If I dispute the factuality (btw, what's the difference between factuality and fact?) of 1, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing - us communicating? I've asked that question three times now. It seems to me that my dispute is what communication is.3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating). — Pantagruel
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
If I dispute the factuality (btw, what's the difference between factuality and fact?) of 1, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing - us communicating? I've asked that question three times now. It seems to me that my dispute is what communication is. — Harry Hindu
doesn't that make the experience natural, rather than mystical? — Harry Hindu
An important thing to realise, which is often not grasped by people enquiring into mysticism is that there is a subjugation of the ego and in a sense the personality to some other power which then directs one's development. As such an enquiry into the other power, or ones relation to it is, or its purposes, are not important. What is important is in allowing the channel between yourself and the power to flow freely.
I realise that this might sound weird, but when one looks into prayer, or religious based mystical practice this is also going on between the self and God. Such interaction is an important aspect of mysticism. This is not to say that it is necessary. — Punshhh
This being my presumption of why mystics and mystical traditions have often been deemed dangerous heretics or heresies by those who are religious fundamentalists. — javra
Commenting in the hope of maybe augmenting the given expression of “subjugation”. In my current understanding, there’s often a critical difference to be found between typical mysticism and typical religion: whereas the latter often concerns an experienced relation of power-over, the former is typically concerned with an experienced relation of power-with.
Yes, like a communion with animals and plants. One might remember that one is an animal too.Certain kinds of mystical experience are as natural as the sky or the sun.
Mysticism to me is just the difference between the abstract and the mundane — neonspectraltoast
Yes, like a communion with animals and plants. One might remember that one is an animal too. — Punshhh
I agree with the distinction you make, however as I see it there are many subtleties and nuance here. — Punshhh
This is an interesting introduction I think into the role of agency and purpose in mystical practice. I would be interested in exploring this further. — Punshhh
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. — praxis
I was hoping that some great examples of mystical experiences that are as natural as the sky or the sun would follow such a grandiose claim.The mystical-natural dyad is a commonplace but inaccurate bifurcation. Certain kinds of mystical experience are as natural as the sky or the sun. — ZzzoneiroCosm
1. It is a fact that we are communicating now.
2. Because I have presented this fact, it is (trivially) my opinion that this is a fact.
3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating).
4. Nevertheless, you can't dispute my opinion that 1 is a fact (that's what makes it an opinion). — Pantagruel
But that was my point, and your point in step 3. - that we aren't reaching a consensus. If you make the claim that we are communicating, and I dispute that, then we aren't reaching a consensus thereby contradicting your step 1. - that it is a fact that we are communicating.We know that we are talking about the same thing when we achieve consensus. Then our communications are co-ordinated. I fully admit, this is an intersubjective (social) approach. That's consistent with Popper, Habermas, generally, the direction in which I am moving now. If you don't have any use for a consensus/communication perspective, well, then we aren't going to be able to communicate, are we? From my current philosophical perspective, there is no rationality at a purely individual level; rationality necessarily emerges as a social (cultural) phenomenon. — Pantagruel
t seems to me that you have to rational prior to being socialized — Harry Hindu
It seems like this has to be done prior to being socialized. — Harry Hindu
Which origin are you referring too? The origin of self-replicating molecules, the origin of sex and males and females, the origin of warm-blood over cold-blood, the origin of social behaviors that began well before the existence of humans, or what?Except that capacities emerge phylogenetically, not just ontogenetically. So for any individual capacity you can equally well point to its collective origin. I think trying to authoritatively say what something is instead of acknowledging that most things have multiple dimensions or aspects is one of the biggest sources of unnecessary conflict. — Pantagruel
The conflict between you and I is whether or not things do or do not have multiple dimensions or aspects. — Harry Hindu
What are your thoughts about mysticism and what experiences have you had when you’ve honestly and genuinely tried to engage with others who try to espouse their thoughts and ideas about/within ‘mystic’ ... er ... ‘methodology’? — I like sushi
:up:Non-linear dynamics is not illogical, it represents a different form of logic, one in which order is revealed in the apparent disorder which characterizes complex-natural systems.
Likewise, reason does not reduce to logic, but is a communicative process in which defensible hypotheses are supported by reasons which are not reducible to material facts, but may constitute 'plausible narratives' (depending on the subject matter, as in this case). — Pantagruel
:clap: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.
[ ... ] one benefit is existential anxiety relief.
Any method to deactivate the network could work, like meditation, psychedelics, electrical fields, whatever. — praxis
:lol:Mysticism, my interpretation of it, is like masturbation - you experience the ecstacy of ejaculation but you actually didn't have sex — TheMadFool
This 'ego-less/loss channeling' reminds me of Spinoza's (acosmist) scientia intuitiva aka 'blessedness'.An important thing to realise, which is often not grasped by people enquiring into mysticism is that there is a subjugation of the ego and in a sense the personality to some other power which then directs one's development. As such an enquiry into the other power, or ones relation to it is, or its purposes, are not important. What is important is in allowing the channel between yourself and the power to flow freely. — Punshhh
Oh yeah, this vibes powerfully with my decades-old Gnostic-interpretation of Freddy's eternally recurring 'self-overcoming' as the highest form (Sophia-as-Dionysus) of the will to power. Affinities with Spinoza's immanentism as well. And Abraham Heschel's (hasidic-qabalistic) God's Search For Man with its evocative mitzvah for us to partner with G_d in the process of perfecting creation - creating (power) with - or tikkun olam. :fire:In my current understanding, there’s often a critical difference to be found between typical mysticism and typical religion: whereas the latter often concerns an experienced relation of power-over, the former is typically concerned with an experienced relation of power-with.
This being my presumption of why mystics and mystical traditions have often been deemed dangerous heretics or heresies by those who are religious fundamentalists.
To me, one relatively well-known example of this is the obliteration of the Gnostics by the Christians which resulted from the first Council of Nicaea: The Gnostics – which I interpret to be mystics – generally sought power with Sophia as divinity; this, roughly, being the personification of wisdom and of knowledge of right and wrong – which, according to the Gnostics, JC was instructing other about … JC to the Gnostics being one in spirit with the serpent from the garden of Eden: wanting to combat the ignorance of right and wrong which the “Lord” (to the Gnostics, Demiurge) wanted to enforce. Here, “power-with” was not about gaining “power-over” in relation to others but about the obtaining of oneness with what can be interpreted as ultimate reality. In contrast, to the Christians that labeled the Gnostics heretics and disposed of them, their relation with divinity was most often one in which divinity held power over them, a power that had to be appeased via prayer, likewise a power that was deserving of fear.
From my readings, I find the same intent of oneness via power-with in Sufism, in Hindu aspirations to become one with Brahman, and so forth. — javra
a grandiose claim — Harry Hindu
Not religious, not spiritual, not mystical - but I am (an) ecstatic. — 180 Proof
Freddy's eternally recurring 'self-overcoming' as the highest form (Sophia-as-Dionysus) of the will to power. — 180 Proof
“power-with” — javra
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.