In secular lingo mysticism might be described as an act of transcending the division distortions generated by the nature of thought. Once we are not looking through a lens whose purpose is to create divisions, the unity of all things is easier to see and experience. — Nuke

If we apprehend "a person" as a being, we perceive a unity. But if we see that a person has a soul, and that the soul is a part of the person, then we apprehend a division. So the question is, how can the conscious mind commune with the soul itself, without utilizing such a division. Any way that we understand "soul" necessitates such a division. This is why philosophers are led to dualism.

It's not at all difficult to see the unity of things, that is the natural perspective. We apprehend things, objects, as unities. What is difficult is to apprehend the meaning, and fundamental nature, of unity, and this requires that we recognize the parts which make up a unity.

You seem to describe an experience of observation, "baring witness", and an experience of growth, "the fully awakened mind emerges from the bud", without anything to reconcile the difference between these two, or unite the two. One is to be passive, the other to be active.

If I take the active perspective, you say that what you are doing is culturing a relationship between two parts of yourself. Since you actually say between yourself and another part of yourself, I would say that the other part is the passive intuitive part, and yourself, being active in growing the relation, is the active part. What I was hoping you would recognize is how much intuition enters into the active part, by influencing decision making. So I don't believe we can separate the passive "baring witness" from the activity of growing the mind in such a straight forward way.

And, since the active and passive seem to be thoroughly blended throughout all the aspect of living beings, while you are describing them as separate, I think that what you are really doing is culturing a separation between these two rather than a relation between them. If you are not dividing the other part of yourself from yourself, for the purpose of analysis, or some other philosophical goal, then what is the purpose of this?

When I mentioned the intuition required to accurately distinguish what is impossible, or improbable, from what is possible, or likely, what I meant is how do we recognize the former, what is impossible. We very easily recognize what is possible, and this is fundamental to any activity. We proceed with any activity, because we apprehend the proceedings and outcome as possible, so we proceed. The issue though is to recognize when one ought not proceed because the desired action or outcome is impossible, or at least improbable. This is where good intuition serves us well in decision making, telling us not to proceed on a chosen path, even if one has already gone so far, because the desired outcome is starting to appear impossible. It is important to be able to turn back, because failing to, in this type of situation may lead to severe emotional stress, frustration etc..

So I wonder about your activity of "growing a communion between myself and another part of myself" Isn't it the case that this communion already exist within the most fundamental aspects of your being? If so, then surely you're not trying to establish a separation between these two parts of yourself, because that would be something impossible and extremely frustrating. So what are you doing other than trying to understand the communion between these two parts? And if this is the case, doesn't that put you back into the category of passive observer? You're not growing the relationship, nor dividing it, simply observing and trying to understand it. Then I might ask you, for what purpose are you doing this? And your answer would put you back into the active category.

Crucially, it is independent of the thinking, or rational mind. — Punshhh

As intuition clearly influences conscious decisions, how can you say that it is independent of thinking?

We are not talking about the practice, or the mystical experience, but how to talk about it, or at least I am. So the points are preconditions for a discussion of mysticism. Which was my point on joining the thread and also was the inspiration for the thread.

So if we were to imagine a mystic, in our minds eye, who had passed through the 10 stages I have outlined and what would concern this person, what they would do next, what sort of experiences they would have. Then we would be discussing what is involved in mysticism, rather than continually going back to everyday human psychology, and/or getting bogged down in discussions about the first 6 points and not actually reach a point of discussing mysticism at all. — Punshhh

I must admit that I don't really understand what you're talking about here. Are you trying to make a distinction between discussing mysticism and discussing discussing mysticism? I don't see the point. Don't we have to first discuss mysticism before we can discuss the discussion. Or, are your ground rules personal conditions for such a discussion? Isn't this like saying I will only discuss mysticism under my terms, not under someone else's terms? What's the point in that, you'd only be disallowing the perspectives of others?

I had not focussed in on these capacities, seeing them more as associated with the development of intuition and not so much a stage, but a capability developed throughout the process. But now I see it's relevance here. — Punshhh

I think intuition is very important in all aspects of decision making, but one's intuitive skills vary depending on the aspect of the judgement. So in relation to the two aspects I mentioned, distinguishing possible from impossible, and distinguishing better from worse, a person would need to develop one's intuition in both of these aspects.

I see what you are saying here, personally I posit an intermediary between the self and the divinity here, namely the soul, or an aspect of the self/being, which is very real, but which is not tarnished by incarnation in the way that the personality is, rather a higher self so to speak. — Punshhh

All right, now I think I'm starting to understand. In the religious way, the religious practises, rites and ceremonies, even rules and laws, serve as the intermediary between the individual, and God. We are exposed to God through these services and we are expected to have faith. And until this point, this is how your description of mysticism appeared to me, as involving a religious practise, which served as an intermediary between the person and the divinity. But now you are saying that the true intermediary between the person and the divinity is the soul, and this makes much more sense to me.

Can we use this as a feature which would help us to distinguish mysticism from religion. Religion wants us to accept the reality of God or some divinity through faith, and it cultivates that faith through ceremonies and various procedures. Mysticism on the other hand aims to have one accept the reality of one's own soul, so it cultivates this acceptance through a completely different type of practise. Instead of attempting to show you God, the mystical practise attempts to show you your soul.

Now here's a question you might be able to help me with. From the perspective of a mystic, what is intuition, and where does it come from? Is it a property of the soul itself?

I believe that the answer is that the claim that "the line in my mind" is the same as any particular mathematical version of a line, is a belief and not a fact that could ever be proven. Is Euclid's line the same thing as the set of real numbers? We take as an unspoken axiom that it is; but if we remember that this is just an assumption, we can resolve our confusion over where the extra points go. — fishfry

This is the key point. It is a mistake to try and make the numbers, which represent no specific spatial properties, into a line, which represents a spatial dimension. This is the incompatibility between the non-dimensionality of the numbers, and the dimensionality of the line, which is very similar to the incompatibility between the one-dimensional straight line, and the two-dimensional curved line. They are incommensurate.

What this indicates is that it is a mistake to try and represent spatial existence with distinct dimensions.

The surreal numbers are a totally ordered proper class; and if they're totally ordered, we can imagine lining them up in order and calling that the surreal line. But it's not the same line as the standard real line or any of the other many alternative models of the real line. It's a bit of a category error to ask where the extra points go. It's a completely different model of the continuum. That's my understanding, anyway. — fishfry

I believe that representing numeration as any sort of line is a fundamental problem. The problem is that a line is meant to represent something continuous, and numbers represent discrete units. The smallest possible spatial unit must occupy all three dimensions of space. So reducing space in this way, attempting to make the smallest possible discrete unit represented by a number, something with one dimension, is a hopeless enterprise because "one dimension" doesn't represent any sort of reality. Therefore an "infinitesimal" must be an infinitesimal point, having position in all three dimensions of space, rather than just a spot on a one dimensional line.

He started it!

his definition is more inclusive than one positing some aspect of the divine. Have either of you had such a "mystical experience"? If so, please describe them. How did you enter into the mental states that led to revelations beyond normal sensory or introspective means? Did you meditate? Was there an epiphany at some point, an astounding and memorable moment? — jgill

Subjects mentioned in my last post, things like distinguishing between possible and impossible, right and wrong (good and bad), qualify as non-sensory, non-introspective features of knowledge. And, I believe we all experience these. But, as I've argued since the beginning of the thread, most of us are trained to overcome these mystical experiences, ignore them, and replace them with what is presented to us as the norms of society.

I do not believe that recognition of the divine is necessary for mystical experiences. But I think it is required to make any personal progress in mysticism, as the principle of orientation in any hierarchy.
This is a matter of understanding the mystical experience, which is what I think "mysticism" is, but Punshhh tried to dismiss as intellectualising. However, as I argued already, some degree of intellectualising is required to make any progress in mysticism, because the mystical experience is completely meaningless unless understood to some degree. So we use words to understand it, and as Punshhh says, "divine" is an apt word, and I use it as a principle which makes higher or lower on any scale of values intelligible.

You are familiar with mathematics. By what principle would you say 10 is "higher", meaning a greater value, than 2?

So the problem is semantical rather than grammatical. That makes more sense.

Are either of you serious mystics? — jgill

You should tell us what constitutes a serious mystic, in order that we can properly answer your question. Otherwise we'd just be making meaningless assertions.

What I was referring to when I said ground rules is as set of stages, or accepted conditions, undergone, or accepted by the aspirant. Prior to any real moving forward on the path. So if I put them as points. — Punshhh

I see where you're going, but I don't quite agree. I think that the stages, or rules, points, or whatever you want to call your numbered items, cannot be accepted or agreed to beforehand as a precondition, because the precise nature of these stages is determined by the process, and what is revealed to the mystic through the process. So the mystical process is very individualized, and this is important to recognize because it accounts for all the differences between the various religions. Further, development in the earlier points is required for accepting later points, so one cannot be expected to accept more than the first point when entering, then build up the knowledge required for the next point, and so on. This is the same as any type of learning.

So as we climb your numbers, the lowest numbers outline the most general requirements, so they are the most accurate at describing what is common to all mystics. And, it is common to all people, as we could consider any person as a potential mystic. But the majority of people in our society are trained to suppress these inclinations. By the time we get to #6 you have already acknowledge a great variance depending on circumstances. So I believe that in this second stage, which you call development of practise, we need to include something concerning learning the capacity to adapt to the circumstances. This is what reveals one's frailty (#5), recognizing the difference between what is possible and impossible, and it also helps to relieve one from a variety of emotional difficulties like frustration, anxiety, and the related stresses. It is important in relation to the question of the op, as a benefit of mysticism, because it helps a person who might otherwise be a lost soul, to find one's place in a rapidly changing environment. This relief from the stresses of the environment (social and natural) which this early stage brings, is probably important in encouraging the person to continue on.

Furthermore, this is what gives the mystic a unique and individualized perspective, understanding oneself as a unique and individual person, with unique and individual strengths and weaknesses, positioned in a unique situation. We might call this accepting yourself for what you are, because you cannot change the person which you are, in the position you are in, but this in no way precludes the possibility of change absolutely, because it is only a recognition of a real, environmentally imposed distinction between possible and impossible. Working toward developing a strong aptitude for distinguishing possible from impossible in a rapidly changing environment (quick-witted), which in practise often becomes the distinction between probable and improbable, is beneficial, allowing the unique and individual person to make the most of one's special position in the environment, to be a special person.

The next step for the mystic, I think, the third stage would be to determine the difference between better and worse, so that the person could act on possibilities associated with a change for the better. But by this time, the mystic's path has already become so individualized that I think it would be very difficult to list particular points.

At #7 you cite a devotion to the divinity, but you have not clearly outlined the mystic's recognition of the divinity. At #1 you refer to a natural tendency to look toward the divinity, but I interpret this more as a looking for the divinity. Now at #7 one must have devotion toward the divinity. So I think we need to posit something between #1 and #7 to support such devotion. Therefore I would move this whole section (7-10) further up the ladder, making it a fourth section, and insert a new third section which involves distinguishing bad from good.

This whole notion of #1, spiritual need, and divine agency is aroused by, and directly related to the need for distinguishing and choosing the appropriate course of action. This is deciding right and wrong, good and bad. Devotion to the divinity requires the belief that such a distinction can be made. so this belief must be somehow supported, and I believe that this is a very important and critical support section, required as a foundation for 7-10. Those items mentioned in that section involve a strong will, determination, and this must be cultivated. Such a will power only proceeds if one recognizes not only that a particular option is possible, but also that it is good. This is why purpose and the nature of the divinity itself, must be brought into the recognition. The divinity, as some unknowable, untouchable, ineffable Being cannot support such a devotion, and the will power required at this stage of development. So we need some ideas of natural good and purpose to support this will power. Not only does the person need to develop a strong sense of what is possible, but also an equally strong sense of what is good. Believing in what is good, and adhering to it is what defines devotion. We touched on grounding the hierarchy of good in the divinity earlier in the thread.

The ground rules (this is my phrase and may not describe what I am referring to very well), could be viewed as a set of preconditions before spiritual development may occur. Indeed you do agree with the only ground rule I provided in your post, which I have bolded. — Punshhh

So there's only one ground rule then, and this is respect for the divinity, what you called subduing the ego. That's what I described as a need, which manifests as the desire for spiritual development. Recognizing this need is what is required for such a spiritual development, and the consequent actions. The first step to the spiritual development would be the recognizing of this need. The spiritual development must always be consistent with the need, as a natural need, or else it is not a proper development. So for example, the desire for food, what we call hunger, is the conscious recognition of a need. We can pursue the desire for food in many different ways, but not every way will produce a healthy diet. We must maintain consistency between the underlying actual need, and the things we consciously desire, which we will eat, to fulfill this need properly. It is not necessary that we understand every different element of nutrition, and the exact amount required, we maintain consistency in our diets in other ways which are more mystical.

This is the reason why I wanted to emphasize purpose, because needs are always relative to some end. The conscious desire for spiritual development must be made consistent with the natural need for spiritual development in order that it may result in true spiritual development. This is an adapting of the mind, which if the mind is not already so inclined, would involve a changing of one's attitude. But this changing of one's attitude is already an essential part of the spiritual development, so it's better not to call it a precondition. The only precondition is the natural need, which we are all endowed with. Then recognizing its existence and shaping one's conscious desire around it, is already a mystical practise. It's a mystical practise because those who do not recognize the natural need do not see the reason for the practise.

Therefore in order to have true mystical practise, and not some behaviour dictated by mental illness, or some random ideas, we must have some understanding of that natural need, and its related purpose. I'll agree to calling this a ground rule, if you'll agree that the knowledge required is intellectual, and provided through some sort of academia. It is not necessary that we understand God's purpose, or anything like that, (just like it's not necessary for us to understand all of our nutritional requirements in order to eat healthily), but only that we understand a simple reasonable principle, like if there is a need there must be a reason for the need, some sort of deficiency. And of course different individual mystics can recognize different reasonable principles, like if there is an effect there must be a cause, and various other possible grounding principles, for one's own form of mysticism. There are many different possible mysticisms. But if one does not follow a reasonable grounding principle, then one's actions would be random or misguided, and likely the actions of psychosis or deception, rather than the actions of a mystic. We could call failing to subdue the ego a form of psychosis.

What is this a picture of? — Banno

I'd call it a video loop. What does it have to do with a number line, or counting? A loop is not a line, and if it's counting anything it's counting the same things over and over again.

Are you bored, or don't you like my tone? Yes I agree about not adhering to a religion, the mystic operates alone, in terms of their own development. — Punshhh

I guess I was a bit bored so I thought I'd spice up the conversation a bit by down talking religious rituals. I've never been very interested in these procedures and I've considered mysticism as a way to practise spirituality without the necessity of any of these religious ceremonies and rules. I really don't think that mysticism requires adherence to any religious practises. That's why I disagree with your claim that the mystic needs to follow ground rules. Rules, and particular practises are the elements of specific religions, but all religions have aspects of mysticism. So the various rues of practise are unique to the various religions, while mysticism pervades all religions as an aspect of spirituality. Therefore we ought not say that any particular rules are necessary for mysticism.

t is distinct from a revelation in that it is a growth, through stages. Also, by describing it I am referring to bodily processes rather than intellectual, or things being revealed to the mind. I agree in that there is some overlap between this growth and revelation, where the growth involves the mind. — Punshhh

Would you agree that a being is a composition of body and mind, so the "growth" referred to here is a growth of both body and mind? Or maybe it's an improvement of the relationship between these two.

There is a stage of trying to break out of, or free of one's conditioning and establishing an outpost, or free place, free of conditioning, in the self. Where one can retreat from the world, one's conditioning. This has to be more than simply an intellectual exercise, it requires a psychological change, in which the person fashions something new in them selves and grows into it sufficiently that it can become an alternative dwelling place in the self. I used to call this questing, the aspirant is trying to break free and some kind of schooling within a tradition is useful, because at this stage the aspirant, as a novice does not really know what they are doing. — Punshhh

I accept that schooling is useful, but in the broadest sense. A person might be self taught, looking at the practises of one religion then another, and another, and so on, learning from them all, without taking up the practise of any of them. There is no necessity to follow precisely to one particular tradition.

I can see how it would be useful to adhere to a specific practise, if one was trying to "break free" from another practise. This would be like taking up a new practise in order to break free from an old habit, but if the person is not currently involved in any type of spiritual practise, then on might be already free to dabble in many different religious practises while maintaining a strong spiritual inclination.

And yes the path is through the inner self. I am talking of the processes involved in forging that link from the self to the divinity. — Punshhh

The point is that you are describing one such path, which is not the only path. And you talk about this path as if it is the genuine path. However, I believe that the most important aspect of mysticism is that there is not one particular path or process which one must follow. Each individual is different, and may forge the link between self and divinity in one's own way. There is no need for the mystic to proceed through a religious course. And adhering to such a course would most likely be detrimental because the religion would be an intermediary between the self and the divinity, impeding the desired relationship.

It is more complicated than that because, the God, or divinity is not acting in this endeavour, it is the mystic. — Punshhh

I disagree with this. God must act, or else the presence of God, to the mystic, is simply made up, imaginary. In order that the God apprehended by the mystic is the real living God, this God must act, and it is through this activity that the mystic know the true actual God has been encountered.

Let me point out one of these rules (for use of a better word), I have already pointed this out, but it was ignored. — Punshhh

It was ignored because you pulled this from a premise which I disagree with. So I argued the premise, and not what was derived from it.

The mystic reaches a threashold where to continue without offering up freely their autonomy, they risk inflating the ego and becoming an arbiter in their own performance. The ego must be subdued and used as a tool, or mechanism, not given control of the self. If it is the mystic will not progress past this point and will diverge into a fantasy of their own creation. — Punshhh

I really don't see what ego has to do with this. I think you throw this in as a ruse. I believe that the mystic must offer up freely one's autonomy as a condition before even entering into mysticism. That's why I persisted so long in questioning the reasons why one might enter into a mystic course. So what you call subduing the ego is a necessary condition prior to becoming any sort of mystic at all. One might enter into a course of religious training for any of a variety of reasons, but this does not make the person a mystic. What makes the person a mystic is the reasons for entering into religious studies.

So as to avoid inflating the ego, humility and offering up of autonomy is exercised. Once this point, or threashold is passed the ego falls into line, does not become inflated and the mystic can move forward. — Punshhh

Perhaps it is this condition which separates the mystic from someone who is simply engaged in religious activities.

It's quite boring, if that's what you mean.

Thanks for your reply. I realize there will be some paradoxical reasoning here, however, I would take exception to the analogy. The aforementioned quote would only be like saying " Time cannot be abstracted away from a clock", which makes it obvious (which is only to say) that Time and the object known as a clock is synonymous with the measurement of time. — 3017amen

Right, the clock measures time, so time cannot be abstracted away from the clock. You do not agree with this? Then what does the clock do?

However, the subordination v. primacy of time is what is at issue. In other words, much like existence over essence, the existence of change takes primacy over the measurement of it. The measurement known as time. — 3017amen

There are two senses of "time", one the measurement of change, as you say here, the other, what is being measured by the clock, above. For example, "temperature" is a concept just like time. We measure it by comparing the heat of one thing with the heat of another, just like we measure time by comparing one change with another. However, we say that there is heat within the thing itself, so the thing has a temperature regardless of whether it's measured, just like time passes regardless of whether it is measured.

And so the point is to assign primacy over the phenomenon of time and change. Existentially, one could say then, that the existence of change takes primacy over the essence of time. Essences are metaphysical abstracts. Of course, it doesn't mean essences are not perceived, it's just that we don't know their true objective nature. But we do know and can understand the existence of change through most observation. — 3017amen

The existence of change takes primacy over the concept of time, which is the measurement of change done by comparison. But the existence of time, as the thing measured, is measured by change (the turning of the earth measures a day) and this takes primacy over change.

A number line is an irrational conflation of two incompatible terms, discrete numbers, and a continuous line, that's why the idea creates so many problems. If there is a line which extends "forever" it is spatial. If the number line is supposed to count forever, then "forever" is temporal. But the simple line which extends for ever doesn't count anything.

am illustrating that different beings have different expressions when they incarnate in physical material. These expressions are like a surface layer upon a subtle being, their complexity is dictated by the nature of the being. So by highlighting the differences in expression I am illustrating the difference, or from a perspective, the complexity of the being. I am talking about beings again, as I repeat physical material is a tool, of expression of the beings. — Punshhh

OK, if I understand, you are saying that the physical body is an expression of the underlying being. So if the physical body is more complex, so is the being which expresses it. We call that learning about the cause through the effect.

The practice itself is not any more philosophy it is a practice of internal metamorphosis, where the only two points of focus are the self and the divinity (I leave this undefined as it is unique to the individual). — Punshhh

Is this a change in the underlying being, mentioned above. Can a being itself change in this way, or can you explain why you call this a metamorphosis rather than an understanding, or a revelation? Being a relation between the self and the divinity, I would call anything which result form this relation a revelation rather than a metamorphosis.

*1: I agree an interest in the mysterious is a good start, a desire to understand reality somewhat. Or what is often the case, the individual has a calling of some sort through some kind of revelation. Giving them a motivation, or desire to delve into these matters. — Punshhh

We seem pretty much in agreement here at #1.

2: When it comes to mystical practice, the individual would have read, or been taught about mysticism in religious practice. So would be motivated to get involved in some kind of practice. — Punshhh

This is where we start to go our separate ways. I don't see why the mystic needs to take up an organized, structured practise. If the focus is on a relationship between the self and the divinity, and one already has an inclination in this direction as described by #1, what is the purpose of such human rites? These rites are just a ceremony, creating the illusion of importance, when what is really important is the relationship between the self and the divinity. And the path to the divinity is through the inner self not through some pompous ceremony.

3: When it comes to what is necessary to carry out this practice, the individual will follow a path of discovery perhaps of what is entailed. This is where some ground rules come into play as I mentioned in the beginning. — Punshhh

So we continue on our separate ways now. In western mysticism there are no such rules as to how one must proceed. The relationship is between the individual and God, and any rules involved are produced by this relationship. We do not abide by the rules of other human beings when communing with God, as this would be counter productive. The idea is to get the message directly from God, not through the medium of some human sacrament.

4: Then there are more advanced levels of practice and involvement, which can be evidenced in the lives of the saints, or bodhisattvas and deities. This might entail yogic practices, or practices with the goal of reaching enlightenment, or nirvana, or union with God, for example. — Punshhh

Is this the point where you can drop the sanctimonious nonsense of rule following? To me, such rule following is to participate in a religion, but the mystic doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular religion.

Where is time in a changless world? — prothero

Where is time in any world? It's not something we perceive with our senses, but we know it's everywhere. And, since we can perceive things which stay the same as time passes, as jgill indicates, we know that it's possible for time to pass without change occurring.

No, I just think the idea illustrates the fact that the concept of time depends on change, not vice versa. — prothero

Yes, the concept of time depends on the perception of change, but what is at issue here is the reality of time. If time were merely a concept, it would depend on this perception. But the reality is that time was passing long before human beings made the concept of time, so time itself is something real other than the concept. This is why we need to distinguish between the concept of time, and what time really is, in the world. How these correspond is what is commonly called truth. So if you say that time is just a concept, with nothing corresponding to it, you have no possibility of truth.

I think that is what Prothero and I are saying, which is time, is merely a conceptual abstract. — 3017amen

And what I am saying is that it is very clearly not merely a conceptual abstract. Look at it this way. Change is real, and all changes involve time. So, "time" cannot simply be abstracted away from change and only exist as a concept, just like "green" cannot be abstracted away from green objects, such that there is no such real thing which bears that name. But "time" cannot be change itself, because changes are particular things and time is what is common to each and every one of these. Therefore time must be something real, but not a change.

The mystic has already freely chosen this course of action. — Punshhh

Yes, so the point is why does one choose this action. What is the purpose?

Going back to the hierarchy of being, there is a progression in being from a small expression to a larger expression. — Punshhh

You are doing the same thing now, which you accused me of earlier. You are basing your hierarchy on material characteristics. I presented you with a hierarchy based in something immaterial, purpose, and you come back with a hierarchy based on observed complexities of material organisms.

This is the problem with your desire to remove intellectualization, it leaves you incapable of a true understanding of "hierarchy", which is an intellectual structure based in some value. So instead, you are left to construct your hierarchy on simple principles of material observation, big and small, more or less complex bodies, when a hierarchy really ought to be based in a system of values.

My example was to show how performing acts which go against our animal instincts, human frailty, is difficult, causes personal trauma and risks the task not being carried out. Why go through all that when if it is carried out on a need to know basis, none of that comes into play. — Punshhh

I really can't understand what you mean by "on a need to know basis". You've used it numerous times. There is fundamentally no need to know anything, knowing is voluntary. However there is a need to know, in the sense of a want or desire to know. You don't seem to differentiate between these two senses of "need".

The need to act precedes the need to know. In other words, we need to act (experiment) to learn, in order to know. And, there is a desire to know. There is always the desire to know. So it makes no sense to say that we ought not act unless there is a need to know, because there is always a need to know, therefore always the need to act. Action produces knowledge

We don't know if my injury was as necessary, or not, as was the crucifixion of Jesus. — Punshhh

Yes we do know this. You described the act as an accident. Therefore it was not necessary, by that description. No one decided that it was required. The crucifixion of Jesus was not an accident, it was determined by someone as necessary. This is what "necessary" means, having been determined by someone as required.

I agree an interest in the mysterious is a good start, a desire to understand reality somewhat. Or what is often the case, the individual has a calling of some sort through some kind of revelation. Giving them a motivation, or desire to delve into these matters. — Punshhh

See, here it is, the desire to know, right here at the base of mysticism. So all this time you were attempting to remove this desire to know, this need for intellectualizing, from mysticism, arguing that this is not an essential aspect of mysticism. Yet when we come to define mysticism in it's most general sense, you agree that it is some sort of desire to understand. Therefore the "need to know" is inherent within mysticism, essential to it, just like philosophy. And the need to know is what produces reasoning, what you call intellectualising.

When it comes to mystical practice, the individual would have read, or been taught about mysticism in religious practice. So would be motivated to get involved in some kind of practice. — Punshhh

Right, so would you agree that this motivation is some sort of "need to know", which is within the person who wants to get involved in mystical practise? It is a need to know which drives the person to mystical practise, in the same sense that hunger is a need to eat which drives a person toward food.

When it comes to what is necessary to carry out this practice, the individual will follow a path of discovery perhaps of what is entailed. This is where some ground rules come into play as I mentioned in the beginning. — Punshhh

So, I do not see the need for ground rules. I think they would be counter-productive. What the mystic is interested in is the mysterious, and that is the unknown. If there were rules to follow, then it would be a pretense, that the unknown is already known through this organized practise, and these are the rules to follow in this organized practise of understanding the mysterious, or unknown. But if the mystic is interested in the truly mysterious, which is the most deeply unknown, then one cannot follow rules, because if there were rules to this experimentation which the mystic would be involved in, then it would not be truly mysterious and unknown.

Without change (becoming) there would be no time. — prothero

This is actually the opposite of what is true. The passing of time is required for change. So without time there would be no change. Otherwise time becomes merely conceptual, an abstraction which we create through observations of change. But clearly, the passing of time, since it is a property common to all changes, is something other than change itself. So there is something other than change which is the passing of time, which cannot be a human abstraction.

So let's say we have a devout vicar who is interested in mysticism as part of his service. If he didn't know, or understand what God is upto, Gods purpose as expressed through his ministry. He might feel like a mindless mechanistic pawn and wander of and do something else instead? This is stretching the point rather. — Punshhh

You're missing my first premise. I said that no one really understands any purpose, not even when the purpose appears to be one's own. So there is not a question of whether anyone understands what God is doing. We don't even properly understand what we are doing so we're very far from understanding God's will. The issue is whether we ought to try and understand as best as we can. If yes, the vicar stays. If no, the vicar wanders off and does any random thing.

The purpose of the mystic is to offer service for the betterment of humanity, or nature, or the biosphere. That is an end in its self.

It is implicit in the choices entailed in this enterprise (the enterprise of mysticism) that the mystic may be called on to express some higher purpose, which may be unknown during their practice, or life. This is not to much to ask is it? — Punshhh

It is too much to ask. If the person has no desire to do this, there is no point in asking one to do it. That's the point, why would anyone want to do that, what you call the mystic's enterprise? To offer service to the betterment of the biosphere, is surely an end in itself, but what I'm talking about is why a person would desire to do this. This is where a revelation could play a roll. Something may have been revealed to that person to make them realized that this is what they ought to be doing.

The point of the analogy is that it is obvious that the cell in my body is not aware of the bigger picture. That I really want to catch the train. Also that it is plain to see that the cell does not need to know about this in order to carry outs role in the body. It's that simple. — Punshhh

As I explained, I think you present the smaller picture as the bigger picture. You wanting to catch the train is the small picture, very low priority, a completely insignificant and unimportant act. But because you have chosen that act with your conscious mind, it appears very important to you in your intellectualizing. The cell, on the other hand is involved in very important actions, and because you do not fully apprehend these acts with your conscious mind, you dismiss them as insignificant in relation to your conscious acts.

The duties of the cell are those entailed in being a particular part of a healthy multicellular organism. — Punshhh

I see that you really do recognize the importance of the acts of the cell. The activities of the cell are necessary for the health of the organism, and this is far more important than you catching the train. This is why we need to adequately weigh the risks, and don't let the conscious mind rush us into dangerous situations. You could trip and fall while running, injuring yourself. And all for what? Just to catch a train.

The conscious mind leads us, and misleads us, into thinking all sorts of different things are important. That's why we need to consider this question of why would a person want to do what a mystic does. Is this a case of the conscious mind leading the person, or is it a case of the conscious mind misleading the person (like thinking that catching the train is important is a case of misleading). Simply directing ourselves toward an end is meaningful only at a very base level, because we need to determine the appropriate end.

Now let's consider that I knew this was going to happen beforehand, a day or two beforehand. Imagine the psychological impact and the state of mind as the event approached, or even the urge to place my hand somewhere else at the last moment so that the accident didn't happen. I would have to fully consciously place my hand into the machine knowing what trauma was about to happen. It would have been a Herculean task and I don't think I would have recovered psychologically from such trauma. When in reality it was not traumatic at all, there was no pain, just Some shock and ruffled feathers and I was over it in a few days with no psychological trauma. This was done on a need to know basis and I wouldn't have it any other way. — Punshhh

I still can't see the relevance of your example. You are mixing up intentional acts with unintentional acts (accidents) If it were revealed to you, that for some reason you needed to cut your finger off, to make some sort of statement or something, and you felt very strongly about this, then you would proceed with this act. The psychological trauma would not be as you describe, because it's a willed event, just like suicide. The issue though, is whether this act of yours, to intentionally cut off your finger, is inspired by revelation or by mental illness. In the case of most suicides, we'd say it's illness, and we'd probably say the same if you intentionally cut off your finger. But in the case of Jesus willfully having himself sacrificed (accepting my interpretation), we'd say it was revelation. What distinguishes revelation from mental illness? One produces good ideas and the other produces bad ideas?

The mystic has developed a means of receiving direction from a guide of some kind, a nudge process. — Punshhh

Right, so this is the point. If it's a 50/50 chance of a good idea or a bad idea, and the mystic gets nudges or guidance toward good ideas, then we must be able to say that the mystic has found a way to be consistent with the higher purpose. And going back to the beginning of this post, this does not mean that the mystic knows the higher purpose. We really do not understand purpose to a very significant degree at all, but the mystic has developed some special incite, allowing a clearer capacity for good ideas.

Perhaps it is time to actually lay out what mysticism entails and look at it in more general terms. — Punshhh

I've been trying to get at these general terms, but you don't agree. All the features of western mysticism which I bring up, you want to exclude from mysticism in general, because you seem to think that only features of eastern mysticism qualify as genuine features of mysticism. Perhaps we can start with a most general definition. I propose, interest in the mysterious, what is beyond human understanding. Feel free to change or adapt that to your liking.

I see that we disagree on the roll of necessity, in the sense of need. I like to think of a purposeful action as being carried out through a sense of need by the agent which acts. Judging by your examples, it appears to me like you attempt to conceive of purposeful actions being carried out in a mechanistic way. You seem to think that the so-called pawn we were talking about, could continuously carry our one's task without apprehending the need or purpose for this task. This would be like a machine, carrying out its activity by the necessity of the forces of physics, rather than a living being which acts according to some perceived need. Without perceiving the need for the task, the living being would wander off and start to do something else.

What you are saying about the intellectual understanding of the consequences of the mystic's action (during practice) makes sense, but from my position is largely irrelevant. Because the mystic may not have the capacity to understand, or conceive of any meaning, or purposes. Also such understanding would be an impediment unless it was some endeavour initiated by the mystic for the purposes of doing one thing for another in her small world. — Punshhh

So here for example, you describe the mystic as partaking in mystical practise without perceiving any need for that practise. What kind of thing, other than a machine, could act in this way? Surely when a living being acts, it has in some way perceived a need for that act and this is why the act is carried out. How do you think that the mystic could wander into mystical practise and remain in that practise without any purpose? And if it is just a small purpose, in a small world, then we cannot dismiss it as irrelevant, because it is the reason why the mystic is carrying out the practise and clearly not irrelevant. Therefore I do not see how you can dismiss purpose as if it is irrelevant, and portray the mystic as going through motions just like an inanimate machine, with complete disregard for any purpose to these motions.

As per my analogy what business does a cell in my body have in understanding that I am running to catch a train which leaves any minute now and I'm still a hundred yards away from the station? It is irrelevant, the cell simply carries out the duties which it has signed up to in being a part of the colony of cells. The situation is the same for the mystic, but on a more complex level. Any curiosity, interpretation, vision, or need is irrelevant and it is the choice of the mystic whether to forgo any such impediments as identified. — Punshhh

In this analogy, you are assigning importance in a completely disproportionate way. You are assessing the conscious judgement of "I must catch the train" as extremely important, probably because it is a conscious judgement, so the act of running which proceeds from this judgement, you assign importance to. Then the activities of the cell within your body you assess very little importance. In reality though, the need to catch the train is for the purpose of getting somewhere else, which is for the purpose of doing something else, which is for the purpose of some further thing, and so on. Since catching the train is so low on the chain, many other acts could sufficiently take its place, so it is really of very little importance. This conscious judgement, to run for the train, and the activity which follows from it, is really not very important at all. Now look at the activity of the cell, and the information which it has with genetics and DNA. That cell could very well know more about the reason why you are running for the train, than your conscious mind knows.

Now we need to know what you mean by "the duties it has signed up to", when you are talking about the cell. This is because unlike a machine, a living being has some degree of freedom in relation to what activities it will carry out. Because of this we have to consider the need. What makes the being behave in one way instead of another? We does the cell sign up for duties? And we cannot even say that the cell acts like a machine, because there are many strange mutations and things like that which could happen. So even the cell behaves the way that it does because there is some need for it to behave that way, and it is somehow affected by that need. How is that need, which makes the cell behave as it does, any different from the need which makes you run for the train? I think they are both from the same source of need, and your conscious mind grasps this need no better than a cell in your body grasps this need.

Regarding revelation, my lottery number analogy is relevant. Let me give another equivalent example. Let's take the crucifixion of Jesus. Now I have always thought that he did not know exactly what was going to happen and at what moment, because if for example he knew the horror and pain that he was imminently to endure. There would be a fight or flight response in him due to his human frailty, or survival instinct to take avasive action. If it had been revealed to him what was about to happen, which it may, it would have taken tremendous powers of self control for him not to take evasive action. Whereas if it had not been revealed he would have not needed these powers of self control, or only some of them. When he shouts out "God why have you forsaken me" (my words), presumably he did at that moment behold the true nature of the event, initiation, he was involved in. By that point he was powerless to take evasive action and so that knowledge was not an impediment. — Punshhh

I still don't see the relevance here. Jesus sacrificed himself willingly, so this was a strong showing of will power. He decided what needed to be done and he did it at the cost of personal pain and suffering. The revelation to Jesus was that this sacrifice had to be carried out. His death was planned. There was no matter of fight or flight, just will power and determination to carry out what he believed needed to be done, as revealed to him.

So it does take will power to carry out the actions called for by the revelation. And again, this is the situation in Plato's cave allegory, the philosopher, after seeing the light, must go back to teach the others, and this is a very arduous task, due to the attitude of the others. But the actions called for by the revelation, as difficult as they might be, are good actions. There could be no temptation to proceed with a bad action as the result of a revelation, because that would not qualify as a revelation, it would be mental illness or something like that.

For example the sole act in a Mystics life which is of value might be to turn right instead of left at a crossroads at a certain point, on a certain date. It is the role of the mystic to be impressionable enough to the hierarchy of being, or some guide so as to somehow impell, or guide them to that place and that time and to cause them to turn right, when they might have turned left. This might require a lifetime of preparation within the mystic to reach that level of impressionability. — Punshhh

So here we're back to this issue of need and purpose again, which we disagree on. Let's say that the purposeful thing for the mystic to do is to turn right. But intrinsic within, the mystic has the capacity to go either way. Nothing is determined in a mechanistic way. So the person requires a reason to turn right, and this means to be impelled by some sort of need. How could there be any degree of certainty, higher than a 50/50 chance, that the mystic would turn right, unless the mystic perceived some purpose for turning right?

I don't see the requirement for the lower being to truly know what they are doing. Provided this being is happy to and able to, carry it out there is no requirement for this. Aren't we all pawns anyway, with a little bit of freedom thrown in? — Punshhh

I agree, it's not a requirement. It's clearly not necessary. Your example portrays this well. And that's why I said, when we first started talking about purpose, that the purpose of action is not ever really known even by the person carrying out the activity. In the west, we commonly represent a intentional agents as having a purpose in mind, then acting to fulfil that purpose. But it's not that straight forward. As Aristotle demonstrated, we do one thing for the sake of another, which is for the sake of another, and so on, such that each end turns out to be the means to a further end. He suggested we ought to posit an ultimate end, happiness. Whether or not we actually need to end the apparent infinite regress in this way is another issue.

I only separate them because of the difficulty of imparting the purpose of the being at the top of the hierarchy as I have pointed out. Otherwise I don't disagree with what you are saying. — Punshhh

Once the person, who is the lower being, accepts it as reality that there is a hierarchy, a need is produced within that person. So it is not necessary that the person recognizes the hierarchy of purpose in order to carry on with one's tasks, but when it is recognized that this exists, a need to understand (the philosophical curiosity) is produced. And this same type of need is what is probably responsible for the person coming to see the hierarchy in the first place. So we cannot exclude requirement or necessity absolutely. In the case of beings acting for a purpose, the being has to produce one's own activities according to the situation it is in, so we cannot say that the being's activities are directly determined by the higher being's purpose. Since the being has to determine one's own activities there is some need to know the higher purpose.

There is a type of necessity here which is not exactly a logical necessity. From the perspective of the higher being, what is required is that the lower being carry out the task, and nothing more. But the higher being is not there to tell the lower being what to do in every changing situation. So the lower being has within, an inquisitive nature, which creates a want, a desire, a need to understand, which is associated in human beings with the desire for freedom. That needy nature is inherent within the beings right down the chain to the very bottom, because the beings are left to fend for themselves in uncertain circumstances. The higher power never really determines exactly the action which the lower must engage in, and this is why there is a need for the lower to understand the purpose of the higher. The lower must understand the purpose of the higher in order to know how to behave in changing circumstances.

I will give an extreme example, let's say that you or I were given a revelation of a greater purpose, or plan and inadvertently during this revelation, next weeks winning numbers for the state lottery were revealed. — Punshhh

This example would not fit with "revelation" as I described it, and understand it. I don't think that the meaning or purpose is actually revealed in the revelation. The person simply recognizes significance, and must present the material to others for a proper interpretation. I think it requires numerous people in consultation, discussion, to bring out the true meaning of the revelation. This is why people are still interpreting ancient traditions and ancient passages.

Furthermore, the revelation could not contain things of such personal advantage, due to the distinction between real good and apparent good which I described already. The revelation cannot be simply produced by the mind of the person experiencing it, or else it would be completely imaginary, and the higher power would be irrelevant. It would not be a "revelation". So there must be something (the higher power) responsible for producing it, let's call it "nature". If nature produces the revelation then the revelation must be consistent with nature, therefore consistent with the real good. So it could not inspire a person to act in a bad way. That means that a revelation could not contain the type of information as in your example. And if someone managed to get such information it would be in some way other than revelation. Something which appeared to be a revelation, but inspired a person to act in a bad way is not really a revelation, and this is known in mental illness.

And that's another reason why I say that the true purpose or significance of the revelation must be interpreted by numerous other people, because the individual on one's own, cannot properly distinguish between revelation and mental illness.

I don't see any requirement for the mystic to be privy to the purposes they are to become involved in. — Punshhh

There is a distinction of before and after. The mystic is not privy to any such information prior to starting. However, there is the will to start, which is the manifestation of the need for such information, as described above. Simply through proceeding, the mystic comes into contact with that information.

Yes, this is the point I was making. However if it is going on within a person, it is more comprehensive and transformative. — Punshhh

I think we may have reached a need to distinguish between what goes on within the person, and what is proper to the person's relations with others. This is because the person, on one's own, does not have the capacity to properly distinguish reality in these matters, as is evident by mental illness. This is why we need mystical training as you describe, and interpretation of revelations, as I said. So the "comprehensive and transformative" experience is not completely represented as something going on within the person. It might be better described as something going on in the person's relations with others. Otherwise we might have trouble distinguishing mysticism from mental illness.

The difference is really semantic. Counting is about associating a number with an object; 1 orange, 2 apples etc. But Cantor counts numbers with numbers by associating numbers with other numbers. In this way Cantor associates/counts the rational numbers with integers and comes to the conclusion that there are enough integers to count the rationals. — EnPassant

Yes the problem is semantic, that's what I said. If you give "counting" whatever meaning you want, you can do whatever you want with it. So Cantor is not really counting as "counting" is commonly used, because number is a concept, and not a thing which can be counted. It's only by making numbers into mathematical objects (Platonism) that Cantor can count numbers.

You seem to be in the loop, perhaps you can answer this question. Why are the tides turning against Trump? Is it because what the Russians really want is instability in the US, and Trump is just a pawn?

One can count an infinity conceptually, without time. — EnPassant

That's not counting though. Anyone can make up a new definition of "counting", and use that definition to make whatever conclusion one wants to make about infinity. But that conclusion would be irrelevant to what "counting" really means to the rest of us. So if Cantor turned "counting" into some sort of abstract concept which has nothing do with the act of counting, as we know it, I don't see how that's relevant. You are just arguing through equivocation.

I didn't say that the lower being can conceive of the purpose of a higher being (except in the exceptional circumstances I refer to in the second to last paragraph). No one is conceiving of the purposes except the one who initiates the purpose. — Punshhh

I don't see how a lower being could get to the point of understanding the procedures which one is involved in, without conceiving the purpose of the higher being who directs the procedures. You could be a pawn simply following orders, a cog in the wheel, carrying out your activity in a perfect fashion, but you need to understand what the wheel is doing in order to truly know what you are doing. It may be the case that this type of understanding is reserved for exceptional cases, but that simply means that the majority are satisfied in simply going through the motions. Having mystic minds, we want to see beyond the physical motions. Aren't those inclined toward mysticism already exceptional cases?

Yes, but we were discussing purpose, I see purpose, even when acted out by a person on the lowest rung of the ladder of purpose, as something which is not revealed and not any kind of revelation. I mentioned it when responding about meaning, which is more commonly revealed. — Punshhh

I don't see how you can separate purpose from meaning in this way. Meaning is commonly defined as what was meant, And to know what was meant is to know the purpose. So for instance, if the person on the lowest rung of the ladder is given instruction, that person might understand the instruction and follow the order, carrying out the requested activity precisely, without having a complete understanding of the meaning. This is because there is also a hierarchical structure in levels of meaning. To understand the words of the instruction and to be able to carry out the requested activity, is one part of the meaning, but how that instruction fits within the larger context of what the person giving the instruction is doing, is another part of the meaning. The latter is often concealed and this is the root of deception.

It may be the case that modern linguistic analysis would not consider this 'deeper meaning' as part of the meaning, but then they have no principles to separate honest use of language from deceptive use of language. Unless complete understanding of the meaning requires placing the statement into a larger context, the same statement has the same meaning whether it's spoken honestly or deceptively. Modern linguistics has made faulty divisions, and presents us with a representation of "meaning", which excludes the sincerity of the spoken word from being part of the meaning of the word. "I love you" would have the same meaning regardless of how it is used, except as distinguished by referring to distinct definitions.

When the concealed, deeper meaning, is revealed to the person on the lower rung of the latter, we might call this a revelation. You might see forms of this in the type of mysticism you practise. You might learn a particular procedure, and get proficient at it. This indicates that you understand the first level of meaning in the instruction, you can proceed with the requested action. As you carry on and learn more procedures and grasp how they all fit together, you might look back at the first, and see that it now has a different meaning.

Yes, I draw you back to what I was addressing when I pointed out what I meant when I say mysticism, "So when I use the word mysticism, I am referring to this process of refinement and development of the individual and through this the refinement and development of the being of the biosphere. This is necessarily a big subject". This refinement includes the alignment of the individual with the hierarchy of being, that the higher purpose be realised in some way. As such the motivations, purposes of the individual are the same as those of the hierarchy of being, there is no seperation. And as I also said earlier in my response to Javra, the individual hasn't lost any autonomy, or agency, or freedom in this, the purposes of the individual and the hierarchy of being just happen to be the same, hence " I and the father are one" John 10:30 — Punshhh

Right, I see this as the same thing as I described above, said in a different way. The biosphere is the larger context. To completely grasp the meaning of what one is doing, is to understand it within that context. As an example, consider that you might prioritize your actions in relation to your personal goals. That would be a low level of meaning. Then you might prioritize them in relation to your family, and that would give them a higher level of meaning. You could prioritize them in relation to your community or the entire human race for an even higher level. Or, the entire biosphere is an even higher level.

Notice that in order for what you say here, "the motivations, purposes of the individual are the same as those of the hierarchy of being", to be true, the person must get the glimpse (revelation) of the higher purpose or meaning. Otherwise the person is carrying out activities prioritized by lower levels. That "the purposes of the individual and the hierarchy of being just happen to be the same" is natural because that's how purpose within living beings is structured. And this is why you and I see exactly the same thing, though we come from completely different directions (east and west), and use completely different words and imagery to describe it. It's what's built into, inherent within living organisms. In seeing this we do not lose our autonomy we just facilitate our own decision making by relieving the stress of not knowing one's position in the world, and thereby being unsure in decision making.

This is similar to the distinction which Christian moralists make between the real good and the apparent good. The apparent good is what appears to the individual as good, but it may not actually be good. Because of the deficiencies in the human mind the apparent good may not be consistent with what is good in relation to God; this is the real good. If an individual apprehends the real good though, the person will choose the real good necessarily. This does not mean that the individual has lost one's freedom to choose, being necessitated by the real good, it just means that the apparent good has become the same as the real good. It is natural, the person still has the power to choose otherwise, but has no desire to because of that natural tendency.

Of course. I just thought I'd add my two cents worth.

And how is this not fake news? We've been seeing this type of report for years. Has it taken you this long to notice?

Pure maths is entirely abstract. You are conflating pure maths with applied maths. Numbers in pure maths do not require counting. — A Seagull

Sure, but we were talking about counting, not pure maths. The contested statement was:

Counting infinity has nothing to do with time. — EnPassant

Counting is a temporal process. Two comes after one. Three comes after two. You cannot remove the temporal aspect of counting, to claim that time is irrelevant to counting. It is essential. Try counting when four comes before three. It doesn't work.

It appears from the video that Arbery rushed McMicheals before the rifle fired. Arbery was either really stupid or really desperate.

Either way, it doesnt look premeditated. Manslaughter? — frank

They went there with the intent of killing him. He apprehended that and so he was desperate. His only hope was to disarm.

Assiming (and I will) he was there because he's an idiot racist motivated to make a citizen's arrest, he's not guilty of murder unless he had the intent to murder, absent a legal defense (I.e. self defense). — Hanover

There was no crime committed, therefore no citizen's arrest to be made. He was not there to make a citizen's arrest. He was there with the intent of killing that man.

Understanding is not the same thing as counting.

Also if one factors in that purposes are deferred up the hierarchy of being, then the being initiating the purpose would be uniquely inconceivable, even to exalted beings below them in the hierarchy. — Punshhh

This is questionable. If a lower being can conceive the purpose of the next higher being in a hierarchy of being, then there would only be an inconceivable purpose if there was an infinite regress. But you've already assumed that there must be an initiator of the purpose, so there is no infinite regress. The very nature of "purpose" is that it is what we posit as the end to an otherwise infinite regress, hence the Aristotelian term for goal or aim is "end". One of the most glaring problems with physicalism and materialism is that they always run into infinite regress. This is because they refuse to take into account "purpose", being immaterial. In this way "purpose" is as you say, a curious thing. It appears to us as if it is unintelligible, but assuming the reality of it is what makes things intelligible. This is what Plato said about "the good", it makes intelligible object intelligible, just like the sun makes visible objects visible.

I agree with what you say in the last paragraph, but with the qualification that this is only one of numerous ways in which revelation becomes imparted. We are not here discussing revelation, that is another subject. — Punshhh

Revelation is not really another subject. You described a significant aspect of mysticism as coming into contact with the higher power (God). In the west, this is called revelation.

Due to unnecessary complications like this (not to mention complications with the ego, or personality)it is more appropriate for the mystic to relinquish any concern for such matters and to simply follow the practice and service in humility. I have myself found myself in situations where if I were to ponder purposes, or meanings, I would become distracted in what I was doing ( when I say what I am doing, I am referring to practice, in which I have already accepted that I don't know the purposes, or meaning, or what is going on, not personal things that I am doing in my day to day life, which I do know about). — Punshhh

Again this is that same matter of personal difference. You might find that pondering meanings distracts you from what you are doing. This would indicate that you value what you are doing as more important than pondering meanings. However, for the person whom pondering meanings is for some reason important, this will be what that person is doing, finding doing other things as distracting from this. Aristotle identified contemplation as the highest virtue. Accepting "I don't know the meaning of this" can either inspire one in an attempt to determine the meaning, or turn one away in futility.

Counting infinity has nothing to do with time. An infinity of numbers does not require time to exist. — EnPassant

It requires an infinity of time to count an infinity of numbers, so "counting infinity" does have something to do with time.

Purpose for me is a curious thing, it can only be known by the agency whom for whatever reason adopted it and inline with the aspiration of the mystic of following the course of one's higher nature, or spiritual guide, for lack of a better word, that purpose is naturally deferred to a higher power. — Punshhh

I believe that purpose, due to its vague and general nature, cannot even be known by the person who has the purpose. Within us, the reason for doing something, purpose, starts as some sort of unintelligible, strange feeling which inspires us to act. So for example, there is the feeling of hunger, which is just an odd sort of discomfort which you wouldn't recognize as hunger unless you've come to know it. But the conscious mind does come to recognize that feeling, and directs its attention toward something particular, something to eat. We then can say, the reason (purpose) for this particular action, eating that thing, is to satisfy this general feeling. Notice that the feeling (which constitutes the purpose) comes from somewhere external to the conscious mind, remaining inherently unintelligible, while the mind simply recognizes it and understands the particular actions required to fulfill it. But the realm of human actions is extremely varied, and we say that these are purposeful actions. So, each one of those particular actions must be inspired by some unintelligible general thing which is outside the individual's mind. There are two important points concerning "purpose" here. It originates from outside the individual's mind, and it is not particular, it is something general.

What I believe is very consistent with what you say then. If you follow your own nature, purpose is necessarily deferred to a higher power, because that vague and general feeling, which constitutes inspiration, and the reason for doing anything, comes from outside of one's own mind. Further, being general in nature, and not directing one's attention toward any particular thing or action of necessity, it is not a feature of the sensible or physical world, which consist of particular things and actions. If the inspiration to act came from the sensible world, it would direct your actions toward this or that particular thing, but it's clear that this inspiration, or "purpose", allows one to choose from a vast array of possible actions. So we must attribute purpose to something outside of ourselves, but not part of the sensible world, this is what you call a higher power.

But that puts purpose in a curious place, as you say. I understand it to be in a place slightly different from what you described though. Since I do not allow that it is properly "known", even by the person who carries out the purposeful act, we are left in a sort of deficiency of knowledge with respect to purpose. We do not ever properly know why we do what we do, what we ought to do, or if we are doing the right thing. This causes us to seek confirmation and consultation from others, assurance that we are doing the right thing. And that is the reason why meaning, as what was meant by written words for example, cannot be attributed to the purpose of the author of the words. The author doesn't even know one's own purpose. The purpose, as the inspiration for action, and therefore what was meant, and meaning, actually comes from an external source, the higher power. So our acts of discussion, between us is how we attempt to actually determine the meaning, and that's why people say meaning is something public. We cannot simply refer to what the author meant, because the true purpose is something outside the mind of the author, which inspired those acts.

Meaning that the purpose of anything that happens in the world of the mystic, or indeed in the world of being is expressed for a higher purpose the nature of which is unfathomably profound( profound, only in the respect of being far reaching, beyond what a limited mind can comprehend). — Punshhh

Yes, meaning is beyond what a limited mind can comprehend, but now with communication we have a multitude of minds which can work together on the same problems. This is where I think western mysticism excels. We have come to recognize the power of communication in uniting our minds, to work together. But there is a very dangerous pitfall here as well. Some people in the west apprehend this unified group of human beings as that higher power. Instead of seeing our unity as an effort to work together toward understanding the meaning from the higher power, they apprehend this unity as the higher power, the creator of meaning instead of the interpreter of meaning. This syndrome, or condition, makes us into the fallen angel, or Satan, the false believe that we are the higher power, which is derived from a misunderstanding of where the inspirational power actually comes from.

So just like the mystic differs their agency to a higher purpose, also they defer their reason why, or the purposes for what they do, to a higher power. This both means that the mystic is not at all interested in why, or for what end they do what they are doing. — Punshhh

I don't agree with the second sentence, and perhaps this is the difference between eastern and western mysticism. In the west we have what is called a revelation, and this is when something is revealed to a person from the higher power. Now, according to what I described above, the meaning of the revelation cannot be properly under by the person who has received it. Therefore the person must act within the community if the meaning of the revelation is to be brought out, and the purpose intended by the higher power is to be brought to fruition. We cannot say that the mystic, being the person with the revelation, is not interested in why they are doing what they are doing, or else they would not carry out that act; the act being the attempt to determine "why?", which is the meaning of the revelation, why the thing revealed was revealed, the purpose of it.

This is very similar to the philosopher in Plato's cave allegory. The philosopher catches a glimpse of the true reality, and we can say this is analogous to the revelation. According to Plato, the philosopher has a duty to go back into the cave, and teach the others. But under the scenario I described above, the mystic who has had the revelation cannot properly understand it, and needs to go back to consult with the others to actually understand what has been revealed. So it is not exactly an act of teaching the others, but more like consulting with the others to describe the experience in an attempt to understand the meaning, through the help of the others. If we say that the mystic is not interested in why the revelation occurred, then the meaning will not be understood, and the revelation from the higher power will be in vain, recognizing that the purpose is from the higher power.

A proposed excuse for premeditated murder, I think.

That and a video of a fella in the building. — Banno

I saw a clip of that video, the person doesn't even look like the runner, not wearing the same clothes. But I believe it was from a different day, and nothing was stolen anyway.

That's the problem with the vigilante excuse, there's no records of any crimes having been committed.

Facts are forced by evidence, not chosen. — Syamsu

I would say that facts are forced by time. As time passes, whatever has occurred, has occurred, and those are the facts which cannot be changed, set in stone you might say, to emphasize the materiality of facts. But a freely choosing human being can make some decisions as to what will come to be fact.

There is no evidence that Arbery was even on the referenced construction site, just a mysterious, unidentified 911 caller speaking about a black man running form the site. Arbery was known to run that route. Sounds like a setup to me.