If someone claims to have mathematical knowledge it can be demonstrated. Can the same be said of someone who claims to have mystical knowledge?
— Fooloso4
:nerd: :up: — 180 Proof

But Fooloso, wouldn't you agree if mystical knowledge is demonstrated, then it would be no longer a mystical knowledge?

Philosophers are traditionally and for the most part elitist. They regard mankind as children that they must hide the truth from. — Tom Storm

The quote above isn't from me. I think I was responding to someone else, citied it and you have picked it up under my name. I don't know if philosophers are elitist.

What facts or metaphysical truths can it guarantee? If you think there are such facts or truths, how does it guarantee them? — Janus

Perhaps the challenge is knowing in the face of uncertainty, in other words, belief. For me, the notion of spirituality aligns precisely with the noumenon-phenomenon (mind-body) problem and is to that extent "de-mystified", although it is still mysterious. Yes, we can have some certainties of the material world, which are in a sense trivial. These form the framework of our human existence, the stage whereupon we live our lives. And those human truths are not so easily acquired or proven. And of course, when human knowledge has reached a high level of sophistication, we begin to discover that the so-called simple truths of the material world are not themselves straightforward, when we finally reach the horizons of the quantum and the cosmic.

In the human body, muscles work in opposing pairs. And the ultimate strength of any muscle is always limited by the weakness of its antagonist partner. I conceive the mind (spirit) matter dyad to be like that. Indeed, all knowledge. Hence the power of dialectic.

Such understanding ranges from the comprehension of the babblings of children to Hamlet or the Critique of Pure Reason. From stones and marble, musical notes, gestures, words and letters, from actions, economic decrees and constitutions, the same human spirit addresses us and demands interpretation. (Dilthey, The Rise of Hermeneutics)

I don't know if philosophers are elitist. — Tom Storm

I hear some of us are rarer birds than that: thinkers.

But Fooloso, wouldn't you agree if mystical knowledge is demonstrated, then it would be no longer a mystical knowledge? — Corvus

That would depend on what you mean by the term. As I understand it, it is knowledge gained through some kind of transcendent experience. It is known only to those who have had this experience. Some attempt to bring about this experience in one way or another by an altered state of consciousness. Others claim that it is something that happens to you without regard to what you do. Not ever having had such an experience I cannot evaluate it. I cannot say whether it reveals something about the world or human beings or the individual. I do not know to what extent it is an interpretation of what happens.

The term mystical is also used to mean what lies beyond both experience and explanation, that is to say, beyond knowledge. The arche of existence or that there is anything at all.

Yes, I have read Gerson's thesis and some of his essays on Aristotle. We have argued about them for years. A search for "De Anima" in the site search function gives a flavor for the dispute. My question to you was if you see that disagreement only in terms of your objections to 'modern' naturalism.

For my part, the two issues are only connected through a history of interpretation and not through trying to understand Plato and Aristotle on their own terms.

↪Chet Hawkins The quote above isn't from me. I think I was responding to someone else, citied it and you have picked it up under my name. I don't know if philosophers are elitist. — Tom Storm

Ah, sorry. Not quite sure how that happened.

That would depend on what you mean by the term. As I understand it, it is knowledge gained through some kind of transcendent experience. It is known only to those who have had this experience. Some attempt to bring about this experience in one way or another by an altered state of consciousness. Others claim that it is something that happens to you without regard to what you do. Not ever having had such an experience I cannot evaluate it. I cannot say whether it reveals something about the world or human beings or the individual. I do not know to what extent it is an interpretation of what happens.

The term mystical is also used to mean what lies beyond both experience and explanation, that is to say, beyond knowledge. The arche of existence or that there is anything at all. — Fooloso4

The standard definition of "Esoteric" is very unusual and understood or liked by only a small number of people, especially those with special knowledge:, which suggests intentional hidings of their knowledge into their own circles, societies or cults. Therefore demonstrating the intentionally hidden knowledge for the circle members or initiated followers only to the uninitiated, outsiders or public would be contradicting the meaning of the concept as well as their intentions, gist, purposes and ideas for the esoteric and mystic knowledge.

In general esoteric knowledge is totally different type of knowledge from the general philosophical knowledge in methodology, objects and beliefs, and the main difference being the hidden exclusiveness of the knowledge only for the chosen few.

The standard definition ... — Corvus

If by esoteric knowledge you mean knowledge that is hidden because it is being kept secret then if it is made public it would no longer be esoteric. But the definition you give also includes what is understood only by a small number of people. In that case it would remain hidden from us because it is beyond our abilities to comprehend it.

In any case, your question was about:

mystical knowledge — Corvus

There are mystery cults that keep their knowledge hidden from those who have not been initiated. The initiation might include texts and teachings, or intoxicants or other measures to induce altered states. When the mysteries are revealed then they are for the initiated no longer mysteries.

As with the arts, some sometimes find metaphors to be the optimal means of conveying deeper, sometimes hidden (esoteric) truths. This then works well for conveying these truths to others who already are of a common enough mindset in many other respects. But it will backfire whenever others hold different foundational semantics, for the latter will at times drastically misinterpret what was intended to be conveyed.

Then there’s the analytic approach to philosophy. The leading benefit to this method of conveying truths is an improvement in clarity as to what is being addressed. But this comes at the cost of dryness, which serves as a big impediment to conveying what was intended. And, unlike the former method, it also limits what is conveyed to concepts that are already commonly known, making it that much more difficult to convey new ways of understanding or else realities that are not already publicly accepted and acknowledged. Here, then, the metaphors employed will be static in already being common standard, rather than being dynamic and new.

They mythical (and, by extension, much of the religious) can thereby be interpreted as the metaphorical, with Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell coming to mind in this field of study. Hence, as attempting to convey deeper, and at times hidden, truths or else realities. — javra

Just as I have consistently argued for the existence of a spectrum of consciousness there is also evident a spectrum of knowledge (possibly there is a connection). Individuals with certain mental capacities are capable of grasping complex mathematical concepts far beyond the ken of most folks. Savants can have incredible mathematical (and other) skills, often with minimal formal training.

Given the breadth and depth of human knowledge and experience, I don't find it in the least surprising that people of varying constitutions and varying experiences have a variety of different types of knowledge, or that some people have intuitions and awareness that some others do not share. In fact, it would be surprising if there were not such a variety. Brain scans of Buddhist monks exhibit a variety of unique features, including enhanced neuroplasticity. — Pantagruel

Of course not. In none of this am I putting myself forward as an exemplar or possessor of esoteric knowledge. But I've studied comparative religion, Mircea Eliade, William James, Evelyn Underhill, and I don't believe it's all moonshine. Whereas, seems to me vital for a lot of people to believe it must be. It's what Max Weber calls the great disenchantment. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the challenge is knowing in the face of uncertainty, in other words, belief. For me, the notion of spirituality aligns precisely with the noumenon-phenomenon (mind-body) problem and is to that extent "de-mystified", although it is still mysterious. Yes, we can have some certainties of the material world, which are in a sense trivial. These form the framework of our human existence, the stage whereupon we live our lives. And those human truths are not so easily acquired or proven. And of course, when human knowledge has reached a high level of sophistication, we begin to discover that the so-called simple truths of the material world are not themselves straightforward, when we finally reach the horizons of the quantum and the cosmic. — Pantagruel

:100: :smile: :up:

Thanks very much for your posts and insights. I can appreciate some nutritious and delicious food for thought.

Your emphasis on fear of the unknown is interesting, especially in relation to logic. That is because scientific logic, including materialism may come from that angle, as once Christianity, especially Catholicism did in the past. The esoteric, or occult, was feared as taboo and still is in some religious circles. I found the section on the esoteric, paranormal and magic when I was about 12 years old. My family discouraged me from reading it and for a long time I did avoid it. Later, when I was exploring various philosophy ideas, including premonitions, some fairly evangelical thinking student friends were horrified, seeing such ideas as 'Satanic' lies.

On philosophy forums, there are so many divergent views but, in spite of it many are wary of it, as nonsensical lies often, opposed to science. So, there may be a crossover at times between scientific and religious fundamentalism. Fear may be the 'demon' lurking in the background and logic, or even commonsense may be the certainty which many wish to cling to.

I am not sure that a certain amount of common sense and trust in the empirical is not important to avoid confusion. I have worked with people with acute psychosis and have seen the grave dangers of getting carried away with 'delusions', such as belief in magical and psychic powers. So, it may be about holding onto a certain amount of critical 'realism', but also about juggling this with the limits of reason. Also, each person may come to this in a unique way based on personal experiences.

This excerpt from the Wikipedia page on Ken Wilber’s The Marriage of Sense and Soul makes some points that I think relate to this thread. Specifically, about ‘evidence’…

For these reasons, Wilber subsequently deduces that "sensory empiricism" cannot be included as one of "the defining characteristics of the scientific method", arguing that the "defining patterns of scientific knowledge" instead, "must be able to embrace both biology and mathematics, both geology and anthropology, both physics and logic—some of which are sensory-empirical, some of which are not." In this same regard however, he notes "there is sensory empiricism (of the sensorimotor world)" or empiricism in the narrow sense, "mental empiricism (including logic, mathematics, semiotics, phenomenology, and hermeneutics), and spiritual empiricism (experiential mysticism, spiritual experiences)" or empiricism in the broad sense. "In other words, there is evidence seen by the eye of flesh (e.g., intrinsic features of the sensorimotor world), evidence seen by the eye of mind (e.g., mathematics and logic and symbolic interpretations), and evidence seen by the eye of contemplation (e.g., satori, nirvikalpa samadhi, gnosis)" [emphasis in original].[36]

Wilber then outlines what he states as believing "are three of the essential aspects of scientific inquiry"; referring to them as the "three strands of all valid knowing":

1. Instrumental injunction. "This is an actual practice, an exemplar, a paradigm, an experiment, an ordinance. It is always of the form "If you want to know this, do this."
2. Direct apprehension. "This is an immediate experience of the domain brought forth by the injunction; that is, a direct experience or apprehension of data (even if the data is mediated, at the moment of experience it is immediately apprehended)."
3. Communal confirmation (or rejection). "This is a checking of the results—the data, the evidence—with others who have adequately completed the injunctive and apprehensive strands" [emphasis added].[37]
Advocating that science "expand from narrow empiricism (sensory experience only) to broad empiricism (direct experience in general) [emphasis added],[38] Wilber similarly reasons that religion too "must open its truth claims to direct verification—or rejection—by experiential evidence." He subsequently asserts that "(r)eligion, like science, will have to engage the three strands of all valid knowledge and anchor its claims in direct experience" [emphasis added].

Authentic spirituality, then, can no longer be mythic, imaginal, mythological, or mythopoetic: it must be based on falsifiable evidence. In other words, it must be, at its core, a series of direct mystical, transcendental, meditative, contemplative, or yogic experiences—not sensory and not mental [emphasis in original], but transsensual, transmental, transpersonal, transcendental consciousness—data seen not merely with the eye of flesh or with the eye of mind, but with the eye of contemplation.

— Ken Wilber, The Marriage of Sense and Soul (from Wikipedia)

That (put very concisely, and of course benefiting from elaboration) is a description of what possible ‘evidence’ of a metaphysical / spiritual / transrational nature might entail.

And importantly, how it might even begin to be ‘verified’.

Of course, one can reject or quibble with his positing an ‘eye of contemplation’.
One can take it or leave it, and live a productive and full life.

But I think this quote (along with Wilber’s other writings) describe what metaphysical experiences, and the often vague descriptions of them, are aiming for in an extremely general way.
(Although most of us philosophical and mystical seekers and wanderers don’t have a community of wise souls also engaged in spiritual exercises in the neighborhood to guide us.)

In that case it would remain hidden from us because it is beyond our abilities to comprehend it. — Fooloso4

When the mysteries are revealed then they are for the initiated no longer mysteries. — Fooloso4

Sure. My point was that in either case, the knowledge is not for demonstrating to public whether you are able to comprehend it or not. Even if you were a new initiate to the secret society, they will make you to work from the bottom to the top with dedication and hard work for acquiring the knowledge. They won't demonstrate the mystic knowledge, and show you the whole lot at one go, just because you joined their school or club.

We may not be talking about the same thing. Philosophers have hidden their meaning not because it contains mystic knowledge but because they want to avoid censorship. Two examples: the trials of Socrates and Galileo.

Plato took seriously the accusation against philosophy by Aristophanes. He did not think it corrupts the youth but it certainly leads them to question the ancestral beliefs. As Aristophanes shows in his play The Clouds, in the wrong hands this can be harmful. Plato and other writers have no control over who reads their works. He wrote in such a way that only those who are thoughtful enough and can question the text in the right way will see what is between the lines and make connections that the casual reader will not.

The standard definition of "Esoteric" is very unusual and understood or liked by only a small number of people, especially those with special knowledge:, which suggests intentional hidings of their knowledge into their own circles, societies or cults. Therefore demonstrating the intentionally hidden knowledge for the circle members or initiated followers only to the uninitiated, outsiders or public would be contradicting the meaning of the concept as well as their intentions, gist, purposes and ideas for the esoteric and mystic knowledge. — Corvus

Yes, I agree.

However, to that I’d add the less common (but still significant) trait of wisdom traditions to place value on openness, simplicity, and plain (if not completely pure) awareness… rather than (or in addition to, perhaps) knowledge and concepts.

Zen is known for this, for example the book Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind.
Also, the Tao Te Ching can be read and (somewhat understood) by nearly anyone in an hour.
In mystic Christianity, Jesus’s encouragement to become as children… etc etc.

Wisdom is the most esoteric mystery that there is. — Chet Hawkins

Interesting. I find this in some ways directly speaks to what “love of wisdom” – i.e., philosophy – was initially intended to be about. I can also relate to a number of other concepts you’ve evoked. But I won’t now get into discussing them.

--------



Aldous Huxley makes a distinction between knowledge and understanding. Here's and overview:

Knowledge is acquired when we succeed in fitting a new experience into the system of concepts based upon our old experiences. Understanding comes when we liberate ourselves from the old and so make possible a direct, unmediated contact with the new, the mystery, moment by moment, of our existence. The new is the given on every level of experience — given perceptions, given emotions and thoughts, given states of unstructured awareness, given relationships with things and persons. The old is our home-made system of ideas and word patterns. It is the stock of finished articles fabricated out of the given mystery by memory and analytical reasoning, by habit and the automatic associations of accepted notions. Knowledge is primarily a knowledge of these finished articles. Understanding is primarily direct awareness of the raw material. Knowledge is always in terms of concepts and can be passed on by means of words or other symbols. Understanding is not conceptual, and therefore cannot be passed on. It is an immediate experience, and immediate experience can only be talked about (very inadequately), never shared. Nobody can actually feel another’s pain or grief, another’s love or joy or hunger. And similarly nobody can experience another’s understanding of a given event or situation. […] — A. Huxley

In relation to this, to me, something like the Jeopardy show illustrates a great quantity of knowledge regarding the world that does not exhibit, nor necessitate, any significant understanding regarding the world. The two are not the same.

Won’t contribute much due to time constraints, but I thought this distinction between knowledge and understanding fits in rather well with what you’ve expressed.

:up: Exactly, thanks! Great quote.

I probably put everything into a yin-yang relationship, but ‘understanding’ is definitely the under-appreciated ‘yin’ mental ability of the two.
It helps dealing with life and humans, as opposed to things and calculations.
But obviously knowledge is essential and unavoidable, though I tried valiantly to do so in school lol.

I am not sure that a certain amount of common sense and trust in the empirical is not important to avoid confusion. I have worked with people with acute psychosis and have seen the grave dangers of getting carried away with 'delusions', such as belief in magical and psychic powers. So, it may be about holding onto a certain amount of critical 'realism', but also about juggling this with the limits of reason. Also, each person may come to this in a unique way based on personal experiences. — Jack Cummins

Loved your personal history by the way. Very endearing. I had similar experiences. With my rather committed Methodist parents the snooty scoffing at anything remotely interesting was rather epic. My gateway drug was going over to friend's houses to play D&D and eating spicy foods. Ha ha! It opened up my world so much that there was no going back. And all because my parents saw the beginning roots of my old soul loneliness and they wanted me to spread my wings and have friends. Whoopsie!

I quoted only the last part.

The question you ask there is the focal point of wisdom itself. That is 'Where is the line between the GOOD or necessary suffering and evil or unnecessary suffering?' But that line is fluid as well in some senses. For many they are so tough, and toughness is good, that they can dip heavily into unnecessary suffering and still realize it and return to the necessary only. Others prefer to 'find the bottom' and I find that type particularly vexing, especially when you love them. That type is the tragic romantic artist type, in general. They embody mysticism and are considered the tribal quintessential female type, although men can be it as well, like all types.

What you suggest is correct. You say holding on to ... Exactly! One virtue must be used to balance the other. Failure in raising any single virtue is a lack of wisdom and balance.

Granted all our paths are amid a subjective envelope of experience. But the truth and morality, and that which offers us the feedback of genuine happiness are objective. That is covered in another thread.

We are not perfect, so the great mystery remains unconquered. Fear will drive us into the unknown and desire will embody it to pull from the other side. That is how it is.

Won’t contribute much due to time constraints, but I thought this distinction between knowledge and understanding fits in rather well with what you’ve expressed. — javra

Thank you, yes, just so. I loved the quote by Huxley. He was a far out cat. I am betting he drank more than one pangalactic gargle blaster. And those surely facilitate 'understanding'.

I probably put everything into a yin-yang relationship, but ‘understanding’ is definitely the under-appreciated ‘yin’ mental ability of the two.
It helps dealing with life and humans, as opposed to things and calculations.
But obviously knowledge is essential and unavoidable, though I tried valiantly to do so in school lol. — 0 thru 9

I have to respectfully disagree as I did in my post.

Understanding is meta-level more important than knowledge. Thus, 'understanding' is clearly both yin and yang. It is all.

It does seem that some of us are more inclined to pursue the 'hidden path'. Many ways I do try to avoid it, but it keeps rearing its ugly head. In some ways, it may be better to live a mundane existence of treading the known pathways because the esoteric is a difficult path. It is almost like the 'shamanic call', although there is itself a certain grandiosity to some claims to a calling.

That is almost the opposite predicament to the way in which some people stumble upon the 'unknown' through the use of mind-altering substances. I have used them but only as a a means to understanding the nature of the 'doors of perception'. That is so different from people who are partying and using substances as a form of recreation. That may be why so many end up with drug-induced psychosis. It may involve an 'opening up' which is too dramatic, such as Gopi Krishna describes in his work on the 'kundalini serpent' which can be too overwhelming and lead to 'madness'.

A certain amount of humility is probably worth holding onto as well groundedness in realism. I love the work of Krishnamurti because he rejected the title of spiritual teacher, when that was projected upon him. Part of the reason why I raise the thread topic is because the questions of philosophy are sometimes seen as separate from the esoteric quest. Aldous Huxley was an important writer, including his work, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell', as well as , 'The Perennial Philosophy'.

A fuzzing of it all may be problematic, but, at the same time some of the issues of philosophy have been approached by many thinkers and artistic people, so it may be an intricate area for thinking about, such as the quest for the symbolic 'philosophers stone', which, hopefully goes beyond the fantasy world of Harry Potter. Fantasy literature explores important themes, but it may lose connection with the basics of philosophy at times, if it becomes too speculative in the grand process of human imagination.

It does seem that some of us are more inclined to pursue the 'hidden path'. Many ways I do try to avoid it, but it keeps rearing its ugly head. — Jack Cummins

Evolution itself, personal growth, will demand that we each face our demons. If a person is sufficiently fearful only, as in (my opinion) not wise, they could go their entire lives and both seek and remain blissfully ignorant of the mystery's call well inside their comfort zone. That is tragic really, to any notion of personal growth. But some of us are explorers on that ocean and some of us stay comfortable and dull (opinion) in 'civilization', coloring inside the lines.

In some ways, it may be better to live a mundane existence of treading the known pathways because the esoteric is a difficult path. It is almost like the 'shamanic call', although there is itself a certain grandiosity to some claims to a calling. — Jack Cummins

Well, I agree that some people have that grandiose affectation thing. And it kind of does overlap with the longing of desire that embodies the mystery. But I think the ones I meet like myself that take on this burden are usually halfway preferring that it would leave them alone, and yet, resigned to do what is necessary to grow if the Kobiashi-Maru keeps putting itself right in front of them. Sometimes the only way out is through.

Further, since I am a broadcaster as well, and not all such called mystics are, I feel it my duty to push people out of their comfort zones and I usually offer to stand beside them as they face their stuckedness. Oddly though, like a Gandalf or the typical wizened type, I find that whereas I am capable of supporting others on their firewalks, few indeed have the capacity to return the favor. The nature of my challenge is always a 'this foe is beyond you' moment. Still, I have indeed been pleasantly surprised by the sudden ally who is often a serendipitous dancer, that while remaining oblivious to the real problem, nonetheless has an instinctual ability to avoid or defeat some of my foes. That 'Lucky Star' type person is very rare though and they tend to be a bit part only and not hang around, which you would want.

That is almost the opposite predicament to the way in which some people stumble upon the 'unknown' through the use of mind-altering substances. I have used them but only as a a means to understanding the nature of the 'doors of perception'. That is so different from people who are partying and using substances as a form of recreation. — Jack Cummins

I was like you at first and then amid the party scenarios I still found that there were more and more often the 'meeting the godhead' moments. I never did Ayahuasca, but I am curious. From accounts I trust as well as many that I do not, it seems that particular experience is rather likely to catalyze the more 'religious experience' type scenarios. Still, it stands to reason that the infinite, the mysterious, the esoteric, is accessible at all times. The movie and story tropes that suggest we must go to Mt Silea on Vulcan or the Eternal Swamp of Doom are just over-blown drama. The Abyss and Elysium both are accessible, to me, everywhere.

That may be why so many end up with drug-induced psychosis. It may involve an 'opening up' which is too dramatic, such as Gopi Krishna describes in his work on the 'kundalini serpent' which can be too overwhelming and lead to 'madness'. — Jack Cummins

Any experience, even daily life, carries the same risks. I would characterize too much fear and safety consciousness as a regular and 'safe' form of madness, if you follow. The 'public mass delusion' of 'polite society' is anything but in reality, for example.

A certain amount of humility is probably worth holding onto as well groundedness in realism. I love the work of Krishnamurti because he rejected the title of spiritual teacher, when that was projected upon him. — Jack Cummins

One of my favorite quotes is apropos at this time:

"It is no great measure of success to be well-adjusted to such a profoundly sick society.' - JK
I paraphrased, but that is the essence of it. The speaker will now apologize. ;)

Part of the reason why I raise the thread topic is because the questions of philosophy are sometimes seen as separate from the esoteric quest. Aldous Huxley was an important writer, including his work, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell', as well as , 'The Perennial Philosophy'. — Jack Cummins

I am not as well read as I might seem to be. I know Huxley of course but have not read most of his stuff. I am wary of being 'polluted' by other creative thinkers. In conversation I have had many many people accuse me of stealing ideas that I thought were genuinely mine. To me, it doesn't matter as much as to them, but, I certainly do not like being considered just a parrot.

A fuzzing of it all may be problematic, but, at the same time some of the issues of philosophy have been approached by many thinkers and artistic people, so it may be an intricate area for thinking about, such as the quest for the symbolic 'philosophers stone', which, hopefully goes beyond the fantasy world of Harry Potter. — Jack Cummins

That's an old one, really, parroted by the Potter books, lol.

The idea of a focus or magic item or thing with the right properties is similar to the Vale of Hidden Treasures as a destination. Such foci are crutches only and never really needed. Truth is ubiquitous. At least that is my opinion. I have never needed quiet or a place to meditate, for example. And the thing people declare to me they get from meditation confused me forever, because it's my waking state. it took decades for me to realize that. So, maybe its not all that.

Fantasy literature explores important themes, but it may lose connection with the basics of philosophy at times, if it becomes too speculative in the grand process of human imagination. — Jack Cummins

I agree, and they take off on limited sets of philosophical frameworks and thus make the same errors as old school aphorisms do, over-emphasizing certain virtues at the expense of others.

One clear example to me is the Jedi in Star Wars. They are so wrong, they almost could not be more wrong. Almost all their aphorisms are terrible anti-wisdom. Don't get me wrong. I love the stories. But their wisdom is pathetic.

Fear is the gateway to the dark side. - Yoda (Nope. Fear is just as moral as it is immoral and all logic and thought are only fear (to me)).
Fear is the mind-killer - Thufir Hawat (Dune) (Nope. The mind is a construct made almost entirely of fear).
In Star Trek the Vulcans eschew emotions for logic. (Nope. The joke is on you, Vulcans (Roddenberry). Logic is only fear).

Your ideas on fear may be particularly important because fear itself may be such an essential trigger for thinking and exploration. In itself, fear may have led to the nature of questioning religion, and its dogmas.

On a wider level, fear may evoke so much in thinking, especially the 'lazy approaches' of conventional thinking and logic. At times, this may be a useful basis for criticising the ideologies inherent in religious thinking. Alternatively, it may provoke some kind of response to materialism and its extreme rejection of the idea of 'spirit' itself, as a source of everything, whether it is considered to be 'God', or some other numinous force inherent in consciousness, especially human consciousness.

I also wonder about the ideas of Hegel on 'spirit' here. His understanding is not simply about the 'supernatural' as separate from the nature of experience itself, but as imminent in the evolution of consciousness on a collective and personal basis. It may be that mysticism itself was a problem because it tried to separate the nature of experience and reason as though they were different categories of knowledge and understanding.

Understanding is meta-level more important than knowledge. Thus, 'understanding' is clearly both yin and yang. It is all. — Chet Hawkins

Ok, thank you very much for your reply. :up:

To expand on my post somewhat…
As you noticed, I play a little game with myself categorizing a pair of related things into Yin-Yang.

Summer (to me in the northern hemisphere) is yang. Winter is yin, for example.
Dogs are yang… cats are yin… lol.
This is NOT a hard and fast list with absolute right or wrong answers of course… maybe just a metaphysical puzzle.

To me, the concept of Yin is very foundational, like the roots and soil, the Earth itself.
Being foundational, it might be often overlooked or taken for granted.
So by saying that ‘understanding’ is yin is no slight or disrespect to understanding’s worth, of course.
I would say _metaphorically_ that specific bits of ‘knowledge’ grows out of a deep field of ‘understanding’, and is supported by it and depends on it.

Also, as is commonly known, both yin and yang contain each other in seed form.
(The black dot in the whiteness, the white dot in the blackness).

So one could say that “understanding is all, both yin and yang”.
Being underappreciated, understanding could use some love lol since knowledge and information seem to be ruling the world.
(A knowledge that seems to be often lacking context, compassion, and understanding etc, and aims for pure power OVER (as opposed to WITH) everyone and everything around).

But when saying “understanding is everything”, it seems like then it’s no longer TWO complementary parts flowing together like the Yin / Yang symbol.
I wonder where that leaves ‘knowledge’ though?
:victory: :smile:

Your ideas on fear may be particularly important because fear itself may be such an essential trigger for thinking and exploration. In itself, fear may have led to the nature of questioning religion, and its dogmas. — Jack Cummins

Doubt is indeed a core part of fear. It's part of the drive to become aware, this doubt. I love doubt! Absolutely, question the conceptions offered of the absolute, because whoever thought of it, should be doubted! ;) I have to remind my critics that I ask them to doubt me. It's only fair.

On a wider level, fear may evoke so much in thinking, especially the 'lazy approaches' of conventional thinking and logic. At times, this may be a useful basis for criticising the ideologies inherent in religious thinking. Alternatively, it may provoke some kind of response to materialism and its extreme rejection of the idea of 'spirit' itself, as a source of everything, whether it is considered to be 'God', or some other numinous force inherent in consciousness, especially human consciousness. — Jack Cummins

Well, I cannot quite figure your angle on this one. Fear has many great qualities. But amid doubt, many turn to certainty. That is always the failure of fear. Religious dogma often has that quality of nigh unto unquestioning belief. It is a misappropriation of fear as well. Part of the trouble with fear and its need for awareness is that once practiced enough, fear delivers great results. It's the betting man's option, Pragmatism. It only takes just a little while of that before a false confidence develops. Real confidence is born of anger, the toughness to stand against the odds. Fear will say, 'that does not compute!'. Or, 'why did you go all in on a 2-7 hand? That should not win!' {Texas Hold-em} But those used to fear/logic as a path in life often have this delusional sense of worthiness. And since fear is the limiting force, that which separates and categorizes, such types are prone to overconfidence, confidence born of fear. That is delusional.

If you're curious, desire has the opposite effect. It fills its wishful dreamers with troubles aplenty. Amid their low probability efforts life seems cruel and they seem broken, especially to themselves. This then is the reflection of desire, delusional worthlessness. And there again, the mystery is revealed. Balance where it is least expected.

I also wonder about the ideas of Hegel on 'spirit' here. His understanding is not simply about the 'supernatural' as separate from the nature of experience itself, but as imminent in the evolution of consciousness on a collective and personal basis. It may be that mysticism itself was a problem because it tried to separate the nature of experience and reason as though they were different categories of knowledge and understanding. — Jack Cummins

Then Hegel and I agree quite closely. Indeed, there is nothing supernatural at all, to me. It is all here. The unicorns are dreams and dream are clearly real. I concur entirely that the mystery is here, present, and real. Nothing is beyond the infinite nature of choice. The evolution of the body is happenstance and only serves to make choice harder for some, due to this condition or that. In general, let's say, the more evolved form has an easier time expressing greater moral agency. But there is no case for denial of the infinite power of choice. Assuming the effort is put in, anything is possible, just not probable at all.

I also wonder about the ideas of Hegel on 'spirit' here. His understanding is not simply about the 'supernatural' as separate from the nature of experience itself, but as imminent in the evolution of consciousness on a collective and personal basis. It may be that mysticism itself was a problem because it tried to separate the nature of experience and reason as though they were different categories of knowledge and understanding. — Jack Cummins

Yes, good point! :up:

I think there are major discoveries yet to be made about our little planet, despite the feeling that everything useful has already been discovered or invented.

I can understand labeling something as ‘supernatural’ as a quick and handy heuristic device to describe something that defies easy description.

But like most labels, this one is rather ill-fitting.

Ancient people labeling the phenomenon of lightning as supernatural is understandable, but of course incorrect by our current (haha) science.

And conversely, a modern person labeling something like ESP as supernatural (and thus imaginary, unprovable, or plain evil) is closing the door on investigation prematurely, in my view.

Important to note also that labeling anything vaguely supernatural as “absolutely true and real” just because it makes one feel warm and fuzzy inside is obviously dangerous and intellectually unsound.

(For what it is worth, I have a personal conspiracy theory that the ‘hard sciences’ receive far more attention and $$$ funding than social sciences because they are better suited for producing cutting-edge weaponry. Hope I’m wrong about that...)

Ok, thank you very much for your reply. :up: — 0 thru 9

No trouble at all. It's what I do. Communication is just not much of an option for me. Are you a kindred spirit?

To expand on my post somewhat…
As you noticed, I play a little game with myself categorizing a pair of related things into Yin-Yang. — 0 thru 9

Yes, a favored model. I do enjoy yin/yang. All things Eastern have that compelling juxtaposition to Western thought. Much more compassion than passion. And boy does the east ever have issues with desire. Sometimes I worry about them. I find my base is more Greek. Passion c'est tout! Not really, but that path comes more naturally to me than sequestering desire and just doubting it.

Summer (to me in the northern hemisphere) is yang. Winter is yin, for example. — 0 thru 9

Well yes, yang is sun, even in eastern thought.

Dogs are yang… cats are yin… lol. — 0 thru 9

Ha ha, the friendship love of dogs vs the aloof prickly nature of most felines does fit, yes.

This is NOT a hard and fast list with absolute right or wrong answers of course… maybe just a metaphysical puzzle. — 0 thru 9

I think these patterns are indeed the norm. I do not think it is unreasonable at all.

What about this: (politically incorrect warning)
Cold climates that are yin in nature give rise to their opposite, yang investiture.
Warmer climates that are yang in nature give rise to their opposite, yin investiture.
Nature is nothing so much as a force always aiming at least energy balance.

But amid that process, evolution and the call of desire pulls us onward to growth.

To me, the concept of Yin is very foundational, like the roots and soil, the Earth itself.
Being foundational, it might be often overlooked or taken for granted. — 0 thru 9

I cannot find that yin or yang is more foundational.

In fact the third force that binds them is the only real foundational force. That is anger/essence/being.

Yin is desire and mystery, enveloping and dark.
Yang is fear and excitement, pointed and bright.

So by saying that ‘understanding’ is yin is no slight or disrespect to understanding’s worth, of course. — 0 thru 9

I would say that it was, as I did, and for the reasons stated.

'Understanding implies wisdom, both yin and yang, and in fact an equal part of that third force that binds them.' But that is just my take on it.

I would say _metaphorically_ that specific bits of ‘knowledge’ grows out of a deep field of ‘understanding’, and is supported by it and depends on it. — 0 thru 9

Well yes.

This is what is hard to relate, but I think you touched on it well here. No matter how you wedge the sphere, all wedges partake of the north pole. Finally then, all paths lead via desire to understanding. The trouble is that there is always a more direct path. Or, let's say only one path is direct from any location in the sphere. That path is then, the 'best' one.

Also, as is commonly known, both yin and yang contain each other in seed form.
(The black dot in the whiteness, the white dot in the blackness). — 0 thru 9

Yes, that is similar in concept to my wedge and north pole comment.

So one could say that “understanding is all, both yin and yang”.
Being underappreciated, understanding could use some love lol since knowledge and information seem to be ruling the world.
(A knowledge that seems to be often lacking context, compassion, and understanding etc, and aims for pure power OVER (as opposed to WITH) everyone and everything around). — 0 thru 9

Exactly! How to get the science types off their high horse though, serving the elites and control rather than ... love ... for lack of a better word. Even love is conflated so badly. I prefer the 'Good'.

But when saying “understanding is everything”, it seems like then it’s no longer TWO complementary parts flowing together like the Yin / Yang symbol.
I wonder where that leaves ‘knowledge’ though? — 0 thru 9

Knowledge is mostly a yang thing pulled into being by the third force. Anger-infused fear. This is where the patterns of the past have already combined into a present. That is the case for knowledge. The future (desire) remains unknown. And of course, as mentioned, we delude ourselves to think we understand the past. Ask any two scientists and they are bound to find some specific point to disagree on. So what is this flimsy knowledge thing anyway? I still prefer the term and the meaning of awareness to knowledge. It seems more accurate and humble, a state, rather than a final destination.

I also wonder about the ideas of Hegel on 'spirit' here. His understanding is not simply about the 'supernatural' as separate from the nature of experience itself, but as imminent in the evolution of consciousness on a collective and personal basis. It may be that mysticism itself was a problem because it tried to separate the nature of experience and reason as though they were different categories of knowledge and understanding — Jack Cummins

I'm thinking about revisiting Hegel, in light of my recent readings which highlighted Collingwood's emphasis on the immanence of the concrete universal in the concrete mind, attuned as it is to the fullness the actual (the totality of what is occurring at any given time) versus the bits and pieces of reality that we comprehend using our powers of abstraction and categorization.

I do believe that consciousness is already and constantly enmeshed in a reality that is, perhaps, unimaginably more complex that what is compassed by our representations of it (as Hamlet said to Horatio). Which is why I endorse and embrace a philosophy of enaction, assuming that our actual capabilities will always precede and engender our further understanding. As Descartes notes, the will is much wider in its range and compass than the understanding....