That's exactly what blessed Ruysbroek says. He puts a check on himself referring to church's authority. What's your reaction? I personally prefer uninhibited individual quest.
That's why a female mystic like Hadewijch is both literarily and mystically speaking more interesting than Ruusbroec. In fact Ruusbroec adopted several of her ideas without attribution, but that aside.
This thread won't carry too far. It's impossible that anyone will be interested. Actually, now that I answer here, it's already more popular than my topic on Manjaro Netbook Edition. Amazing.
Anyway, to the topic. Apart from my disbelief that you have any genuine appreciation for mystical literature, Frenzie, I have other disagreements too. Among mystics, it's not considered a great sin to borrow concepts without attribution. This is firstly because it's the communication of the experience that matters, not the concepts. The communication is not about concepts, but about the experience, yet the communication necessarily occurs by means of concepts. Instead of reinventing the wheel, it's common sense to make use of pre-existing concepts that have proven workable before.
Secondly, devout mystics view their experience as one, even across religious divisions. This necessarily unifies the language too.
Thirdly, Ruysbroek was not a formal scholar, so the conventions applicable to academia did not bind him.
And lastly, even without attribution, he was distributing Hadewijch's concepts after all. I'm sure she's modest, forgiving, and silently grateful.
I actually meant to pique your interest, not to admonish the man.
Maybe you meant "pick" instead of "pique". Anyway, it worked. Here's a rational defence for mysticism, as brief as I can muster.
The external empirical world is perceived by means of the senses. The ordinary five senses present us with the ordinary three-dimensional picture of the world. This picture of the world is kept in the mind and the mind can make further operations with the picture, extrapolate based on sense-data, infer beyond sense-data, etc. For example time is the fourth physical dimension inferred by the mind from changes that occur in sense-data. The existence of the mind itself can also be inferred from the individual internal observation of the treatment of one's own picture of the world, observation of the operations of one's own senses and observation of self-directed changes in one's own psychology.
The empirical sense-data is apprehended by the senses, the logical truths by the mind or intellect. All this makes up the ordinary universe or the undeniable so-called reality. None of this - sense-data and the senses, logical truths and the mind - can be rationally excluded from the ontological picture. If any of these elements is missing from the ontological picture, any talk about epistemology is futile.
The senses work by means of contact with their objects (sense-data). This is called perception. The mind, tentatively for the lack of better explanation, can be said to work the same way: Intellect perceives or has contact with its objects. The mind is the internal organ that as if perceives the objects of intellect (or mental objects), similarly as the five senses perceive each their own objects. The similarity is analogical though, not univocal. Different from sense-data, the objects of intellect are not three-dimensional, but they exist as undeniably as empirical objects. For example time is not part of the three-dimensional world - it's its fourth dimension - and not perceptible by any of the ordinary five senses, but it's easily apprehended by the mind as an irreducible part of our ontological picture of the universe.
The above analysis supports the conclusion that philosophical metaphysical logical truths (correct inferences) trump empirical sense-data - and this is how it should be. These two, logical truths on one hand and empirical sense-data on the other, have a hierarchical order, the former taking priority over the latter. One of the immediate corollaries to this conclusion is that humans should rein in their senses by means of the mind or intellect. First think, then act. This is a basic tenet of ethics and morality. Insistence to prioritise the senses over intellect has had and always will have disastrous consequences.
This priority or hierarchy does not only apply to the individual psychology. It's not merely a psychologically useful consideration, it's not merely a metaphysical construct for intellectual amusement - it's an ontological fact. Again, time serves as the example that what the ontological materialist would wish to dismiss as a mere mind-construct can in fact be a correct inference to a necessary truth, i.e. apprehension of an essentially real object in that sense. Hence the mind-matter hierarchy applies to the whole universe, not only to human individuals.
Now a further inference. Matter is real. The senses and sense-data are real. The mind, intellect, and their objects are also real, and they have priority over the senses, sense-data and matter. Is this all there is to the ontological picture of the universe? The answer of the mystics is that there's another ontological layer of as-if objects and that there's another as-if internal organ that apprehends that layer. Moreover, that next internal organ - let's call it the mystical organ - has similarly crucial priority over the mind as the mind has over the senses. As an aside, the ethical corollary at this stage becomes: Obey your conscience! (Conscience is a function of that organ. Just take my word for it for now.)
This inference is a valid logical deduction. The insight into the actual truth of this inference, the perception of its reality is reserved for those who have awakened the mystical organ to apprehend the corresponding layer. Since this ontology is hierarchical, it's indispensable to awaken the mind first, affirm the reality of intellect and its objects and learn to apprehend them, and then some day the time will come for the mystical organ to be illumined too - the obstacles must be cleared away so the light can shine through. Those without the mystical organ, much more those with untrained intellect, have nothing valid to say about these things. It's quite understandable that they deny these insights, because they don't have the appropriate organ to apprehend them, but it should be equally understandable that an argument from ignorance is fallacious. The same way as the colour-blind don't have much interesting to say about colours, those who deny the reality of the mind have nothing valid to say about the laws of reasoning, and those without conscience have no say on ethics.
Maybe you meant "pick" instead of "pique".
I most certainly meant "pique". To be precise, I meant to pique your interest in reading Hadewijch if you like Ruusbroec.
Yeah, I know the word "pique". I tend to associate it with the meaning "pick on someone" :)
Sure, you could be piqued that I tried to pique your interest and that wouldn't be a good thing. But it's a fairly regular expression, although you'll find plenty of people online who don't know how to spell it. So if you ever see someone talking about peeking or peaking someone's interest, you'll know what they mean. :P
Sure, you could be piqued that I tried to pique your interest and that wouldn't be a good thing. But it's a fairly regular expression, although you'll find plenty of people online who don't know how to spell it. So if you ever see someone talking about peeking or peaking someone's interest, you'll know what they mean. :P
Especially native speakers :right:
Insistence to prioritise the senses over intellect has had and always will have disastrous consequences.
If I think about getting out of the way of a speeding bus instead of just believing my eyes and moving, the consequences could be more than just disastrous.
The answer of the mystics is that there's another ontological layer of as-if objects and that there's another as-if internal organ that apprehends that layer. Moreover, that next internal organ - let's call it the mystical organ - has similarly crucial priority over the mind as the mind has over the senses. As an aside, the ethical corollary at this stage becomes: Obey your conscience! (Conscience is a function of that organ. Just take my word for it for now.)
This inference is a valid logical deduction. The insight into the actual truth of this inference, the perception of its reality is reserved for those who have awakened the mystical organ to apprehend the corresponding layer. Since this ontology is hierarchical, it's indispensable to awaken the mind first, affirm the reality of intellect and its objects and learn to apprehend them, and then some day the time will come for the mystical organ to be illumined too - the obstacles must be cleared away so the light can shine through. Those without the mystical organ, much more those with untrained intellect, have nothing valid to say about these things. It's quite understandable that they deny these insights, because they don't have the appropriate organ to apprehend them, but it should be equally understandable that an argument from ignorance is fallacious. The same way as the colour-blind don't have much interesting to say about colours, those who deny the reality of the mind have nothing valid to say about the laws of reasoning, and those without conscience have no say on ethics.
How can a logical person take so much 'as-if' stuff as factual reality. All of what you say could be true, but don't you see that there are then an infinite number of such things that you can believe in if you convince yourself there is a hint of logic in it? You are taking one maybe (as-if objects), based on another maybe (as-if organ), and saying that's how it's logical ("This inference is a valid logical deduction")--which is the antithesis of being logical.
Maybe believing this kind of stuff is recreational for you, in which case, knock yourself out, but don't pawn it off here as reality--it makes you look like you've missed taking your medication or something. I'm quite serious, this could be the onset of delusions because there is no intellectual logic coming from a man who claims to be the epitome of logic and intellect. (I'm sure you'll say it's because I don't have an 'as-if' spleen or something.)
How does materialism accommodate the existence of qualia? How is the interaction problem a problem for Cartesian dualism? Is the contents of the mind a reflection from the world or is the world a projection from the mind? Does the answer to the easy problem of consciousness also answer the hard problem? Is "What is the meaning of life?" a scientifically meaningful question? Do you have answers, James?
Here's an easy one: What is the physical nature of time?
You should stay away from this thread. It's bad for your spleen, liver, parasympathetic nervous system, etc. And I don't mean no as if.
Is "What is the meaning of life?" a scientifically meaningful question? Do you have answers, James?
If you're asking 'Is there an ultimate purpose for our existence?', the answer is no. We are a random but inevitable by-product of energy and the laws of physics that govern this universe--we couldn't help but be any more than our sun could. Nature instilled in us the wish to survive and reproduce and not much else, however, even as a lifeform we (including our minds), still have an umbilical cord attachment to the laws of physics just like everything else. It comes as rather a shock to us that we might not have free will, especially for those of us with the biggest egos, but the only way we could possibly have free will is if another force is at work in the universe, but that just leads us back to God and the supernatural which science has shown couldn't possibly exist. Free will is the biggest and best con job ever!
I only have a personally perceived meaning of life for myself and it is necessarily different from anyone else's.
I only have a personally perceived meaning of life for myself and it is necessarily different from anyone else's.
Nice of you to acknowledge that your answer is not applicable anywhere beyond yourself and that you are a humble modest man with the smallest ego, with no need for God, with no claim to superiority of your views about science, and that your act of typing is just a con job each and every time. That's all very nice.
Edit: And thanks for sharing your impressions on the book by Hawking and Mlodinow. It's a flawed book philosophically (not just my opinion), but nice that you are enjoying it. Probably it's bad due to Mlodinow, because A Brief History of Time, authored by Hawking alone, was philosophically sound. It's always nice to share our impressions. That's how the world works.
As for mysticism, as a modest man with no claim to knowledge, you may want to inform yourself about it cautiously. Mysticism has always been part of Christianity, ever since the Desert Fathers effectively formulated Christian practices, so I don't even have to recommend anything directly, you can find stuff for yourself. In Islam, it took Al-Ghazali's authority to accommodate Sufism into Islamic orthodoxy. That's a start. But a further warning is in order: It's bad for your sex life too.
Quine's
Two Dogmas of Empiricism should be required reading, for everybody… :)
[…] the only way we could possibly have free will is if another force is at work in the universe, but that just leads us back to God and the supernatural which science has shown couldn't possibly exist.
Your argument is flawed,
James:
First, because its (unstated) crucial premise is not unassailable. To wit, absolute determinism is not something that can be shown to be true by science… Nor by logic!
But also because the existence of "another force" is both possible and not necessarily "super-natural" — put differently, science has not ended yet!
An interesting book I'd recommend is Julian Jaynes'
The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. (See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)) for a taste.)
While I have no great taste for mystical "explanation," the history of Man's various belief systems requires more explanation than "primitive" guesses or psychopathology. No?
————————————————————
Actually (sort-of) on topic: <a href="http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf14_16/pdf/1967/ICS/01Mar67/10456484.pdf?EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80Sep7c4yOvsOLCmr0yep69Ssqa4SLCWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGrr0qwrrRJuePfgeyx43zx1%2B6B&T=P&P=AN&S=R&D=sih&K=10456484">Here[/url]'s a readable pdf of Francis L. K. Hsu's "Christianity and the Anthropologist", a short article that sheds some light on the mystic impulse — and the various reactions to it!
An interesting book I'd recommend is Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
A very plausible theory actually. Environmental stressors trigger adaptation in all species of course and with humans, our brains have been shown before to be rapidly adaptive. The last ice age triggered hominid brains to grow by 300% in a relatively short evolutionary time span in order to survive during those harsh times. A bicameral mind prior to the time period circa 2000 BC explains a lot about how the idea of gods and religion may have arisen. Moreover, it is a tribute to the industrial machine that religion became that it has lasted into today's modern technological world.
(Anybody else experiencing problems with pop up advertising sites here?)
(Anybody else experiencing problems with pop up advertising sites here?)
No. There's no ads on here.
(Anybody else experiencing problems with pop up advertising sites here?)
You might want to take a closer look at your extensions?
(Anybody else experiencing problems with pop up advertising sites here?)
No. There's no ads on here.
And if there were, they certainly wouldn't be pop-ups. :insane:
You might want to take a closer look at your extensions?
That's the 1st place I looked and I see nothing new in my programs either. There is an empty ad box at the top of each screen here (and only here), that says 'Ads by OffersWizard'. I'll just keep looking.
You best check for malware I think.
See this Remove OffersWizard ads (Virus Removal Guide) (http://malwaretips.com/blogs/offerswizard-removal/) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Link.gif)
You best check for malware I think.
Thank you kindly sir. I thought the 'Network System Driver' addition to my programs looked suspicious, but I had a virus removal tool searching my system. I can shut it off now that I have removed that adware, thanks again.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/ThumbGood2.gif)
An interesting book I'd recommend is Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. (See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)) for a taste.)
Bullshit. The right hemisphere gives orders to the left hemisphere, the poor savage listens to voices into his head and starts running to create gods.
Never heard such an imbecility.
There were extremely important physiological changes, that still are to explain, and were decisive for mankind evolution as for example the moment women started to be sexually available all time instead just at a narrow period of time as it happens with all female animals.
Not needing to constantly fight between themselves for the few available females men could start occupying with other things. Including stable social organization that leads directly to after life concerns.
It happened, at least, 100,000 years ago.
It happened, at least, 100,000 years ago.
Your evidence for this is…what? :)
Adding sound to movies would be like putting lipstick on the Venus de Milo - Mary Pickford.
Or arms, Mary?
People often have peculiar and quite visceral reactions to new ideas. I can readily understand your being unconvinced by a mere gloss of Jaynes' thesis. But saying Bullshit, followed by "Never heard such an imbecility" hardly qualifies as a rebuttal to his arguments.
It must be the proposed origin of god-talk that offends you, and makes you so unreceptive to what, after all, is an empirical question.
(BTW: I think you misunderstand that proposed origin story's import…)
As I said above (to
James, mind you!) — While I have no great taste for mystical "explanation," the history of Man's various belief systems requires more explanation than "primitive" guesses or psychopathology. No?
If you prefer an actual God, you still have to explain the great variety of extent and long-gone beliefs, and haphazard attitudes to many of them…
Or maybe not: You might just ignore what aggravates you. All
Just So stories are not created equal!
Your evidence for this is…what? :)
Burials with flowers. Think about it. :)
People often have peculiar and quite visceral reactions to new ideas. I can readily understand your being unconvinced by a mere gloss of Jaynes' thesis. But saying Bullshit! followed by "Never heard such an imbecility" hardly qualifies as a rebuttal to his arguments.
It must be the proposed origin of gods that offends you, and makes you so unreceptive to what, after all, is an empirical question.
Nope, not at all.
I tell you what can only trigger the kind or reaction you saw, the 3000 years ago together with the childish approach.
If an evolution of conscience is to be connected with religious concerns then we have to go much much earlier when, eventually, men had the so called "pre-logic" mentality meaning the incapacity for creating abstract concepts of definitions. (I suppose that at Anglo Saxon cultures you have a different term than pre-logic, I don't remember it).
There was no concept of "tree" but the conscience of that particular tree, that one, that other one, etc. So goes for rivers, mountains or whatever.
But even so and admitting that men passed by such a phase, which is not a certain thing at all, we could barely "explain" but a rudimentary and embryonic form of proto-paganism, basically an expression of fear from nature, nothing a bit more elaborated that we could call religion.
..................................
(I have misunderstand nothing, you'll agree that my vivid reaction gave a lot of realm to an otherwise too subtle criticism of yours... who cares about psychopathology? :) )
If an evolution of conscience is to be connected with religious concerns then we have to go much much earlier when, eventually, men had the so called "pre-logic" mentality meaning the incapacity for creating abstract concepts of definitions. (I suppose that at Anglo Saxon cultures you have a different term than pre-logic, I don't remember it).
I presume you're talking about archaic-primitive cultures with their logic of ambiguity (a can also be -a). I too don't know what it's called in English.
I presume you're talking about archaic-primitive cultures with their logic of ambiguity (a can also be -a). I too don't know what it's called in English.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=407.24;msg=22233)
Yes Frenzie, but not just that. They weren't able of mentally "extracting" from each exemplar they saw the characteristics that allows to define the togetherness of those particular exemplars as a concept.
Each tree was an entity. They couldn't use the sum of characteristic that we can analyze almost all trees have : a general common shape, being green, not moving, having roots, etc that allows us to communicate between each other in abstract way about "trees".
It leads to what you say, something could perfectly be a and -a.
Burials with flowers. Think about it.
Pretty vague, even for you… (But it's likely just a sexist joke? :) )
If an evolution of conscience is to be connected with religious concerns then we have to go much much earlier when, eventually, men had the so called "pre-logic" mentality meaning the incapacity for creating abstract concepts of definitions.
I presume you meant "consciousness" and not "conscience"? But I take your meaning:
pre-archaic,
archaic-paralogical and
paralogical-logical (as Campbell's Psychiatric Dictionary has it).
Such hardly seems supportable on the basis of extant writing… (And ethnographys are too fanciful to permit such a conflation of "modern"
primatives with proto-humans.) So again I ask:
How did you reach your conclusion?
———————————
p.s.,
who cares about psychopathology? James (and other militant atheists) would!
And, apparently, you too… The amount of Freudian bunkum found in early anthropological works is unbelievable.
Pretty vague, even for you… (But it's likely just a sexist joke? :) )
No, not a joke, I mean it.
If you put flowers at burial sites it means:
a) the dead person is not just a reproducing partner but a beloved one. Emotions.
b) you believe in afterlife. Soul.
c) you want it to be beautiful. Aesthetics.
Emotions, Soul and Aesthetics - you're knocking at God's door.
I presume you meant "consciousness" and not "conscience"? But I take your meaning: pre-archaic, archaic-paralogical and paralogical-logical (as Campbell's Psychiatric Dictionary has it).
Such hardly seems supportable on the basis of extant writing… (And ethnographys are too fanciful to permit such a conflation of "modern" primatives with proto-humans.) So again I ask:
How did you reach your conclusion?
Yes, consciousness. Sometimes I translate into English in a very direct way. (
Consciência - Conscience. I viscerally fight the need to adding "ness" to everything.)
You'll pardon my liberality while speaking English. :)
What conclusion? that "your" psychologist is a kind of
psychology creationist? :)
Extant writing? Well, you can read "my" theory at "Man - The Imperial Animal" by Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox.
It's a much more juicy book than the one from the guy who believes Man's intellect to appeared three thousand years ago and would be my recommendation for everybody to read about Man's evolution.
A bit revolutionary too as everything should be.
The amount of Freudian bunkum found in early anthropological works is unbelievable.
That's exactly why I've raised so many objections at my previous posts - If, admitting, it remains to be seen, etc...
I entirely agree with you that Anthropology (as well as Ethnography) used to be a field mined by Freudian (and leftist) hallucinations.
If you put flowers at burial sites it means:
a) the dead person is not just a reproducing partner but a beloved one. Emotions.
b) you believe in afterlife. Soul.
c) you want it to be beautiful. Aesthetics.
Emotions, Soul and Aesthetics - you're knocking at God's door.
None of these are precluded by Jaynes' thesis… Presumably, some or all are beyond the pre-logicals of armchair archeologists? (Again, I don't accept the psychologizing from early ethnographers as an unimpeachable technique.)
By "extant writing" I meant the writing of the subjects whose mental history is being explored… For obvious reasons, non-literate societies can't really offer much in the way of such opportunity!
Have you read Duran Bell's "Bands, Fertility and the Social Organization of Early Humans"? (pdf (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economics.uci.edu%2F~dbell%2Fbands.pdf&ei=_Y-lU8XyFJLooAStk4KgBQ&usg=AFQjCNFYBN2Pt2dJB5rmPlCym-AX0poSnA&sig2=9NXLU_k6WY_3xNaEl4YHvQ&bvm=bv.69411363,d.cGU), not the greatest quality…some typos I suspect are due to OCR errors) Something to consider: Its quality of argument/evidence, compared with your "leisure" theory of religion… :)
Once again, I think you misconstrue the quality of mind Jaynes' bicameral thesis posits. By the same token, I think you too willingly accept the characterization of modern primitives as "pre-logic" — in your sense.
——————————————
About your "liberality" when speaking English: It's not a problem for me. If I'm unsure of your usage, I can always ask… :)
Have you read Duran Bell's "Bands, Fertility and the Social Organization of Early Humans"? (pdf (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economics.uci.edu%2F~dbell%2Fbands.pdf&ei=_Y-lU8XyFJLooAStk4KgBQ&usg=AFQjCNFYBN2Pt2dJB5rmPlCym-AX0poSnA&sig2=9NXLU_k6WY_3xNaEl4YHvQ&bvm=bv.69411363,d.cGU), not the greatest quality…some typos I suspect are due to OCR errors) Something to consider: Its quality of argument/evidence, compared with your "leisure" theory of religion…
Now I have, thank you.
So, it's "quality" versus mine... well "relaxed" or "leisure" approach as you say.
Unfortunately I see no quality of argument/evidence anywhere from the the first word to the last one. Concluding from today hunter gatherers, that lives with low resources and acts accordingly, that, in the past, probably people lived differently and questioning the social form of bands in exchange for something he confesses not to have any idea about it, is not the idea of quality of argument/evidence around my part of the world.
As for my defense, besides asking for your mercy, I only would remember that this a forum. A relaxed, leisure, kind of forum. :)
You say white, I say black, you say black I say white. How things really are it's irrelevant in this place of magic. Besides, probably everything is just boring gray...
Making people to smile is enough recompense and your arguments certainly can do it.
Hm. You perhaps recall my many mentions of Jaynses' book at MyOpera? No matter. Suffice to say, I always claimed that its thesis was so intriguing that I preferred it — even though it likely wasn't true… :)
Sigh. It turns out that Jaynses' ideas have had fairly recent confirmation of sorts. A philosopher can't even have his Just So stories anymore! :)
Unfortunately I see no quality of argument/evidence anywhere from the the first word to the last one.
(Sorry to go this far back: But the site is, for me, too quiet… :) And you said something interesting here that I didn't notice at first.) While I'll admit that the style is turgid —quite typical in academic venues— it can be read with profit, if one has acquired the knack.
(You might say the same about European or Iberian Idealisms… No? :) )
First, you must understand that the author bemoans the influence of unsupportable biases, on the basis of
ethnographical studies… The author is more an ethologist, taking his cues from animals of all sorts, not just humans; and interested in particular behaviors. (So, BTW, was Jaynes… But that's another argument!) And he reasons from Darwinian Fitness considerations to a rejection of the particular bias which posits "bands" as the primary organizational model of early human populations… Along the way, he shows why "bands" do come into existence and why they persist, citing historical examples. Then, he diverts us with a seemingly irrelevant discussion of a fairly common practice; and attempts to explain it in terms of ecological considerations — pertinent to the mode of social organization known as "bands". Finally, he ties it all up with an argument that he thinks is consistent with Darwinian Fitness, as a determinant factor in early human social evolution…that relegates "bands" -properly understood- as an adaptation to marginal circumstances, and certainly not a common one [if the growth of early human populations is to be explained].
I suspect you just didn't appreciate the "bands" posit -as the most likely organizational mode of early humanity- and its
basis [perverse popularity among non-evolutionist anthropologists — essentially, sociologists pretending to be scientists]. In the author's defense, it's
his field that is hijacked by this biased view…
The author is more an ethologist, taking his cues from animals of all sorts, not just humans; and interested in particular behaviors.
Ethology can only be considered a
social science with all the precautions of this world.
Probably, it's better not to do it and let it be just what it is, zoology.
Finally, he ties it all up with an argument that he thinks is consistent with Darwinian Fitness, as a determinant factor in early human social evolution…that relegates "bands" -properly understood- as an adaptation to marginal circumstances, and certainly not a common one [if the growth of early human populations is to be explained].
That's the key point.
If not the marginal circumstances and everything would had been in a different way.... (that he obviously not even has a clue about what it could be.)
Wow, what a genius.
One can only think about "marginal" circumstances (low level of resources for example) as in comparison with today's higher levels. Marginal was the norm back then not the exception.
Besides, that's not pacific. You certainly know the "society of abundance" theory relating those times, no?
I suspect you just didn't appreciate the "bands" posit -as the most likely organizational mode of early humanity-
No no, not at all. I'm a bandist. :)
I repeat, if not bands then what else?
I just remind you that we need to find a way of fitting mysticism into the social organization of early humans in order to not diverge too much from topic. For now we are at a circular chain of reasoning that - we hope so - will make the trick. :)
One can only think about "marginal" circumstances (low level of resources for example) as in comparison with today's higher levels. Marginal was the norm back then not the exception.
Hence, modern hunter/gatherer bands must be just those who stuck to the ancient way of life? :)
First, to say that one can only think about "marginal" circumstances compared to today's levels is a drug-addled fantasy: Land not contested by others of one's kind or predators, no serious impediment to access to sufficient water and food sources, no armchair archeologists; such would qualify as an abundance! Any of these negatives might fail: which could understandably lead to a marginality of early human populations…
Since early human populations proliferated at a rate beyond that capable of populations dealing with marginal circumstances, those that became dominant -at least, numerically- were not dealing with marginal circumstances…
Since the "band" makes little (I'd agree with the author…) or no sense unless under persistent circumstances of regular and, often enough, extreme deprivation; social organizations of prolific populations had to have had a different form.
The posited
fertility-as-wealth factor is a reasonable candidate….
If,
Belfrager, you're confusing Bob [Zimmerman] Dylan's electric backup band with what Pleistocene populations might have had as social aggregations — I can't help you here! "He ain't heavy, he's my brother…"
If, Belfrager, you're confusing Bob [Zimmerman] Dylan's electric backup band with what Pleistocene populations might have had as social aggregations — I can't help you here! "He ain't heavy, he's my brother…"
Well, I'm sure that the only explanation for your insistence it's because you and the author you quoted keep ignoring:
a) what a band is and what the alternative would be;
b) the level of naturally available resources at those early times;
c) population density back then;
d) migrations and nomadism or semi nomadism;
e) archaeological evidence;
f) and probably using imaginary and absurd values of population growing rates that only happened much later with agriculture and sedentary - the beginning of the disaster.
what a band is and what the alternative would be
Let's start with this,
Bel, since it likely underlies our disagreement: What "social" organization do
you take a "band" to be?
Let's start with this, Bel, since it likely underlies our disagreement: What "social" organization do you take a "band" to be?
That would be hardly the reason of our disagreement since I'm using this (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/51381/band). You can't be using anything of substantially different in anthropology.
However I entirely disagree with the
egalitarian part.
band, in anthropology, a notional type of human social organization consisting of a small number of people (usually no more than 30 to 50 persons in all) who form a fluid, egalitarian community and cooperate in activities such as subsistence, security, ritual, and care for children and elders.
You have a "difficulty" with the egalitarian aspect (and for good reason!); I have a problem with the genesis and persistence of the co-operation named, and share your difficulty…
For some reason, we disagree. You do realize, my (acceptance of that paper's speculations) sense of 'band'
does include the
definition's 'fluid' nature of a band's composition… And its essential egalitarianism?
Hence, such groups would not likely had much effect upon the burgeoning early human populations.
burgeoning
Burgeoning? I love your English rococo style. :)
At least someone understands that form is so important as content.
Now, it seems that we both agree that Britannica Encyclopedia is not doing a good service to anthropology. Concepts as egalitarianism and fluidness can hardly be the most adequate characterization for early human bands.
(Have you seen the link for "difference between a band and a tribe"? it's even worst...)
Hence, such groups would not likely had much effect upon the burgeoning early human populations.
It's not the groups that have effect on demographical explosion rate but other factors that had effect on such groups, let's put that clear.
There's no doubt that such growing on human population never happened before the advent of
agriculture and
sedentary life. Those two are the factors that explains it and forget such demographic explosion with "bands" still around. It happened much later when we have already tribes, a much more complex system of social organization.
Another thing, human populations growth as well as social complexity are not universal things but rather localized and have coexisted for thousand of years, witch turns generalizations impossible. One must approach each region in particular.
Are you implying that Yoursticism is different from Mysticism?
The scale goes as:
Mysticism
Yoursticism
Histicism
Same authors insists in Oursticism but that doesn't exist.
One humbly begs ersi to provide an essentialist depiction of stricism… Failing that, Belfrager can circumscribe the eternal idea it instantiates.
Me, I just think we (certainly me, perhaps you…) routinely say more than we know, believe more than we can justify, and defend more than we have either belief or knowledge of. (These are best understood as being within the realm of psychology, no? :) )
Me, I just think we (certainly me, perhaps you…) routinely say more than we know, believe more than we can justify, and defend more than we have either belief or knowledge of.
It's a characteristic of human interaction, everybody needs to do that.
Without the more part everything would be very disappointing. :)
stricism?
Mysticism is what it is. It becomes yoursticism etc. only when you don't know what you are talking about, but you still keep talking.
There's this point that Sri Ramakrishna made: Some people believe in honey, some people talk about honey, but some people have tasted honey. The first kind of people are believers. The second kind are philosophers or theorisers. The third kind are mystics.
Ramakrishna didn't mention disbelievers or atheists. And he was being nice. It's not really kind to atheists to mention them, because by the measure of this analogy, atheists know least what they are talking about.
Some people believe in honey, some people talk about honey, but some people have tasted honey. The first kind of people are believers. The second kind are philosophers or theorisers. The third kind are mystics.
Ah! But the whole thing comes out somewhat differently if one substitutes "manna" for "honey"...
i dont give a shit about what people believe .
but , let's get this rational --> ( Warning : it's pain in ass and frustating )
if -- mahabharata was true and really existed
then let's just find Parashurama , and ask him about the World .
Afaik , he is immortal .
and live somewhere in earth until today .
please avoid something like : Nirvanna Fallacy
note : think irrational make us happier , think rational make us unhappier
--Choose your poison
please avoid something like : Nirvanna Fallacy
note : think irrational make us happier , think rational make us unhappier
--Choose your poison
Given that rationality is conducive to knowledge and irrationality destructive of knowledge, then, as you incline towards irrationality more and more, you know about happiness less and less. Granted, you will also know about unhappiness less and less.
If the aim is happiness, then rationality, even though it contributes to knowledge of unhappiness as well, is the better choice in case you also have the wisdom and will to discern between happiness and unhappiness and strike the balance between them which takes you straight to bliss and nirvana.
Oh, looks like I didn't manage to avoid the Nirvana Fallacy after all. What's my punishment, o mighty Sparta?
what is that happiness ?
The happiness of having attained the purpose of life. The preliminary steps of course are, firstly, to recognise that there is a purpose of life, and secondly, to figure out your own particular purpose. Happiness follows when you have it figured out. Then the only thing is to actualise it.
that's the explanation for the present .
or for the future ?
whatabout the definition of happy at this time , at this second ?
This answer is timeless, of course. But timeless answers are evidently not for you. Inquire the source that is for you.
you really have no idea if happy is emotion did't you ? :left:
You really have no idea of a holistic approach, do you?
Happiness is the state for all psychological functions, not only emotions. Emotional and intellectual happiness is merely obvious, not the only kind to be had. Spiritual happiness is most important, but in a holistic approach, happiness on every level is relevant.
That's exactly what blessed Ruysbroek says. He puts a check on himself referring to church's authority. What's your reaction? I personally prefer uninhibited individual quest.
That's why a female mystic like Hadewijch is both literarily and mystically speaking more interesting than Ruusbroec. In fact Ruusbroec adopted several of her ideas without attribution, but that aside.
Frenzie , is that Mysticim you are pointing about is something like ?
a religious practice based on the belief that knowledge of spiritual truth can be gained by praying or thinking deeply
Frenzie , is that Mysticim you are pointing about is something like ?
a religious practice based on the belief that knowledge of spiritual truth can be gained by praying or thinking deeply
I think that sounds more like a description of something akin to natural theology than of mysticism, but of course it's not like there's one mysticism or anything.
...but of course it's not like there's one mysticism or anything.
...regardless what actual mystics say, right?
pardon ...
may you describe that kind of mysticism ? :coffee:
I did. Read the fourth post in this thread (my second in this thread).
...but of course it's not like there's one mysticism or anything.
...regardless what actual mystics say, right?
That could be a perfectly sensible position. Of course, "actual mystics" have written plenty of heated polemics about how other mystics are wrong. But "regardless what actual mystics say," you might conclude that all of the different mysticisms are just making mountains out of molehills.
Frenzie , pardon my manner and compulsivity ..
i am not intend to poisoning the well ..
but , are you trying to describe mysticism ?
or social skills ?
i dont even try to prove if mysticism is wrong , really ..
it 's just kinda weird , and little straw man
but , are you trying to describe mysticism ?
or social skills ?
Neither, I was just pointing out that ersi's insinuation is both factually and epistemologically mistaken.
Mysticism in the broader sense means every experience in which the individual limitations are lifted and conjoined with the Other—or forgotten during some kind of transcendent nothingness. During such an experience there is no sense of the passing of time, combined with an intuitive knowledge and clarity. Once the experience subsides there is often a sense of depression at how horrible puny earthly life is.
Frenzie, if I'm mistaken, I can be proven wrong. Until then, consider that there are experts and laymen in this area, as in any area of inquiry. You have the fallacious tendency to assume that in some select disciplines expertise doesn't apply.
Now, your description is mistaken in a subtle way. And all your views about mysticism that stem from this description are consequently also mistaken.
There's no depression after the experience subsides. It's true that the physical or sensory world pales in and after the mystical experience, but the result is not depression with regard to the empirical world. The result is a perspective of transcendental reality. In the genuine mystical experience, the acquired transcendental perspective becomes the new psychological nature of the individual which overpowers any sense of depression or hopelessness. In fact, the loss of depression and gradually enhanced skills of individual stress management are some of the immediate tangible reasons to practise mysticism (such as meditation, concentration, contemplation) in the first place.
That's a lot of words to dress up the No True Scotsman fallacy in,
ersi! :)
if I'm mistaken, I can be proven wrong
Not if you keep your terms so vague that others cannot both understand you and disagree! (That
is your argument, isn't it?)
At "The problem with Atheism" thread, Ive been saying that we don't create we can only discover.
The Mystical experience is another form of discovering, as well as Reason or Arts.
Each way has it's own characteristics, but the Mystical experience differs from the other two at a very important factor, being totally personal and impossible of being transmitted to others. It escapes language, pictorial representation and comprehension.
Maybe we can consider the Mystical experience as the more intense, perhaps brutal, form of discovery.
It is done, not by the traditional approach of a subject that discovers an object that is discovered, but by fusion between the subject and the object. (subject and object at a gnoseological meaning evidently)
If people gets hot, cold, hungry or whatever I have no idea. It seems probable to me that the sensory frame set to suffer alterations.
If people gets hot, cold, hungry or whatever I have no idea.
This is what I take to be the main argument
contra such… I'd agree that there is no unassailable warrant; but, then, I long ago gave up the search for unassailable warrants.
Those who still want (! both senses !:
lack and
desire…) unassailable warrants
mystify me! (That is, I don't understand what they want (ask) of me. Is nodding my head whenever they speak sufficient? Repeating their particular verbal formulations? Giving them access to my bank accounts? :) ) Why are
my personal, eccentric pronouncements not given the primacy and potency of -say- Gautama? Because no statues of me exist?
(Had the Taliban had and used nuclear weapons, would there be no Buddha?)
Buddy Hackett went to Japan with the then-host of the Tonight Show, a variety/talk show on American (US) television, Jack Paar… They were scheduled to bathe in the communal baths and Paar pleaded with Hackett, "Please don't get naked in the bath…" Buddy promised he wouldn't.
He got naked in the elevator on its way to the baths! But the elevator had malfunctioned and returned them to the lobby.
Buddy, not perturbed, exited the elevator… He later remarked that the Japanese there mistook him for the Buddha! And, in a telling and consequential detail, said they tried to light incense in his navel!
Were they wrong? Had they lost the import of Gautama's teachings? Or was Buddy lying?
The last, I think! But it was funny…
Thus I express my dismay that a thread on Sense of Humor was locked! You all know why…
————————————
The Mystical experience is another form of discovering
Or as
Sparta so eloquently puts it:
BS!
That's a lot of words to dress up the No True Scotsman fallacy in, ersi! :)
Surely you can prove it. Go ahead. I don't care how many words you need for it. I will read.
if I'm mistaken, I can be proven wrong
Not if you keep your terms so vague that others cannot both understand you and disagree! (That is your argument, isn't it?)
I am all for further clarification. Ask and I always reply. The same cannot be said of you. I have patience for you, but at some point your irrelevance grows beyond a rational limit.
Surely you can prove it. Go ahead.
You basically claimed that any mystic that says something you disagree with can't really be a mystic
™… Isn't that the import of the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Surely you can prove it. Go ahead.
You basically claimed that any mystic that says something you disagree with can't really be a mystic™… Isn't that the import of the No True Scotsman fallacy?
That would be a fallacy, yes, but to prove the fallacy, you have to point to a mystic that disagrees with another mystic. And prior to this, you have to define mysticism to demonstrate your comprehension of it, and to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
All along, my I is irrelevant. Only truth matters.
PS My bad. I just remembered you already defined it as
BS. With this level of willingness to understand the topic, all your talk about any fallacies is moot, but I am ready to throw this point out as soon as your comprehension and attitude improve.
Mysticism in the broader sense means every experience in which the individual limitations are lifted
is this just my sceptical mind , or that was symptomp of psychopathy ?
--grandiose self perception, Psychopaths will often believe they are smarter or more powerful than they actually are
Frenzie, if I'm mistaken, I can be proven wrong. Until then, consider that there are experts and laymen in this area, as in any area of inquiry. You have the fallacious tendency to assume that in some select disciplines expertise doesn't apply.
So basically I have this odd tendency of looking at standard reference works written by laymen like Kurt Ruh (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Ruh) and Bernard McGinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_McGinn_(theologian)) instead of taking everything you say as gospel? :)
Now, your description is mistaken in a subtle way. And all your views about mysticism that stem from this description are consequently also mistaken.
I was momentarily wondering whether I might've left out a qualifier in my ad-hoc definition for Sparta's benefit, but I did indeed add "often." The experts I mentioned above (as well as e.g. this well-regarded lexicon (http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/dela012alge01_01/dela012alge01_01_02682.php); you can see its sources at the bottom) say that there often is some form of depression after a mystical experience because of how overwhelming it is. Besides which, even though I argued no such thing myself, you essentially just argued that mysticism with some form of depression following the experience is a different variety than mysticism without any depression.
is this just my sceptical mind , or that was symptomp of psychopathy ?
In Hildegard von Bingen's case, a popular theory is that her visions were caused by migraine bouts.
But –someone should add, quickly– that doesn't mean that her visions were meaningless, worthless or detrimental…
Frenzie, if I'm mistaken, I can be proven wrong. Until then, consider that there are experts and laymen in this area, as in any area of inquiry. You have the fallacious tendency to assume that in some select disciplines expertise doesn't apply.
So basically I have this odd tendency of looking at standard reference works written by laymen like Kurt Ruh (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Ruh) and Bernard McGinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_McGinn_(theologian)) instead of taking everything you say as gospel? :)
Thanks for the names, finally. They seem to be historians. Naturally you are free to choose your own gospel.
Your original contention was that there's no one mysticism. Of course when you look at historical lives of people and keep noting their peculiar differences, there's no one anything. No one history either. Didn't you at some point come close to saying that there's even no universal morality/ethics? (I'm quite sure you hold this but not sure if you straightforwardly said so.) So we are simply talking past each other due to diametrically opposed perspectives. Sorry for the mixup.
I was momentarily wondering whether I might've left out a qualifier in my ad-hoc definition for Sparta's benefit, but I did indeed add "often." The experts I mentioned above (as well as e.g. this well-regarded lexicon (http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/dela012alge01_01/dela012alge01_01_02682.php); you can see its sources at the bottom) say that there often is some form of depression after a mystical experience because of how overwhelming it is. Besides which, even though I argued no such thing myself, you essentially just argued that mysticism with some form of depression following the experience is a different variety than mysticism without any depression.
Indeed, from your point of view there can be a variety of mysticism with depression as well as without, but what if depression is plainly the wrong word to describe the return phase? If there's depression "often", why would anyone want to practise at all?
I'm not saying that depression doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't happen often, and it's definitely the wrong thing to happen. When depression overpowers you as a consequence of your practice, it's a sure sign you are doing it wrong, just like when you pole vault, you may break your bones, but it's the wrong thing to happen. It's not some legitimate variety of pole vaulting when you break your bones. Competence matters. Seriously.
But –someone should add, quickly– that doesn't mean that her visions were meaningless, worthless or detrimental…
Or, one might add that popular theories are often just that. Mere theories, even if popular.
In Hildegard von Bingen's case, a popular theory is that her visions were caused by migraine bouts
Well,
that going different in my Mind :monkey:
IMHO
that's Schizotypy , or probably more Worst .
--Schizophrenia
PS My bad. I just remembered you already defined it as BS.
You're hung-up on the common interpretation of
Sparta's term... If he's attempting to use it as a technical catch-all for as-yet unverified speculations, the derogatory connotations need not apply; and you need not be so
miffed.
If there's depression "often", why would anyone want to practise at all?
For the same reason most heroin users become addicts? :) (Just something to consider...)
PS My bad. I just remembered you already defined it as BS.
You're hung-up on the common interpretation of Sparta's term... If he's attempting to use it as a technical catch-all for as-yet unverified speculations, the derogatory connotations need not apply;
My objection stands. To call this topic "unverified speculations"
is derogatory.
If there's depression "often", why would anyone want to practise at all?
For the same reason most heroin users become addicts? :) (Just something to consider...)
You are only making it worse. But it's okay, you are obviously good at it.
Can we agree, that most of the benefits of meditation can be explained in terms of physiology?
No. And this answer has two equally important reasons.
The first is that you have already made it plain and obvious that you are not taking the topic seriously. It's too late to try to turn around now.
The second reason is that you're wrong. You think gym and vitamins is the same as meditation? There are physiological benefits from gym and vitamins, yes, but meditation is not gym and vitamins. Meditation is not a physiological workout.
You managed to show again how little you know and how little you care.
You see, ersi, why the Ionian disputational mode of philosophy eventually prevailed? :) Apostasy is, therein, a rejected charge, relegated to un-serious investigation -- mere "beliefs" and schismatic feuding.
When some plain English philosopher extended and modified Dennett's views of the unimpeachable-ness of reports of inner experience by substituting (and explaining...) the term incorrigible; he wasn't drummed out of the fraternity of empiricist philosophers!
The conversation continued...
But the benefits regarding stress and its management through meditation have indeed been documented via physiological investigation, that is, laboratory experiments. Ancient (and simple) breathing techniques have been investigated -apart from any doctrinal preconceptions- and their benefits are well-documented and understood, in physiological terms.
_____________________________________
Note to others: Yes, I'm aware that Popper's conception of the Ionian Schools is possibly or even likely a-historical, a Just So story... But conclusions drawn from it may be and in fact are of importance -- for both philosophy and science.
Just thought most readers here would like this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/07/03/psychedelic-drugs-put-your-brain-in-a-waking-dream-study-finds/?tid=pm_pop)… :)
You see, ersi, why the Ionian disputational mode of philosophy eventually prevailed? :)
If by prevailed you mean the way you are proven wrong at every step, then okay. It may or may not have something to do with Ionian disputational mode, but it definitely has to do with the way you misread and misinterpret facts. You managed add more to the previous load.
But the benefits regarding stress and its management through meditation have indeed been documented via physiological investigation, that is, laboratory experiments. Ancient (and simple) breathing techniques have been investigated -apart from any doctrinal preconceptions- and their benefits are well-documented and understood, in physiological terms.
Due to advancements (more correctly - degeneration) in science, physiologists may very well be documenting the benefits of what they think is meditation, and you may easily think that this settles the topic. But it doesn't. Consider:
- Modern science has had no say in the development and original documentation of meditation techniques
- Modern science's understanding of those techniques may consequently be limited (e.g. breathing techniques is not meditation, they are an optional part of it - how could you miss that? but it perfectly reflects your level of understanding)
- Meditation techniques were developed and documented long before modern science came around, and these older writings represent a much richer understanding of what it is about.
- Therefore, that which truly settles the topic is practice the way it was meant to be practised.
Here's a clue for you: Meditation (and mysticism) is a psychophysical discipline. Not merely physical or physiological, but necessarily psychological. By reducing it to physiology, you are being reductionist. Elsewhere you argued against reductionism, so you'd better stop doing it.
If you say it's the Ionian disputational mode of philosophy which requires you to be inconsistent and counterfactual, then don't be surprised when I am not convinced. Any philosophy worth the name is consistent.
Due to advancements (more correctly - degeneration) in science, physiologists may very well be documenting the benefits of what they think is meditation, and you may easily think that this settles the topic. But it doesn't. Consider:
- Modern science has had no say in the development and original documentation of meditation techniques
- Modern science's understanding of those techniques may consequently be limited (e.g. breathing techniques is not meditation, they are an optional part of it - how could you miss that? but it perfectly reflects your level of understanding)
- Meditation techniques were developed and documented long before modern science came around, and these older writings represent a much richer understanding of what it is about.
- Therefore, that which truly settles the topic is practice the way it was meant to be practised.
First, your presumption that my mention of a physiological explanation of some of the benefits of some (partial? Perhaps.) meditational techniques was somehow meant to "settle" this topic is merely an additional and telling bit of evidence, that you do -consistently- argue from Authority! (In short, your
Ohm! is the last word; and anyone who doesn't hear it or say it the way you do has done "it" wrong. Well, of course! Because there is only one Way…
If one outwardly performs meditation's techniques and achieves the outwardly discoverable benefits, on what basis would or could you determine that they'd done it "wrong"?
While I agree that you'd never do so by dissecting them, you'd not determine that they'd done it right that way, either.
Instead of showing in what I went wrong, you call me ignorant or perverse. Hence I conclude that you'd have felt quite uncomfortable in Anaximander's School; but quite at home in Pythagoras' School, a
mystery cult.
Meditation (and mysticism) is a psychophysical discipline. Not merely physical or physiological, but necessarily psychological. By reducing it to physiology, you are being reductionist. Elsewhere you argued against reductionism, so you'd better stop doing it.
Science, and some forms of philosophy, do not require understanding of the whole of creation as the starting point. Indeed, bits and pieces -problems, if you will- are taken one at a time, and tested (
tried, in an old meaning of that word).
Who would try (in the just mentioned sense) any Master's ideas, when disputation is first and foremost a derogatory act, a contradicting of Right Understanding or an insult given to the Master?
Would you like to argue against the germ theory of disease, too? You can easily (and truthfully) begin by noting that it isn't the whole picture… But you won't likely be able to say that it's false (unless your meaning of
false is
isn't the whole picture; which is to say, you've added nothing and got nowhere). Because reductionism has a richly deserved bad reputation doesn't mean that it is never useful and reasonable.
So:
Why is it (according to you) that some breathing techniques (and some other identifiable and separable practices) are
not legitimate (and, possibly enlightening — in the non-mystical sense) objects for scientific investigation?
—————————————————————
If I heard correctly, the current government of China has taken a novel stance on a mystical matter: They outlawed unauthorized reincarnations!
And -without going into it- I'd say the move was reasonable and rational… From a Western perspective, it's hilarious. (Of course, one's sense of humor is ineffable! And let's leave it at that. :) )
First, your presumption that my mention of a physiological explanation of some of the benefits of some (partial? Perhaps.) meditational techniques was somehow meant to "settle" this topic is merely an additional and telling bit of evidence, that you do -consistently- argue from Authority!
If you didn't mean to settle anything, if you didn't mean to tell me anything new/true, if you didn't mean to get to know anything new/true yourself, then you are being irrelevant. And, where I live, this is at least as serious a charge as being wrong. Irrelevance is annoying, and God help you when you annoy someone who doesn't have much patience. You are extra lucky that you are dealing with me...
If one outwardly performs meditation's techniques and achieves the outwardly discoverable benefits, on what basis would or could you determine that they'd done it "wrong"?
The whole idea, point and principle of meditation is internal, so your question is, let's put it mildly, formulated in a bad way. Is a fish who never lived in water a fish? Is a stuffed bird a bird? Are silicon breasts really breasts? Do pigs that fly count as pigs?
Instead of showing in what I went wrong, you call me ignorant or perverse.
I show you all the time precisely in what way you are wrong, and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it changes nothing. First you were being overly dismissive. How can you approach the topic when you don't believe it exists? Naturally nothing can come of such approach. Then you were overly confident of your ignorant knowledge, thinking it to be knowledge when it was really ignorance, as easily shown. What seems to motivate you is the intent of calling the bluff on me, and you continue undeterred after several rounds of defeat in the mission, not to mention that it's no noble mission to begin with.
Science, and some forms of philosophy, do not require understanding of the whole of creation as the starting point. Indeed, bits and pieces -problems, if you will- are taken one at a time, and tested (tried, in an old meaning of that word).
Partial knowledge counts as knowledge when it is sufficient for practical purposes, e.g. sufficient for making some relevant point on the topic. Your knowledge is not even partial yet. It is near-complete ignorance. Soon enough I can determine it's wilful ignorance.
Who would try (in the just mentioned sense) any Master's ideas, when disputation is first and foremost a derogatory act, a contradicting of Right Understanding or an insult given to the Master?
First, when you dispute, deride, and insult, can you say you are really trying? No, you can't. Only after you get over the dispute and insult phase, it's possible to begin actually trying. Or, alternatively, you ruined your chances for good by unnecessarily prolonging the first phase.
Second, not every master is destined for everyone. You have to find yours. It's a quest, and meant to be so! Yours will be understanding and forgiving to your particular quirks, and patient and consistently instructive despite your denseness, slow progress and setbacks.
Because reductionism has a richly deserved bad reputation doesn't mean that it is never useful and reasonable.
It's never useful and never reasonable when you knowingly do it. When you inadvertently do it, the right thing to do is to get rid of it as soon as you find it out.
It's a good method to *isolate the problem* but this is not the same as reductionism. You isolate the problem from a context that you know about, and when you finally apply the solution that you arrived at after the isolation, you will know if you isolated rightly. If not, then you have to start over again. So isolating the problem is not reductionism, but what you are doing is reductionism, forgetting all about the context, and refusing to correct yourself when proven wrong.
So:
Why is it (according to you) that some breathing techniques (and some other identifiable and separable practices) are not legitimate (and, possibly enlightening — in the non-mystical sense) objects for scientific investigation?
Breathing techniques are a legitimate object of scientific investigation, but when you believe that this means studying meditation, you are wrong. When you study breathing techniques, you study breathing techniques, not meditation. When you study gym training, you study gym training, not meditation. When you dissect frogs, you are not learning anything new about the nesting of eagles. If common sense is too complicated for you, then okay, I will factor that in in future posts.
If I heard correctly, the current government of China has taken a novel stance on a mystical matter: They outlawed unauthorized reincarnations!
And -without going into it- I'd say the move was reasonable and rational… From a Western perspective, it's hilarious. (Of course, one's sense of humor is ineffable! And let's leave it at that. :) )
There's an obvious political reason for this: To institute political appointment of religious leaders over the traditional religious authority. It's to eradicate any hint of influence of Dalai Lama and other anti-Chinese elements in Tibet.
@ Ersi: "When you study breathing techniques, you study breathing techniques, not meditation. When you study gym training, you study gym training, not meditation. When you dissect frogs, you are not learning anything new about the nesting of eagles."
At the risk of, once again, sounding ignorant to you (and I’m not afraid of that), is it possible, in meditation, for one to take what they need and leave the rest? Can I accept and enjoy the enhancements in physical, mental and emotional health without getting into the spiritual unfoldment and/or infinite consciousness part? Or is that akin to buying a diamond ring just for the nice box and too ridiculous, in your opinion? In other words, if I'm dissecting the frog mainly to learn why eagles use frog bones in their nests, is that not acceptable to you?
(Quick quote is not working for me today)
At the risk of, once again, sounding ignorant to you (and I’m not afraid of that), is it possible, in meditation, for one to take what they need and leave the rest? Can I accept and enjoy the enhancements in physical, mental and emotional health without getting into the spiritual unfoldment and/or infinite consciousness part? Or is that akin to buying a diamond ring just for the nice box and too ridiculous, in your opinion?
You mean like some sweet-tooth fat lady who thinks to drop her weight down to a certain number and, once that is achieved, goes back to eating junk food and candy? Yes, it's possible to do so, but this means that none of the intended benefits of the discipline will be achieved.
On the holistic view, not just some of the benefits go amiss this way, but all of it. It's like temporarily dropping tobacco and liquor and, as soon as health has improved to a tolerable degree, return to the old habits. Despite some temporary physiological and even mental benefits, this means the loss of all benefits, because the essential emphasis is psychological, focused on ethical self-discipline and spirituality.
Another way in which you could have meant the question is to take only the techniques of the discipline, but omit the doctrinal ballast such as worshipful humble attitude for God/Buddha, and firm spiritual focus on liberation/salvation. It's possible to do so too, but this reflects defective comprehension of the purpose of the discipline. Opting for half-adherence according to your own liking will give you either half-hearted practice with half-baked results or it disables the internal control mechanism, thus multiplying the dangers that go along with the discipline. It's the equivalent of holding a gun in your hand and not caring if it's loaded or not and where the trigger is and where the barrel is directed.
For example you may end up with highly volatile psychology or you may get depression and inadvertently deepen it beyond repair. See, Frenzie here even thinks depression is an ordinary and legitimate result of the practice. This is one way to end up when you take what you like instead of what is necessary.
It's not ridiculous. It's dangerous.
At the risk of, once again, sounding ignorant to you (and I’m not afraid of that), is it possible, in meditation, for one to take what they need and leave the rest? Can I accept and enjoy the enhancements in physical, mental and emotional health without getting into the spiritual unfoldment and/or infinite consciousness part?
Here's ersi's favorite "New Atheist": http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-meditate
Here's another one: http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/06/13/secular-meditation-meditation-as-a-pleasure/
See, Frenzie here even thinks depression is an ordinary and legitimate result of the practice.
No, I do not. And not only because you keep misinterpreting the word.
I await the comments of people more interesting than me… :)
[Belfrage was right, in at least this: this "trinity" of threads is inextricably twined…]
See, Frenzie here even thinks depression is an ordinary and legitimate result of the practice.
No, I do not. And not only because you keep misinterpreting the word.
Hmm, three possible responses to that.
#1: If it's the standard psychological term, it's you who is doing the misinterpretation, not me.
#2: If it's not the standard psychological term, you failed to define it.
#3: Re "No, I do not." I guess it's fair enough that you basically retract the statement that there should be often depression involved, which later morphed into "some form of depression" and now basically into something called depression but probably some different thing under the same name.
Never took too much seriously this meditation thing.
Probably because of the association with all that pro oriental wanna be Buddhist like, so trendy these days amongst entire generations of western culture orphans and disorient people and to whom the first step seems to be... let's do meditation.
I know and have deep respect for the Catholic tradition of worshiping Saints that have entered into a state of religious ecstasy but usually, and as much as I know about it, such cases are more interpreted as a calling from God, something thats distinguishes a few chosen ones than a volunteer discipline method for the masses in order to achieve such state of awareness.
Ersi seems to value it very much... I don't know.
You mean like some sweet-tooth fat lady who thinks to drop her weight down to a certain number and, once that is achieved, goes back to eating junk food and candy? Yes, it's possible to do so, but this means that none of the intended benefits of the discipline will be achieved.
Not at all like this--what made you jump to such a silly and illogical conclusion from what I asked you? Btw, your prejudice against overweight people is shinning through here, do you call your overweight friends "fat" too or was that strictly for my benefit?
I didn't meditate just once or twice to slop up a little insight and focus only to go back to my boorish philistine ways, as you seem to imply here. The mindfulness meditation I use is distinct in that it is not directed toward getting me to be different from how I am already. It simply helps me become aware of what is already true moment by moment in and about my life. No two meditations are exactly the same for me in that I don't repeat mantras seeking supernatural 'whatevers' to some end, but hey--knock yourself out, of course. :cheers: :knight:
Never took too much seriously this meditation thing.
Probably because of the association with all that pro oriental wanna be Buddhist like, so trendy these days amongst entire generations of western culture orphans and disorient people and to whom the first step seems to be... let's do meditation.
In Christianity it's called contemplation. In English translations at least.
Yes, I know the practice has become highly consumerised. However, I know about this only through the media and I am not personally affected. It has some benefits to live at some godforsaken countryside in a border province nobody cares about.
Ersi seems to value it very much... I don't know.
Ruysbroeck (several spelling variants) is my favourite among Christian authors. The practise itself is not directly dependent on any particular author, but about finding the text/teaching that makes perfect sense throughout and reads like a manual, map or guide. Some authors write in a technical way, just like you would expect from a handbook (for example John Climacus). However, whatever the superficial genre, it must strongly invite to follow and call for personal implementation.
But in case it feels anything else, like weird or like ridiculous, it's evidently not your thing. It doesn't have to be everybody's thing. The society where everyone is a monk would not make sense.
Not at all like this--what made you jump to such a silly and illogical conclusion from what I asked you?
So it was the other option. No problem :) I was just making clear how staunchly anti-consumerist I am.
The mindfulness meditation I use is distinct in that it is not directed toward getting me to be different from how I am already.
Look, I don't like to point out to you every time you are wrong, so I'll be very gentle this time: Last time you told me about it, there was more to the story, and the extra info yielded a very different conclusion :)
Read it again. Slowly if you must.
Once the experience subsides there is often a sense of depression
You know, like post-coital depression.
Now you're talking :)
I admit that this is comparable in a queer way, but post-coital depression is not really depression, is it? It's pretty obviously the wrong word to describe the post-coital state of mind where much more goes on than depression. In case depression really prevails for you after coitus, then there's no other way to put it than that it went wrong :) Even if those, should we say, coitus experts or whoever are in the habit of using this term, it's an evident misnomer.
And it's obvious from this that your sources are definitely not mystics at all. At most they are theoreticians with their curiosity focused on mystics, not more. Absolutely certain :)
Btw, I know about Harris's interest in - and alleged practice of - meditation, so, arguendo, let's consider him a legitimate source. At the link you gave, he says: "Cultivating this quality of mind has been shown to modulate pain, mitigate anxiety and depression, ..."
I could say "Case closed," but seriously, I don't consider Harris a good source for anything, so you can keep choosing your gospel and make of it whatever you wish.
Sam Harris' work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#Neuroscience) is nowhere near as controversial as it should be, I'd agree; and an obvious example of how not to do reductionism… :)
it's easy to mindful when mind is not full
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.tinypic.com%2Frsa9fo.jpg&hash=60b0cd01f4d75c9b218bde33571b2182" rel="cached" data-hash="60b0cd01f4d75c9b218bde33571b2182" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i62.tinypic.com/rsa9fo.jpg)
Harris has been defeated more soundly and thoroughly than I defeated you, Oakdale. One might wonder how's that even possible, but it is...
(There will be a reply to the philosophy thread some day soon.)
@ersi: :)
I could say "Case closed," but seriously, I don't consider Harris a good source for anything, so you can keep choosing your gospel and make of it whatever you wish.
You realize, of course, that I only included the man because of your obsession. Nothing he ever wrote is considered a standard reference work on anything.
Anyhoo, I include below the reply I wrote but decided to delete until I was feeling nicer. I didn't realize it had already been read.
#2: If it's not the standard psychological term, you failed to define it.
Try a dictionary. For example, here's the regular meaning, going back many centuries.
6. a. The condition of being depressed in spirits; dejection.
Then there's this newfangled more restrictive sense within psychology.
b. Psychol. Freq. a sign of psychiatric disorder or a component of various psychoses, with symptoms of misery, anguish, or guilt accompanied by headache, insomnia, etc.
#3: Re "No, I do not." I guess it's fair enough that you basically retract the statement that there should be often depression involved, which later morphed into "some form of depression" and now basically into something called depression but probably some different thing under the same name.
Read it again. Slowly if you must.
Once the experience subsides there is often a sense of depression
You know, like post-coital depression.
More to the point, observing that most people say "ain't" is not the same thing as stating that "ain't" is proper English.
And I didn't realise you could ever feel anything nice about me, Frenzie. Nice about me? Really? Please post the nice version too some day :)
You've got 999 posts right this moment; that's nice. ;)
But seriously, thanks for your support for DnD since the beginning. :)
It's nice to have someone to debate with, even if we're not always nice about it. :)
@ensbb3: :yes:
There have been too many smiles around... if we don't pay attention this will turn into a soap opera...
Okay, just one more :)
I like to see my friends happy.
Look, I don't like to point out to you every time you are wrong, so I'll be very gentle this time: Last time you told me about it, there was more to the story, and the extra info yielded a very different conclusion
I used meditation (and many other things), in a desperate effort to save myself from my suicidal depression (I'm sure you remember that). My major depression has been in remission for some time now, but I continued to do guided visualization meditation for relaxation purposes. When someone mentioned mindfulness meditation to me about 8-9 months ago, I read about it and learned to use it somewhat effectively--I believe.
I did not rely solely on meditation to keep me from killing myself again (figure it out folks), I had therapy sessions, both privately and in a group, I changed my diet, exercised and I took medication--way too much medication as it turns out--simply because depression was the diagnosis
du jure at that time and antidepressant prescriptions were flying everywhere (it is still overdiagnosed and overtreated today).
Eventually, I dumped all the meds in favor of one pill that boosts my dopamine to a normal level and I've never felt better in my life. "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah....". :cheers: :knight:
Nice little personal testimony there, JS. The way you are putting it now, it cannot be determined which factor was most prominent in getting you back on track, if the cause was a single cause or aggregated cumulative. Anyway, it's evident that these are life-changing events, not some small matter.
Let me share a personal story too, so that people here don't think of me as a mere bot. On the surface my childhood was essentially worry-free. I didn't experience any significant stress (of course there were some duties that I ran away from, things I broke, a few people I annoyed, but since I was not too evil-spirited, all of this had only short-term ripple effect), not even physical fatigue. In fact, when I heard people complain about fatigue or when I read in the newspapers and magazines about stress and depression, I couldn't understand how these things are possible. I understood how stress and depression could come about, for example imprisonment could dishearten one permanently, but I could not understand how people let things go that far without keeping track on their own psychological status. I did not experience the world as a too significant stress factor.
Then, once upon a time in my adolescence, I moved to Finland, which, as you might know, is one of the Nordic countries where the best living standards in the world are found. The Nordic countries happen to be next to my own birth country and, incidentally, I spoke and wrote fluent Finnish since early childhood. My plan was to remain in Finland. I went to the university there, but then a weird thing happened. I fell sick for a few months without a reason or cause, literally bed-ridden. There were days on which I could walk about, buy myself food, consult doctors and such, but both the cause and remedy to my condition remained a mystery. The doctors I consulted were so much at loss that they didn't even know what pills to suggest, even though in rich countries there easily tends to be a pill for everything.
In the end, I had to treat myself, i.e. diagnose myself and figure out a remedy on my own. I remembered from my longer childhood excursions a psychological state called home-sickness, and as far as I was able to determine, the current condition pretty much matched that. (Naturally, who else could have been able to figure this out besides me.) The remedy: Move back home. When I did that, I was automatically fixed and completely recovered in a week. The diagnose had been right and the remedy too.
Now, the curious thing in this story is that the home-sickness that had bed-ridden me was completely unexpected and unwanted. As far as I knew, I wanted to live in Finland. I passed all the difficult tests and requirements, many weird hurdles to get there. I entered the university and began studying. I envisioned a nice future for myself there. The sickness that blocked me from all this was absolutely not in the plans. Instead of a lifetime, I managed to spend a bit less than three years in Finland.
This event made me understand the dangerous nature of stress and depression, and the importance of keeping track of one's own psychology in general, employing techniques of stress management or, better said, happiness management. It's like eating: Nobody else can eat your lunch to feed you; you have to do it yourself.
This story is also the reason why I decisively reject the characterisation of the return phase from meditation as depression in any shape or form. Frenzie's sources are defectively informed about the nature of mysticism and spreading false information inasmuch as there is any significant insistence on depression. In the area of mysticism, as in any discipline, there are experts, peddlers and dabblers, and the distinction is significant.
Just like depression befell me, a mystical experience can befall anyone out of the blue. An unexpected psychological experience can result in anything - that's what unexpected means. What matters is how you get out of it, and only experts get out of it the safe and sure way every time. They can use the experiences for their own best and for the best of others too.
The mindfulness meditation I use is distinct in that it is not directed toward getting me to be different from how I am already. It simply helps me become aware of what is already true moment by moment in and about my life. No two meditations are exactly the same for me...
On microlevel, no two meditations, not even repetition of mantras, is the same for anyone. On the other hand, inasmuch as there's a specific result you wish to obtain from meditation - and you obtain it too -, it's the same. And more generally, inasmuch as the overall aim of mysticism is the same, all mysticism can be said to be one. So there's really nothing distinct about your meditation on this view.
In the theory of Buddhist mindfulness meditation, you actually are Mindfulness, and from this perspective it's true that we are not changing ourselves by means of the meditation. We are only discovering our true selves. This is not saying anything special, because in the same theory absolutely everybody is Mindfulness to begin with. On the other hand, from the individual perspective we are not properly Mindfulness yet. If we were, we would not need the meditation. So from the individual perspective, the course of meditation is a process of becoming something else.
(You hate logic enough already, and probably now more than ever.)
(Psychologising seems to be a pretty effective way to strangle threads to death and I'm going to do some more of it right now.)
I've been making the point that mysticism is essentially one and I've disputed the contrary views. But of course both views are right from their own perspective.
The unifying view of mysticism emphasises mysticism's nature as a set of transformative and constructive psychological techniques. The pro-diversity point of view would emphasise the differences between the techniques and of various traditions all around the world. These opposite views are okay. However, I will continue to dispute the views that attribute detrimental nature (as in producing depression) to mysticism or that dismiss mysticism as illusory, as insincere posturing, as unintelligible mystification, as obfuscation or as self-delusion. This essay is meant to clarify, so questions for further clarification are allowed.
The Common Elements of Mysticism
From the unifying point of view, the irreducible common elements of mysticism are that the techniques are psychological, transformative to the character of the practitioner, performed for a constructive end. The minimal necessary concepts for the practice are the internal world, good and evil, mind, soul, spirit and matter. In addition, it's necessary to develop symbolic (i.e. allegorical) reasoning concerning these concepts, because some traditions of mysticism don't have literally the same concepts, but they all have their equivalents, and the equivalents have their aspects, subdivisions, roles and categorisation in vivid allegorical language, the language of visions and dreams.
The Internal World
The internal world is one's own psychology. This is the field to be cultivated. This field is an indivisible entirety. The change of one spot of it causes inevitable readjustments all over the place. This is how the work is transformative and, for obvious reasons, caution is strongly advised. Choose the path which you can understand all the way and only take steps whose consequences you can calculate.
As another analogy, the internal world is the map where to find oneself and orientate. As yet another analogy, it is the kingdom to be ruled.
Good and Evil
The concepts of good and evil provide the sense of direction, the measure of improvement, so that there will be an understanding of where one is and where one is going, a clarity of progress and of setbacks. Good and evil are the same as right and wrong, God and the devil, up and down, towards heaven and towards hell.
The improvement is initially (and throughout really) informed by ethics, and from there it's progressively mystical. Mystical progress means that the symbolism of the conceptual framework of one's chosen path gradually concretises so that it becomes completely experiential. In the advanced stages the respective "heaven" will be perceived like the physical world is now. It becomes the second nature (which is really the first nature, but newly re-realised).
The Mind
The concept of the mind has various applications. In alchemy it's equated with the internal world, so the concept of the mind may appear to be missing in alchemy and the internal world is used instead. More often, in other traditions, the mind is explicitly mentioned and divided, as a minimum, into higher and lower.
The mind is to be understood as the internal processes, the lower instinctive impulses pulling down towards evil, and the higher mind enabling ascent. In Buddhist mysticism the mind is the dividing line (the veil) between the Void and the universe. The habitual life-experience pertains to the universe.
Without the concrete perception of one's own mind and the ability to direct and control it, there is no mysticism to begin with.
The Soul and Spirit
The soul and spirit refer to the same essence. The soul is of spirit, and spirit is the focal topic of spirituality. Mysticism is methodical spirituality.
The soul is the practitioner's true identity, distinguished from the false identity. All the problems, dilemmas, questions, mundane and spiritual troubles, emotional and physical pain, etc. are all due to the false identity - humans identify themselves with with the personality and the mind rather than with the soul.
From the mundane point of view, this false identity is the normal or ordinary identity, and most people see no need for any other identity, or if they do, they seek to modify only the personality or even only the body, disregarding the depths of the soul because they have no clue of the soul (or when they are familiar with the word "soul", it is synonymous with the personality for them). Whereas spiritual people seek liberation from the personality altogether, from the mundaneness, and from the mind. This is achieved by means of realising one's own soul and identifying with it.
In Buddhism there's no soul or spirit, but there's still liberation from the mind into the Void. The Void is the conceptual equivalent of spirit.
Matter
And where does the concept of matter fit in? Matter is the opposite of spirit. Matter is a relative concept. The body is material (=of matter) vis-a-vis the personality (and the personality is immaterial in this juxtaposition). The personality is material vis-a-vis the mind (and the mind is immaterial in this juxtaposition). And the mind is material vis-a-vis the soul.
The work of mysticism consists in clearing away the matter, thus purifying the soul, thus ultimately realising one's own true identity, which means the comprehension of one's own destiny. It also means the capacity to put the destiny into effect, knowing what obstacles lie ahead and also knowing how to overcome them. The problems, dilemmas, questions, and suffering will dwindle away into nothing.
Some Different Traditions of Mysticism
This was the overview of the irreducible common elements in all traditions of mysticism. Now about some of the differences between various traditions.
I regard the differences merely formal or verbal, even though some of the tenets in some tradition may seem irreconcilable with the tenets of another tradition. Either way, the first common point again is that all traditions are necessarily systems, i.e. the respective tenets make perfect sense internally. With this in mind, the traditions can be juxtaposed and their essential sameness understood.
For example, in alchemy the soul is said to be acquired, even manufactured (like homunculus), whereas in most other traditions the soul is eternal and is to be psychologically assimilated rather than manufactured. And in Buddhism, as I already mentioned, the concept of the soul is avoided, even denied. How can these different tenets be reconciled?
Kabbalah
Let's take the Kabbalah as a sort of intermediating system against which to compare the other systems. The path of Kabbalah is described as the ten Sephiroth, which are the ten hierarchical worlds. The central tenet of the Kabbalah is that we reside in every one of those worlds. As those worlds are meant as internal worlds primarily, the worlds actually constitute the aspects of our own psychology. Now, psychology in translation means the soul (and this translation is a perfect match in terms of Kabbalah) and each of the worlds is an aspect of the soul, but each of the aspects is not internally properly connected at the joints so as to cooperate with all the other aspects. So the claim is that the different aspects of the soul are disjointed, e.g. the body disjointed from the mind, or the mind from spirit. The work of the path consists in studying each aspect of the soul and achieving the seamless cooperation of all aspects.
Alchemy
So, in Kabbalah, the view is that we are the soul all the way from the body to the mind and spirit, but these elements are disjointed. In comparison, alchemy states that we are crude matter initially, which requires transformative enlivening and extraction of the (psychological) elements that would spark the birth of the soul. Once born, the soul must grow and mature to perfection.
It should be clear enough that in alchemy the imagery is different, but the process is similar to the Kabbalah. And the overall purpose is evidently the same.
Buddhism
As to Buddhism, even with the denial of the concepts of spirit (replaced with the Void) and the soul (replaced with "Buddha nature" or "Buddha essence"), the work still consists in renouncing and shedding away of that which we call matter, so the process is equivalent.
Any questions?
Any questions?
No questions but comments.
Mysticism is methodical spirituality.
As for my comment, a story from Santiago de Compostela,
O Caminho de Santiago:
Pilgrim - Old man, where do I find the path to Santiago?
Old Man - Walker, there's no path, you do it yourself while walking.
It doesn't matter if people are "methodical" at their spirituality or if are stricken by a blinding flash of light, mysticism is not about how the path must be done but about the destiny.
I'm inclined to value
Revelation and uniqueness rather than any systematization or method, regarding mysticism.
It doesn't matter if people are "methodical" at their spirituality or if are stricken by a blinding flash of light, mysticism is not about how the path must be done but about the destiny.
I'm inclined to value Revelation and uniqueness rather than any systematization or method, regarding mysticism.
For you Revelation is the way, but this is a great blessing not granted to everyone. Everyone is not so lucky. So, those without Revelation but still with strong spiritual impulses are left with methodical spirituality, disciplined practice, the rational approach, because they don't have the other blessing and cannot follow that.
And then there are people who cannot keep up with the disciplined practice or they cannot make sense of the rational approach. They are those who don't follow much anything systematically or they follow everything to some extent or they follow the wrong thing, mistaken about their own nature.
Ultimately, yeah, to everyone one's own. No dispute :)
Post #103 was about the structure of mystical cosmology (macrocosm and microcosm). This one is about an actual practice.
Mandukyopanishad is the shortest of upanishads (Hindu scripture). Its length is just one book page or even less, depending on the density of the script. In summary, it says:
Atman* has four quarters. The quarters are:
1. Waking state
2. Dream state
3. Deep sleep state
4. The Fourth (Turiya)
The same Atman (with the quarters) is symbolized by Om.
This is it in a nutshell. For the mystically-minded, this upanishad unambiguously suggests the practice of dream study. Dream study is a mystical practice that should be accessible to anyone in its primitive form, but it has its advanced and elaborate stages all the way to the end, so that if dream study fits one's temperament, it's the only practice one will ever need.
The same way as there are experiences in the waking state and our perceived character is determined in the course of those experiences (such as, to react with resentment when feeling let down, to feel flattered when praised, etc.; the character or personality is made up of such reactions), our deeper (subconscious) character is determined by dream-experiences. The basic idea is that the same way as we can, by means of self-discipline, gain composure over the mind and character in the waking state, we can achieve the same in dream state.
Self-control is harder in dream state than in the waking state. It's easier to abstain from blatant naughtiness when others are watching. Still, self-control in dream state is essentially not too different from self-control in the waking state. It's quite possible to gradually keep composure under all circumstances.
In the course of the practice, the layers of microcosm and macrocosm as detailed in post #103 should gradually become a visible reality. This will serve as a measure of progress (even though each achievement dauntingly also multiplies the responsibilities and temptations). The successful practice of dream discipline takes one eventually face to face with the deep sleep state, which in the mundane sense is a dreamless happy state of oblivion. The deep sleep state corresponds to the veil of ignorance, the mystical mental matter, a very tough nut to crack.
Beyond the veil dawns Turiya, counted as the fourth in relation to the three earlier states, but the fourth is not a state of mind. It's a state of transcendence beyond the waking, dream, and deep sleep states. In this state of transcendence, the mind has merged with the soul and the living body becomes as if an evanescent dream entity while the soul becomes the true identity comparable to the current waking state. When properly practised, this state of transcendence will not remain a glimpse, but will stay permanent.
It should be clear that this talk is not a matter of theory, but of practice. The three states of mind - waking, dream and deep sleep - are a common-sense experience observable to everyone. Everyone can choose either to continue to be tossed around by those states of mind or do something about it. Why do something about it? If this question arises, you are not well predisposed for this practice and you should abstain. But those who follow through will elaborate and strengthen their own soul as a matter of course.
* Atman means the Self. Microcosmically it's the soul. Macrocosmically it's the spirit. Combined it's equated with Brahman (the Absolute).
But those who follow through will elaborate and strengthen their own soul as a matter of course.
And exactly where is my soul, what is it's function? And how are these states of mystical practice differentiated from self-delusion? I believe they would be quite indistinguishable and certainly not common sensical at all. Common sense tells me that people make mountains out of molehills like this all the time and that sleep--waking, dream or deep--is simply a biological function of nature and little more. What is the necessity in nature for this strange phenomena? You do believe in evolution don't you? Nature is the epitome of maximum parsimony and what you are describing is not useful to perpetuating our species, so it wouldn't be selective in nature even if the mutation occurred. It sounds like a nice mind game to play, but that's really about it Ersi...really. :knight: :cheers:
And exactly where is my soul, what is it's function?
The soul is oneself. The soul is wherever you are. And what is your function? Perhaps you can figure out your own function.
And how are these states of mystical practice differentiated from self-delusion? I believe they would be quite indistinguishable and certainly not common sensical at all.
Yet another brave argument from ignorance.
Nature is the epitome of maximum parsimony and what you are describing is not useful to perpetuating our species, so it wouldn't be selective in nature even if the mutation occurred.
Perpetuating the species is animal business. Humans have moved on to metaphysical and mystical concerns. Somehow humans evolved to be this way, so it's common sense to take this seriously.
Perpetuating the species is animal business. Humans have moved on to metaphysical and mystical concerns. Somehow humans evolved to be this way, so it's common sense to take this seriously.
Talk about arguments from out of the blue! A few people claiming to have mystical experiences, does not qualify as proof of biological evolution of our species. Mysticism has been around for quite some time, I believe and I would guess that it is less common today than in other ancient times--if anything, this is evidence of evolution in reverse--but actually we have just come to our senses...most of us, that is. :knight: :cheers:
Talk about arguments from out of the blue!
You eulogised some animal instincts that humans possess and called it evolution. This was embarrassingly self-refuting. I gave the argument you should have given, about some actual evolution that distinguishes humans from animals.
Mushrooms cure all mind problems.
Mysticism = Religion = Mysticism
Only the garb differs.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F--FZeiG_w3-8%2FUHPMNeFNZoI%2FAAAAAAAADIQ%2Fi1QYKdZ6Kn4%2Fs640%2Fthinkdifferentlennon.jpg&hash=643e4295c338e8aea7b3a9c93726a33a" rel="cached" data-hash="643e4295c338e8aea7b3a9c93726a33a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--FZeiG_w3-8/UHPMNeFNZoI/AAAAAAAADIQ/i1QYKdZ6Kn4/s640/thinkdifferentlennon.jpg)
Folks! Need I remind you, that "evolution" doesn't entail progress? :)
Folks! Need I remind you, that "evolution" doesn't entail progress? :)
It did for Darwin. Otherwise he would have named it "change of species".
And as used in mystical literature, evolution has its teleological connotations that are definitely meant to be there. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to use the word.
It did for Darwin. Otherwise he would have named it "change of species".
Darwin does
not use the word
evolution:* he primarily speaks of
modification and — wait for it —
change. Moreover, he goes to great lengths to dispel any misguided notions about progression. The word
evolution is used occasionally in the 1872 edition, however, in response to public debate.
Here is a video explaining why Darwin didn't use the word:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0BhXVLKIz8[/video]
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOH0rmSNZlU[/video]
(You can safely skip most of the middle, which is mostly about The March of Progress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Progress). What's pertinent with regard to the question is mostly in the opening minutes and the final minute.)
* But even if he had,
so what? Evolution today at its basis still roughly means the modern evolutionary synthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis), not what Darwin wrote.
Darwin does not use the word evolution:* he primarily speaks of modification and — wait for it — change.
Actually, he uses the word
origin in the title. The actual origin of the species happens to be the most contentious and the least solved point of his theory even today.
But yeah, you are right. Evolution was not Darwin's choice of words. Still, Darwin surely had his ideas of betterness and fitness as commonly attributed to Darwinism. Says his book: "One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." Note
advancement.
Moreover, he goes to great lengths to dispel any misguided notions about progression.
I'm sure he dispelled many misguided notions about progression, only to be inevitably replaced with other misguided notions. When morality and intelligence are side-effects of survival, as they are for Darwin, then it follows that any notion of progression should be discarded, because there's another driving force instead of morality, intelligence, or teleology. However, if constructive cooperation and true understanding of reality matter, as they evidently do both for survival and for other goals and motives, then morality and intelligence are not side-effects after all, but decisive considerations. Even though Darwin's theory regards morality and intelligence as later developments, mere survival has been surpassed now. Morality and intelligence, which come in degrees, provide a measure of true progression despite all claims to the contrary.
Actually, he uses the word origin in the title. The actual origin of the species happens to be the most contentious and the least solved point of his theory even today.
Only if you purposefully misunderstand that the origin of species is not about the origin of life, but primarily refers to the mechanisms underlying speciation.
When morality and intelligence are side-effects of survival, as they are for Darwin, then it follows that any notion of progression should be discarded, because there's another driving force instead of morality, intelligence, or teleology. However, if constructive cooperation and true understanding of reality matter, as they evidently do both for survival and for other goals and motives, then morality and intelligence are not side-effects after all, but decisive considerations. Even though Darwin's theory regards morality and intelligence as later developments, mere survival has been surpassed now. Morality and intelligence, which come in degrees, provide a measure of true progression despite all claims to the contrary.
So in essence you agree wholeheartedly with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, despite all claims to the contrary. :devil:
Actually, he uses the word origin in the title. The actual origin of the species happens to be the most contentious and the least solved point of his theory even today.
Only if you purposefully misunderstand that the origin of species is not about the origin of life, but primarily refers to the mechanisms underlying speciation.
Darwin's title proposes to settle something about the species, but all it does is suggest that all the species are intermediary transitional stages in constant flux. This is quite contentious, an unsettled (and unsettling) view, because it actually renders the notion of species meaningless. That he didn't settle the origin of the first species - and that nobody has after him either - only aggravates the problems with Darwinism.
When morality and intelligence are side-effects of survival, as they are for Darwin, then it follows that any notion of progression should be discarded, because there's another driving force instead of morality, intelligence, or teleology. However, if constructive cooperation and true understanding of reality matter, as they evidently do both for survival and for other goals and motives, then morality and intelligence are not side-effects after all, but decisive considerations. Even though Darwin's theory regards morality and intelligence as later developments, mere survival has been surpassed now. Morality and intelligence, which come in degrees, provide a measure of true progression despite all claims to the contrary.
So in essence you agree wholeheartedly with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, despite all claims to the contrary. :devil:
In essence it appears that you agree there's a problem with Darwinism exactly as I stated. But I have not told you anything about my solution. I definitely do not agree that that morality and intellect are secondary epiphenomena upon the survival instinct. I simply haven't told yet in this discussion what they are.
Darwin, Freud and Marx are the most adulterated authors I know.
Also Hitler, but no one cares about him, he lost a war, a mortal sin. Marx also lost, so he's disappearing.
I don't know why but it just came to my mind that Joan D'Arc was a special example of mysticism.
:devil: :cheers: All religion is mysticism. :cheers: :devil:
I don't know why but it just came to my mind that Joan D'Arc was a special example of mysticism.
What would be an ordinary example? Hermits?
I don't know why but it just came to my mind that Joan D'Arc was a special example of mysticism.
What would be an ordinary example? Hermits?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fpetfoodplus.com.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fhermit_crab.jpg&hash=6900e80ff8fdef0c642ec3f1d017c6a4" rel="cached" data-hash="6900e80ff8fdef0c642ec3f1d017c6a4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://petfoodplus.com.au/wp-content/uploads/hermit_crab.jpg)
Don't be crabby, TT.
Another Aussie joy.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fvwzone.socialholicnetwo.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Faustralia.jpg&hash=368ca773fb86cf4d7c89c64bf54f12c2" rel="cached" data-hash="368ca773fb86cf4d7c89c64bf54f12c2" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://vwzone.socialholicnetwo.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/australia.jpg)
Darwin, Freud and Marx are the most adulterated authors I know.
Did you perhaps mean
adulated?
Adulterated means "watered-down" and "misinterpreted"… "made impure". (Adulated means praised and venerated…)
Adulterated means "watered-down" and "misinterpreted"… "made impure". (Adulated means praised and venerated…)
I know. I mean what I said but you're also right, adulated yet adulterated.
Just checking… :)