The real success has been what Trump is trying to do in the US: division and polarization at such level that there's no turning back. — ssu

I hear ya, but there is a turning back. We can simply cut out the tribalism and superiority poses etc. Again, I'm not making a moral point, but a tactical one. It's not in our interest to play Trump's game with him. Here's the bumper sticker slogan. :-)

Ignore Trump, and embrace his base.

Also, I am pretty sure the democratic party employs strategists who know what voters to target better than we do. — Echarmion

Then why did they lose the last election to a comic book character who boasts about assaulting women? Why were all the Democratic candidates in 2020 second rate figures who don't even know that a Presidential candidate should have something useful to say about nuclear weapons? Why did Bernie and Warren not grasp that "all angry all the time" is a recipe for failure, as has now been proven?

I don't share your confidence obviously.

I don't think it's strategically viable for Democrats to appeal to the religious right. But even if it were, a more fundamental questions occurs: is politics about doing what is right, or doing what people want? To what extent is building a broader coalition worth encroaching on your principles? — Echarmion

This is a good question. I'm not asking any Democrat to give up their principles. I'm suggesting we dial down the tribalism and show those with different views more respect. You know, the urban leftie mindset which thinks of rural citizens as country bumpkin bozo yahoos. Stuff like that has to go.

I tried to offer some examples, and would encourage members to think of more. We don't have to agree with Trump's immigration policies to acknowledge that being concerned about immigration and population is a reasonable concern. Same for abortion. Same for guns. Same for religious freedom. What else? What am I missing?

Many former democrats and independents who voted for Obama have voted for Trump, myself included. This isn’t because we abandoned the left, but because the left abandoned us. Once our former political allies trended towards the illiberal and globalist, there was no home for us in that space. — NOS4A2

There you go, that's it. Thanks for saying it better than I could.

It's not just policies, it's culture too. Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment sums up the snotty superior mindset of so much of leftie culture pretty well. We need to face that attitude squarely and do something about it.

What is the democrats traditional base at this point? Studies suggest it's college-educated people, young people, women and minorities. — Echarmion

For decades that included the working man. Democrats largely abandoned those folks, so they found a new home. That's not Trump's fault, that's our fault.

Nobody has said that Trump is incapable of getting himself into the media limelight. Where his inability lies in having the ability to lead a myriad of people and organizations that compromise the federal state. — ssu

I completely agree. But saying it over and over and over again is unlikely to accomplish anything. The fact that we already know that, and keep doing it anyway, illustrates where Trump is smart. He knows we're not serious people, even if we don't. Trump is a realist, that's his gift.

The fool who has to speed and tailgate. — Aleric

Tailgating is big one for me too. Traffic is a good window in to the human condition because it's so inclusive, and so anonymous.

I hear and share your pain. Can't offer much in the way of solutions, except we'll be outta here soon. :-)

You've been promoting the idea of reaching across the aisle to this 'tribe' but have yet to offer any good ideas about accomplishing this difficult task aside from validation, — praxis

If you want more ideas, why not get off your butt and share some?

My take is that Trump's success arises from the fact that he is a ruthless business man from NYC, arguably the media capital of the world. Trump instinctively gets that corporate media is not a public service, but a profit seeking business. He gets that the business model of corporate media is to use drama to build audience, and thus ad revenues. And so Trump supplies the drama, and is rewarded with many billions of dollars worth of free advertising he wouldn't get otherwise.

Here's a little story to illustrate how the game works.

Remember that preacher a few years back who got a lot of attention for threatening to burn the Koran? That happened about a mile from my house. That guy was a complete total nobody. He led a congregation of about 50 people, and made his living selling used furniture on eBay. He wasn't at all influential even locally here in town. Just a little crackpot total nobody.

But he knew how to play the media game. He supplied the media with the drama they crave, and worked it from the local media, to state, to national, to international. He went from local nobody to global somebody based on one simple trick, threatening to burn a book.

Terrorists do the very same thing. They provide drama to the media, and in return are rewarded with millions to billions of dollars worth of free advertising.

Trump is a realist. He knows how it works, and he works it.

Trump's performance is so absurd and he's showing his inability so clearly that it's hard not noticing it. — ssu

And yet, he is President, and we are not. Perhaps what we're seeing here more clearly than before is that it is the fate of democratic societies to be ruled by salesman.

I don’t follow, there really are no Trump supporters on this forum of the sort you describe. — praxis

Right. And so the rational point of Trump bashing with those who already agree is.... what exactly?

The answer is somewhat inconvenient. Preaching to the choir operations serve as a mutual validation society which helps bind the tribe together in the illusion that they are the "one true tribe", ie. superior to those people over there. It happens on a billion sites on a billion subjects, one of the primary uses of the Internet. Tribalism serves a useful purpose emotionally, but is typically an obstacle to achieving one's public policy goals.

The fact that there are no Trump voters here does not stop us from considering how we might productively engage them when we do encounter them. That's not a matter of being nice. It's a matter of realistically appreciating that little of significance can be accomplished without them.

Sorry to go off like a bomb on this subject. My experience of having to face the fact that even very intelligent well educated nuclear weapons experts, all of them that I could find, don't get that they need Trump voters kinda freaked me out a bit. I do realize there's nothing I can do about tribalism, and am just suffering one of my little wishful thinking fantasy episodes.

I'm OK with them feeling insulted when I insult Trump. — Michael

Ok, fair enough, that's your choice to make. I'm just trying to alert you to what the price tag is.

Somehow I don’t think that a public “there there now, you have reasonable concerns” will do the trick. Validation may be a good starting point but it only goes so far. Got any other ideas? — praxis

When the forum has acted on what's already been suggested, which you seem to agree is a good starting point, I'll see if I have any other ideas.

Except for a lot of people their "reasonable" concerns aren't reasonable at all. Pro-life, pro-religion (to an extent that allows LGBT discrimination), and pro-guns are red lines that many liberals just aren't willing to negotiate over, just as pro-choice, LGBT-protections (at the expense of religious beliefs), and gun regulations are red lines that many conservatives just aren't willing to negotiate over. — Michael

As I already said, we don't have to negotiate away anything that is important to us. We just have to start respecting those whose votes we need. We need to acknowledge, to ourselves at least, that we lefties have a problem with the snotty superiority poses, and that the price tag for those poses can be pretty high.

I'm OK with that. — Michael

You're ok with not reaching any of our substantial goals? Is that what you meant?

Besides, I insult him because he says and does things worthy of insult. It's not to make me feel good. — Michael

Rather than challenge a report from inside of your own mind, let's try this instead.

I recently spent about 3 months daily following every nuclear weapons expert and activist I could find on Twitter. These are intelligent, well educated, well informed, well intentioned people, some of whom are risking jail on this issue. And yet, I couldn't find a single such "expert" who understood that there is exactly no chance of any real change in nuclear weapons policy without millions of Trump voters agreeing. Instead, Trump bashing, Trump bashing, Trump bashing, tweet after tweet after tweet, day after day after day, a clear triumph of emotion over reason and self interest.

Of course Trump is worthy of insult. That doesn't make insulting him a smart tactical strategy.

Before we run around the net calling Trump voters stupid, perhaps we should wise up and become smart enough to grasp what is in our own self interest.

God has a head? Who cuts his hair? — unenlightened

Finally, finally, finally we're getting to the theological questions that really matter!!!

We might consider that when we talk about Trump, we are playing Trump's game, doing his bidding.

An alternative to being sucked in to becoming pawns in Trump's media strategy would be to ignore Trump to the greatest degree possible, and focus instead on finding common ground with his base where ever we can. His base is the real power, not Trump.

Trump is President because the Democratic Party has not only ignored it's traditional base, it seems to often enjoy insulting them. There is a regrettable passion among we lefties for snotty superiority poses which are often directed at the very people we need to be winning over. Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comes to mind as a quick example.

Let's work on developing a list of common ground projects. Here's a start....

1) Immigration - The population of the United States has doubled in my lifetime. Over the same period the population of Florida (where I live) has grown from 3 million to over 21 million, a seven fold increase. It's certainly reasonable for any citizen to question how much farther we wish to travel in that direction. Politicians on all sides have generally ignored such questions for decades and so, no surprise, large segments of the population are attracted to any national figure who won't ignore them.

We don't have to become Trumpers or agree with a wall or the demonization of immigrants or any of that. We just have to acknowledge, to Trump voters, that they have raised a serious question about the future of the country which merits open minded discussion. We just have to acknowledge, to Trump voters, that we are part of the problem when we vote for any politician who sweeps such concerns under the rug as soon as they are elected if not before.

2) Abortion - Many religious people held their nose and voted for Trump due to their concern about abortion. It's not unreasonable for them to have serious concerns about the mass killing of babies. Who's next, inconvenient old people like me?

I'm not suggesting any person of conscience needs to change their position on abortion. But what we lefties do need to do is reach out to Trump voters and publicly acknowledge that they have reasonable concerns. If we choose to demonize and insult them instead, then we shouldn't be surprised if they then choose to vote for somebody other than us.

Nothing serious on pretty much any subject can be accomplished on party line votes. If we win that way then whatever we're won gets undone the next time the other side takes power, which happens regularly.

Remember, every time we insult Trump for no better reason than it makes us feel good to do so many millions of Americans hear us insulting them. The wiser strategy is to largely ignore Trump, reach out to his base, and win them over. Winning them over will require offering them respect where ever possible.

Biden seems like a caretaker President so perhaps his VP pick will be decisive? Last I heard he has said he will pick a woman. If true, which woman?

I don't think this would be any form of mysticism though, to value experience independently of everything else. — Metaphysician Undercover

I just meant the experience has it's own value which isn't dependent on any explanations.

From my perspective, mysticism is a focus on the real. Explanations aren't real, they're symbols which point to the real in a highly imperfect manner. Example, my photo on Facebook is not me. The photo can be useful, but shouldn't be confused with that which it points to.

That's downright mystical of you! :smile: Gregg was a distant cousin of mine. — jgill

Hey, that's cool, you're a brother. I went to the same high school as the brothers, but five years or so behind, so I'm just a wannabe brother. Never knew them personally, but used to see them play around town in all the local garage bands they had before making it big. They've been part of my life since I was 12 so it feels weird that they are no longer with us. But I assume they're setting up their equipment at the next gig and I'll be there again in the audience soon enough.

I could get into the experiences I have had on mushrooms, but critics may devalue them as hallucinations caused by the drug. — Punshhh

A reply to the critics. Dear critic, is that post you just wrote while high on caffeine also a hallucination we shouldn't take seriously?

But eating a mushroom might. — jgill

Mushrooms? Oh dear, that's so over. :-) Well, maybe you're like me and you just can't stop playing those old Allman Brothers records.

I ain't no saint, sure as hell ain't no savior...
Every other Christmas I would practice good behavior...
That was then.
This is now.
Don't ask me to be Mr. Clean...
Cause baby I don't know how... — Gregg Allman

If we're going to get serious about this ladder climbing business what we need is a good DMT thread!

What I think and I described earlier, is that one cannot adequately understand the significance of such an experience on one's own. — Metaphysician Undercover

That may very well be true. If one sees experience as a means to the end of understanding, then that could be a problem. If one sees experience as having it's own value independent of anything else, then not understanding the significance isn't such a problem.

So to experience, just for the sake of the experience itself, without any discussion or explanation, leaves the experience completely meaningless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. If we're lucky, completely meaningless. That is, a full immersion in the real, undistracted by the symbolic.

But, that's pretty ambitious, especially for we over thinking philosopher types. A more common and realistic scenario for us is that we will instinctively create some meaning story or another. And then the question is, what is our relationship with that story? If we take the story really seriously that could be a problem, probably an ego hijacking operation. But if we just watch the meanings we create float by like clouds in the sky, not such a problem. Here it comes, there it is, now it's gone.

I made this point some time back, but the two central protagonists on this thread enjoy discussing philosophical perspectives of mystical experiences that are, themselves, better understood by actual practitioners. — jgill

I enjoy discussing philosophical perspectives of mystical experiences too. Here I am after all. I'm just exploring what the relationship between experiences and explanations might be.

Does one have to understand the processes of digestion in order to receive nutrition from a tomato? No. One just has to eat the tomato. Eating the tomato does not advance one up some ladder. It just gets one through another day.

There's nothing wrong with reading up on digestion. But that's not where the nutrition comes from.

Mystical events, which are only incompletely communicable in words, cannot be fully understood by those untouched by such experiences. — Weber

This problem is solved if we stop trying to understand the events. :-)

Its when discourse is contemplated, or engaged in that the explanations become relevant. — Punshhh

Yes, that's what normally happens, agreed. But even in discourse the explanations are not necessary. Discussion could instead focus on how to have experience. We can observe how practical information like that is typically missing from discussions.

Personally one can dump the explanations, provided you are able to plot your own course. — Punshhh

Ok, but if one dumps the explanations then there is no course, other than to the experience.

This is what this thread is about, can we enter into meaningful discourse about something which is an intensely personal experience? — Punshhh

I'm not arguing against such discourse, just trying to add to the discourse. This is a philosophy forum, so of course I'm supposed to say the opposite of whatever somebody else is saying. :-)

For those new to the subject of DMT, here's a good intro vid. Scientific study, not new age propaganda.

Some people call psychedelic experiences more real than reality. — leo

Yes, that's about what those in the above video said. Some reported that what they experienced on DMT felt more real than normal life.

What I like about the question of this thread and the resulting discussion is that it tends to illustrate how concepts which are useful at human scale can't always be mapped to different scales. Things that make perfectly good sense in our daily lives aren't always relevant to the quantum or cosmic scale, for example.

Religion discussions come to mind. Does God exist or not? Exists or not is a reasonable kind of question at human scale. But when we try to apply it to space, and perhaps gods, the exists or not concept starts falling apart.

As soon as expletives and insults make an appearance reasonable discussion has ended and a reasonable party would abandon the conversation.

Unless we then investigate 1) why we are slinging insults, and 2) why we are offended by them.

Reasonable parties might use the occasion to change the topic to such issues, which are typically more useful areas of inquiry than whatever fancy philosophy we might have been previously discussing.

EMOTIONS: Each philosophy forum user is responsible for their own emotional experience of the forum. If you call me a nitwit and that causes me distress, the solution is for me to investigate why I've handed control of my mind over to some anonymous stranger on the Internet.

CONTENT: If the mods determine that a member is a consistently low quality contributor, the member can be limited to a section at the bottom of the forum called something like Purgatory. If the member raises their game, perhaps they can be given another chance. Every so often Purgatory can be purged of all posts and members.

Do you think that the mystic ought not take oneself seriously? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a matter of degree I suppose. Mysticism is a form of psychological death. So in those moments when we're taking ourselves seriously, that's probably not it.

Why is it happening... — Baden

Thought operates through a process of division.

and what can be done? — Baden

It appears that all the old white people such as myself are in the process of dying off.

And the young white people aren't having as many babies as they used to, so....

I agree, but I don't see why we can't do both. — Punshhh

I don't object. I'm offering my thoughts as part of such an intellectual examination of mysticism.

I don't see why mysticism can't be treated academically. — Punshhh

It can. It will. And in doing so a great many people will conclude that mysticism is about doing even more thinking. For them it will be just another philosophy and/or religion. So be it. I'm not proposing that I can do anything about this.

There has been a trend of Western people taking an interest in Eastern mysticism over the last hundred and forty years or so. But it is still relegated to the New Age shops and widely regarded as woo. — Punshhh

Imho, it is widely regarded as woo for the same reason religion is so often regarded as woo, because of all the ego becoming trips etc which are so often layered on top of it. As example, nobody considers the experience of love to be woo. That is, until someone in a clerical costume comes along and says that we need them to interpret the experience correctly so that we can advance in holiness and be elevated like the cleric and so on, and then the woo alert alarms may start going off.

Whether we are talking about Christian love or Eastern mysticism, there is the experience and the explanations. The woo lives in the explanations.

Can we just dump the explanations? Most of the time, probably not. We're human so explanations are probably going to happen, especially if one has a philosophical nature. But we don't have to take the explanations too seriously, especially given that doing so is usually an act of taking ourselves too seriously.

Again, I think it really depends on how one defines the problem which we're attempting to solve. If we see the problem as arising from incorrect thought content then philosophy seems advisable. If we the problem as arising from thought itself, then perhaps philosophy should be treated with some caution.

Just another angle to explore perhaps.

I dont see a problem here — Punshhh

If there is a problem, it is that all such discussion is made of thought, which is proposed to be the primary obstacle to mystical experience.

There is a widespread notion that mysticism is like other topics, where one calculates a path to some goal. This works for a million things so it's natural and understandable to try to apply it here too. And perhaps that is a useful path for some.

It seems to me that what makes mysticism interesting, what makes it worthy of investigation, is that it is an exploration which heads in the opposite direction. It's not just another philosophy, but rather what we might label "aphilosophy", that is, not of philosophy.

So what is there to talk about then? Plenty. How to let go of thoughts, how to let go of goals, how to let go of becoming etc. Not forever, not permanently, just to some degree to create a balance with all the thinking, goal seeking and becoming that so dominates our every day lives.

If we turn mysticism in to just another thinking, goal seeking, becoming trip, where is the balance? What is the point?

Knowledge needs to be combined with wisdom. — EnPassant

Wisdom will never be able to keep up with knowledge. Knowledge grows exponentially, while wisdom grows incrementally at best. Thus, the gap between wisdom and knowledge (ie. power) grows ever wider, ever faster.

offering oneself as a vessel to convey divinity — Punshhh

Sounds like a tricky business. Uh oh, here come ego, slapping his little hands together in glee.

What do you mean? — TheMadFool

Science develops knowledge. True.

More knowledge is automatically better. False.

What I meant to say Dingo is that you have utterly defeated me with your razor sharp intellect and I am too embarrassed to continue.

Very often scientists making comments about greater things are like mechanics, who presume their knowledge about engines, entitles them to pronounce upon literature. It don't work that way. — EnPassant

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

The problem is that scientists have done an excellent job of providing us with all kinds of goodies, and so naturally they have acquired significant authority. And most people most of the time on most subjects don't think things through for themselves but look for some source of authority to reference. So when anyone who has accumulated a lot of authority says something, a lot of folks are going to simply nod and agree.

When it comes to science, this is a very dangerous business. While scientists are very sophisticated about developing knowledge, they tend on average to be quite unsophisticated about our relationship that knowledge. And so they typically use the authority they have earned by developing knowledge to sell us a simplistic primitive theory that more knowledge is always better.

It's entirely reasonable to debate how much knowledge we can successfully manage. But it's ridiculous to assume that human beings can successfully manage any amount of knowledge delivered at any rate. Sooner or later, somehow or another, we're going to pay dearly for blindly clinging to such notions.