Do you believe in the mystical?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The intuitive mind is the pathway to the experience. But first the overactive thinking mind must be subdued.

Gut feelings are not a reliable pathway to truth, and "the thinking mind" is the only mechanism we have to discern truth and falsehood.

 

[godnotgod]

Gut feelings are not a reliable pathway to truth, and "the thinking mind" is the only mechanism we have to discern truth and falsehood.

Oh? Who sez? The thinking mind? Wasn't it the thinking mind that Hitler used to rationalize the extermination of the Jews, and the Christians and Muslims to exterminate one another? And how about the Inquisition? Today, we use the thinking mind to justify two illegal wars in the Middle East, honoring those who fight in them as heroes, while ISIS uses it to justify mass murder. The thinking mind is used as a Trojan Horse called NAFTA to rip off South America of her resources. Science uses the thinking mind to convince us that the billions spent on space exploration is all in the name of good science, when the real agenda is the militarization of space. Monsanto uses science to hoard billions via patenting its modified seeds, and Big Pharma to churn out dangerous, expensive drugs. All trim and proper and legal even. No, the thinking mind is too easily a devious mind.

I said the intuitive mind is the pathway to the experience. It is the experience we are after.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh? Who sez? The thinking mind?

Well, not that I give it much weight, but my intuition doesn't think your approach is a good one, either.

Wasn't it the thinking mind that Hitler used to rationalize the extermination of the Jews, and the Christians and Muslims to exterminate one another? And how about the Inquisition? Today, we use the thinking mind to justify two illegal wars in the Middle East, honoring those who fight in them as heroes, while ISIS uses it to justify mass murder. The thinking mind is used as a Trojan Horse called NAFTA to rip off South America of her resources. Science uses the thinking mind to convince us that the billions spent on space exploration is all in the name of good science, when the real agenda is the militarization of space. Monsanto uses science to hoard billions via patenting its modified seeds, and Big Pharma to churn out dangerous, expensive drugs. All trim and proper and legal even. No, the thinking mind is too easily a devious mind.

I said the intuitive mind is the pathway to the experience. It is the experience we are after.

I'm sorry - we may be dealing with a semantic issue here: my position is that *logical reasoning founded on evidence* is the reliable pathway to truth. I (probably as a bad assumption) figured that this would fall into what you were calling "the thinking mind".

Just so we're clear: it's *reason* I'm supporting, not whatever else you think is covered by the term "the thinking mind". Listing off a whole bunch of actions and decisions that I consideredunreasonable isn't going to somehow convince me that intuition is a good basis for decisions.

Gut feelings aren't reliable. The fact that you can list off other examples of poor thinking that you apparently believe weren't based on gut feelings doesn't somehow make gut feelings reliable.

Edit: my main objection was to your statement that "the thinking mind must be suspended." I consider reason to be part of "the thinking mind", so I take your statement to mean that reason must be suspended. Did I interpret what you said incorrectly?

 

[lovemuffin]

I'd disavow the rest of godnotgod's post there, but the last line is worth keeping I think. Experience is not the same as objective (or epistemological) truth. The idea that the mind must become silent in order to fully apprehend the experience shouldn't indicate an irrational approach to objective knowledge when that approach is suited to the task, but it means that approach isn't suitable to the mystical experience, which is not knowledge in that sense

 

[Bunyip]

All relative opposites are just two sides of the same coin. When the seeming duality is transcended, they are seen as they actually are: a singular reality. It is the ordinary conditioned mind that sees them as separate and dual. That is what the mystic realizes is illusion.

How can that apply to the unknown and the unknowable as you claimed?
We can not distinguish between the two - how are they opposites?

 

[godnotgod]

How can that apply to the unknown and the unknowable as you claimed?
We can not distinguish between the two - how are they opposites?

They're not. I keep telling you that.

In the post you just referenced, I am referring only to any set of relative opposites, which includes the known and the unknown, and which, when transcended, are then seen as a singular reality. Why? Because they are not separate as they appear to be; the transformed view gained in transcendence shows us that. It is this transformed view that is unknowable by the conditioned mind.

 

[Bunyip]

They're not. I keep telling you that.

In the post you just referenced, I am referring only to any set of relative opposites, which includes the known and the unknown, and which, when transcended, are then seen as a singular reality. Why? Because they are not separate as they appear to be; the transformed view gained in transcendence shows us that. It is this transformed view that is unknowable by the conditioned mind.

Sorry, no idea what that means.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, not that I give it much weight, but my intuition doesn't think your approach is a good one, either.

I'm sorry - we may be dealing with a semantic issue here: my position is that *logical reasoning founded on evidence* is the reliable pathway to truth. I (probably as a bad assumption) figured that this would fall into what you were calling "the thinking mind".

Just so we're clear: it's *reason* I'm supporting, not whatever else you think is covered by the term "the thinking mind". Listing off a whole bunch of actions and decisions that I consideredunreasonable isn't going to somehow convince me that intuition is a good basis for decisions.

The thinking mind IS the mind of Reason. Reason is just a tool the mind uses to get a handle on reality, although mostly it is a conceptual approach. That is why paradox appears when it is applied to nature, as nature itself is non-conceptual. The tool of Reason can be misused, but it is still Reason, however misguided it may be. Theists and atheists alike use it to support their beliefs. The husband who wants to be with his secretary in the Bahamas reasons that he can murder his wife in order to do so, and on and on and on. Even mystics must use Reason to navigate around the world as it has come to be structured, but their view of the world is not the same as that of the ordinary man.

Gut feelings aren't reliable. The fact that you can list off other examples of poor thinking that you apparently believe weren't based on gut feelings doesn't somehow make gut feelings reliable.

Edit: my main objection was to your statement that "the thinking mind must be suspended." I consider reason to be part of "the thinking mind", so I take your statement to mean that reason must be suspended. Did I interpret what you said incorrectly?

Yes. Please see the clarification by well-named on this issue, here:

Do you believe in the mystical? | Page 7 | ReligiousForums.com

But I know what you're thinking: suspension of Reason does not mean that the result is irrational behavior. The mystical view is beyond both the rational and the irrational. It is a non-dual, unconditioned view.

As I stated twice, the intuitive mind is the pathway to the mystical experience.

'The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open.' Nicholas of Cusa

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, no idea what that means.

The transcendent view cannot be encapsulated via idea. The unknowable cannot be grasped by the thinking mind:

Look, it cannot be seen -- it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard -- it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held -- it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one. http://www.headless.org/Biographies/lao-tzu.htm
http://www.headless.org/Biographies/lao-tzu.htm
Tao te Chinghttp://www.headless.org/Biographies/lao-tzu.htm
Lao-tzu

 

[Bunyip]

The transcendent view cannot be encapsulated via idea.

Yes, that is increasingly clear. Thankyou though.

 

[godnotgod]

...my position is that *logical reasoning founded on evidence* is the reliable pathway to truth. I (probably as a bad assumption) figured that this would fall into what you were calling "the thinking mind".

Reason as the reliable pathway to truth is not reliable, as new findings change the previous 'truths' all the time. Quantum Physics has upturned the apple cart of classical logic and Newtonian physics about how the world is structured. Kant tells us that Reason has ineluctable limits, and we are seeing that on both the micro and the macro scales. For example:

As Kaku aptly points out, 'nature is smarter than we are'.

The mystical view, OTOH, once seen, does not change. The underlying nature of Reality is the same throughout, though there is variation.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Why should we expect physical substantiation of something not physical?

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?

To me, the collective experiences of humans (mystical, paranormal, etc.) objectively analyzed is evidence (not proof) to be considered.

A statement like that is already awash in flim-flammery. Isn't it rather ridiculous to claim that the mystical and the paranormal can be objectively analyzed if they cannot be demonstrated to actually exist?

I have personally concluded ...

So what? Personal conclusions don't establish truth.

... that non-physical realms exist beyond reasonable doubt.

And you arrived at that (personal) conclusion based on what exactly?

Nobody expects the mystical to be studied with the same rigorousness as physical experimentation.

Apparently, that's because the mystical cannot be studied with the same any rigorousness.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Do you require substantiation to know that you are here, now?

None beyond what is already self-evident.

Any such 'deepity' is only in your mind, but you have missed the point, which is not about the level of salinity, but about the universality of salinity. Sorry.

The universality of salinity? Rather than just emptily asserting it, please demonstrate that salinity is universal.

Not so simplistic or demonstrable. Show me this 'it' that rains.

OK.

Can you see it? It's called a storm cloud.

Then show me the 'whirlpool' that whirls

OK.

See it? It's the pool that is whirling. If it weren't whirling, it'd just be a pool.

the 'river' that flows

See it? If it weren't flowing, it'd probably be a marsh.

and the 'wave' that waves.

See it? What would it be if it weren't waving? Still water?

No such animals.

Despite you claims to the contrary, these things do exist (which is why they can be photographed) ... and there is nothing at all mystical about them.

Of course, people are free to mentally attribute whatever qualities that they like to them. Such flights of fancy have no impact on reality.

These are nothing more than figures of speech we have accustomed to, thinking them to be real

things, which they're not; they're actions.

Your conclusions are suspect. These things (whirlpools, rivers, waves, etc) are all very real and the qualities that you're apparently ascribing mystical qualities to are simply innate to the object in question. The "whirling" is inherent to the whirlpool, the "flowing" is inherent to the river, the "waving" is inherent to the wave. None of these things would be what they are without these innate (and demonstrable) qualities ... and those qualities manifest via these physical objects.

Descartes was wrong. There is no such 'I' that thinks. There is only thinking itself ...

Until such time as you can demonstrate that thinking can occur without a brain (and hence, a thinker), I'm quite content to dismiss such a claim as hogwash.

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial.

Perhaps. But is the conclusion accurate? Is it true?

Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

"x" thinks
I am that "x"
Therefore I think
Therefore I am


Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

You're wallowing in rigmarole. Why drag out all that superfluous philosophical block and tackle? Who needs placeholders? This soggy-brained example you've provided sounds quite like the sports cliché of the athlete that habitually refers to themselves in the third person. Why not simplify the equation?

"I think, therefore I am." It's much simpler. The conclusion is both self-evident and inescapable.

...

Thinking is to brains what flowing is to rivers ... or whirling is to whirlpools ... or waving is to waves. There is nothing demonstrably mystical about any of these things.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

... the fairest answer is "I don't know".

Thank you.

I do not think that a belief is an experience. I think we have an experience of believing our beliefs ...

So belief is not an experience, but believing is?

We believe, knowing that we believe. That "knowing" is an experience of belief, but the content of a given belief is not itself an experience. First there is experience, then there is memory, interpretation, belief. Coincidental with interpretation and belief is the experience of believing, a separate experience from the original one.

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? Doesn't believing have content?

Yes, I am implying that reality is partly hidden from empirical and rational knowledge.

The experience of the hidden is mystical experience.

It's a bit like Christmas morning, isn't it? Some people are just certain that they're about to get the coolest present ever. They cannot demonstrate that the wrapping conceals anything more than yet another sweater, but they're willing to make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims.

There can be such a thing as a mystical experience even of a reality with no supreme being in the Abrahamic sense. Consider various forms of Buddhism.

I don't consider conjectural allegations that portions of reality are hidden to be special. Sorry.

This gets back to the insistence all along that "the mystical" isn't a belief.

Perhaps not. Based on the evidence, it's nothing more than semantic tap-dancing.

But isn't "mysticism" a belief? It's undeniably an "-ism." And not in the same sense that "autism" is an "-ism."

The goal is not to assert a proposition and gain your assent through a process of reasoning.

Oops. I'd mistaken most of what you've offered thus far as the product of a process of reasoning.

The goal is to point to the experience

Which experience, specifically?

and suggest that it is possible

I've not denied that experience is possible.

and that the demonstration of its possibility is in the having of the experience.

Aren't you taking in circles at this point?

In many traditions, the proper method is a purification and initiation of one's own life and consciousness, and this is so precisely because the experience is subjective.

Immerse ten people in boiling water (or if you prefer a more theistic approach, burn them at the stake) and see how subjective their descriptions of the actual experience tend to be.

Could it be that experiences themselves are universally similar and that they're only imbued with imaginary (read: "mystical") qualities after the fact?

 

[lovemuffin]

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? Doesn't believing have content?

If we follow this little sub-topic back to its beginning, it was just about whether "mystical experience" is belief. My answer was that there is a distinction between the mystical experience itself and the belief about the experience (or the experience of believing, if you prefer). No one ever claimed that believing didn't constitute an experience, it's just not the one we were trying to talk about. The goal was not to disprove that belief is an experience. I think this entire tangent has mostly involved you trying to pursue a contradiction that you perceived to be there but which is not actually there.

But isn't "mysticism" a belief?

Yes. Of course.

Oops. I'd mistaken most of what you've offered thus far as the product of a process of reasoning.

I've attempted to give as clear of a description as I'm able of what I think we're talking about when we talk about mystical experiences, and specifically why it is important from my perspective to distinguish between experience itself and what follows from it. As such the description has followed a process of reasoning. But the process and the description are not mystical experience.

Could it be that experiences themselves are universally similar and that they're only imbued with imaginary (read: "mystical") qualities after the fact?

Could it be? Certainly! The mystical is not an objective fact. I don't think you've really grasped the point of saying that it's not a question of making an objective demonstration, but of pointing to an experience that must be participated in to be grasped at all. There is a reason that so many mystics resort to poetry, and paradox, koans, aphorisms, and etc. What I'm saying is that the best way to understand what we're on about is to try to experience it for yourself. You may even do so and still dismiss it as having no ultimate meaning or content, as just a sort neurological trick or cognitive bias.

 

[George-ananda]

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?

They offer their personal experiences for us to consider. They are not proselytizing but relating experiences. For someone like you, nothing but physical evidence is meaningful; that's fine for you but I think you will be impoverished by not considering that others may experience more than our surface reality.

My study of the paranormal has convinced me that there is more to 'real' than our surface reality. Classic materialism can not make sense of it. The quantity, quality and consistency of mystical insight has formed eastern (Indian/Hindu) thought and has produced one of mankind's great wisdom traditions.

A statement like that is already awash in flim-flammery. Isn't it rather ridiculous to claim that the mystical and the paranormal can be objectively analyzed if they cannot be demonstrated to actually exist?

Why can we not analyze a body of human experiences that, by their nature, leave no physical trail. I think we are impoverished to ignore without objective consideration.

So what? Personal conclusions don't establish truth.

So, I'm not establishing truth for anyone but myself. I will offer my observations and opinions to others as input for their own establishment of truth. In the end, without proof or disproof, all anyone has is their own opinion which holds sway only over their jurisdiction of one person..

 

[Gambit]

As I said to well named, I don't think that every phenomenon necessarily has a naturalistic explanation, but I do think that all the valid explanations to be had are naturalistic.

Well, if you believe that there is any phenomenon that does not have a naturalistic explanation (not even in theory), then you must believe it has a nonnatralistic or mystical explanation by default.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, if you believe that there is any phenomenon that does not have a naturalistic explanation (not even in theory), then you must believe it has a nonnatralistic or mystical explanation by default.

No, I don't.

I think you're using the term "explanation" in a different way than I am. When I say "explanation", I'm talking about the understanding of why the thing happened, not the causal mechanism itself. There are only two possibilites:

- we come to a naturalistic understanding of how a thing happens, or
- we don't know how the thing happens.

That's what I'm getting at. And no, this doesn't mean that I've assumed some non-naturalistic explanation for the stuff in the second category. There is no explanation for these things; that's what "we don't know" implies.

 

[Gambit]

That's what I'm getting at. And no, this doesn't mean that I've assumed some non-naturalistic explanation for the stuff in the second category. There is no explanation for these things; that's what "we don't know" implies.

Previously you stated,:"I don't think that every phenomenon necessarily has a naturalistic explanation, but I do think that all the valid explanations to be had are naturalistic."

Question:

Do you believe every phenomenon has a naturalistic explanation or not? If not, then do you believe there are some phenomena that cannot be explained naturally (not even in theory)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Previously you stated,:"I don't think that every phenomenon necessarily has a naturalistic explanation, but I do think that all the valid explanations to be had are naturalistic."

Question:

Do you believe every phenomenon has a naturalistic explanation or not?

Only things that have been explained have explanations. Many things have not been explained, so the answer to your question is no.

I expect that we will develop explanations for more phenomena in the future. All of these explanations will be naturalistic, since the definition of "naturalistic" implies that if an explanation is not naturalistic, then it isn't valid, and is therefore not an explanation at all.

If not, then do you believe there are some phenomena that cannot be explained naturally (not even in theory)?

I don't expect that humanity will ever learn all there is to learn, simply because it seems that "all there is to learn" is infinite.

If you're talking about inherent limitations that stop us from learning about some particular aspect of things, I don't know. There may be... but all that lies in the unknown, so I'm not in a position to say.