone.
Mushrooms? Oh dear, that's so over. :-) Well, maybe you're like me and you just can't stop playing those old Allman Brothers records.
If we're going to get serious about this ladder climbing business what we need is a good DMT thread!
A reply to the critics. Dear critic, is that post you just wrote while high on caffeine also a hallucination we shouldn't take seriously?
That's downright mystical of you! :smile: Gregg was a distant cousin of mine.
I don't think this would be any form of mysticism though, to value experience independently of everything else. Wouldn't this be some sort of extreme selfishness?
I am not familiar with the theology around Satan. The analogy I use is the fall, the mystery of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how humanity in gaining intellectual knowledge lost its way. Because that knowledge enabled people to disregard their instinctive evolutionary behaviour which kept them within their evolutionary niche and in balance with the ecosystem. Once this balance was lost, at some point the people would have to manage their own position in the ecosystem to prevent destroying it. I see this as one of the important human initiations being undergone at this time (this instantiation of humanity), that humanity's task on this world in this epoch is to learn how to maintain and control its balanced position in a functioning ecosystem past the point of inevitable crisis. Each of us can play our individual role in this endeavour, but might experience powerlessness due to the poor state of human affairs at this time. It's a rocky road ahead.
like I said it is a point of crisis for life, humanity in this epoch, the purpose of which, as we have already discussed is not known. Other than the wisdom of natural cycles of life and evolutionary development. In regards of the higher trinity, there would be Mystics undergoing initiations into the higher trinity within the population, their initiations playing out within the crisis conditions, but the goal of the whole of humanity attaining that goal is a long way off, eons away. They have first to learn to keep their house in order within a healthy ecosystem.
Yes, I agree, although as I said before the intellectual understanding of the mystic of her development of her being is not a necessity, this development is happening in her being and body regardless as a natural process. Although the mystic can attempt to understand what is going on, but is not required to orchestrate it, for it to happen.
I would point out a mystical perspective on the development of the self. That the self, it's being, it's body is far more complex and sophisticated than the embryonic development of the conscious self and agency in the individual concerned. I notice you have already agreed on this point, when you referenced the complexity of the role and purposes of the individual cell in the body. So the mystic who thinks they are somehow orchestrating their mystical development is mistaken and should apply some humility, which would help and enable them to move forward.
Hey, that's cool, you're a brother. I went to the same high school as the brothers, but five years or so behind, so I'm just a wannabe brother. Never knew them personally, but used to see them play around town in all the local garage bands they had before making it big. They've been part of my life since I was 12 so it feels weird that they are no longer with us. But I assume they're setting up their equipment at the next gig and I'll be there again in the audience soon enough.
I just meant the experience has it's own value which isn't dependent on any explanations.
From my perspective, mysticism is a focus on the real. Explanations aren't real, they're symbols which point to the real in a highly imperfect manner. Example, my photo on Facebook is not me. The photo can be useful, but shouldn't be confused with that which it points to.
I hate to state the obvious but if something is impossible to recall or imagine then how can you recall or imagine it? You just described it as the world “experienced as, or realised as, an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive.” What is so outlandish about that?
The instinctive behaviour is a double edged sword. Because human beings, by their very nature, have a material body, they have a natural, instinctual inclination towards sin. It is the needs of the material body which lead us in temptation. On the other hand there is an instinctual, spiritual tendency, toward good and breaking the temptation, The so-called balance is a bit of a deception because the original fall is what forced us into a material body as a sort of punishment. The punishment of having the soul incarnate with a body is to make us know our place, as lower than God. But the same thing, which reminds us of that worst sin, (the sin of the fallen angel), the punishment which is to be chained to a material body, also inclines us to turn away from God and wallow in our sins. This is why punishment in itself, is that double edged sword. It may incline one towards respect for the authority, or it may incline one to disrespect the authority, depending on the circumstances. You might call this a balance, but I think that the two extremes tend to negate each other rather than balancing,. Being at the extremities they don't have the required support. This leaves those in the middle, neither vengeful of the punishment nor subdued by it, as the ones who must maintain the balance you refer to.
Quoting Punshhh
I look at the ecosystem here as the material body. To have a healthy spirit requires a healthy body.
Quoting Punshhh
I think this is an important point which needs to be stressed. If we could characterize mysticism as a journey into the unknown, then it would be evident that the mystic requires some guidance. The trip is into the unknown, so the mystic must have faith, or trust in whatever it is that is doing the guiding. Let's say that the mystic is guided by signs. In order that the sign can give any sort of guidance, it needs to be interpreted, and the interpretation is an explanation of the meaning of the sign. This is why I can't accept what says about removing explanation from the experience.
Let's suppose that a person enters this trip without any specific purpose, or any specific direction in mind. A sign appears, and the person must decide whether the sign says go left, go right, go straight ahead, or whatever. The person could make up anything, saying that for me, the sign means go straight ahead, so I'm going straight ahead. But that person is really just lost within one's own imagination, perhaps falling into some sort of mental illness or something. The real mystic would want to know the real meaning of the sign, to know the real direction to go, and therefore would seek help to interpret the sign.
Philosophers wonder at that which most deem obvious.
Obviously.
I guess that if you addressed the question at all you would be arguing against yourself.
Maybe @Punshhh is braver than you?
Yes, indeed, but from fellow, more experienced mystics, not from philosophers who love to speculate, being unfamiliar with the internal adventures.
This is so important IMHO I will reiterate it, the moment humanity took control of its own destiny, learnt the intelligence to supersede its natural instinctive behaviour in the ecosystem, it metaphorically left the Garden of Eden, with no way back, it was shut out, metaphorically was left to wonder in the wilderness forevermore and would now have to find its own way forward, or perish*.
This is the meaning of the Story of the fall and in a sense the New Testament, with the story of Jesus depicts God's attempt to give humanity a helping hand to get up after it fell and stand up as an individual in heaven**.
I will agree with this for now, although I would say it is more complicated than this and we could go into far more depth on this issue. My point was that the mystic should cultivate a reasonable sense of humility and realise that they are not personally required to work it all out in order to proceed. On the understanding that there is far more going on in their lives and the world around them than they are aware of. So they should seek guidance of some sort, externally through a fellow mystic, or teacher, or via the intuition.
*I accept that what I say here may be controversial and can be argued and cross examined at length from numerous angles, but that may derail the thread, so I accept that it is an oversimplification.
**As above this may be controversial, it is only my own way of seeing it.
So far in this thread, there have been no principles established which would distinguish a mystic from a philosopher. It appears like the mystic is a type of philosopher, so your statement is rather pointless.
Consider my example. The sign needs to be interpreted for the mystic to proceed, so an appeal is made to "more experienced mystics". Don't you think that the more experienced mystics would need to engage in some degree of speculation in their interpretation? As a journey into the unknown, each sign is a novel and unique occurrence, therefore speculation is required.
So if speculation is a defining feature of philosophers, you have only made some mystics into philosophers, those who are capable of reliable speculation, the more experienced mystics. If the less experienced mystics were to speculate, their speculations would be misguided. This is very evident in philosophy, and on this forum; when undisciplined philosophers speculate, their speculations are misleading. But open, or public speculation really ought to be confined to experienced philosophers, those who have taken the time to learn the basics, just like it ought to be confined to experienced mystics. We do this by ignoring, (or on this forum, criticizing) the inexperienced speculations.
Such principles have been suggested above. You apparently don't agree with those principles, which is ok of course, but the distinction has been made.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It can be argued that mystics neither interpret nor proceed.
It may be helpful here to revisit the concepts of being and becoming. For the sake of brevity the following simple formulas may help.
Mystic = being
Philosopher = becoming
Mystic ? philosopher
The philosopher is trying to travel down some road towards some desired destination, a process of becoming. The mystic sits down on the side of the road and enjoys spending the day there, an act of being. The philosopher is on the move, the mystic is still.
Being is often a difficult topic for we Westerners given that our entire culture is so thoroughly based in becoming.
I wouldn't worry about it. His position is so tenuous that he's rendered himself speechless.
Quoting Punshhh
Funny you should put it that way because I was thinking that emersion in nature could be like experiencing the forest, for example, as "an intrinsically alive presence with which one had a relationship beyond the merely adaptive." Unfortunately, being a modern person I cannot validate such an experience for myself, having unshackled myself from the great chain of being and the all-to-human authorities that reign supreme in that divine domain, I stand alone in a nihilistic wasteland.
Quoting Punshhh
And did these remote Himalayaians validate your experience?
By this point, I felt at home with these people in the Himalayas, there was none of this hypocrisy, or disingenuous behaviour, people dwelt and communicated freely, honestly and with conviction, in tune with their environment. It was not an idyl, there were many problems and difficulties experienced by these people, but they had not lost this reality, some kind of living presence between them.
Did you need them to?
Quoting Punshhh
And you experienced this divine presence, as something separate from yourself?
Quoting Punshhh
It's a curious thought that a majority is required to make something real. Very disturbing in that it invalidates minorities. Some don't like to talk about tribalism when romanticizing the past. It seems that some things are never forgotten and impossible to imagine.
It makes sense, it just initially struck me as odd, then I recalled how religion can tightly bind a community, and, necessarily exclude all outsiders. You were there of course and partook, as anyone who follows the narrative can, until they don't.
I don't see evolution in this way. I see evolution as a process, a passage forward, and this is why I reject the proposed divisions of . As such, evolution is expressed as a changing material body. In that change we the being must break free from the constraints of the past, allowing for more freedom. So the instinctual way is the constrained way of the past, constrained by that particular material body. Breaking free from these particular constraints means changing the material body into a body which allows for more freedom. This is the process called evolution. If we look at what is known about the history of biological evolution we can see many such stages of development toward more freedom, some obvious ones being the step from water based creatures to land and air, and the step from plant to animal. One might also characterize rational thinking as such a step.
So I see instinctual behaviour as hereditary, already having been learnt, far back in time. When we learn behaviour on the other hand, whether being self-taught, or taught by others, we are proceeding beyond the habits of the material body which only gives us instinctual behaviour, to learn new behaviour. The new behaviour is not intrinsic to the purpose of, or why that material body is the form that it is. The material body may then change (in evolution) to accommodate these new behaviours. This is Lamarckian evolution.
Quoting Punshhh
I do not really agree with this passage. When "humanity took control of its own destiny", this was just a natural stage of evolution. Evolution results from the living being acting beyond its means, the means being why the living body exists as it does, to serve some purpose determined in the far past. Now human beings find new ways to use there bodies, ways that go far beyond the old actions which produced that particular form, so the form of the human body needs to evolve now, to follow.
Superseding the natural instinctive behaviour is the natural course of evolution. It doesn't matter that such behaviour gets "lost forever". It doesn't matter that when I die, the behaviour which is particular to me is lost forever. Nor does it matter that the specific behaviour which was particular to dinosaurs, or any other species which has gone extinct, is lost forever. All these forms of behaviour, like any living behaviour is just the means to an end. If the behaviour is meaningful it will be learnt and forwarded The end, in this example, is the "improved" body, brought about through evolution.
The point being that it would not be productive to turn back. We are on a journey forward, as evolution indicates. If we took the wrong route at the last fork in the road, by the time that this reality occurs to us it is too late to go back. We must simply try to correct for this at the next junction. And this applies for all life forms, some even get onto a dead end and wind up extinct. So if you think that humanity has taken a wrong turn, we can't go back, but we can try to correct for it in the roads ahead. Otherwise we could be on the road to extinction. The road we are on, at any given time, is very much determined by our past material bodies (instinctual behaviour). But the future road is not. So we always need to make corrections as we go, when it becomes evident that improvement is needed. This is what I believe Jesus did, show a needed correction.
Yes, I agree, but this freedom and development of bodies is a further evolution within this physical system within which we find ourselves (as beings).
Let me put it another way, if we weren't constrained by our physical bodies, but some other kind, perhaps more subtle body, while our being is unchanged it's expression would be different due to the particular conditions of those bodies. So for example we might have direct telepathic communication whatever the distance between us, or could see each other's thoughts like pictures, or holograms and act in group formation like bees or angels and have entirely different kinds of experiences, or goals.
Just as we are placed into our material world and are learning it's ways, likewise we would be placed into this other world and would be learning its ways. The point being we are learning a process of that world.
Yes, but the rest of the ecosystem doesn't change right along with it. The development might destroy the ecosystem which produced it, so causing its own demise.
Yes, but they still might destroy the ecosystem and cause their own demise. It will require them to learn how to prevent this demise and do their own housekeeping, keep their own house in order, now that they have developed the liberty to do so. When I say they can't go back, all I am saying is once they have reached this point, they have no choice they have to keep their own house in order, or perish, through inadvertently destroying the ecosystem which sustains them. They can't step back into their evolutionary niche and carry on as before if they want to. It is an initiation, a door is opened, passed through and shut behind them. They do not have the liberty to go back through that door. They can though through ingenuity recreate a world just like that garden of Eden, but with themselves acting as custodians in that idyll.
So you are agreeing with me, that once the human race developed autonomy, it was required to keep its house in order and God through Jesus, offered a lesson in house keeping.
This might seem a simple thing to do, what is there to worry about. But it is not that easy a thing to achieve. The idyll of the garden of Eden from which humanity emerged was a finely tuned environment and humanity was a result of such fine tuning. In order for a civilisation of primates to live in harmony with its ecosystem, especially so when they are highly intelligent is a Herculean task and it is only now after a few million years of autonomy that we are beginning to understand what this entails. Unfortunately we have been slow learners and have belatedly reached this point at a stage in human development in which the pressures of overpopulation are coming to bare. The climate is becoming irrevocably (in the short term) changed, putting great pressures on the ecosystems. And we are not showing much willing to make the required changes to remedy the problems we have created. It is now going to be quite a struggle for us to pull through with any kind of civilisation intact at the end of it.
Slow learners indeed.
I think it is a mistake to visualize this situation in terms of a "physical system", or relations between bodies. This is why the nature of time and its relation to freedom of choice becomes a very important feature. We describe the world which we sense as bodies and physical systems . But the sensible world is the world of the past. Everything sensed is in the past by the time that the living being has sensed it. The living systems, the systems within the living being, produce the images of bodies with spatial relations, and this (what Kant called phenomena), is the world of empirical science. A body is something which has been perceived as remaining relatively stable (the same) for an extended period of time, in the past, up until the present.
Now, the continuity of this stability (the perceived existence of bodies), into the future, is taken for granted by physicists, and expressed as Newton's first law, the law of inertia. It is the reliability of this law which supports the predictive capacity of physics, as a discipline.
However, this law is not completely consistent with observations of our experience of freedom of choice, and this is what creates the divide between the precepts of determinism and those of free will. As an example, hold an object in your hand with the intent of dropping it, or sit still with the intent of standing up. You can initiate any one of these sorts of actions at any random time, without an external cause. This is the power of the will, it can act in the physical world of bodies and physical systems (the world of the past), described by Newton's first law, at any moment, without a cause from within that physical world. This means that the will is an exception to the law of inertia. This law is supported by an illusion, the illusion of a necessary continuity of existence of bodies, from the past into the future. Once we grasp this illusion as an illusion, and accept this principle that free will violates the law of inertia as the truth, instead of accepting the universal applicability of the law of inertia, we see that the continuity of any body, any physical system, can be randomly annihilated at any moment of passing time, through an act of will. The human will of course is very limited in its capacity, having control over a relatively small body, but if we imagine a more powerful will, like a divine will, we can imagine limitless power to defy the law of inertia and the supposed continuity of existence of bodies. Further, the example of atomic reactions, and nuclear energy, demonstrates that the human capacity to annihilate the inertial continuity of bodies and physical systems at will, is not quite as limited as it might seem.
This inconsistency between the perceived necessary continuity of physical bodies, and the capacity of the will to randomly break that continuity, produces a peculiar problem in relation to one's understanding of the nature of time. In order to maintain the reality of what we intuitively know to be true (freedom of the will), we must reject the necessity of the continuity of physical existence. This has a significant effect on one's world view. If at any random moment of passing time, any physical body could cease to exist, then we cannot assume any physical existence in the future. There must be no physical bodies in the future in order that any physical body might cease to exist at any moment of passing time. This implies that the entirety of physical existence must be created anew at every moment, as time passes. What we notice as motion and change is the differences in the physical world, from one moment to the next. It is not the case that there is massive physical bodies extending indefinitely into the future, with small changes happening at each passing moment, it is the case that all massive bodies are recreated at each moment, with small differences. This revelation is very difficult to comprehend because we are trained to understand the physical world in terms of continuity and inertia. But the premise derived from the freedom of the will to make random changes necessitates this logical conclusion. So this necessary conclusion, that the entire physical world is created anew at each passing moment of time, completely humbles all of humanity who grasp it, by belittling our extremely deficient state of knowledge, as it becomes evident how extremely limited is our capacity to understand this reality.
Quoting Punshhh
I believe, that since the desire for knowledge is inherent within the human being, as a fundamental driving force, then the humbling referred to above, which comes about from a recognition of the extreme inadequacies of the present state of human knowledge, is enough in itself, to inspire humanity to "do their own housekeeping". The process is ideological. The will to know is extremely strong, and when a vast area of unknown is revealed, there is a strong inclination to produce the means to proceed. To improve the state of human knowledge, and prevent human demise, ideology must change substantially.
Conversely though, many human beings presently believe that almost everything which it is possible to know is already known, and that a theory of everything is right at our fingertips. This false certitude is what breaks the will, sending us into demise, and self-destruction, as it is the very same sin as the sin of the fallen angel, conceit. It equates humanity with God, failing to see how deficient our knowledge really is.
Quoting Punshhh
Cooperation requires a common goal. That is why a clear understanding of the nature of purpose is so important. When society gets fractured, i.e. I don't agree with your goal, you don't agree with my goal, cooperation is impossible. Even if disagreement plunges humanity into crisis, it cannot pull itself out of that crisis without agreeable goals. I believe the desire for, and quest for knowledge is such a goal which can unite people in cooperation. But if there is a large number of people who believe that we already know all there is to know, these people have already reached a dead end in relation that goal, and cannot cooperate in that endeavour.
Also I find an affinity with the concept of all material as the physical expression of beings in other kingdoms of nature, allowing for an equivalence with the formation of a human as an expression of being.
So I suppose what I am saying in response to the metaphysics you present here, while it is good philosophy and a useful model for contemplation. It is attempting to form an explanation of something which the human mind is as yet unable to conceive. Also it doesn't appear to have any guidance from a route of divine intuition, although I may be mistaken here, but rather it is a bottom up logical summation from a position of ignorance. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that humanity is up to the task of understanding reality and manifestation, but rather that we are still at an early and naive stage in our progress in this endeavour.
Maybe you do not take a serious interest in politics these days. In reality the civilisation we are in is deeply flawed in its constitution and is controlled largely by greed and exploitative forces, negating any progress for humanity. Leaving us in a very vulnerable position.
Going back to what I was saying about our work in terms of a progress in development of the race of humanity and individual people. Mysticism is concerned with working to improve things here. Even the mystic who is practicing alone, or in a tradition in which service is not focussed on, are working in a positive way, by exercising mysticism. There are for example, a large number of people who pray for humanity, or who at least are concerned for progress to be made. But unfortunately the world is held in a stranglehold by divisive and exploitative powers who seek to control the population for greed and power. Divide and rule etc.
* for example, I contemplate numerous more imaginative, creative solutions to metaphysics derived from other sources than the philosophical tradition. Often taking their lead from concepts presented in some form in the mystical and religious traditions. But as I said earlier this is a leasure pursuit in terms of mystical service, not really of any import, other than at more advanced stages of mystical development.
When Aristotle is read thoroughly, especially his Physics and Metaphysics, it is revealed that matter is simply a concept. It is a concept employed toward understanding the observed temporal continuity of physical bodies. So this process you refer to, "the process of sustaining material in a realm" is thoroughly hidden from us, as "mysterious"; it is hidden behind this concept "matter". That's why I said western mysticism was directed toward matter. We are very clearly incapable of understanding this temporal continuity. But recognizing the reality of this inability to comprehend, and giving a name to the thing which appears to us but cannot be understood, is not itself naivety, as it is a recognition of naivety, and a very reasonable step toward understanding what is currently unknown.
Naivety enters this picture when people accept this name "matter", as referring to a named thing, rather than as referring to an idea or notion of continuity, which is just a placeholder for that "process of sustaining material in a realm". The naivety is produced because the name does not refer directly to that process, but to how the process appears to us, as temporal continuity. This makes the process into a thing "temporal continuity". And this naivety, or ignorance, the idea that the incomprehensible process is a thing, is propagated by Newton's first law which assigns a property to that thing "matter", inertia, thus reinforcing the naïve notion that matter is a thing. So a human mind might accept this law in an uninformed act of naivety, and accepting it in this way produces the naive idea that matter is a thing with this property.
Quoting Punshhh
As we've discussed, there are different forms of mysticism. So if you have a different, "more imaginative" solution to this problem of temporal continuity, which is of course the basis of "identity" and "self", I would say that is to be encouraged, and perhaps you ought to explain it. But "more imaginative" does not equate with "better", as there is the issue of correspondence with reality, truth. And we must respect this. This is why "matter' has been adopted by western mysticism, it has been presented and utilized as the most useful principle of identity, in relation to truth.
Quoting Punshhh
I can't see that you have any valid criticism here unless you are attempting to deny the philosophical nature of human beings, the will to know. We've all, as human beings, come into existence from an evolutionary process which proceeds from a lesser knowing to an increased knowing. So the philosophical nature, the will to know, or desire to know, is inherent within the human being as an essential aspect of our natural development. Therefore, when we apprehend an aspect of reality which "the human mind is as yet unable to conceive", it is completely consistent with human nature, hence good, to name this aspect such that we can begin to talk about it, attempt to describe it, and proceed toward some form of explanation. In this case, that thing which we are "as yet unable to conceive", is what I have named the temporal continuity of physical bodies, and what Aristotle named as matter. Now, in this post I have proceeded toward describing this named thing as the basis of identity and self. Whether these principles emanate from what you call a "divine intuition" is completely irrelevant, something you merely throw in as a ruse, because what is important is correspondence with reality, truth. If your notion of "divine" is not consistent with what is provided for us by nature (the will to know, i.e. truth), then how would you ground it? is there some other aspect of human nature which is more potent or important than the will to know?
Quoting Punshhh
I agree, the problem is very deep. And as I said, I believe resolution requires a deep understanding of the nature of "purpose". What unites people is to bring them together in cooperation toward a common goal. What divides them is the false certainty that a specific identified goal is the correct goal. So "purpose" is the double edged sword, it is what unites us, and it is what divides us.
Eating is an essential aspect of our natural development. Does it follow that therefore we should eat all day long every day? More is better? Everything is all about eating? Or would it be more sensible to establish a healthy balance between eating and not eating?
Thinking is an essential aspect of our natural development. Does it follow that therefore we should think all day long every day? More is better? Everything is all about thinking? Or would it be more sensible to establish a healthy balance between thinking and not thinking?
Mysticism is an experience of the real which provides a balance to our typically compulsive immersion in the symbolic realm. To try to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or a religion or any other thought based goal oriented project, is to kill it.
If one wishes to focus on a religion or philosophy, ok, no problem. So call it a religion or philosophy. Don't get it confused with mysticism. Trying to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or religion is like going on a diet which involves eating butter all day. Eating butter all day is not a diet. It's pigging out. If one wishes to eat butter all day, ok, but call it pigging out. Don't get it confused with a diet.
A similar problem exists in Christianity, probably all the major religions. Jesus suggested we "die to be reborn" a radical psychological process involving the surrender of "me" (ie. symbolic) and a rebirth in to the real. But his audience said, "Well, we don't really want to surrender the "me", so let's create a religion about dying to be reborn", which they then used to reinforce the "me".
Good point, Nuke, but I don't think these guys are going that far. They simply want philosophers to provide "guidance" by interpreting mystical journeys. Good intentions, but reminiscent of similar attempts by non-practitioners to influence the nature of mathematics. Fun for all! :cool:
Yes, as I said I do not want to diminish the value, or relevance of metaphysics for philosophy. When it comes to mysticism, it does tend to become relegated to part of the chitta chatta of the mind. However, personally I am of the opinion that mysticism and metaphysics can mesh together and provide a useful comparison. But only where the proponents have that particular interest, rather than as some kind of doctrine. By naivety I am referring to our primitive kind of understanding shaped by the kind of experience we have informed by the issues of incarnation in this particular kind of world. Indeed, I work from the premise that this kind of understanding and the experience of this incarnate world is an imperfect fabrication, construction. Not a principle.
Quite, by imaginative I mean as an alternative to a logical rational process.
If we conclude that the human mind is inadequate, then what is the alternative?
One of the first realisations of the mystic is that the mind (as it is conditioned) is inadequate and more of a hindrance to progress than a means to progress. That the nature of reality, indeed ourselves, our bodies and every experience is an unfathomably mystery*. The development of communion, or that kind of intuition which develops between the personal self (the personality) and the higher self, or soul, is regarded as of more importance and the establishment of some kind of direction via this intuition
The problem isn't one of identifying a purpose, the (immediate) purpose is clear to any intelligent person who gives it some thought, as I have pointed out. The problem is the choreography of the population to carry it out. Political and economic issues are likely to cause the demise of the current civilisation and the survivors will have to start again (I don't want to get into a discussion of these issues here).
* an unfathomably mystery to our rational mind, in the absence of revelation, that is. Meaning that the self may behold the reality of the mystery and understand, know that truth. In such revelation, the mind takes a back seat and often cannot process what was known after the event. Where the mystery is of a more profound nature, the self may only behold the reality by being temporarily transfigured by the guide in the revelation. That the self sees it through the eyes, and mind of the guide as her own being is incapable of the degree of revelation. She will of course not be able to process/interpret the experience afterwards and will develop a narrative which intuitively approximates the experience.
No problem, I'm attempting to do just that. I don't object if a reader prefers another interpretation.
Although the Brothers probably did too much coke to be called great mystics :-) legend has it that they used to often smoke pot in a cemetery near their house in Macon, where 3 of them are now buried. Getting high in a cemetery, that could be an open door to some kinds of mystical experience?
I never said we ought to do any single thing all day long. Nor did I say more is better. So this is all irrelevant.
Quoting Nuke
I do think all day long, it's not something I can turn off, and I don't see how anyone could. Even if I try in meditation, thoughts still come into my mind. My will is not strong enough to produce a blank mind. Is yours? If so, how do you start your blank mind back up after you've turned it off?
Quoting Nuke
You seem to be missing the point. Any sort of practise is goal oriented, that's what a practise is. And we set rules to guide the practise toward the goal. So if any type of mysticism employs any ground rules whatsoever, as Punshhh described, the rules must be formulated according to some goal, or goals. To say that mysticism is an activity which is not goal oriented is completely nonsensical because this implies that any random act is an act of mysticism. But as Punshhh explained mysticism clearly does not consist of random acts, it is structured on rules.
I've been told in the past, that metaphysics is a form of mysticism, and I've see reasons to believe this. This is part of the reason why I do not accept Nuke's attempt to divide mysticism from philosophy as if it is not a form of philosophy. Some philosophers in the west attempt to exclude metaphysics from philosophy, claiming it is not valid philosophy, but a mysticism instead. I do not see how any good could come from enforcing a division between mysticism and philosophy, like the one requested by Nuke.
If we have different ways of doing the same thing, then despite the different ways, we are still doing the same thing. What one is doing is determined by reference to the end, the goal. So if we both have the same goal, we are doing the same thing, perhaps in a different way though. Nuke attempts to avoid this reality by claiming that mysticism is not a goal directed activity, but that is nonsense.
Quoting Punshhh
I don't see any difference between these two, simply different words to refer to the same thing. To me a principle, which an individual might try to follow as a rule, is a construction, and human constructions are all imperfect. So a principle is always an imperfect fabrication.
In my mind, I believe that any principle, or rule to be followed, can only be followed willingly. But when we cross over, from the side of the student, to the side of teacher, the principle or rule to be taught, may be referred to by the descriptive terms of "doctrine", or "dogma". In some cases these terms develop a connotation of force, as if the doctrine, or dogma consists of rules which are being forced upon the students. Furthermore, in some instances the authorities act as if they believe that the doctrine is to be forced on the students. So we have a difference here in the attitude which the authorities, or teachers, have toward the rules or principles, and their relation to the students. In the one case, the person of authority sees oneself as a teacher who's task it is to educate the students concerning the rules or principles, such that the students willfully follow the rules. In the second case, the person of authority perceives a need to force the underling to follow the rules. I believe that the latter is a futile effort. So when we use terms like "doctrine" and "dogma" we must be careful not to conjure up those connotations which relate to that impossible effort. The image of a doctrine or dogma being forced on unwilling recipients is an illusion, and the closest we get to this is brainwashing.
Quoting Punshhh
Remember, we were talking about evolution. So the fact that the human mind is presently inadequate does not mean that it will always be inadequate. And as I explained, I believe in a Lamarckian type of evolution which means that evolutionary changes come about as a result of the actions willed by the being. With these premises, attempting to understand what the human mind cannot presently understand, may help to bring about the evolutionary changes required to produce a mind which can understand this.
Quoting Punshhh
I had a hard time understanding this passage, how the mind could be a hindrance to progress, until I grasped the importance of the qualification "as it is conditioned". So if we can separate the mind itself, from the habits of the mind, then it is not the mind itself which is the hindrance, but the habits which it currently has. I agree that it is very important to attempt as much as possible to separate the mind from its habits, as this would be the only way that we could come to recognize which habits are bad habits, hindrances. If the goal is freedom, as I suggested in the other post, then the mind must be separated from all habits, as any habit is a hindrance to freedom. Perhaps the type of revelation you describe in the footnote requires that the mind has this type of freedom, to a maximum possible degree.
Quoting Punshhh
Determining the purpose which unifies is not as easy as suggesting an "immediate" purpose. As we know, short term goals often conflict with long term goals. in the case of pleasure for example, we are tempted by immediate gratification sometimes at the expense of a long term negative effect. And different people are tempted by different things. So what you call "immediate" might appear like a long term solution to someone who has extremely short term goals like the pleasure seeker.
You didn't say "more is better", but that is what is implied by an attempt to turn mysticism in to a philosophy. As you reported, we are lost in thought most of the time. If mysticism is made in to a philosophy then we are thinking even more, apparently upon the assumption that more is better.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
These are good questions. My vote would be that we discard most of the fancy philosophy talk and focus on practical questions like this. How to produce a blank mind? Well, as a place to start, that's a quite ambitious agenda so let's be more realistic and replace that question with, how to have a quieter mind.
So, how to have a quieter mind? There are a million ways, so the job is not to find "the right way" but rather one or more ways that work for us personally. So, one tries a lot of methods until one finds some that work for them.
For me, just one way, what works best is to nurture a relationship with nature much as one would nurture a relationship with a friend, invest LOTS of time, and open oneself emotionally to the experience.
I typically get up at something like 4am and spend time on the Internuts while I await the sunrise. This typically gets my nerdy overthinking mind fairly stirred up so when I hit the woods at dawn I'll observe myself pounding down the trail like a man late for an appointment. :-) If I stay in the woods long enough my mind and body will gradually and naturally slow down, not as an act of will, and at some point I'll find myself standing in one place for an hour just looking around, with no desire to be somewhere else, here and now enough.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Ok, point taken, reaching for a quieter mind, establishing balance with the lost in thought mind, is a goal. Agreed. But it can be a simple goal and a simple practice, much as when one is hungry one eats something. No big deal.
The danger in making it a fancy goal and a fancy practice is that then it tends to become ripe for an ego take over, ie. even more thought. And it is thought itself which is obstructing the "here and now is enough" experience. So to the degree one tries to think oneself to a quieter mind (mysticism as a philosophy etc) one is actually poring more fuel on the fire. It seems all the great religions suffer from this problem to some degree or another, as does this post.
A simple goal is meeting a simple need right now, like eating, sleeping, sex etc. I would propose that thought is just another mechanical function of the body and that it can be managed by simple mechanical means, which is really good news for the person who is serious. But perhaps bad news for the fancy philosopher?
A fancy goal is climbing some ladder to somewhere glamorous over time. That's what the attempt to turn mysticism in to a philosophy is really all about. The desire to climb the ladder arises from here and now not feeling like enough, and that feeling of lack arises from thought itself.
The evidence for that claim is that a chronic feeling of lack afflicts pretty much everyone in all times and places. It's a seemingly near universal property of the human condition. That suggests that the source of this feeling is something we all share in common.
Well as you say, there are many kinds of mysticism. The majority I find would agree with Nuke, to the extent that trying to work it out with the mind is a distraction. There are some though, perhaps only a few, who do also seek to develop some kind of intellectual understanding. This is exercised alongside other practice and does require some discipline to prevent it becoming a distraction.
It is important to separate one of the first principles of mysticism from any intellectual analysis. The idea, or concept that the mystic is not going anywhere in the sense of attaining a goal. But rather attempting to cease any goal, or seeking of a goal. There is an objective, but the objective is the negation of objectives, the negation of determining goals and working towards them. It is a neat psychological trick, which I found very productive when I was younger.
This negation of goals and seeking is foundational to meditation and the quieting of the mind is achieved through practice of meditation. For me it took perhaps 100-200 hours of practice before I found I was able to quieten the mind and there is no problem in starting it up again, it bounces back every time. One is only quieting the chitta chatta.
Yes, I should have been more specific*. What I was referring to is the belief that the world we are living in** is artificial in that it is a construct conceived of, created and maintained by a divine being. That it has no independent existence, it is not inviolable.
Yes, it would be required in a large number of the population, not 50%, I expect, but a sizeable amount of the population. Something not very likely anytime soon. Still the clock ticks as the crises mount. If however we are talking of the individual, yes I wholeheartedly agree with you. For me though, there are numerous other means of developing such a mind alongside practicing philosophy. Although I find Philosophy is important in its rigour and scepticism.
The * again, I find myself skirting a large area of thinking to make an initial point. Mysticism is very much concerned with conditioning, principle because it entails the purification of aspects of the being, specifically the those related to this incarnation. So all forms of conditioning are addressed. Also the products of this enquiry ( into one's conditioning) become useful in contemplation, reorientation and rebuilding the transfigured self.
Quite.
Yes, I am aware of this. I was only referring the the pressing purpose of humanity as a whole. To reiterate, the pressing purpose of humanity is, to begin to live in harmony with/in the ecosystem, in a way which secures the health of the ecosystem and the human civilisation, for the medium and eventually long term.
* I keep Finding myself making a reference to a concept that has been developed over a long period, has a lot of theory behind it and used in its development, or derived from a divine revelation from a trusted source and yet is something not commonly talked about, or perhaps conceived. I think I might have to begin introducing footnotes to explain them.
** the world we are living in, does not just refer to the physical world, but more specifically the results of incarnation.
Does this help clarify? The experience of mysticism is not a goal oriented activity. What we think about that experience may very well be goal oriented. Better? I agree I could have said this more clearly earlier.
It's debatable how much such topics can transform an individual. Many grand claims have been made, some of them may be true, I don't claim to know. It seems most accurate to say that some number of people have been helped to a modest degree.
What's not debatable is that these techniques, insights, experiences etc are not scalable to the degree that would required to transform humanity as a whole. These topics have been discussed in earnest for thousands of years, and the human condition remains largely unchanged. It wouldn't be very philosophical to ignore such a large pile of real world evidence.
It is perhaps possible that the insights arising from such investigations might be helpful in assisting science in developing some technology which is scalable to large populations. A happiness pill or some such. Logically it would make sense that the majority of science be aimed at such a target given that most of our problems arise from internal psychological issues. But, we are not a logical species by and large, and science seems more interested in almost everything else.
I suspect the future of humanity might be compared to the weather. You can buy an umbrella, but you can't stop it from raining.
I don't know what you're trying to say, but this makes no sense. I didn't say we're "lost" in thought, I said we are always thinking. In case you haven't noticed, the world is a dangerous place, and if we were not constantly thinking we'd be dead really soon. If I'm saying that we're thinking all the time, I don't see how you can infer that I was talking about thinking even more. What would that mean, thinking faster? I think what is at issue is the subject matter of the thought. Or, are you arguing that mysticism involves no thought at all? If so, how could it be carried out by a human being?
Quoting Nuke
OK, a quiet mind is nice sometimes, just like quiet music is nice sometimes. But don't you like to crank up the tunes once in a while. Some people like the loud stuff more than others, it's a matter of personal preference. I wasn't suggesting that we should rule out quiet times.
Quoting Nuke
I don't know what you mean by "ego take over". And, "here and now" is rarely, if ever enough, because time is passing, and the world is a dangerous place, so we need to be prepared for what might happen. Just because you are standing in the woods just looking around, doesn't mean that you are not prepared to move if a storm threatens, or a dangerous animal approaches. How could you be prepared to act if you were doing nothing other than enjoying the here and now? You are really judging the here and now. In relation to what though, the future?
Quoting Nuke
I agree, trying to force a quieter mind is like trying to force oneself to go to sleep, it backfires, producing insomnia. But mysticism isn't only about a quiet mind, sometimes we like to crank it up a few notches.
Quoting Nuke
Again, you are speaking about personal preference as if it ought to be the goal of everyone. Some like simple goals, some like complex goals. Why do you think that only those with simple goals ought to be mystics?
Quoting Nuke
No, the feeling of lack is not cause by thought, it arises naturally from doing nothing. All the simple goals you mention, eating, sleeping, sex etc., are not fulfilled when one does nothing, and this results in the feeling of lack. So the healthy, natural state of the human being is an active state. And to be active requires goals, and this requires thought. Climbing a ladder is not necessary because there are many goals which do not involve climbing ladders. But if one wants to hone a particular skill, this requires practise. Why cast this procedure, of producing skill, in such a negative light, as "climbing some ladder to somewhere glamorous"?
Mystics might proceed to different levels, but this does not mean that they are necessarily climbing a ladder to somewhere glamorous, so why would you say that the goal of any particular practise is to get somewhere glamorous. In reality, to get somewhere glamorous is a goal in itself, and many different practises might be used to get there.
Quoting Nuke
I've had that feeling of lack before, and it arises from doing nothing. Doing nothing gives one nothing to think about, no goals, no activities. As discussed, we cannot turn off the thinking, so having nothing to think about results in thinking about nothing. Thinking about nothing is that feeling of lack. So the feeling of lack, and the thinking are one and the same, two aspects of the same thing. One is not caused by the other. But this condition is caused by doing nothing.
Quoting Nuke
This does not clarify anything. The "ism" suffix indicates a theory, a doctrine, or practice. I don't see how you can say that mysticism is an experience, that's simply a misuse of words.
Quoting Nuke
I don't think anyone can seriously claim that the human condition has remained largely unchanged for the last few thousands of years.
Quoting Punshhh
Right, clear your mind of all goals, and also (the hardest part) the inclination to produce a goal. That this takes effort, will power, is indication that the natural state of the human being is to be active.
This is the first step of indoctrination, what some would call brainwashing, clearing the mind to have a clean slate. As I explained, we ought to rid ourselves of the negative connotations involved in these descriptive terms, as this is an educational process entered willfully, and carried out by the student. In no way is the teacher capable of forcing this procedure onto the student.
Quoting Punshhh
I don't think that ecosystems can actually behave or exist in the type of balanced harmony you describe. There are ups and downs in one species or another, as one becomes strong and takes supremacy over another, then for some reason becomes weaker and becomes suppressed or even driven into extinction. It's not a balance at all, but a complex process of ups and downs, as one species prospers because of an abundance of the resource it requires, until this resource runs out, and it cannot adapt. Then another species might come into prosperity on the waste of that species, etc..
Quoting Punshhh
I don't think I quite understand this concept you are making reference to. Is it a sort of metaphysical principle?
I yearn for that moment. I have on occasion camped out in the woods, also in the Himalayas and stretched that moment out for weeks, or months.
I use a practice of developing an imagined place in my mind, which is always still like a flame, where there is no breeze. This is kept separate from the chitta chatta. After a while this place develops and one can retreat there, or draw on it at any time. Also at a latter stage, make use of it in restructuring the mind one has controlled. A similar thing is done with the emotions via a safe space within the heart chakra. The aim being, not to become a clean slate to be brainwashed, but rather to further develop the communion with the higher self, or soul.
I agree, but in the case of humanity we have developed something called a thinking mind. This has given us a strategic advantage above all the other organisms in the ecosystem. An advantage to the extent that we can control the entire ecosystem to our own advantage, or perceived advantage. One might think all well and good, but it has also given us the agency to pervert the ecosystem to some divisive end, to pollute the whole ecosystem for some internally determined need. For example exploit fossil fuels so that we can all move around faster, while polluting our environment. And when a scientist steps forward and says if we pollute in this way we will destroy the ecosystem, someone like a president Trump steps forward and says that's nonsense, we need to exploit more and more shale gas now and make America great again.
You see, it's the fall again.
You know like some of the more difficult metaphysical concepts that take a while to understand and might require a lot of rational steps to get there. Well it's the same in mysticism. I might find myself referring to such a concept which without many pages of careful explanation is not adequately conveyed.
When I used the word principle, I was adopting the phraseology used in my source material. So I think it might have seemed out of place. Anyway it was in relation to the idea that the physical world is not an inviolable reality, but a construct devised, created and maintained by a being who is inviolable and drawing on inviolable principles and powers. By inviolable I mean having an eternal presence, existence, reality.
Same for Gregg Allman. These guys worshipped at the alter of the blues, music born of tortured souls. Be careful what you ask for I guess.
Of possible interest is the career of Derek Trucks, son of Allman Brothers drummer Butch Trucks. If I understand correctly Derek Trucks embraced the musical style pioneered by the Allman Brothers, but turned his back on the drugs and hard living etc. Keep the good stuff and say goodbye to the bad, seems sensible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Trucks
Quoting Punshhh
I am blessed to live on the edge of town and have a big largely empty state park just 4 miles down the road. What I've learned there is that it's not the place that matters, but one's relationship with the place. Which is good news, as the relationship happens inside of one's head. Seems true of very many things in life. It's not so much what is happening that is determinative, but rather one's relationship with what's happening.
I agree this is a crucial issue upon which much depends.
If one feels that human suffering (psychologically) arises from the subject matter of thought, then philosophy seems an appropriate remedy. Perhaps this describes your understanding and approach?
On the other hand, if one feels as I do that that human suffering arises from the nature of thought itself, that's a different analysis which suggests a different remedy.
In my view, a key piece of evidence is that human suffering (psychologically) is pretty much universal in every time and place. This suggests a source that all of us share. That can't be the content of thought, as there is a great range of diversity in our philosophies, religions, cultures etc.
You might ask yourself, why has this conversation been going on for thousands of years, and yet we're still as nutty as ever? My answer would be that, as you suggest, we have to think to survive, and the price tag for this powerful tool is suffering. To have one is to have the other.
Here's how that works....
Thought operates by dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual objects. This allows us to re-arrange these conceptual objects in our heads to create new visions of reality. That is, the divisive nature of thought allows us to be creative, our genius.
The very same process of conceptual division is what makes us insane. We experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very very small, and "everything else" being very very big. This perspective gives rise to fear, which in turn is the source of most human problems.
My screen name is Nuke because, in my view, nuclear weapons almost perfectly represent this marriage of genius and insanity. We are smart enough to know how to build nukes, and insane enough to actually do so.
You want to do philosophy. This is philosophy. I challenge you in a friendly way to try to rip it to shreds, in the spirit of philosophy. Go for it! And when you realize that you can't, because nobody can, a couple of somewhat predictable things may happen. First, you may get mad. Then, perhaps you will vanish. Ideally then I would vanish too so that any collisions between my ego and yours will no longer be a distraction.
If you stick with the philosophical process, as you say you wish to do, eventually you will realize that human suffering can not be healed in thought, because it is thought itself which is the source of human suffering. That understanding will transform your relationship with philosophy.
Another implication of this understanding is that there is no way to permanently fix the problem of suffering. The great promise of mystical philosophies is a false hope. Instead mysticism is best looked at as a form of management.
With every other process of the human body we take it to be an obvious given that regular management is necessary. We are never so foolish as to think that if just eat the right food that will solve the problem of hunger once and for all. It's the same with the bio-electrical cabbage machine between our ears.
This is not a glamorous story, and so it tends to be rather unpopular. Apologies, I can't do anything about that.
Um, just a reminder, we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat, an ever present hair trigger existential threat which we typically find too boring to discuss. Thinking mind? Strategic advantage? As example, just 50 nukes would be more than enough to destroy all of America's largest cities, leading to a collapse of the food distribution system, mass starvation, and unprecedented and unimaginable social and political chaos. If North Korea doesn't already have that many nukes, they likely will soon.
Imagine if you will that you invite me to the philosophy club meeting at your house. I show up with a loaded gun in my mouth. You are alarmed and try to talk about the gun with me, but I keep waving you off in a rather impatient and annoyed manner because I want to talk about Hegel's theory of something or another instead. That's who we are folks, that guy.
The thinking mind strategic advantage stuff is all on the surface. Just below that thin veneer lies madness. Humanity is perhaps best compared to an out of control algae bloom. We will explode all over the planet in an impressive manner until we run out of the fuel which sustains us, and then the bloom will collapse.
To learn more about this, buy my new book, "HOW TO NEVER GET INVITED TO PARTIES". :-)
I'm portraying it as a bad thing, part of the fall of man. You make a good point though, all sorts of people can talk good words and the like. But those warheads are still pointing down our throats. I'm reminded of Dr Strangelove.
We could explore in that direction if you wish to.
Fall Of Man: As thought evolved in human beings and became an increasingly prominent part of our experience, we lost the primal bond with nature which wildlife and earlier more primitive humans enjoyed. Well, we didn't lose the primal bond so much as we were distracted from a focus on reality by the chitta chatta, as you would put it.
Is this movement from the real to the symbolic a "fall"? Is it a bad thing? I dunno, I guess to answer that we'd have to establish some value which we are measuring against. It would seem obvious that the emergence of thought had survival value, but as nuclear weapons would seem to illustrate that may depend on what time scale one is using. Advantage in the short term, fatal over the longer term?
As to whether it was a good thing, the right thing, progress. I see it as an inevitable crisis of the development of intelligence in nature. Wherever such a development happens, the same crisis will occur. So if intelligence and more advanced life forms exist in nature this point of crisis has been reached before and the species concerned must have survived beyond it. This is humanity's chance to survive the crisis of the fall.
The New Testament depicts God giving us a helping hand through the life and story of Jesus. To pick ourselves up and take responsibility to clean up our own mess, like nappy training.
So I think it is a good thing and it is progress, but we now have to step up to the plate before someone presses the button and collectively take responsibility for our own actions. Not least for our own survival, but for the fate of the other members (species) of the ecosystem, to show respect for them, to care for them in their vulnerability.
P.s. If someone were about to press the button like they were about to do during the Cuban missile crisis. I suspect there would have been some covert divine intervention to prevent it. It would be quite an expensive mistake, in ways beyond our understanding.
Yes, although I'm not at all a Bible person, I find it pretty remarkable how well the first book of the Bible predicts where we find ourselves today. A knowledge explosion, threatening to evict us from the garden of eden. The Adam and Eve story was written some 3,000 years ago for an audience of uneducated peasants, and according to some interpretations at least, it still works today.
Quoting Punshhh
Regrettably, there isn't much evidence this will happen any time soon. After studying the subject in earnest for about 6 months I've come to the conclusion that nothing meaningful will happen on nukes until after the next detonation. And then.... who knows? Not me.
Quoting Punshhh
If that interests you, you might investigate the work of Robert Hastings who has extensively researched reports of UFOs interfering with nuclear weapons systems. https://www.ufohastings.com/ He's more about aliens than divine intervention, but the idea is the same, higher forms of intelligence trying to save us from ourselves. Here's a YouTube video that summarizes his work.
This is good. You've developed a place in your mind, free from the chitta chatta, which allows you communion with the higher self, soul. Can I ask, how do you distinguish the chitta chatta from the communion with the soul? The communion with the soul must consist of some sort of mental activity, how do you know that it's not just more chitta chatta?
I like to calm my mind in a similar but slightly different way. But I'm a doer, and I like to be active, (and as I explained the natural condition for human beings is to be active), so I put this condition of having a calmed mind to use, prioritizing what needs to be done, in what order, so that I can work efficiently without the confusion of the chitta chatta.
Why do you think that communion with the higher self is a better goal than organizing the activities which you need to do?
Quoting Punshhh
I don't agree with this. I think it's somewhat egotistical to think that human beings have the capacity to control the ecosystem. This is the false sense of certainty I referred to earlier, which modern science and technology has given us. We are really at the mercy of the ecosystem. Look at the covid-19 virus for example, we have very little control over it, and if it were more deadly it could wipe out a large part of humanity. Or look at Nuke's example of nukes, mental illness in human beings, or bacterial infection in the nervous system, could cause the use of nukes We really do not know what the ecosystem might throw at us from one year to the next, and there are many different things which it could throw at us which we are completely incapable of dealing with.. The point being that any one species, such as the human species, is much more fragile than the ecosystem as a whole. The ecosystem is made up of millions or billions of species, so the biosphere as a whole, has an enormous capacity to adapt. And it really doesn't matter if numerous species get wiped out, because new species are always being created, adapting to thrive in the same conditions which wiped out the other species.
Quoting Nuke
I don't see how you could support this idea logically. Suffering was in existence long before there was thinking human beings, and a person's thought is very often directed towards ending suffering which is already there. As a child, I was suffering before I was thinking, and when I started thinking, I was thinking about how to end my suffering.
Quoting Nuke
This doesn't provide the needed support. Suffering existed prior to human beings, as we see that other animals suffer. So suffering has a source which not only human beings share, but other animals share as well. You might argue that other animals think as well, but just because thinking and suffering are coincident, this doesn't mean that one causes the other. Why would you not say that suffering causes thinking instead?
Quoting Nuke
There's nothing to rip to shreds here. You have a belief which appears to me as very unreasonable, which you have provided no logical support for. All I need to do is show that your believe has no support. Further, I can explain from my own experience, that thinking is used as a means for ending suffering. And this is why your belief is unreasonable to me. I can give you numerous examples of how I use thinking to end my suffering, such as when I'm hungry. That this end to suffering is not permanent is irrelevant. Time goes by, new suffering occurs, and the mind thinks of ways to end that suffering. Each instance of suffering is unique and distinct, so it makes no sense to talk about ending suffering in some general, or absolute way. Each time the rain starts to fall, it later ends. But it makes no sense to talk about the end of rain, in a universal way.
Quoting Nuke
Suffering is a personal thing, a property of the person's materiality, unique to the individual. Death puts a permanent end to a person's suffering because it separates the person from the body (which is the source of suffering).
I know, I am thinking more about humanity living in harmony with the ecosystem (and themselves) long term.
Yes, I looked into this in the early 1990's, when the Ashtar tapes came out, talking about this stuff, it gets interesting when one considered that there is a crossover between extraterrestrials and divinity. What I was thinking of though is divinity subtly changing the course of events through happenstance. Rather than any grand intervention.
Superseded by:
* Philosophy (especially phenomenology)
* Sciences
* Paranormal sciences (also paranormal psychology, though it's not psychology as such)
* Organized religion (Civ-series is correct about something, surely)
Good? :up: :smile:
PS: Doing voodoo (with that ugly mentality) is just too stupid in the name of bygone mysticism.
Don't you really mean "substituted by"? Which one provides the substitution sufficient for your needs?
A most touching vocalization of simple words, from Gregg’s “These Days”.......written by Jackson Browne when he was only 16, which I would never have guessed:
“Please don’t confront me with my failures.
I’m aware of them.”
Remember Duane....eat a peach.
Ah yes, Jackson Browne, one of the gems of my generation...
My thoughts exactly. Failed chemistry lab? Struck out with that blonde in Mrs. Sherman’s French class?
Oh. Wait.
Never mind.
Good point. And we don't really need speculation, given how many civilizations have already come and gone here on Earth.
Quoting Punshhh
From the perspective of His Flatulence Baba Nuke, this would require a fundamental re-engineering or radical evolution of human beings. That is, if one feels that it is thought itself which is the source of the disharmony, then it's hard to imagine how we become harmonious without being changed beyond current recognition. To tack back towards UFOs for a moment, one of the many theories is that aliens are already engaged in genetically re-engineering us.
Quoting Punshhh
Well, that suggests a thread on divinity, or perhaps a further derailing of this thread, either of which are agreeable here.
Ha, ha. Well, from the age of 68 I can report that those are the kind of failures which tend to stick with us over time. So perhaps Jackson had a point after all?
Yes, physical suffering goes back to the dawn of nervous systems. I was attempting to refer to psychological suffering, which I tried to indicate.
Yes, thought is very often directed at the attempt to end psychological suffering. This has it's uses which I'll try to illustrate with the following example.
Let's say I'm physically hungry, my stomach is empty. Thought is useful in identifying where I could find food. That's good! But I have to actually eat the food to fill my belly and satisfy the hunger.
Mysticism is like that, except that it addresses the mind instead of the stomach. Someone could write a book suggesting I meditate, and that suggestion could very well be helpful. But I have to actually meditate to receive the benefit. Just reading the book about meditation won't get the job done.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Please re-read my post and see where I inserted the word "psychologically" so as to clarify what kind of suffering I was referring to.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If you wish to, please specifically identify which belief of mine you are referring to, and I'll attempt to provide the support.
I haven't seen any principles to distinguish physical suffering from psychological suffering. All suffering seems to have physical and psychological aspects so I don't see how one might be divided from the other.
Quoting Nuke
It's obviously directed toward ending physical suffering too, but I don't see how you can separate one instance of suffering as exclusively physical, and another as exclusively psychological.
Quoting Nuke
The will is what causes you to pick up the food and put it in your mouth.
Quoting Nuke
Right, you must have the will to do it. And if you have the will to do something, there is a goal involved. That's why you cannot separate any practise like mysticism, from the goal which one has in taking up the practise.
Quoting Nuke
The belief I objected to as unreasonable, and unsupported, is your claim that thought is the source of suffering (of any kind).
They are complementary, indeed once you are in alignment, they literally are the same thing. It is a useful discipline to be able to make time, to attend to your exercises, as part of a balanced life.
I don't disagree with the points you raise, but we have evidence of the control over the ecosystem exercised by humanity. For example we have instigated a mass extinction event, one which is entirely of our own making. I know that the ecosystem will outlive us and may destroy us through a pandemic for example. But the point I am making is that for a large population of humans to live sustainably on the planet, it will require a healthy functioning ecosystem. Something which we are putting in jepardy right now by our stupidity.
It shouldn't be to big a thing to ask should it, that humanity should put its house in order and live sustainably on the planet.
Or are we to stupid, to selfish, to blind to our own frailties to survive more than a few thousands of years before going extinct like the dodo.
OK, I just wanted to get clear on what you meant by chitta chatta. I assume from this post, that it is conversations with others. But don't you distinguish between small talk and important talk? So for example, if you have an instructor for this practise, you might take some of the words of the instructor as important, and bear them in mind during the practise. You might not think of this as thinking, but it is a type of thinking, which is sourced from chitta chatta, remembering those words.
Quoting Punshhh
I'm trying to get a feel for what the higher self is like for you. If there is no proper communication between yourself and the higher self, then is there really any separation between these two at all? Would it be ok to say that these two are really one and the same being? And could I look at this as a transformation, in which the self is being transformed into a higher self? The lower self being the past self and the higher self being the future self.
Quoting Punshhh
But wanton destruction of certain aspects of the ecosystem cannot properly be called "control" over the ecosystem. The ecosystem as a whole is huge. Just because human beings have the capacity, the power, to destroy significant aspects of the ecosystem doesn't mean that they have control over it. Coming in and swinging a sledge hammer around does not give you control over the thing you are hitting. Nor does walking into a crowd shooting an automatic firearm give you control over that crowd.
A very similar principle to the one that I went through concerning teaching is applicable here. You cannot force another living bring into submission, to exercise control over it. You can kill another living being, but this is not the same as controlling it. The living being has to be treated in such a way that it has the will to serve you, then you may exercise control over it, just like the student must be encourage to develop the will to learn, as one cannot be forced to learn. We see this with domesticated animals, we often exercise control over them, but we must do this without abusing them or else we lose their trust.
Domesticated creatures, whom we might properly say we control, make up a relatively small part of the ecosystem. But I think you are correct in a sense, because the agriculture industry is huge, as it must be to support the massive human population. And we as human beings have wiped out massive parts of the natural ecosystem to replace it with the artificial, which we have some control over as domesticated plants and animals. I have some property which I landscape, and it looks aesthetically beautiful to my eyes. But the beauty I see is really just a stoking of my ego, to know that I have a certain degree of control over this part of the ecosystem. In agriculture we control the ecosystem out of necessity, to feed the people.
Quoting Punshhh
Yes I agree that there is stupidity involved, but it might be more like ignorance, or innocence. If a large population of human beings is going to live on the earth, we will need to control the ecosystem to a significant degree, in order to provide for them. This we have very little experience with, and little if any knowledge of how to do it safely. So, we proceed in our naïve and stupid ways, not knowing what we're doing. The population grows a lot faster than our knowledge of how to control the ecosystem, and Nuke is right to compare it to an algae bloom. I like to use the analogy of a culture in a Petri dish. When the conditions are right, the culture expands very rapidly. But the Petri dish has limited resources, just like the earth does, and the culture falls. As we see with the example of the virus, the ecosystem is stacked full of possible sources for the fall of the present human culture. And, we haven't the knowledge to control the ecosystem to the extent required to support the population. In other words, we control the ecosystem just enough to produce a huge population, but there are many layers of hazards within, which most likely will prevent us from sustaining a huge population. But that's part of the balancing system isn't it?
Radical thinking, believe it or not, means thinking beyond the box, not outside the box. Thinking beyond the limitations of thinking. To work with understanding things the way they are without the aspect of falling into belief pattern is very hard to do. Only hard when you’re thinking all the damn time. When you’re not thinking it’s not hard at all. Intelligence awakens but you don’t have to use it to think ALL THE TIME. Life is about doing what is needed. If you were to ask Thoth/Hermes Trismegistus a question, he would put his fingers to his lips and just go shh. Shh. Every time he was asked questions. Shh. But Thoth... Shh. I want to know... Shh. what the f*** Thoth... Shh. I don't think unless I need to, otherwise I am practicing stillness. Slowing down my mind through stillness, not stopping it. I'd be dead if my mind and body stopped, slowing it down by not thinking is different. My current record of sitting still without moving is in low double digit hours. Nothing compared to the ancient yogis and sages of the east, including the ones around today.
One guy had his brain activity measured by scientists, then he entered into stillness, and scientists said according to their instrument's readings, the guy was declared clinically brain dead from the lack of brain activity being measured. Then he just opened his eyes and started talking to the scientists. Same guy can drive 18-20 hours a day. The great thing about mysticism is that it is so simple yet complex at the same time. That is why it’s amazing. And a study throughout the ages. Why do people centuries after mystics died, still read, and study their ancient teachings or works? Understanding that will gain a person access to the wisdom of The All. That is why The All cannot be understood by limited minds, it’s amazing and fascinating and frustrating all at once.
People think of control when they think of these teachings. That is why people are so naïve. They are not adept at it so why control it? You are a part of it, why not learning how to be part of it? It is like learning how to walk for the first time. You needed to learn the nature of your goal and began to refine the process while you are focus on staying upright. It is the same idea when you begin to achieve things. You must understand the concept. Then you refine the process. Before things get into a certain mode. Then you refine more as you gain more understanding. And then you get more skillful. Then you refine the process more and turn skill into wisdom. Then mix skill to the wisdom and refine further. And so, on and so forth.
Let's say you start reading a technical book or textbook like physics or science of your choice. To initiate yourself into that knowledge just means starting the foundational learning. Very few can initiate themselves. Even the Buddha and Jesus and others have teachers. Get the information, absorb it and then put it to practice. You are the one to decide your learnedness, through your own experience. And how you get initiated into the knowledge. You don’t need a church to connect to the very nature of things, be smart. That intelligence is already present inside of you, keeping you alive within your intelligent body. Already there, always listening, already knows what you need. When you believe you have been initiated it means you are being dumb like everyone else who needs to belong to something. These initiations are only due to people wanting to protect their ideas and therefore push you to official initiation BS, so think about it. You are part of nature, why would you need to be initiated? You just learn and awaken to the truth of natural law. Just so you know. Do you feel initiated after you read the Kybalion 1908 edition or Thoth's tablets? There is no initiation when it comes to learning the natural laws. You are already a part of the laws.
There is a separation between them as a consequence of incarnation. So a human being is a complex organism in which there are membranes, regions, organs, divisions between parts performing different functions. Naturally such division into parts occurs in the mind and being. So parts of the being which are subject to/immersed during, incarnation are separated by natural divisions, or membranes.
Yes, where there is a part, or aspect of the being which is enthralled, or captured in, incarnated into a world. A world different in some way from the world where the other part is.
Yes, the word I would use rather than transformation, is transfigured. The lower self seeks to develop a relation, connection, communion with the higher self and via natural processes, including intuition, grow to be a reflection, expression of the higher self.
Both are present in the past and will be in the future, I see it more an issue of the present. The higher self could be viewed as eternal, or to have a higher higher self itself which is eternal. Or overshadowed by an eternal aspect of the being, such as the atman. So in a sense a being can be viewed as having layers like an onion with the lowest layers on the surface and the divine/eternal in the innermost layers.
You do appear to be agreeing with me in regards to the ecosystem. The point about farming is interesting, technology exploits the ecosystem, reshaping parts of it, often in unsustainable ways. An example I an dealing with is polytunnel whitefly. There is an arms race going on between crop pests and pesticides. With pests adapting to our efforts to eradicate them and becoming super bugs, which can only be kept in check by using more powerful interventions with chemicals, or biological controls. Another is flea Beatle, which is controlled by neonicotinoids (which is now banned in the EU).
Anyway, my whole point about the ecosystem is that a reasonable medium length purpose for humanity going forward is to develop sustainable ways to live in the ecosystem and therefore secure our long term future.
*The mystic develops ways of distinguishing between thoughts relating to the higher self and those inherent in the lower self.
:ok:
I haven't done a scientific poll, and it would seem to be quite difficult to find and poll mystics not interested in discussing mysticism. So I guess we're discussing mysticism on the Internet, a somewhat hilarious concept really, but anyway, here we are.
What I've seen is that what we might call the "philosophy of mysticism" is very popular. I would speculate two reasons for this..
1) The kind of folks who gravitate to mysticism are often going to be people like me, folks with naturally over active minds. You know, one doesn't go to the hospital unless one is sick. Interest in anything typically arises from some need. So, folks such as myself who are incurably philosophical from birth are typically going to try to turn mysticism in to yet another philosophical topic to chew on. I'm doing that very thing in this thread myself, even as I attempt to undermine philosophical mysticism, as that perspective is itself a philosophy.
2) Many or most people who get involved in this are looking for some flavor of glamour. Perhaps they tried other becoming trips like popularity, wealth, status etc and those didn't work out as one hoped, and so now they try the "enlightenment" becoming trip. The enlightenment becoming trip can be very seductive because it typically offers or implies some form of permanent solution to psychological suffering. Yes, yes, I know, those selling enlightenment trips can be very clever in dancing around this in all kinds of different ways, but typically glamour is the product being sold. Don't take my word for it, just go to any new age style forum or thread and observe all the fancy words and concepts being thrown around, ie. various flavors of glamour.
The point here is that philosophical mysticism is an easy path to the experience of glamour, of becoming something more than just another ordinary human being. One reads a few books, memorizes some phrases, shares them with their friends, and persuades oneself that they are not small and ordinary, but rather special, elevated etc.
What these good folks typically don't get at first is that this glamour process is a very old game that's been run over and over and over again for thousands of years. It is in fact quite ordinary, as all becoming trips are.
So if one wishes to be truly special, or at least persuade oneself of that fantasy, the trick is to pretend you are above becoming trips and mystical philosophy. If you are articulate enough, with a well developed case of typoholic obsession, all you need do is find some forum thread where people are trying to be glamorous, and proceed to take it away from them. If you persist in doing so what typically happens is that the crowd turns on you, and starts talking about hammers and nails, and bannings and so on. And then you can play the holy martyr game, the sage who was never understood until he was gone, and all of that. And, don't ask me how I know all this, it's all topic secret need to know only stuff. :-)
Ego. Endlessly inventive.
What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow
Is there an implication that the mystic would not discuss the philosophy of mysticism, but instead do mysticism?
Punshhh!
Thanks. Well, the quote applies in both circumstances, which is one reason why Maslow posited same. It's existential. Meaning, even if one mystic tries to explain the feeling to another mystic, that mystic may not be able to relate to seemingly the exact same experience of mysticism.
As an example, if a musician experiences the feeling of music, that same feeling may not be the same for another musician. One musician may not get the same feeling from performing music itself, that say another musician may get, even though they both performed the same piece of music. So the point is relative to the phenomenon of the subjective experience.
Quoting Punshhh
That's a great question Punshh. I go back to the music theory analogy. Music lives in the experience of it. You have two different kinds of information; the experience of music and the domain of music theory. The philosophy of mysticism can be likened to music theory. That Philosophy lives is words and symbols. But the truth of the mystical experience would be beyond or transcend the philosophy of words itself, or beyond ordinary language-ineffable.
That is not to say a scientist could not have a mystical experience for instance. Theoretical physicist Davies has reported on some of his contemporaries having such experiences that have revealed novel information in the understanding of the cosmos. To the layperson, it would be like having a revelation through your ordinary stream of consciousness. Also kind of like writing music; thoughts just appear out of nowhere.
To quote William James from the Varieties of Religious experiences (I use that phrase loosely):
"Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation."
I don't know if I answered the question but in a way, some of this reminds me of the Nike commercial; just do it.
The idea being that by claiming that the divine, or wisdom is only for the initiated to know, then the un-initiated should follow, or give praise to the initiated.
In my experience some of the most accomplished Mystics don't even know they are one, or would deny it. They just naturally follow that course. Also some creative people follow a similar course, unwittingly, or self effacing.
Punshhh!
Indeed! To further the music analogy, it could be likened to a musician selling death metal to a child. That is to say that one must be sophisticated enough to achieve discernment. Or at least be able to make such distinctions (of subjective experiences) through experience itself and/or intuition.
So yes, I agree wholeheartedly, things like occultism is dangerous for the unsophisticated, niave or unwieldy... .
And great point about those having an affinity for the mystical . That humility of sorts speaks to another irony in life...
Yes, the most mystical person I have met, was, at the right moment, the most humble person I have met.
Thanks Punshhh, I think I'm starting to better understand now. I think this chitta chatta is what I called mental habits, whether they are consciously initiated or unconsciously. According to Aquinas' interpretation of Aristotle, habits are properties of the potential for action. So in the case of mental activity, the potential for thought would be actualized in a particular way, a habitual way, and this would be chitta chatta. The Aristotelian metaphysical structure assigns potential to matter, so the attempt to still the chitta chatta would be an attempt to limit the material influence over the mind. This would allow communion with the soul itself, which is the proper source of activity.
I believe that metaphysics derives its principles from mysticism, through a sort of logical analysis of mystical practises and myths. We can see a lot of this in Plato and Aristotle. Plato brought the mysticism forward presenting it in a way which exposed it to analysis, and Aristotle applied logic to deduce some fundamental metaphysical principles. I'm going to cross reference your post here to the Lazerowitz thread, to support a disagreement I have about how the op characterizes metaphysics. Most of your post makes a lot of sense to me.
Quoting Punshhh
I've heard of efforts to restrict neonicotinoids, they're on some of the seeds I plant. But I hate flea beatles, they eat the Kale as fast as it germinates. The use of pesticides is a good example of how we do many things, when we really do not know what we are doing, and we only find out much later, when the effects become apparent, what we have done. Another good example is the use of CFCs and depletion of the atmospheric ozone.
I think music theory can be of value in creating music. Can the same be said of the philosophy of mysticism? :chin:
Sure! For instance, knowing 'tension' chords in composition is a good tool to provide for 'tension and release'. It's used all the time (it's called the Dominant Fifth). A savvy musician/composer who understands this can make life easier for themselves :grin:
However, I'm still thinking it's apple and oranges. Kind of like a priori v. a posteriori. Know what I mean vern?
Maybe this paradox could help: which came first, music or theory? (Mysticism or the experience of it.)
Yes I would agree with this, but that it came about due to the nature of the manifestion we find ourselves in. This nature inevitably being a reflection of divinity. So metaphysics in attempting to apply its logic to the natural world is inevitably going to mirror in some way a mystical understanding.
Although I would also point out that there seems to be a variation in understanding in metaphysics from philosopher to philosopher. A kind of sectarianism, this also happens within mysticism, although for the mystic these differences in teaching don't matter much because the primary focus of mysticism is not a philosophy, but a practice and relation to the natural world via the body (as opposed to the mind) and being. Whereas in metaphysics the only means of refining the ideas is via the application of logic, reason. There is no direction from the natural world, although it is to some degree an expression of the divine, it is only a presentation of parts and complex systems of material, which is probably beyond our capacity to understand at this time. Also there are gapping holes and paradox in our understanding of material as understood through science and incarnation and being are areas unknown to science.
This is not quite what I was saying. I was saying that metaphysicians apply logic to the mystical revelations. This is why metaphysics is so different from the natural sciences which have little if any regard for mysticism, only applying logic to observations of the natural world, metaphysics will apply logic to the observations of mysticism.
Quoting Punshhh
This is where we approach Plato's dilemma. The differences in mystical teachings manifest as cultural differences, such as differences in moral principles. But to apply logic, the philosopher requires consistency. So Plato delves into these differences by examining the different interpretations people have for the same words, "beauty", "virtue", "just", "knowledge", for example. The attempt to reconcile the differences is called Platonic dialectics.
Quoting Punshhh
Right, and this is why consistency is so important. If, for example, there is an Idea of "just", then there is reason to believe that there ought to be consistency between the interpretations of that word by different people. If people are free to interpret the word as they please, then there is really no such thing as the Idea of "just", and the application of logic is impossible. The dilemma results from recognition that the latter is reality, people are free to interpret as they please. So this subjugates logic to a lower level, i.e. a level which is lower than the inspiration to act, which is the free will, and this explains why a person can knowingly do what is wrong. Logic can tell me to do something one way, but I might still do it in a different way, contrary to the logic. Consistency is produced by conforming habituation to logic. But in the essence of human nature there is no necessity to conform, conformity must be willed.
Quoting Punshhh
I think I disagree with this statement. The metaphysician has to derive principles from somewhere. and as mentioned above, I think that the principles are derived from mysticism, and mysticism takes direction from the natural world. This is a completely different type of direction from the direction that natural sciences get from the natural world.
Because the human will is free, and the issue described above, metaphysics cannot begin with logic. Human beings do not necessarily agree on logical principles, especially when it seems like we are incapable of getting to the bottom of material reality through the application of logical principles. Because of the problems involved in understanding the nature of matter, Aristotle introduced exceptions to the law of excluded middle, one of the fundamental laws of logic, but he insisted that the law of non-contradiction ought to be upheld. Now, dialectical materialists, following Hegelian principles say that matter violates the law of non-contradiction.
This is why the metaphysician must go deeper than logic for metaphysical principles. And when I say metaphysicians apply logic to mystical understanding, it's really the inverse of this which is true. Metaphysicians really apply mystical principles to logic, such that the laws and rules of logic are formulated to be applicable to the natural world as understood through mystic practises. Epistemology follows from metaphysics, and it applies logic. But the rules of logic are derived from metaphysics so we cannot call this an act of applying logic.
Were I to have an ineffable mystical revelation, how would a metaphysician go about applying logic? A psychologist or neuroscientist might be better equipped to do the job. Or a fellow mystic.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You might flesh this out a bit with examples.
Yes this correlates to mystical contemplation, but surely the metaphysician is building an ivory tower from which to survey the world. The tower stands if the foundations are inviolable. I see how it is a good discipline, or exercise. The mystic also realises that any of these towers are an impediment to putting one foot in front of the other on the path, so always leaves the door open in humility.
Yes, but inevitably every pointer, every hint derived from the natural world, be it for a mystic, a metaphysician, a scientist, a flat earther even, is a reflection of the divine, of eternity. The mystic works with such axioms of thought, along with revelation and stills the chitta chatta some more. Continually dwelling in the pure experience of nature. Imbibes the liquid of the gifts provided by incarnation. From where is a metaphysician drawing her sustenance?
I would be interested in an example here. My first thoughts are that when one delves into an analysis of mystical experiences (revelations), the external world evaporates as the nature of being becomes the focus. That nature being what is referenced in spiritual cosmology. One is transcending the spheres and learning ones way around, guided on a need to know basis through the unfurling of ones being. The alignment of the chackras.
So if I were to imagine myself as a metaphysician considering this cosmogony. I would find myself documenting an organism, like a plant, and the particular geometrical relation between the petals. Like a naturalist in exploring in the jungle. Perhaps when I return to my study I might try and apply some rational thought to this, but I would have to realise eventually that all I am doing is documenting the natural shape of a flower which I have come across (by incarnating into it). Nowhere am I advancing knowledge of the origins, or principles of existence.
All we can glean of the divine realms is a faint memory of a grain of dust on the floor of the divine realm. To know more than this requires personal experience via revelation, in particular that kind of revelation in which one is lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being, that temporarily one is transfigured by experiencing through their eyes, their mind, what life is like for them. And when one comes back down to earth how does one apply logic?
I will give the example I have cited before, of a dream I had in which I was taken up by the Christ and as I looked back down to where I was sleeping I saw time layer out like a series of rooms with no roofs, so I could see my past and future laid out before me. It reminded me of the experience of my life flashing before me when I was on the point of drowning (someone pulled me out thankfully). A sequence of experiences in which I travelled through time at a different rate and was transcending time, free to move either way, in a sense.
Now what can a metaphysician say about this?
In the way I've been describing in this thread, as interpretation. What I've said is that an individual person, as a mystic, cannot properly interpret one's own mystical experience. This is something along the same principle as Wittgenstein's private language argument.
Quoting jgill
I began participation in this thread with the intent of arguing that metaphysics is a form of mysticism. From this perspective, fellow mystics would be doing the interpretation. However, other participants have steadfastly insisted on a division between mysticism and metaphysics, claiming that mystics ought not be involved in logical analysis of mystical experience. Adhering to this principle, we cannot say that a fellow mystic would apply logic toward understanding the mystical revelation.
However, Punshhh has alluded to some higher levels of mysticism, and it could be that higher level mystics might qualify as metaphysicians. We haven't really developed this possibility yet, but a few days back I was working on defining the distinction between teacher and student.
Quoting Punshhh
I call this the test of time. Ancient philosophy which has had its existence maintained until the present day is the most reliable. And within that ancient philosophy we find principles extending far back into time, prior to writing, when they were maintained by mystical practises.
Quoting Punshhh
I told you, when we first started this discussion, that time was an inescapable subject of paramount importance. Now, this is not the first time you've referenced "the divine", and "eternity", so we really need to broach this subject "eternity", to validate claims such as this. We've really avoided what constitutes "divinity" up to this point. but it seems to have become a sort of crutch for your perspective.
Quoting Punshhh
From the mystics, as described already.
Quoting Punshhh
You are portraying the metaphysician as a scientist, observing an analyzing physical patterns of the material world. Are you familiar with Plato's cave allegory? The sensible world is a reflection, a representation of the intelligible world which is responsible for creating that reflection. The metaphysician's interest in the sensible world is for the sake of understanding the underlying intelligible realm.
So the external world does not evaporate for the metaphysician, as it might for the mystic, like you describe. The external world is the medium between the metaphysician and the minds of others. We can only delve so far into our internal experience, before we reach a dead end. You might claim that you reach divinity, eternity, but I cannot quite get to that point. There is a temporality of my being, associated with my material existence which prevents me from getting there. This materiality acts as a medium or division between you, and I, and also prevents myself from being divine, eternal. This is the reality which the material world forces upon me, being the basis of that division between possible and impossible which I described earlier.
This is why egotism is not an issue. The individual self cannot obtain to the level of divinity because of its temporal existence. Thomas Aquinas introduce a term, "aeviternal" which refers to a medium between the divine, eternal, and the temporal. The angels are of the aeviternal realm, which means that they were created at some point in time (by God), but they may exist forever into the future.
Quoting Punshhh
What we do is apply logic to the other person's described revelation, remembering that there is a material medium between us. So your description is only as accurate as the medium allows. The medium is very inclusive, involving yours and my brain, nervous system, sense organs, memory, words, etc.. The material medium is what is responsible for human deficiencies.
So when someone says something like "lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being", I realize that it is impossible for a divine being to have a body, and so you are speaking metaphorically. What I can imagine is you taking a place in another human body, or even a body which is very much superior to the human body. But since it is a body, it doesn't get me to the point of absolute divinity, like God, who has no proper body. It doesn't even get me to the point of angelic existence, which is to exercise providence over a material body freely, without being influenced in one's actions by material bodies. Therefore I assume you use "divine being" in a metaphoric way, or a way which does not have the same discipline as theology.
Quoting Punshhh
I would say that you've had a glimpse into eternity. It is experiences like this which open our eyes to the extremely befuddling nature of time and existence. I've had a similar experience I call my soma experience, in reference to R. Wasson's interpretation of soma. Experiences like this can have a profound effect on a person, in my case, inspiring me to continually enquire into the true nature of time as a lifelong ambition. Have you read any Carlos Castenada? Following from that first completely disorganized representation of time, which I had in that experience like you describe, I directed my attention more and more toward an organized understanding. Direction is very important in understanding the relationship between organization and time, the foundation of "order".
His description of the art of dreaming may take one into a truly astounding alternate reality. One of sharp and colorful imagery and experience, where one becomes pure will. But cannot read a printed form. I consider this a mystical experience devoid of a god or supernatural entity. In my opinion, no philosopher could have provided a meaningful interpretation, but a neuroscientist might have. No drugs were used.
This was not a "typical" mystical journey, where one achieves an understanding that one's "I" is an artifice or that "form is substance and substance is form". From that perspective this adventure would be considered a hindrance to jettison on the way to Enlightenment.
By divinity I mean beings who dwell in eternity and their nature.
These three higher planes of our existence of the seven, in which our incarnate world is the lower three planes. In this link the seven planes are laid out. My preference is for the last passage taken from The works of Alice Bailey. I left the other references for comparison.
http://frcmh.tripod.com/sevenplanesofconsciousnes.htm
A subtle body, I don't think we can say that these beings do, or don't have a body, or what form it takes. But in line with the cosmology of the the three higher planes there will be a body constituted of the forms found on the lower of the three planes, the atmic. Something which we probably can't comprehend.
I have a rich narrative which I use in contemplation on this issue. What I have experienced is not that clear, but I have had a number of experiences in the form of a presence of eternity, or divinity in some way. Rather like sitting in a room and eternity is in the next room and there is frosted glass between them and I can feel the presence and dimly make out the forms. I have had experiences like soma, but not in a formal setting. Although in a heightened state in puja, there was formal orchestration of revelation, or ceremony, to a degree.
I haven't read Castaneda, but have heard of him on ocassion. During my youth I did get involved a lot in New Age groups which was more to do with channeling than soma. I have used hallucinogens in the past, which resulted in many of the more lucid revelations. Most of my interest though was with more formal texts.
That's the first time I've seen "eternity" described without reference to temporal concepts. So I don't really think it's the classical interpretation. Even the ancient Greeks described it through relation to time.
Quoting Punshhh
Why is it called the seven planes of our solar system?
Quoting Punshhh
Are you sure there would be a body composed of the third etheric? Doesn't "etheric" imply without any body? The diagram shows will there. How can there be a body composed of will?
Quoting Punshhh
I'm really having difficulty with your use of "eternity"..
Wiki, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity
"Eternity in common parlance means infinite time (or the quality, condition or fact of being eternal).[1] In classical philosophy, however, it is defined as what exists outside time as describing supranatural beings and forces, whereas sempiternity corresponds to the infinitely temporal, non-metaphoric definitions, as recited in requiem prayers for the dead. Thomas Hobbes and many others in the Age of Enlightenment drew on the classical distinction to put forward metaphysical hypotheses such as "eternity is a permanent Now".
I think where I stray from the philosophical definition is that I tend to use the word eternity as a substitute for divine realm. I will happily change to that if you would prefer. Naturally for me the divine realm is outside time, atemporal in relation to our word. Also I tend not to delve into that realm in discussion because we would be trying to discus things we don't understand, perhaps can't understand, which are not like our world and about which we don't have means of finding out (other than through revelation).
As such, I don't think we are in a position to say whether, or not there is time in the divine realm, or what form it might take, likewise extension and whether divine beings have bodies, or what form those might take. I tend to defer to spiritual systems of describing such things, not on the assumption that those descriptions are accurate, or specific, but that they convey the appropriate relation in the hierarchy of being.
This is theosophy, in the cosmogony it refers to, it is specifically discussing the beings represented by humanity, their role in the being of the planet Earth and likewise in the being of the Sun.
The usage of the terminology is different to other uses. Etheric in theosophy refers to a level of being, and is often used as in the etheric body. The form this takes is not known in the sense that science currently understands the physical body. It is largely undefined, some people might know it as the astral body. It is a body in a system that describes a human being as having 7 bodies, or vehicles of expression.
Regarding the usage of will, I was not considering that there would be a body composed of will, but rather a body composed of Atman in which will is expressed.
So the divine being has a body, or vehicle of expression on the atmic plane, this would necessarily be a subtle body, which is undefined on the assumption that it is beyond our comprehension. That the divine being would have a mind on the monadic plane, again undefined on the assumption that it is beyond our comprehension and that the divine being has the equivalent of a soul on the logic plane, which would be beyond our comprehension. So trying to understand the detail of these planes, or bodies etc is futile, pointless, as they are manifestations in a divine realm, for which we as humans are unequiped to understand.
I appreciate this and am happy to try to find a way through here. Perhaps if you were to define your use of the word? We might find there is not much difference in our understanding of the underlying issues, but that I use the word in an unconventional sense.
Are you familiar with Aristotle's cosmological argument? This is the argument which is used to refute both materialism and Platonic realism, and give intelligibility to "outside time", "eternal". First we might look at the nature of sensible, or material objects and see that the potential for the object is prior in time to the actual existence of the object. In later philosophy material existence is called contingent existence. Prior to the existence of the a material thing there is the potential for it, but its actual existence is contingent on the appropriate cause, or causes. However, Aristotle argues that potential cannot be prior in an absolute sense, because if the potential for existence was prior to all actual existence, there would be nothing to act as a cause, to actualize that potential, and there would be forever, for an infinite amount of time, pure potential without any actual existence. Since we do have actual existence right now, he excludes this eternal potential as impossible, and concludes that anything eternal must be actual.
Platonism is excluded when he argues that ideas are actualize by the human mind which discovers them. Ideas are given actual existence by the human mind, and if they exist prior to being discovered they must exist as potential. But the cosmological argument, above, denies the possibility of eternal potential. Therefore ideas cannot be eternal. So now we are left with very little guidance as to how to comprehend that actuality which is necessarily prior to the actual existence of material objects. The common notion of "time" is to understand it as a feature of the changing material world. Therefore the actuality which is prior to the material world must be "outside time", eternal.
For me, this creates a problem in understanding this "actuality". If it is truly actual, therefore active, then we must allow for some sort of time to account for this activity. This implies that the common notion of "time", which ties time to material existence, is incorrect, and must be adjusted to allow for this time in which the supposed eternal actuality is active, prior to material existence. Once the concept of time is adjusted, then the so-called eternal actuality can be brought into relationship with material actualities so that this actuality is no longer "outside time".
Quoting Punshhh
OK, so it's a sort of analogy?
Quoting Punshhh
I see that there is a sort of understanding possible through comparison or analogy. The parts of the higher three can be compared to the parts of the lower three. This is similar to what Augustine does with Plato's tripartite soul. In Plato's trinity there is body and mind, with spirit or passion as the intermediary. Then Augustine takes the mind itself and divides it three ways as memory, reason, and will. So memory in Augustine's trinity is comparable to body in Plato's. Reason is comparable to Plato's mind. And will is comparable to spirit. So we have the same type of tripartite division, but at a different level.
You see I had already arrived at these conclusions before I encountered academic philosophy, so it is more a case of marrying up academic philosophy with my own philosophy, (or more correctly a marriage of theosophy with Hinduism).
Yes, which is why I said before that our material world is a construct, conceived by, constructed by, maintained by and animated by a being who is a priori, external to this world.
The way I view it is that divine beings came up with a system of generating a realm of manifestation, a place of extension, of extension of space and time, spacetime. As this extends the space inflates along with the window of time, like blowing bubbles. Or as the Hindu's describe it spun from the tips of Ishvara's fingers like silk, creating the fabric of our world.
This spinning is similar by analogy to the spinning generated by gravity around a black hole, or worm hole. I like to imagine a way in which each atom in our world is held and maintained on a thread of silk from its own point of connection with eternity. So eternity is actual, active, imminent via every atom and vibrationally expressed through the energy between them. But that we do not have apprehension of this reality because we are still in the early stages of embryonic development.
So the mystic is concerned with the practice of developing this embryonic development within themselves.
Yes, very much so, there is a correspondence between the higher and lower. Which is understandable, as we are told we are made in the image of God. We are baby gods, I suppose.
For the reasons alluded to in my last post, and mentioned earlier in the thread, I really think it is necessary to separate space and time conceptually. Space is the primary concept by which we measure material things, sensible things. Principally, this is geometry. The problem described in the last post is that there is an actuality which is prior to the existence of material things. Since space is a concept used for measuring material things, and this activity does not involve material things, being prior to them, we have no reason to believe that space is an applicable concept when we are speaking about this activity which is prior to material existence. Time is the primary concept by which we measure activity. So we must unchain the concept of time from the material world, such that we can apply it to the activity of the eternal, which for now is outside of time because the currently applied concept of time is tied to the spatial activity of material things.
Remember the principle we agreed upon earlier, that the entire material world must be created anew at each passing moment. So if there is a bubble which is blown at each moment (to use your analogy), each of these bubbles must expand from nothing, or near nothing, to extremely big, in a time period which is so short that we do not even notice it. This would be space itself expanding at an extremely fast rate, at each moment, in order to present us with what we see as spatial distance. Our conceptions of space do not allow for anything like this, having been derived from the illusion of continuity of spatial existence and distances, rather than from this idea, that spatial existence must be recreated (therefore expanded from near nothing), at each moment.
This is why I was unhappy with your use of "body", which to me implies a material form, whereas western mysticism, such as Neo-Platonism has turned to a hierarchy of immaterial Forms which are separate, free from bodies. The immaterial Forms have providence over the changing material forms, bodies, which we may observe.
Suppose a material body consists of parts, and each part could be considered as a material body itself. Each little part, as a body itself, must have an immaterial Form which governs its continued existence through temporal extension. But a bigger body, a unity of which the smaller body is just a part, requires a Form with more governing capacity then the smaller one, because it also exercises some control over the smaller body, robbing the smaller body's Form of some degree of freedom by virtue of the smaller body being within the unity of the larger. So the Neo-Platonists start with the One, which would be the Form that corresponds with the entire universe, and they proceed from there. A Christian theologian such as Aquinas would start with God, as the One, and have a hierarchy of angels, each exercising providence over a lessor massive body.
Quoting Punshhh
I think that's a good way of putting it.
Also, as I said initially the mysticism of the creation and maintaining of the physical world is complex with some deep mysteries and spiritual cosmology which will probably be difficult to correlate with metaphysics. It would be better to stick to the more obvious correlations around being and what Mystics are actually concerned with, as the physical world is regarded merely as a tool for the development of the expression of being.
If you insist on delving into the creation of physical matter and it's attendant time we can go there, but I expect we will quite rapidly hit an impasse. However provided when the impasse is reached we can get back to the topic in hand then that's ok with me.
But surely the prior state is external to (separate from) the physical universe we are discussing. So it can have its own separate space? Remember I said the physical world we find ourselves in is a construct. So the prior actual, genuinely real state then constructed an artificial world which isn't real in the same, actual, way, which is the our physical world*.
Ok, that's fine and how does that look?
I don't see it that way myself, but I am happy to go with that concept and see where it leads.
My bubble analogy was for the creation of the physical world, not its maintenance. Although I am happy to look at the idea of it renewing every moment for now, as I said.
Well this would not be an issue provided the recreation occurred at the level of the sub atomic particle, temporally on the Planck scale.
For me all is material, but this is not the material known to science, or philosophy, but rather a constellation of subtle bodies. The only physical material in this schema is on the physical plane. So if by immaterial, we can agree on some kind of subtle body, immaterial in terms of any material we are aware of, then that's fine. I can also go along with immaterial too, but at some point I would ask the nature of these immaterial forms and how they become expressed in worlds of material.
Yes, for me these forms are subtle bodies, there are numerous kinds of subtle bodies, or ethers (ethereal bodies).
Yes, the mystic is practicing activities tailored to their individual spiritual development, directed by the intuition.
*remember Ishvara spun the physical world from his fingertips. This is alluding to artifice, composition, weaving.
Maybe this is evidence of that difference between metaphysics and mysticism which you have been describing. Metaphysics, in the tradition of philosophy involves the desire to know. As I explained in the prior post, the reason for separating space from time is to bring the eternal, or what you called eternity, into the realm of intelligible. What separates the forms which we know and sense, from the Forms of eternity, is matter. So we have to get through matter in one way or another if we want to properly understand the existence of the divine, immaterial Forms.
Perhaps the mystic is satisfied with simply coming into contact with the divine, and does not feel the need to understand this realm. In metaphysics there has been proposed a division between aesthetics and ethics. This division is consistent with the division of passive and active. One might passively enjoy the beauty of the natural world, up to and including the divine reality, without any desire to act. But the nature of the human being, as I described earlier is to be inclined to act. So one can only enjoy the aesthetic beauty for so long without feeling the need to act. When we go to act, we want to understand what we are doing, and why we are doing it, and this makes us consider purpose and therefore ethics. We need to bridge that gap between the passive enjoyment of the divine beauty (aesthetics), and the ethical principles which guide us in our actions. This means that we need to understand what it means to act, and this includes all forms of activity, including that divine activity which is prior to material existence (the eternal). And since space is a concept based in observations of material existence, we must allow a conception of time which is free from space, in order to understand this activity, which is necessary for an inclusive ethics..
Quoting Punshhh
If there is space in this eternal realm, we have no reason to believe that it is in any way even similar to the space we are familiar with. The logic which has been used by the metaphysicians before us has directed us toward the actuality or activity of that eternal realm. And "act" is a temporal term. As an example, consider the ancient distinction between locomotion (change of place), and simple change (when a thing changes due to differences within. Change of place requires a conception of space to understand it. But change within a thing only requires the capacity to describe a thing's properties or qualities.
As you describe, the external world, which is our physical world, isn't real or genuine. But our conceptions of space are validated by observations of this artificial world. This makes our conceptions of space inadequate in the first place. Furthermore, our conceptions of time are derived from, and dependent on these conceptions of space. But we see that the internal is much closer to the real, so the internal activity, internal changes, are the activities which the concept of time ought to be based in, not conceptions of space. The internal time is based in the distinction between past and future, not in spatial relations.
Quoting Punshhh
It seems like I need to ask what you mean by a "plane". I take "plane" as a spatial term, it signifies two dimensions. Two dimensions puts us somewhere in between non-dimensional, and the classic three dimensional space. No body, no matter, can exist on a plane, being just two dimensional.. This is one of the difficulties with spatial concepts. We construct spatial concepts through the addition of multiple dimensions. But in reality, when a body, a material object, comes into existence, it must partake in all three spatial dimensions. Further, there is a certain incompatibility between different dimensions, as demonstrated by the irrational nature of the diagonal of a square, and pi. So it seems to me that to say that this type of body is on this plane, and another type on another plane, would create a certain incommensurability between these different types of bodies.
Quoting Punshhh
This is the opposite of what I described, and is the key principle of Plato's cave allegory. In reality, the material world is an expression of the immaterial Forms.
Quoting Punshhh
So the question then is are these kinds of bodies separated by planes of existence such that there would be no commensurability between them? In other words, would these different types of bodies each need to be measured by different principles. If so, do you think that an adequate conception of time could establish a relation between them?
Yes I would agree with this, I would be interested in what metaphysics can say about this?
I would disagree with this from the point of view of a mystic, although I recognise the need for the mystic to want, to have the desire, to embark on the mystical path. Once on the path, the intellectual direction of one's actions are seeded to the higher self via the intuition to a degree.
I don't see the requirement for a knowledge of an intellectual understanding of ethics in this endeavour, although I am interested in the role this will play, please continue.
I follow you, although it would be useful to take a look at this distinction you make between past and future, and possibly the present again?
Regarding planes, we all understand what the physical plane is, it is not restricted to two dimensions. As we experience it there are a minimum of 3 dimensions. Perhaps if I were to substitute the word, realm, for plane that would give a better idea. So the mental plane is a realm in which mental stuff is the equivalent of physical material on the physical plane. So a being on that plane would be expressed through a mental body, or vehicle, but instead of emotion would have Atman* (Bhuddi) and except for mind would have Monadic consciousness.
but the planes are like nodes on a scale of frequency, the higher planes being at a higher frequency. We only hear sounds within the range of frequency that our ears are attuned to detect. All the other frequencies are present, but we can't detect them. Through incarnation a being becomes embedded in a plane of activity and is able to detect what the apparatus which naturally occur on that plane, in reference to the being in question, detects. Were that being to be more developed, she might detect higher frequency notes due to having a suitable apparatus. Mystical practice is about developing and using this apparatus for some kind of constructive purpose.
Substitute subtle (can be undefined) for immaterial and we are in agreement.
Well they would all be bound to an extent to the time, the present of our world, certainly if part of our being. I think if there were a disconnect in time it would be between the lower three and the higher three. Although I see no reason to regard them as not present in the same moment of time.
* I put Bhuddi because some theosophists use different terminology for the planes and Bhuddi can be seen as equivalent to the consciousness of the Bhudda for example.