Do you believe in the mystical?

[NulliuSINverba]

That is correct. You have to experience it as such for it to have any meaning for you.

He cannot experience it, because (according to you) there is no one to experience anything. You've violated your own rules when you employed the word "you" in relation to the word "experience."

BIOYA.

 

[godnotgod]

He cannot experience it, because (according to you) there is no one to experience anything. You've violated your own rules when you employed the word "you" in relation to the word "experience."

BIOYA.

You're confusing the conventional use of the word 'you' with reality. But 'you' (which doesn't actually exist) are correct: there is no one called 'you' or 'I' that is the experiencer of the experience; there is only the experience itself. The deeper understanding is that what is thought to be 'I' is but a play of the universal consciousness, when all the while, 'I' totally believes itself to be real. It is the ocean that does the wave, and not the other way around. The experience of the wave is in reality the experience of the ocean itself. 'My' experience is actually the experience of the universe.

 

[Gambit]

I don't believe in spiritual meaning. There is a great deal about the universe that we cannot explain, but calling it spiritual doesn't accomplish anything.

But if you believe there is something that is mysterious that can never be explained (not even in theory), then you believe in the mystical.

 

[sojourner]

it all depends on what you mean. If, by "the mystical," you mean, "is there a depth to human experience and our interconnectedness with the world around us that is not easily perceived or understood," I'd say, "Yes."

 

[Tumah]

I don't think there exists anything that can't be understood.

 

[Gambit]

I don't think there exists anything that can't be understood.

What about God? Or, for that matter, what about yourself? Or, fellow human being?

 

[Tumah]

What about God? Or, for that matter, what about yourself? Or, fellow human being?

I hear what you are saying. I don't know if I would call that mystical though. Mystical to me, seems to connote some magical, romanticized, transcendence, that I don't see in these three examples. Maybe I don't understand the term so well.

 

[roger1440]

I don't think there exists anything that can't be understood.

That may be true, but there are things that cannot be explained. A mystical experience is one of them. The word “mystical” comes from the word mystery. It’s a mystery because there is no way to explain the experience. This experience does not come to a person through the senses. It’s better explained as insight or awareness. The closest way to explain the experience would be through art, symbolism or allegory. It kinda tastes like chicken.

 

[Bunyip]

That may be true, but there are things that cannot be explained. A mystical experience is one of them. The word “mystical” comes from the word mystery. It’s a mystery because there is no way to explain the experience. This experience does not come to a person through the senses. It’s better explained as insight or awareness. The closest way to explain the experience would be through art, symbolism or allegory. It kinda tastes like chicken.

That an experience has not been explained, does not infer that it can not be explained. So many things we once believed to be unexplainable mysteries are now well understood.

 

[Gambit]

I hear what you are saying. I don't know if I would call that mystical though. Mystical to me, seems to connote some magical, romanticized, transcendence, that I don't see in these three examples. Maybe I don't understand the term so well.

It also denotes something mysterious that defies a naturalistic explanation. This is certainly how skeptics employ the term.

 

[Bunyip]

It also denotes something mysterious that defies a naturalistic explanation. This is certainly how skeptics employ the term.

Sure - just as lightning, rainbows, thunder etc were once believed to defy natural explanation.

 

[Gambit]

That an experience has not been explained, does not infer that it can not be explained. So many things we once believed to be unexplainable mysteries are now well understood.

He's expressing a belief that not everything has a naturalistic explanation. You're expressing a belief that everything has (even if science has not explained it yet).

 

[Bunyip]

He's expressing a belief that not everything has a naturalistic explanation. You're expressing a belief that everything has (even if science has not explained it yet).

No, not at all. I'm just pointing out that you can not know that something is not explainable. Only that it is as yet unexplained.

 

[Gambit]

No, not at all. I'm just pointing out that you can not know that something is not explainable. Only that it is as yet unexplained.

I stand corrected. I see that you voted yes to the question I posed in the OP. You believe in the mystical; you believe there is something that defies a naturalistic, scientific explanation.

 

[Bunyip]

I stand corrected. I see that you voted yes to the question I posed in the OP. You believe in the mystical - that there is something defies a naturalistic, scientific explanation.

That is not how I would define mystical. I was just using the common definition of 'mystical' as something that inspires awe, wonder - a spiritual experience. I see the notion of defining mystical in terms of things that defy naturalistic explanation as extremely problematic because it is not possible to know that something defies natural explanation.

 

[Gambit]

That is not how I would define mystical. I was just using the common definition of 'mystical' as something that inspires awe, wonder - a spiritual experience. I see the notion of defining mystical in terms of things that defy naturalistic explanation as extremely problematic because it is not possible to know that something defies natural explanation.

I am asking you what you believe, not what you know. So, if you do not believe there is something that completely defies a naturalistic explanation, then I suggest you change your vote.

 

[Bunyip]

I am asking you what you believe, not what you know. So, if you do not believe there is something that completely defies a naturalistic explanation, then I suggest you change your vote.

Why? That is my belief. I believe that it is not possible to know if something defies a naturalistic explanation. So the term 'defies naturalistic explanation' is misleading. That it is not possible to know something defies naturalistic explanation is my belief.

 

[Bunyip]

You may want to re-read your OP Gambit, you gave a very different definition of mystical than the one you are applying now. It did not infer any unexplainability,

 

[Gambit]

Why? That is my belief. I believe that it is not possible to know if something defies a naturalistic explanation. So the term 'defies naturalistic explanation' is misleading. That it is not possible to know something defies naturalistic explanation is my belief.

Because this is my thread, not yours. Therefore, I am the one who has the privilege of aking the question and defining the term, not you. So, if you think the term is misleading, then don't vote. I suggest you start your own thread instead of trying to hijack this one.

 

[Bunyip]

Because this is my thread, not yours. Therefore, I am the one who has the privilege of aking the question and defining the term, not you. So, if you think the term is misleading, then don't vote. I suggest you start your own thread instead of trying to hijack this one.

You did not define it that way in the OP. You introduced the idea of unexplainability after people voted. No need for the tantrum mate.