Do you believe in the mystical?

[godnotgod]

I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand where Godnotgod is coming from. Going back to the water vs. specific types of water argument.

Whirling water = whirlpool
waving water = wave
flowing water = river

What is the common theme in all of these? Water right.

You are classifying the specific actions of water as different types of water - whirlpool, wave, and river are all nouns that imply a specific action. Hence, they are all different "things".

What GodnotGod is saying is that instead of being three separate things, they are all one thing (water), that is completing different actions.

All in all, I would argue that the entire discussion is one of semantics, because no matter what word(s) you use the idea that water is completing an action is implicit in all of them. But at the same time I also recognize that GodnotGod is implying a deeper idea, that all things are of one substance at their basis. So from this standpoint, the argument that water is only one thing, no matter the action that it is taking is an important one. It implies that all things, no matte the action they are taking, are still just one "thing".

On that note, considering the progression in quantum physics, and the discovery of smaller and smaller particles, do you not think it possible or even probable that everything at the most basic level is only made of one "substance?"? Photons, gluons, neutrinos, and all of the other tiniest particles that we know of all composed of the same thing?

Further, the 'experiencer of the experience' we call 'I' is only a mental construct, a self-created principle, when the only true reality, the 'one substance' is seeing consciousness, without a 'see-er'. What this translates to in terms of the OT is that individual consciousness is illusory, and as a result, we are all actually experiencing universal consiousness, which is none other than the mystical experience. IOW, it is the divine nature that is doing us as individual egos, as play, but we think WE are the doers, when, in reality, we don't exist as individual egos.

 

[godnotgod]

You've asserted that, but you've failed to demonstrate it.

It's like the fundamentalist insisting that non-believers prove to him there is no God, when it is he who makes the claim of its existence in the first place, and where the burden of proof is incumbent upon him, and not upon those who question such claims. All I'm saying is that there is thinking and experiencing, without a thinker or experiencer, in precisely the same manner that there is whirling, flowing, and waving water without a whirl-er, flow-er, or a wav-er of the water. Is there a rain god who rains the rain? Or is there just the process and experience of raining itself?

You're asserting that as well, but you've also failed to demonstrate it.

It is you who have failed to show me the wave that waves; the it that rains; the pool that whirls; or the river that flows. You've shown me still photos of waving, raining, whirling, and flowing water that you CALL wave, rain, whirlpool, and river, but those are but names and concepts, not real things. Likewise, there is no such 'experiencer of the experience'. If there is, I'd like you to bring this rascal forth so we can give him a good whacking.

Please demonstrate that a picture of a whirlpool does not show a whirlpool.

I see a picture of whirling water, but no such thing that can be called 'whirlpool', 'whirlpool' only being an idea you formulate of whirling water inside your head (just as you formulate an idea of "I" inside your head, and then proceed to give it credibility). Were such an actuality to exist, it would not cease to whirl when the energy responsible for the whirling ceases its action. But it DOES cease to whirl, just as 'I' ceases to think when it is no longer given conscious attention. The picture of the 'whirlpool' is not the whirlpool; it is merely a snapshot of whirling water at one moment of the action of its whirling.

And when water does these things, we use these words to describe them.

But the word 'whirlpool' is not what the whirling water actually is. What the whirling water actually is, is water that is whirling, just as you are not the experiencer of the experience, but, in fact, are that experience itself, but which the mind keeps attaching a concept of 'I' to as 'MY experience'.

Please demonstrate that whirling can occur without the pool. Please demonstrate that flowing can occur without the river.

Where is 'pool'? Where is 'river'? Where is 'I'? They are in your head as concepts of whirling and flowing water, and of an individual ego called 'I' that acts upon the world.

Until such a time arrives, you're obliging me to dismiss you as a woo-monger.

But sir, I am not the one advancing woo-claims of wave, river, whirlpool, or experiencer. All you've done thus far is to show me still pix of flowing, whirling, and waving water. These snapshots of ACTIONS of water, are not the things you claim them to be. A split second after each of the photos, what was, is no more, as these have now changed their forms. If the flowing water of a river were to suddenly stop and freeze, you would no longer have what you call 'river', because 'river' is an ACTION called 'flowing water', just as YOU are not a frozen reality called 'I', but an ACTION, an EXPERIENCE, that changes from one moment to the next.

You have failed repeatedly to demonstrate that an action can occur without an agent.

You have failed repeatedly to demonstrate the existence of any such agent to begin with, just as Descartes merely assumes the existence of 'I', with zero proof. When you seize this fellow, bring him to me, so I can then demonstrate that such an agent is but an illusion, just as when you twirl a flaming stick in the dark, there is no flaming circle, but only the ILLUSION, of a flaming circle. The 'I' only seems real, until you cease to fuel its fire with conscious energy. Stop the thinking, and the 'I' is nowhere to be found.

If it didn't whirl, what are the chances that we'd call it a whirlpool?

Verbs are not suddenly transformed into nouns, nor events into things. You think there exists an experiencer of the experience. Can you tell me what you think this so called 'experiencer' consists of that it can be called such a thing?

To be continued.....

 

[godnotgod]

On that note, considering the progression in quantum physics, and the discovery of smaller and smaller particles, do you not think it possible or even probable that everything at the most basic level is only made of one "substance?"? Photons, gluons, neutrinos, and all of the other tiniest particles that we know of all composed of the same thing?

The latest information I have is that the mass of these (virtual) 'particles' is being created by fluctuations in the Quantum & Higgs fields, which only make it appear that the mass is actual, when, in fact, it is virtual, which means that all reality is virtual. Of course, this is completely consistent with the mystical view, that sees 'physical' reality as illusory, and as the Sixth Zen Patriarch said: 'From the very beginning, not one thing exists'. The 'basic level' you refer to is what John Hagelin calls 'the unified field', which is none other than pure consciousness, or the 'ground of being', as Hinduism calls it. From the POV of the Big Bang, it was an event in consciousness, which is not in Time or Space.

 

[Windwalker]

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 the box freighted with conflict for most thinking beings (and especially atheists).

I think you are mistaking closing the eye and keeping silent with anti-rationality. When you sit beneath the night sky and experience awe, is that because you reasoned it? I can tell you what happens in such moments is that the sheer magnitude and majesty of such a moment causes the mind to become silent before it. It is in the moment of the silenced mind that you become aware of something beyond your own thoughts and ideas about things. And in that moment you are having a mystical experience which is to in essence become naked to yourself and the world. You set aside the clothes of the mind, and are simply naked in your being. None of that is in conflict with the rational mind, anymore than any non-rational experience such as love is.

What I find interesting is how you say these things are in conflict with most thinking beings, and "especially atheists". Why on earth, "especially atheists"? You think atheists are more rational? I would say that if they are unable to know themselves in the non-rational aspects of their being, knowing they are more than simply their own thoughts (which is actually more prominent in all humans than simply cognitive thought processes), they are in fact irrational, cutting themselves off from their own humanity. Einstein certainly agrees:

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

So I would argue that to say "especially atheists" are more rational in this context would be to argue they are more "good as dead", as Einstein put it. "Pause to wonder" is going into silence, BTW. It is not irrational, it is going beyond rationality into ones very own being. It's interesting how some view themselves as superior in rationality like this, and betray a lack instead.

 

[godnotgod]

... It is not irrational, it is going beyond rationality into ones very own being. It's interesting how some view themselves as superior in rationality like this, and betray a lack instead.

I would add to this that the mystical view/experience puts Reason into the correct context, which is the direct experience of Reality itself. Reason is out of context and disconnected from Reality when thought of as the only valid viewpoint, because it formulates a conceptual model of Reality, and then attempts to make Reality fit the model, just as religious doctrine does. It is for these reasons that Paradox is the outcome, because nature does not ultimately fit the conceptual models. The mystical view is all inclusive and non discriminatory, whereas the method of Reason is divisive, reductionist, and discriminatory.

(Nice to hear from you after all this time. I wondered if you were still with us.)

edit: one more comparison is that the mystical experience is the merging of subject/object, while that of the rational mind still sees the universe as an object 'out there' somewhere, apart from the observer, when, in fact, the 'observer' is none other than the universe itself!

'You are the universe looking at itself through your eyes'
Alan Watts

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I think you are mistaking closing the eye and keeping silent with anti-rationality.

No. I'm not. I'm merely looking at the etymologies of the word "mystic" itself. No need to muddy the waters further.

When you sit beneath the night sky and experience awe, is that because you reasoned it?

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."

I can tell you what happens in such moments is that the sheer magnitude and majesty of such a moment causes the mind to become silent before it.

You're speaking for yourself here, of course.

It is in the moment of the silenced mind that you become aware of something beyond your own thoughts and ideas about things.

Ibid.

And in that moment you are having a mystical experience which is to in essence become naked to yourself and the world.

Ibid.

You set aside the clothes of the mind, and are simply naked in your being.

No. Sorry. My mind is an inexorable part of my being. It is the very instrument by which I experience awe. It is never set aside.

None of that is in conflict with the rational mind, anymore than any non-rational experience such as love is.

If it isn't in conflict, I wonder why you've bothered to forge distinctions.

What I find interesting is how you say these things are in conflict with most thinking beings, and "especially atheists". Why on earth, "especially atheists"?

Why? Because (so far) mysticism has utterly failed to distinguish itself as anything more than an unsubstantiated, soggy-brained load of rubbish.

You think atheists are more rational?

I make no apologies for believing that atheism is a more rational worldview than theism and its imaginary friends in the sky or mysticism and its hoodoo voodoo.

I would say that if they are unable to know themselves in the non-rational aspects of their being, knowing they are more than simply their own thoughts (which is actually more prominent in all humans than simply cognitive thought processes), they are in fact irrational, cutting themselves off from their own humanity.

Forgive me for saying so, but that last bit had so much woo leaking out at the seams that it was difficult to parse out what you were actually trying to say.

Einstein certai--

Oh please. Enough with the Einstein quotes. They're not special. Einstein also said:

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

Spiritualism is "a symptom of weakness and confusion." Read that bit again and again until it sinks in.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

I hope that we can agree that comprehension is a product of the rational mind?

So I would argue that to say "especially atheists" are more rational in this context would be to argue they are more "good as dead", as Einstein put it.

Again, I'm not exempting anyone from a sense of awe. I'm just not leaping up to conflate awe and mysticism.

"Pause to wonder" is going into silence, BTW.

Unless you're saying "Wow!" or busily swearing to express your @#$%^&* sense of awe, of course. The night sky isn't exactly a public library. No need to "shush" people.

It is not irrational, it is going beyond rationality into ones very own being. It's interesting how some view themselves as superior in rationality like this, and betray a lack instead.

Again, I'm not advocating against awe. I simply refuse to (mis-)characterize it as "mystical."

...

And to remain skeptical concerning vague allegations of "the mystical" seems undeniably more rational to me. Sorry. You've failed to convince me otherwise.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

All I'm saying is that there is thinking and experiencing, without a thinker or experiencer, in precisely the same manner that there is whirling, flowing, and waving water without a whirl-er, flow-er, or a wav-er of the water.

And all I'm saying is that you cannot have the whirl without the pool. And you cannot have thoughts without a thinker.

Is there a rain god who rains the rain? Or is there just the process and experience of raining itself?

You cannot have the rain without the rainstorm.

It is you who have failed to show me the wave that waves; the it that rains; the pool that whirls; or the river that flows.

You're the one who's making the weird claims here. Allow me to invite you to show me a whirlpool that features no pool. You've failed to do so thus far.

You've shown me still photos of waving, raining, whirling, and flowing water that you CALL wave, rain, whirlpool, and river, but those are but names and concepts, not real things.

So you're seriously going to assert that those photographs were not pictures of real things?

Likewise, there is no such 'experiencer of the experience'. If there is, I'd like you to bring this rascal forth so we can give him a good whacking.

What you've been blathering on about seems exactly akin to saying there is no reader of the book (or forum post).

You've now officially exhausted my patience with your woo-mongering.

...

I'll happily cede you the last word, but insist that you post your response without resorting to becoming the respondent.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

What GodnotGod is saying is that instead of being three separate things, they are all one thing (water), that is completing different actions.

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?

All in all, I would argue that the entire discussion is one of semantics

And I beg to differ. He's asserted (over and over again) that there can be experiences without anyone to experience them. That isn't semantics. It's just plain rubbish.

So from this standpoint, the argument that water is only one thing, no matter the action that it is taking is an important one. It implies that all things, no matte the action they are taking, are still just one "thing".

Once again, please feel free to explain away his assertion that there can be experiences without anyone to experience them. Let's see some evidence.

On that note, considering the progression in quantum physics, and the discovery of smaller and smaller particles, do you not think it possible or even probable that everything at the most basic level is only made of one "substance?"? Photons, gluons, neutrinos, and all of the other tiniest particles that we know of all composed of the same thing?

Whatever we may or may not discover the case to be, it certainly won't qualify as "mystical" in any sense of the word.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

And to add a question of my own, is something naturalistic or mystical if we know that something works but not how and/or why it works?

Are "mysticism" and "ignorance" to be used interchangeably?

Gee. I dunno. But if that's going to be our working definition ... I guess that makes my mother's VCR a mystical object. Along with her digital alarm clock, her lawn mower, and her cable remote's "INPUT" button.

 

[godnotgod]

Are "mysticism" and "ignorance" to be used interchangeably?

Gee. I dunno. But if that's going to be our working definition ... I guess that makes my mother's VCR a mystical object. Along with her digital alarm clock, her lawn mower, and her cable remote's "INPUT" button.

Man oh man! Have YOU ever missed the point!

 

[Windwalker]

No. I'm not. I'm merely looking at the etymologies of the word "mystic" itself. No need to muddy the waters further.

There are several problems here. You are interpreting what you think was meant, and it is interpreting it to fit your current POV. I think the word is valid, but not to mean "shutting of the brain", which is what you imply. That is not mystical experience to those who identify as mystics. I think I'll make that clearer in my next points.

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."

And when you let awe take you further and further, at that point you probably would.

You're speaking for yourself here, of course.

Yes, but let's be clear I am also speaking what others say. So I am speaking for them as well. There is a point where subjective experience becomes objective when there is a clear and consistent pattern.

No. Sorry. My mind is an inexorable part of my being. It is the very instrument by which I experience awe. It is never set aside.

And here is where I think the problem in understanding is happening. I have never, ever said "shut off the mind". The only thing you are doing is stilling the discursive, internal chatter; that constant running of texts in self-reflexive dialog of defining this or that and relating to it as objective reality. It is quieting the "what do I think about this" mechanisms, where we normally live embedded and self-identified within them as reality itself. You don't shut off the mind, you simply quite that discursive mind. Most people are not even aware of what is actually happening inside their minds this way. They mistake that dialog as the mind itself. I think that is the mistake you are making, unaware of anything else in your own mind.

When I am in meditative states for instance, my mind is not "off". It's not a "blank". That is a deep misunderstanding of what is going on. My mind is quiet, but I am very, very aware. Much more aware than when you normally live within a bloody rock concert blaring inside your head (you only realize how noisy it is in there once you can actually see what's been going on the whole time which appears "normal" to most everyone). The reason you're more aware is because there is less static, lest debris clouding the mind. It's like taking the car through the wash and looking out through a clean window, which you had previously just learned to adapt your eyes to all the dirt on it, subconsciously adjusting to it as "normal".

So when I describe mystical states, what that is is higher and higher states of awareness, deeper and deeper into that experience of awe as you cited. You yourself admit that something else "takes over" at the end of the rational's abilities to penetrate. That is what I am saying. But the rabbit hole goes deep indeed! Infinitely deep. And that depth is the experience of the mystical. Awe is the first step, the opening of the deep.

If it isn't in conflict, I wonder why you've bothered to forge distinctions.

It is others who make the distinctions. I am trying to talk to those to show what is beyond them.

Why? Because (so far) mysticism has utterly failed to distinguish itself as anything more than an unsubstantiated, soggy-brained load of rubbish.

Have you ever meditated?

Seriously, calling what I'm talking about as soggy-brained, is just plain ignorant.

I make no apologies for believing that atheism is a more rational worldview than theism and its imaginary friends in the sky or mysticism and its hoodoo voodoo.

When you define everything as the pre-rational mythic thought it will appear as that. But is it as black and white as all that? No, of course not. I'm not speaking of Zeus here.

Forgive me for saying so, but that last bit had so much woo leaking out at the seams that it was difficult to parse out what you were actually trying to say.

Why is it "rational" atheists feel a need to insult others if they are truly rational? I guarantee, you will find no "woo" in me. It's your understanding that is deficient here.

Oh please. Enough with the Einstein quotes. They're not special. Einstein also said:

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

Spiritualism is "a symptom of weakness and confusion." Read that bit again and again until it sinks in.

This also fits in with why I quoted Einstein. I agree with what he is saying here too! Spiritualism he was referring to was that practice in his day of communing with the dead. His criticism is my criticism as well of "New Age" type metaphysics. I cited Einstein because he is speaking of the mystical beyond the New Age'y metaphysical fluff. It might behoove you to trying to understand how these quotes from him fit together. I understand, but you would be hard pressed to make them fit together I believe.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

I hope that we can agree that comprehension is a product of the rational mind?

Sure, but his is speaking about the world, the natural world of physics. That's not what he was referencing in the other quote however. If he was, then calling it Mysterious, saying our dull minds could not penetrate it, would be a contradiction. His complaint was about pseudoscience and trying to use magic to interpret the natural world. But there is more to ones "being", than physics. And Einstein knew that.

Again, I'm not exempting anyone from a sense of awe. I'm just not leaping up to conflate awe and mysticism.

If you define mysticism as men in red hats with special knots in their underwear in special clubs, then I would agree. I think that's baby pablum. I embrace rationality. But to say that is the "ultimate" mode of knowing one's own being, is frankly kind of baby pablum too. It's integrally important, but to call that the height of all knowing and knowledge is kind of adolescent, thinking you've got things all figured out now.

Unless you're saying "Wow!" or busily swearing to express your @#$%^&* sense of awe, of course. The night sky isn't exactly a public library. No need to "shush" people.

What the hell are you talking about?

Again, I'm not advocating against awe. I simply refuse to (mis-)characterize it as "mystical."

Again, awe is the beginning, the opening. Enter within awe, and see what you might call it. I think the word is valid, and it does not mean "woo".

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Man oh man! Have YOU ever missed the point!

Perhaps I have. However, given that the topic is as soggy-brained as "mysticism" tends to be ... there may not be an actual point. Mysticism is by nature an ill-defined, irrational, gauzy, and flaked-out subject.

Meanwhile, nash8 asked a question and I provided a conditional answer. I'd prefer to disregard mysticism altogether and simply work with what is known and what isn't known. If we know that something works, but don't happen to know how or why it works, that seems a very bad excuse to trot out the word "mystical."

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I just find it inexcusably lazy.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I think the word is valid, but not to mean "shutting of the brain", which is what you imply.

You've erred. It isn't what I've implied. It's what those etymologies imply. I didn't invent them. I think that "mystic" is a perfectly valid word. I'd never suggest that you couldn't play that word in Scrabble®.

That is not mystical experience to those who identify as mystics.

Again: I was examining the etymologies of the word. It appears that you're laboring under the (wildly mistaken) impression that I was somehow seeking to apply the etymology of the word "mystic" to the "mystical experience of those who identify as mystics." Whatever that means.

I think I'll make that clearer in my next points.

Oh happy day.

And when you let awe take you further and further, at that point you probably would.

No. I probably wouldn't. There is no point on my Flow Chart Of Awe where mysticism creeps in. Awe is more than sufficient. I'm not seeking to weld an "-ism" onto it.

Yes, but let's be clear I am also speaking what others say. So I am speaking for them as well. There is a point where subjective experience becomes objective when there is a clear and consistent pattern.

And what exactly is that clear and consistent pattern? Feel free to limn out the objective boundaries of this so-called "mystical experience."

Just the facts please. Since you're gonna be all objective 'n stuff.

And here is where I think the problem in understanding is happening. I have never, ever said "shut off the mind".

Neither have I. I merely pointed to a couple of etymologies. It's evident that you're much bothered by the implications of these definitions, but that is no concern of mine.

The only thing you are doing is stilling the discursive, internal chatter; that constant running of texts in self-reflexive dialog of defining this or that and relating to it as objective reality. It is quieting the "what do I think about this" mechanisms, where we normally live embedded and self-identified within them as reality itself.

What does that even mean? What exactly are you even trying to talk about? "Discursive internal chatter?"

You don't shut off the mind, you simply quite that discursive mind. Most people are not even aware of what is actually happening inside their minds this way. They mistake that dialog as the mind itself. I think that is the mistake you are making, unaware of anything else in your own mind.

It's quite possible that mysticism is nothing more than an attempt to create a problem for people ("discursive internal chatter") and then sell them a bogus "cure" for the imagined problem.

Seriously, calling what I'm talking about as soggy-brained, is just plain ignorant.

I'll freely admit that I'm blissfully ignorant of your own subjective experience of what you're opting to label as "mystical." So what?

If you define mysticism as men in red hats with special knots in their underwear in special clubs, then I would agree.

I'd prefer to define mysticism as an ill-defined, woo-laden bunch of claptrap that ekes out its living by seeking to blur the lines between that which is known and that which is unknown.

The fashion options are irrelevant. There are mystics who'll show up dressed in suits.

I embrace rationality. But to say that is the "ultimate" mode of knowing one's own being, is frankly kind of baby pablum too. It's integrally important, but to call that the height of all knowing and knowledge is kind of adolescent, thinking you've got things all figured out now.

I disagree that rationality is a mode of knowing anything "ultimately." In fact, I'm unsure that there is any such thing as "ultimate" knowledge or an "ultimate" way to know anything. At some point you've apparently traipsed into the theistic tulip patch of Absolute Certainty. Or at least gotten perilously close to doing so.

Rationality is a tool we utilize to sort out that which makes sense from that which is nonsensical.

However, since you've opted to assert that rationality somehow equates to having "things all figured out," feel free to demonstrate that your assertion is true. Please provide some evidence that rationality has things all figured out. Go ahead.

What the hell are you talking about?

You've apparently insisted that (falling into) silence is somehow a prerequisite for awe, and I've disagreed. One could certainly express their sense of awe with a long, drawn out string of profanities.

I think the word is valid, and it does not mean "woo".

And I think that while the word itself is undeniably valid, it still reeks of woo.

You're free to engage in all the navel-gazing you can stomach. It holds no appeal whatsoever to me.

 

[Windwalker]

What does that even mean? What exactly are you even trying to talk about? "Discursive internal chatter?"

And therein lies the entire crux of why none of this makes any sense to you. I noticed you did not reply at all to my question of do you meditate? I take that silence, along with your admission none of what I said about the discursive mind makes any sense to you, to be the very reason why any discussion of transrational experience, mystical states of consciousness and so forth to be impossible with you. That's fine. But what's fun is why you feel it's necessary to insult others when you yourself are completely ignorant of what are really the most basic understanding of the mind itself. I suppose its a way to feel better about being out-classed in a discussion, to try to get then on the defensive by insulting them. I recall that tactic from my childhood.

I would suggest doing some boning up on Buddhist practices, read about the discursive mind, and in the meantime, try to be a little humble and not put others down because your own lack knowledge. It just makes you sound foolish to those who know more than you do.

You may wish to also expand your knowledge into actual studies that have been done on these things, which may help you temper your overconfidence. This is a nice high-level overview of what you sadly, and frankly stupidly call "woo". Stages of Meditation | Integral Life

Good day. I wish you luck on your further pursuit of actual knowledge. I won't be responding further as the insults belong in elementary school, not with intelligent people.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I noticed you did not reply at all to my question of do you meditate?

Define "meditate."

I take that silence, along with your admission none of what I said about the discursive mind makes any sense to you, to be the very reason why any discussion of transrational experience, mystical states of consciousness and so forth to be impossible with you.

Wrong again.

It's quite possible to discuss these unsubstantiated claims with me. However, if you're seeking affirmations or congratulations regarding your "transrational experiences" then you are indeed barking up the wrong tree.

That's fine. But what's fun is why you feel it's necessary to insult others when you yourself are completely ignorant of what are really the most basic understanding of the mind itself.

You have failed to demonstrate that your so-called "mystical experiences" rise above the level of mere psychobabble. If you opt to take my skepticism as an insult, that's your business. I'm certainly not about to honor your subjective woo any more than I'm going to honor the snake oil salesman at the front door.

I suppose its a way to feel better about being out-classed in a discussion, to try to get then on the defensive by insulting them. I recall that tactic from my childhood.

Look. I'm not your therapist. If you have childhood issues, perhaps you might take them to a professional? Perhaps they might help shed some light on your apparent need to seek solace in the unsubstantiated realm of the mystical?

I would suggest doing some boning up on Buddhist practices, read about the discursive mind, and in the meantime, try to be a little humble and not put others down because your own lack knowledge. It just makes you sound foolish to those who know more than you do.

I'm not seeking to put anyone down. However, I'm also not seeking to build anyone up based on unsubstantiated, woo-based claims regarding irrational, nonsensical, navel-gazing silliness.

You may wish to also expand your knowledge into actual studies that have been done on these things, which may help you temper your overconfidence. This is a nice high-level overview of what you sadly, and frankly stupidly call "woo".

As I've said, you're free to navel-gaze all you want. Don't expect me to pat you on the back and cheer you on.

This thread asked if I believe in the mystical and I've said that I don't. You've failed to sway my belief.

Good day. I wish you luck on your further pursuit of actual knowledge. I won't be responding further as the insults belong in elementary school, not with intelligent people.

And that isn't an insult?

How very enlightened of you. How transcendent.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps I have. However, given that the topic is as soggy-brained as "mysticism" tends to be ... there may not be an actual point. Mysticism is by nature an ill-defined, irrational, gauzy, and flaked-out subject.

Meanwhile, nash8 asked a question and I provided a conditional answer. I'd prefer to disregard mysticism altogether and simply work with what is known and what isn't known. If we know that something works, but don't happen to know how or why it works, that seems a very bad excuse to trot out the word "mystical."

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I just find it inexcusably lazy.

You're totally off base. The mystical experience is simply union with the source of all that is, which is the Universe itself. IOW, the Universe is no longer seen in a subject/object relationship simply because YOU are already THAT, but you simply have not realized it yet.

Since the mystical experience is NOT one of the brain, and science is, then science is the soggy brained rascal here. The work required to even get close to the mystical experience is a difficult road requiring diligence, attention, and whole hearted devotion, far more than any scientist can muster.

Mystical does not mean simply not knowing how something works. You've got it wrong. It is experiencing Reality itself directly, without hesitation, without obstruction, without thought, without the mind's attempt to define what it knows.

 

[Doug Shaver]

Merriam-Webster defines "mystical" as "having a spiritual meaning that is difficult to see or understand" or "mysterious."

Question:

Do you believe in the mystical? That is, do you believe there is something that has spiritual meaning that is difficult to see or understand? That there is something that is mysterious and defies any attempt at a complete explanation?

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.

 

[godnotgod]

And all I'm saying is that you cannot have the whirl without the pool. And you cannot have thoughts without a thinker.

But the pool is not the whirler of the water. Energy is. The 'pool' is nothing more than the form the water assumes simply because water takes on the form of any vessel or cavity it flows into. That's all. In reality, there is no such thing as 'pool', let alone 'whirl-pool'. But assuming for a moment you are correct, where is this 'thinker' you claim is the agent behind thinking, and while you're looking, tell me also who is it that is the one that is pointing out the thinker. Who is that in relation to the thinker? Are there now two agents? The agent of thought and the agent who locates the thinker? And then there is that which is aware of both, so now we have a third agent, is that correct?

Thoughts arise and subside. Just because you attach to them as an ego does not mean there exists an agent of thought called the thinker.

You cannot have the rain without the rainstorm.

Sir, we've been over this: The rain IS the rainstorm! There is no such rainer of the rain, nor a stormer of the storm.

Trees are not made of wood; they ARE wood!

You're the one who's making the weird claims here. Allow me to invite you to show me a whirlpool that features no pool. You've failed to do so thus far.

There is no such pool. That is just an idea. What you have is water occupying whatever shape it finds itself in. There is no THING called a pool, nor any such THING called a whirlpool. A whirlpool describes water in motion. It is an ACTION, not a THING.

So you're seriously going to assert that those photographs were not pictures of real things?

No, they're not! They are snapshots of actions. There are no things in the photos, because a microsecond after the photo has been taken, what you called 'things' are no more. They have flowed on, changed. You take a photo of someone whirling a lighted cigarette in the dark. Is the photo that of a circle of fire? No. It's an illusion. A photo of a 'wave' is not that of a thing called 'wave'. The wave has changed form a split second later. Yes, there is a wave-form, but that is because of the energy causing the water to assume the shape you call 'wave'. You are actually looking at an energy-form.

What you've been blathering on about seems exactly akin to saying there is no reader of the book (or forum post).

That is correct. There is no such reader of any book or forum post. There is only the process of reading itself. Is that so difficult to realize? That such an agent of reading exists is simply a self-created idea, and as such, is an illusion, precisely in the same manner that Descartes merely assumes the presence of 'I' at the beginning the cogito ergo sum, as beautifully described by Kierkegaard.

You've now officially exhausted my patience with your woo-mongering.

Then get rid of it.

...

I'll happily cede you the last word, but insist that you post your response without resorting to becoming the respondent.

There is no such respondent. Never was and never will be. That one exists is but a figment of your over active imagination. In truth, there is only responding itself, in precisely the same manner as there is no such 'it' that rains, nor any experiencer of the experience. There is only the experience itself.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

That is correct. You have to experience it as such for it to have any meaning for you. Calling a strawberry a strawberry does not allow you to know what it is; you have to taste it. Would you like a taste of the mystical?

Look! The MOON!

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Then get rid of it.

OK. But only because you invited it.

Don't blame me, by the way. There is no blocker.

There is only blocking.