If mystical experiences are by definition ineffable, and you just explained your "mystical" experience as such, then doesn't that make the experience natural, rather than mystical?

Is that explanation unappealing? — Harry Hindu

I agree and don’t find it unappealing, though I imagine that many do. It’s only unnatural in the sense that it’s uncommon, in my opinion, and ‘mystical’ in the sense of it being an altered state that is completely internal (others can’t experience the same thing like they can with external places and things). Also, some describe it as trans-rational in being a non-dualistic kind of consciousness.

I saw a steam engine made out of an old door knob the other day, on the antiques roadshow. The maker had spent hundreds of hours engineering all the miniature parts required. It ran on a spoonful of water and a thimble full of meths. It was treated with reverence and was quite valuable. — Punshhh

Though whimsically dramatic, at least my Frankenstein analogy offers the dignity of power and not the indignity of being reduced to a cherished toy.

More often than not sex is unattractive and shameful for anyone but the participants. — NOS4A2

I get the unattractive part, but shameful?

I am indeed in need of sharing such a connection with someone that I can tell anything to. — ttjordy

I find that physical intimacy is best with few if any words, and that there are far better subjects to connect emotionally in non-physical intimacy. No one is defined by their sexuality.

Say praxis obtained some insight into himself (obtained knowledge about himself) using mysticism as a means (whatever that really means we'll ignore for the moment). Could you, Tzeentch, or I use the same means to obtain the same insight into praxis? What method would we use to gain the same insight into praxis? It seems to me that, logically, we'd have to use the same method to obtain the same knowledge, but will we? Why, or why not? — Harry Hindu

I believe that mystical experiences correlate to a deactivation of the neural default mode network. A couple of the basic characteristics of that brain state are a loss of a sense of self and a depatterning effect on the mind. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine the sort of insight that could be gained from this kind of experience. In any case, one benefit is existential anxiety relief.

Any method to deactivate the network could work, like meditation, psychedelics, electrical fields, whatever.

The video is hilarious, btw, and looks like real reactions.

Sure, but to me it doesn’t look like there’s much, if any, concern for... I’ll just say discovery. He uses persuasive tactics to sell “his” ideas. Tactics which are dishonest. That’s what salesman do, not discoverers.

I have read Michael Shermer's book, Why Smart People Believe Weird Things. So, I know a little about how to distinguish between weird ideas and innovative ideas. — Gnomon

And you’ve aptly put yourself in the weird rather than innovative category. Honestly though, the only thing that’s weird is the effort you put into selling “your” ideas. You’re like a used car salesmen that’s trying to sell a car that’s been cobbled together from used parts.

Frankenstein was the monster, and in his irresponsibility essentially destroyed himself, if you’re familiar with that story. Don’t be a monster, Gnomon, be a human being.

Epictetus in eudaimonia.

I live in the capital of British Columbia, Canada. The rules here are not as hard elsewhere in the country. — NOS4A2

I would hope so, look what they do to stormtroopers in Alberta...

I think it may be more accurate to say that it's a means of obtaining insight, or at least that's the way many think of it.

Personally, I make a distinction between 'spirituality' and religion. I'm not sure if that's common.

Hmm

I constructed as an intellectual exercise a long while ago when thinking about what makes swear words offensive, intentionally including a variety of different types of offense (sexual, religious, maternal, self-esteem, etc), and ending with a racist-homophobic term precisely because that’s the most offensive thing to my ear. — Pfhorrest

An insult cocktail, what do you call it? Nevermind, it failed with Sushi because hot buttons need to be designed for the particular sensibilities of the target.

Bribery? The plot thickens. :chin:

If any part of the brain is involved it isn't the neocortex and I believe the neocortex is exactly what mysticism wants to engage although via different methods. — TheMadFool

Hard to interpret what you mean here. I don’t think there’s any doubt that mystical experiences correlate to a particular brain state. What that brain state appears to be is a deactivation of the DMN (default mode network).

So there is such a thing as divine grace.

There does seem to be a correlation between political ideology and concern, with the right caring far less than the left. I don't believe that comes from leadership, but I think it comes from worldview. — Hanover

According to moral foundation theory, out of the spectrum of moral intuitions liberals primarily value care/harm and fairness, whereas conservatives are balanced.

I favor Idealism... I favor Realism... I favor Holism... Just keep looking at the shiny stars — Gnomon

Indeed.

Same temp here in southern Cal. When they open a lap pool I’ll be the first one in the water. Haven’t gone this long in years without a swim workout.

Our governor was talking about taking customers temperature before entering restaurants when they start opening. Hopefully it will be an oral test.

Was the restaurant like normal or were they spacing out tables, wearing masks, or whatever?

What form of theater was destroyed in Obama's wake? You may be confusing habituation and reactionism.

Well said.

Many throw out the baby with the bathwater. Intuition leads to things that one cannot measure with a measuring stick, so many conclude it must be useless. — Tzeentch

Or go the other way and devalue reason. :grimace:

If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work?
— praxis
Because "X" is the same in both equations. — Gnomon

That's not an explanation. If A can be X, then why can't B be X?

Your logic is based on scientific Reductionism, while mine is based on philosophical Holism.

Rather, you seem to favor idealism for some inexplicable (what you would call weird) reason. I guess because you think that it's somehow more holistic.

My god, there is a pandemic with people dying and you assholes can't rise above junior high school insulting — jacksonsprat22

Imagine how juvenile it would get in a holocaust.

I'm sure he wasn't. I was just using his joke as a launching point for my little rant on human irrationality.

We can meaningfully talk about a place we've never been or an experience that we've never had.

Anyway, I think that talking about mysticism is like talking about sex; why talk when you can do? — Pneumenon

Because it's sexy.

I think the Chinese manufactured the virus to kill as many Americans as possible. That's why it targets fat people. — Benkei

Only 40% are obese, and they tend to be poor and rural rather than elite and in areas worst hit by the virus, so poor targeting. Whoever invented and mass-produced high fructose corn syrup should be given credit for effectively killing Americans. HFCS is cheaper than sugar and is a better preservative and that translates into increased profit. We don't need any help with killing ourselves, in other words.

I think it’s essentially about rationalization, or an inclination towards order and predictability, which is both creative killing and soul crushing. McDonaldization, in other words. Currently my biggest client is a franchise consultancy, the very epitome of mcdonaldization and complete BS. Pays well though.

It’s only an obstacle if you don’t belong to the same tribe. :razz:

I agree with you though.

Also there is secularisation within mysticism, which I am about to get embroiled in I expect with a couple of other posters. — Punshhh

Are you suggesting that there should not be secularization within mysticism? If so, why?

I don't think mysticism and logic or reason should be separated. In fact, I think they should be inseparable. — Tzeentch

I wonder what you mean by this, particularly after relating experiences that you still pursue the meaning of.

... the president should have taken her number, stood over the desk of the bureaucrat whose job it is to send those payments, and made it happen. — NOS4A2

Ah, you do have a sense of humor.

So like this then:

A (metaphysical) and B (physical) are components of X (metaphysical).

And this also works:

A (metaphysical) and B (physical) are components of X (physical).

If the latter doesn't work, why doesn't it work?

Not the first time someone's used their intellect to (sort of) mask an inner rottenness. — BitconnectCarlos

On several occasions, he mentioned issues related to stress, so as I see it he was remarkably open. I've had anxiety issues in the past so I can relate.

A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).

A (tails) and B (heads) are components of X (coin).

It appears to me you're claiming that information is a component of information. Is this the weird (inexplicable) part you keep mentioning?

N-word flaming — Baden

Very hard to believe that he meant that. He's been expressing frustration and disillusionment with the forum lately, so to me, it sounds like another fuck-this-place-ban-me kind of thing.

I was surprised that someone could make it through a university degree and snap so easily — I like sushi

It depends on the school, of course. For instance, the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry may offer a magical defense against emotional outbursts spell as part of its graduate program.

So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).
— praxis

It seems to me that he is saying that both “matter” and “spirit” are reducible to “information”. Your B is a subset of A, not coextensive with it. C (spirit) is also a subset of A. If I understand him correctly. — Pfhorrest

He makes a distinction between "physical substance and metaphysical Information." Presumably, "spirits" are metaphysical, so your C is A, and not a subset of A.

So I’ve been promoted from reasonless to unreasonable. Cool :cool:

you're all emotion and no reason
— Harry Hindu

And you believe this is a reasonable claim?
— praxis

Absolutely. — Harry Hindu

And then you proceed as though I have the capacity for reason. You, Sir, are a lier.

How can any view be well established if it isn't falsifiable? — Harry Hindu

You keep asking the same question and expecting a different result.

As I mentioned earlier in the topic, I read a portion of Gnomon's website that caught my interest. It was about meditation and related subjects. Granted it may touch on philosophical issues, however, the bulk of it is well within the falsifiable realm.