Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Willamena]

Actually my charge is that you are choosing experiences based on interpretation assigned to them rather than on the experiences themselves.

Perhaps "assigned meaning" might be a more significant phrase --without it, an experience is meaningless. Per the initial description that was made in post #526, people who assign a particular mening to the described experience are held up as evidence, not those who don't. Further, it is not unreasonable to assume that those who don't haven't had quite the same experience.

I think you perhaps misunderstood that it is not the "source" of the experience that is a result of interpretation and attributed to "God", but rather the experience itself as it was described: "the resultant being and awareness".

 

[themadhair]

I think you perhaps misunderstood that it is not the "source" of the experience that is a result of interpretation and attributed to "God", but rather the experience itself as it was described: "the resultant being and awareness".

This was how I interpreted it and why I’m calling its use as evidence out for being an exercise in conformational bias…..

 

[Willamena]

This was how I interpreted it and why I’m calling its use as evidence out for being an exercise in conformational bias…..

Alright. I still don't understand, then.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

*sigh* Still no evidence. Boy I'm getting sick of waiting around for this messiah- oh, I mean evidence. It's like he- i mean it- is never ever going to arrive.

 

[themadhair]

Alright. I still don't understand, then.

Do you not see how using evidence to support an interpretation, evidence that you chose specifically because of the how people had interpreted it, is tautological?

 

[Willamena]

Do you not see how using evidence to support an interpretation, evidence that you chose specifically because of the how people had interpreted it, is tautological?

The evidence in this case isn't used to support the interpretation. The claim is that the similar interpretation given is evidence.

 

[themadhair]

The claim is that the similar interpretation given is evidence.

Which doesn’t hold given that such experiences where only chosen because they adhered to the interpretation they are being used to support. If you discounted all the other experiences that were assigned different interpretations, as seems to have been done in this case, then how can you cite the similarity of interpretation of the non-discounted experiences as evidence?

 

[Willamena]

Which doesn’t hold given that such experiences where only chosen because they adhered to the interpretation they are being used to support. If you discounted all the other experiences that were assigned different interpretations, as seems to have been done in this case, then how can you cite the similarity of interpretation of the non-discounted experiences as evidence?

Neither is this a case of an interpretation being given in support of another's interpretation. The similarity of experience is the meme; it is interpreted (signified) and expressed by the person who has had it. The meme has no cultural boundaries, and can span millennia in a heartbeat --all it requires is a significator, a medium of expression, and an audience.

As I said earlier, I would count myself amongst those who did not conclude "God" as the experience --I described it as an understanding. There is no basis at all for me to claim that my "understanding" wasn't "God" when I can see the same "understanding" in the words of poets from both ancient worlds and present day who house the "understanding" in the symbols of religion, including "God".

Of the experiences that you consider "discounted," if no similarity of experience is recognized in them, they are simply not of the group being held up as evidence. I don't see why this is a problem.

 

[themadhair]

Neither is this a case of an interpretation being given in support of another's interpretation.

It is when differing interpretations are being discounted in order to argue for similarity.

There is no basis at all for me to claim that my "understanding" wasn't "God" when I can see the same "understanding" in the words of poets from both ancient worlds and present day who house the "understanding" in the symbols of religion, including "God".

Sure there is. By labelling something ‘god’ in this way is extremely disingenuous and counter interpretations like yours help to highlight that.

Of the experiences that you consider "discounted," if no similarity of experience is recognized in them, they are simply not of the group being held up as evidence. I don't see why this is a problem.

You don’t see this as a problem because what you describe is not what is being done here. It isn’t similarity of experience but similarity of interpretation that is being used to cull the experiences, and then the tautological claim is made that the similarity of those culled experiences is in itself evidence.

 

[Willamena]

It is when differing interpretations are being discounted in order to argue for similarity.

They're not. But if they're so radically different as to be unrecognizably the experience referenced, that alone is good reason to suspect they are of a different experience.

Sure there is. By labelling something ‘god’ in this way is extremely disingenuous and counter interpretations like yours help to highlight that.

On the contrary, I would assert that my interpretation matches theirs for similarity, and belongs in the group. As I said, whether it is labelled "God" or "understanding" it is of a recognizably similar experience.

You don’t see this as a problem because what you describe is not what is being done here. It isn’t similarity of experience but similarity of interpretation that is being used to cull the experiences, and then the tautological claim is made that the similarity of those culled experiences is in itself evidence.

Interpretation serves only to give form to the experience --to describe, shape and define the boundaries of it. Within an interpretation, however it is expressed and whatever symbols are used to express it, if there is the said experience recognized there, then there is similarity.

That's not to say light bulbs go off for everyone, just that they do go off. There is a set of said people. That this set has formed across cultures, locality and millennia is the "evidence" being pointed to.

 

[themadhair]

They're not. But if they're so radically different as to be unrecognizably the experience referenced, that alone is good reason to suspect they are of a different experience.

The only differing criteria offered so far has been one of interpretation, so yeah they kind of are.

On the contrary, I would assert that my interpretation matches theirs for similarity, and belongs in the group. As I said, whether it is labelled "God" or "understanding" it is of a recognizably similar experience.

This is sort of my point. Problem is that, since you didn’t conclude god, it would probably have been discounted.

Interpretation serves only to give form to the experience --to describe, shape and define the boundaries of it. Within an interpretation, however it is expressed and whatever symbols are used to express it, if there is the said experience recognized there, then there is similarity.

This strikes me as simply trying to justify the same tautology being committed.

 

[Willamena]

Okay, I give up again.

 

[Commoner]

Okay, I give up again.

That's just rude.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings Themadhair. Thank you for being so patient and diligent in staying with us in this thread. Your key concern with the evidence presented is understood.

Actually my charge is that you are choosing experiences based on interpretation assigned to them rather than on the experiences themselves.

Perhaps "assigned meaning" might be a more significant phrase --without it, an experience is meaningless. Per the initial description that was made in post #526, people who assign a particular meaning to the described experience are held up as evidence, not those who don't. Further, it is not unreasonable to assume that those who don't haven't had quite the same experience.....

Quote: Originally Posted by themadhair
It is when differing interpretations are being discounted in order to argue for similarity.
Willamena response:
They're not. But if they're so radically different as to be unrecognizably the experience referenced, that alone is good reason to suspect they are of a different experience.They're not. But if they're so radically different as to be unrecognizably the experience referenced, that alone is good reason to suspect they are of a different experience.

Willamena's explanations of my posts are always better than mine but permit me to offer a couple of additional points to see if they make a difference for you. It seems that her's and my views are similar that the proposed evidence in #526 is based upon the experience. In agreement with her point, the interpretation of this Mystic Experience is so radically different from interpretations of 'other' experiences that the Experience can be seen to be unique, identifiable and set aside for examination. But the main justification in my view is not the 'interpretation' but, rather, the characteristics of the being who has realized this experience. There are distinguishable characteristics of such a being which involve a much different perspective from other people.

It seems that you want to say that there are other people that have had this same experience and have a different conclusion which is being ignored. You refer me to the two threads below. Honestly, Themadhair, no offense is intended but after reading through all 23 pages of the two threads no such evidence against the evidence of #526 is found. There are no similar experiences to the Mystic Experience and no differing interpretations of similar experiences (obviously). There are only a few vauge references to Scientology experiences with no consistency of description. Instead, we find the overwhelming majority of posts to be about negative experience with Scientology, how they will recouperate from its effects, and how confused the Scientology teaching on the experiences is. This statement of one poster is representative of many the posts there: "Scio's have so many false, fixed, sci-fi beliefs, conflicting concepts about ext/int that is almost impossible to fix. Especially if they have had int/ext handlings."
....

Some examples
Post 8:
Exteriorization - Ex Scientologist Message Board
Post 1:
It started out so good… - Ex Scientologist Message Board

I still recommend talking to ex-members or FreeZoners in person (or current ones if you get the chance) since the jargon used is sometimes lost on the ‘wogs’ (non-Scientologists).

Perhaps such discussion will surface something? One cannot pretend to understand the experiences of others without extensive exposure.

... The evidence I provided isn’t inferior to yours, and the sole reason for rejection is entirely due to difference of conclusion. ....

Pardons again, Themadhair, but this is the point with which there is the greatest question from my perspective. Your evidence is not equal. Is the following correct or is something being missed? Your evidence that has been provided is your testimony from discussions with Scientologists that they have similar experiences to the Mystic Experience and interpret them differently with no documentation. You also refer to a few posts in two threads where there is some referral to isolated experiences by unknown people but with what is provided seem to be totally different kinds of experiences and from other posts there to have varying nature and questionable value. You consider that to be of equal value to the evidence provided in post #526 - three books that discuss the Mystic Experience extensively and give dates, names, and places of hundreds of the instancies of occurance that cut across many human boundaries of culture, language, race, nations, time, etc. and whose efforts to convey the extraordinary change in being have affected billions of others.

Regards,
a..1

 

[themadhair]

In agreement with her point, the interpretation of this Mystic Experience is so radically different from interpretations of 'other' experiences that the Experience can be seen to be unique, identifiable and set aside for examination.

And here is a clear comment where you admit the culling of experiences by interpretation before using them to claim commonality of interpretation. If you really cannot see this I don’t know how else to explain it.

Honestly, Themadhair, no offense is intended but after reading through all 23 pages of the two threads no such evidence against the evidence of #526 is found.

I’m not arguing against the experience – I’m arguing against the interpretation you are ascribing to that experience. And, by referencing those two threads (and I did note the requisite posts for you) I presented examples of people who have had similar experiences but ascribed different interpretations.

There are no similar experiences to the Mystic Experience and no differing interpretations of similar experiences (obviously).

And the only criteria you seem to have to discount them is the difference of interpretation – which is the point I am trying to highlight to you.

There are only a few vauge references to Scientology experiences with no consistency of description.

How so? Exteriorising, going whole track, etc. crop up again and again. It is in talking to people who have had those experiences face to face, and through having studied Scientology sufficiently to understand its jargon, that not only is the consistency seen – but the parallels with what you described in #526 become apparent. Unless you can differentiate on the basis of criteria not related to interpretation, then you use of the experiences in #526 is a tautology.

Instead, we find the overwhelming majority of posts to be about negative experience with Scientology, how they will recouperate from its effects, and how confused the Scientology teaching on the experiences is.

It is a site specifically for people who are no longer members of Scientology, so the negative comments should not have been a surprise. What is interesting is that those folks when having those experiences attributed them to the success of Scientology initially, and now (having left) view those experiences rather differently. It is also worth noting that the FreeZoners who have had such experiences (Div6, one of thseo I referenced, is a FreeZone who still practices Scientology) still view those experiences as proof that ‘the tech’ works.

I referenced that site to provide an example of similar experiences where different interpretations were attributed.

One cannot pretend to understand the experiences of others without extensive exposure.

This is true. One of the reasons I referenced Scientology here is because, truthfully, it is the group of people with such experiences that I have had quite a lot of recent exposure to.

Your evidence is not equal. Is the following correct or is something being missed?

You are missing something. You entire premise in #526 is the commonality of the experiences referenced therein. My main challenge to that is the selectivity of those experiences in terms of their ascribed interpretations. Hence why I present similar experiences where the people involved interpreted them differently. Again, since the only reason you seem to have for rejecting these is due to the difference of interpretation, I am charging you with conformational bias.

Your evidence that has been provided is your testimony from discussions with Scientologists that they have similar experiences to the Mystic Experience and interpret them differently with no documentation.

Yes. If you would care to fund my researches then maybe I could write a book for you. As it is, that people have similar experiences but ascribe different interpretations, and the only real reason for rejection from you is those differing interpretations, I think the point has been made.

You also refer to a few posts in two threads where there is some referral to isolated experiences by unknown people but with what is provided seem to be totally different kinds of experiences and from other posts there to have varying nature and questionable value.

And yet the only reason for rejection is the differing interpretations.

You consider that to be of equal value to the evidence provided in post #526 –

I’ve snipped the hyperbole of “have affected billions of others” since it doesn’t follow from what you have presented. But yes, I do consider what I have presented to to be of equal value here. By selectively choosing experiences on the basis of interpretation, only to later argue that the similar interpretation of those selected experiences constitutes evidence, is flawed. In order to show this flaw it is necessary to present similar experiences where the interpretation differed. Hence why I consider this to be of equal value here since it cuts right to the heart of the tautology the experiences in #526 represent.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Again, post # 526 is not evidence, except it as evidence as you wish, but it isn't.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Themadhair, my dear sir, at this point one gets concerned about raising frustrations or offenses in the other person due to my doggedly, seemingly ignorant adherence to countering certain key points. Please be assured that none is intended and the arguments are meant not to address anything personal but only the points that are on the table. Hope they are coming across that way. On the other hand, do not worry about this end because it is impossible to offend, unless you insult my intelligence and that will never be recognized.

Of course we all recognize that if one selects a sample on the basis of some commonality to the exclusion of other samples and then uses the same commonality to make a point, the point is not justified. That is not what is being offered in this thread beginning with post #526. No examples have been excluded on the basis of interpretation, only on the basis of being unknown. One cannot include what one does not know. We all, of course, can agree that examples left out which have differing conclusions from those put forward if there are any would be of interest and should be taken into account. Even if true, a single example versus all the instances provided that are documented would not be justification to discard what has been proposed though it would shed some doubt as you express. Please note also that there is much documentation of contemporary instances of the Mystic Experience that has not been identified in #526.

You began by trying to point to examples of Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists that would have differing conclusions from the same experience. When it was pointed out that these are included in the sample and are very much in the heart of establishing and continuing the Mystic Experience they dropped out of your argument. You hang on one example now, Scientology. Since you consider two posts on the Internet and your discussions with Scientologists to have equal weight against the great number of instances and mammoth database of the Mystic Experience let’s take a look at your position and evidence.

…..Replace the word ‘god’ with ‘allah’ and I’m pretty sure it would be an accurate description of the experiences of some Muslims. I have met Scientologists who have described experiences not dissimilar to yours (they call it a ‘cognition’)….If a Hindu, Buddhist, <insert and religious follower here>, etc. had the same experience as you wouldn’t they attribute it to their own particular theology? And if so doesn’t this raise a serious question mark over your claim that such is evidence for your particular god?..

They already have. One could argue that they started the whole shebang...

.. In my view, Willemena is quite right, themadhair. You raise the question what if those of different religions have this 'mystic experience,' and they have as Willamena notes. …..

How so? You are neglecting the people that have similar experiences (and very similar at that) who not only don’t conclude your god, but don’t conclude any god. ….

….I can even bring another dimension that you have also ignored – former theists who have had the experiences you describe who no longer hold to theism. ….

...I’ve snipped the hyperbole of “have affected billions of others” since it doesn’t follow from what you have presented. ...

To one who is close to the Mystic Experience the comments made above prove that there is a lack of understanding of the Mystic Experience. You did not read my post #526 carefully and have not even glanced at the table of contents of the History of Mysticism. That’s ok, it would not be expected from someone with no real interest in the subject. It does raise the question, however, how could you possibly determine that experiences of Scientologists are the same? Another puzzlement, in one of your posts you mentioned that from the description given in #526 that you can see that Scientologists have similar experiences but with different interpretations. Considering that you accuse me of examining only the interpretation, what description was that?

You give two posts on the Internet as evidence against my evidence. Studying those indicated to me that they were not the same experience as the Mystic Experience. This determination was made solely on what was presented there and they are discounted because of the description given compared to what is known about the description of the Mystic Experience. Therefore, my posts offered that there is no evidence of a differing conclusion from the examples presented there. Now, if you tell me as you have posted that my discounting those examples is solely on interpretations, then the descriptions there must be interpretations and the conclusion remains that no counter evidence has been provided.

From my perspective, then, that leaves your personal discussions with Scientologists from which you have concluded that they have similar experiences with different conclusions. That may be, and one hopes to explore further through discussions with Scientologists directly if there is opportunity. The founding church is nearby in Washington, DC. Considering the secrecy about the higher stages within Scientology, do you think that the subject will even be discussed with me?

My doubt expressed earlier about your conclusions here was based upon the following. Let’s see if we agree. When someone realizes the experience such as the one we are discussing at first there is just the experience – no concepts, no words, no sentences, etc. There may be feelings such as joy and bliss but these are not defining for the realization; they accompany it. If one wishes to share the experience with others one must conceptualize the experience and this must be done from memory because one must separate from the experience to reflect on it. Right? The Mystic Experience is very complicated and is very difficult to put into concepts. In fact, language is difficult even to use because of its fundamental dualistic nature. Some mystics even assert that the word ‘experience’ is not appropriate because it implies two – the experiencer and that which is experienced. Would you consider the conceptualization of the experience (the only thing that can be shared) to be a description, an interpretation, or a combination of both? To understand and share the Mystic Experience one must pretty much have realized it. So my doubt previously expressed was based on the improbability (although not impossibility) that the individuals with whom you were talking had advanced to this stage in their spiritual development coupled with the question of your understanding if they had. This does not mean that you are not 100% correct however.

All of this takes me down to three good points that you have raised in your posts in this thread: there may be experiences very much like the Mystic Experience with different conclusions (that is, without God) that need to be examined pending further exploration; there is always the question of interpretation of the Mystic Experience, is it real, a figment of imagination, delusion, what?; and what is the meaning of the term ‘God’ when used in explanations of the Mystic Experience. Where are you at this point?
My deep apology for the length of this post.

Best wishes,
a..1

 

[autonomous1one1]

There is no evidence from nonbeliever_92 that there is no evidence in post #526.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

#526 is UPG no more no less. When you can recreate this "mystic experience" with any willing subject on demand you MAY have something. Failing that . . . UPG.

And the evidence is the fact that you CAN'T.

Further you have made far reaching claims of the after effects of this "experience." Where is the documentation - not reports - DOCUMENTATION of ANY of those claims? Any one will do. A clear and complete psy profile of the individual prior to this "experience" compared to after the experience. Where is it?

 

[Jayk]

1. I don't find anything accepted by the majority of people to be necessarily "right"
2. Ordered nature can be explained many ways and only one of them is god
3. Conciousness is a series of chemical reactions still not totally figured out by the likes of man. However, we are on the verge and as soon as science gets there, the mystery will be solved. But what of God? God could very well have been the master chemist behind it all. Then again, so could chemicals and massive amounts time.