No. He appears to be asserting that there is no water ... only whirling.
Examine what he's said about experience. He's repeatedly insisted that there is no experiencer. Doesn't that amount to insisting that there is no water?
And I beg to differ. He's asserted (over and over again) that...
And all I'm saying is that you cannot have the whirl without the pool. And you cannot have thoughts without a thinker.
You cannot have the rain without the rainstorm.
You're the one who's making the weird claims here. Allow me to invite you to show me a whirlpool that features no...
No. I'm not. I'm merely looking at the etymologies of the word "mystic" itself. No need to muddy the waters further.
Reasoning takes me quite a ways up into the night sky, and at some point awe takes over. But I'd never characterize awe as "mystical."
You're speaking for yourself here...
You've asserted that, but you've failed to demonstrate it.
You're asserting that as well, but you've also failed to demonstrate it.
Please demonstrate that a picture of a whirlpool does not show a whirlpool. Thanks.
And when water does these things, we use these words to describe them...
No. You c'mon.
Please demonstrate that it's possible for a thinking being to not exist.
In the meantime, let's remind ourselves that even if we discard Descartes altogether, we're still not one iota closer to proving that anything mystical actually exists.
Thank you.
So belief is not an experience, but believing is?
So after the semantic tap-dancing has subsided, I fail to see how we're any further way from disproving the notion that belief is an experience. At best, haven't we merely arrived at the conclusion that believing is an experience...
None beyond what is already self-evident.
The universality of salinity? Rather than just emptily asserting it, please demonstrate that salinity is universal.
OK.
Can you see it? It's called a storm cloud.
OK.
See it? It's the pool that is whirling. If it weren't whirling...
Why don't we set mere physical substantiation aside for the moment and grope about wildly for any sort of substantiation? What can the mongers of mysticism offer aside from allegations and subjective testimony?
A statement like that is already awash in flim-flammery. Isn't it rather...
Exactly what is it then?
Be sure to frame your response to the previous question in strictly concrete terms and do not resort to abstractions.
Thanks.
Darn tootin!
Yet you've agreed that belief is itself an experience, correct?
Oh please. You're now insisting that there are three sorts...
Disobedient children needed to be scared into toeing the line. That's my guess. Also, people got tired of being asked so many questions and invented god(s) to serve as a rubberstamp answer that required no evidence and (ideally) brooked no challenge.
"Now shut up and do as you're told!"
But you wouldn't deny that belief itself can be (and in fact must be) experienced ... that the act of believing must be experienced to be meaningful?
So empty claims regarding allegedly spooky stuff will always be just claims, correct? Because the very minute that any of these claims were...
Seriously?
"This is another reason, with which the apostle supports his advice to virgins, and unmarried persons, to remain so; since the time of life is so very short, and it is even but a little while to the end of the world, and second coming of Christ; and therefore seeing the marriage...
Unsubstantiated twaddle.
Unfortunately, that "deepity" is demonstrably untrue. Salinity levels in seawater vary. Sorry.
Again, a demonstrably false assertion.
See: "Storm."
Example:
Q. - What is it that is raining?
A. - It is a storm that is raining.
See? Easy peasy...
It's interesting to note that many etymologies (here, here, and here for starters) indicate that the English "mystic" is derived from Greek "mystos" which is defined as "to keep silent" or "to close the eye" (from the Greek "myein").
In light of that, it seems to me that "mystic" comes out of...
Who are these "many people" exactly? Could you please cite a few?
Sure it does. How else do you think the Israelites took possession of The Promised Land? It was a bloodbath.
But since it was a divinely ordained bloodbath, it was morally acceptable. See how Judeo-Christian "Morality"...