i'm saying that the watcher of these changes is beyond space...and how simple is it? can you give me the true state in absolute detail of any one of your internal parts right now? no? well then how is it simple? you don't even know what word will pop into your mind next let alone the current status of any one of your bodily parts...so how is it that you're on here trying arguing with me about what is true and what is not?

using time, the law of non-contradiction, as a bridge. that is a bridge between being (the present) and non-being (the past). — TheGreatArcanum

Time is change and what is the fundamental essence of change? How are you aware of change?

The fact that you keep using concepts to refer to other concepts without ever getting to perceptions indicates that you don't have a mind at all. These are the types of responses one would expect from a mindless robot or zombie.

Time is change and what is the fundamental essence of change? How are you aware of change?

The fact that you keep using concepts to refer to other concepts without ever getting to perceptions indicates that you don't have a mind at all. These are the types of responses one would expect from a mindless robot or zombie. — Harry Hindu

change has its origin in the will, the will has its origin in the memory; there is silence in my mind; I then will to create change within my present intuition and awareness and there is change. this process can only be pointed at with words, just like all things. first and foremost, it is a direct experience, and an experience that doesn't even necessitate a body; the body only exists to both limit and expand the potential concepts that can be conceived of towards a predetermined end...

i'm saying that the watcher of these changes is beyond space... — TheGreatArcanum

If you're simply positing a God of some sort, why not be explicit about that?

I'm an atheist. So I don't buy that there's "a watcher of changes beyond space"

can you give me the true state in absolute detail of any one of your internal parts right now? no? — TheGreatArcanum

No, because I don't know what the heck "absolute detail" would be. Not that that matters for what's the case ontologically, whatever "absolute detail" is. You're making an epistemological request there instead.

Greetings Wayfarer. You correct about 'mental image' and 'concept'. Indeed Rorty argues that Western philosophy has suffered from 'predominance of visualization' inherited from the Greeks. — fresco

I am analysing it differently. Actually I've developed considerable respect for (of all things) Thomism, and neo-Thomism - the philosophy of Aquinas, and some of his spiritual offspring.

The point I wish to make is articulated by the Catholic philosopher Edward Feser. I don't share his Catholicism, but I do respect the argument he presents in for example this article:

As Aristotelians and Thomists use the term, intellect is that faculty by which we grasp abstract concepts (like the concepts man and mortal), put them together into judgments (like the judgment that all men are mortal), and reason logically from one judgment to another (as when we reason from all men are mortal and Socrates is a man to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal).

Intellect is to be distinguished from imagination, the faculty by which we form mental images (such as a visual mental image of what your mother looks like, an auditory mental image of what your favorite song sounds like, a gustatory mental image of what pizza tastes like, and so forth); and from sensation, the faculty by which we perceive the goings on in the external material world and the internal world of the body (such as a visual experience of the computer in front of you, the auditory experience of the cars passing by on the street outside your window, the awareness you have of the position of your legs, etc.)

He then goes on to differentiate concepts from ideas and sensations, in a way which I find persuasive. But then, I've decided in favour of scholastic realism, which is the view that intelligible objects like numbers and universals, are real, but not real in the sense accepted by empiricism.

I hope it goes without saying that empirical facts are empirical facts, and that logical truths are logical truths.

The mystic often makes claims that empirical facts are truths, and/or that logical truths are facts. Understanding the difference in parse is where a great many people get tangled up.

I mention this not to say you are saying otherwise, only to make an important point explicit when conversing with those happily flip-flopping and dancing between these points.

@fresco it isn’t that often a mystic rears their head and admits it. Be thankful for that at least otherwise you could’ve ended up talking to a wall for a number of pages here ;)

I’m not talking mysticism. I’m talking about scholastic realism. Bet you don’t know the difference. ;-)

you guys are all wasting your time. mysticism seems irrational until you become a mystic yourself. there are preconditions for becoming one though. but after you’re initiated, there is a direct and constant experience of spirit, or rather, the soul; once you experience it, all other philosophies besides mysticism become laughably irrelevant. you share a body with God all day long yet you deny Gods existence and call yourselves “rational;” and there is rich humor to be found it that.

I never said you were. That is why I never said you were. I was referring to the person openly stating they’re a mystic.

and I don’t confuse empirical truths of fact with truths of reason; I’m perfectly aware of the distinction between them.

Clearly not judging by that train wreck of a sentence.

autocorrect isn’t very friendly.

If you want to discuss something then offer some views on this:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5838/essay-number-one-perceptions-of-experience-and-experiences-of-perception

It is not a doctrine, just a free flowing exploration of how to express certain ideas I like to ponder. Some parts are less coherent than others because I set myself a word limit.

just present it in logical form using syllogisms and I’ll tell you what is wrong with it. I already know that your universal context is off so your conclusions are going to be false. meaning that you’re either failing to interpret empirical truths correctly or your premises are false.

Present what in logical form? Don’t you understand that there is more to life than dogmatic logical appeal? Surely you do if you claim to be a mystic.

It’s an offer to partake in an open discussion. You cannot really tell me I am right or wrong when the purpose of my essay was explorative and a means to express ideas meant to appeal to people whose perspectives may differ quite a lot.

You can read it and get a feel of my thoughts written there or not. Your choice. It is vaguely about consciousness, semiotics and epistemology. I also touch on a manner in which to conceive of temporality in a slightly different manner than what people may be used to (or not?).

You seem to want to converse so you can choose to make the effort or not. I wrote it primarily for myself so it’s no skin off my nose if you have nothing to read it or say anything about it if you do - although it would be appreciated and perhaps help me write my thoughts out in a more concise manner.

change has its origin in the will, the will has its origin in the memory; there is silence in my mind; I then will to create change within my present intuition and awareness and there is change. this process can only be pointed at with words, just like all things. first and foremost, it is a direct experience, and an experience that doesn't even necessitate a body; the body only exists to both limit and expand the potential concepts that can be conceived of towards a predetermined end... — TheGreatArcanum

This is all wrong. Change does not have its origin in the will, nor does the will have its origin in the memory.

Change can occur as a result of the will, but mostly not. Mostly change in my body movements originates in the will. Change occurs in the environment that does not originate in the will. This is what helps us determine what part of our experience is our body and what isn't. Our body entails the aspect of our experience that our will influences directly as opposed to indirectly with the environment, and the length of the spatially extended property of our sensory perceptions. Our visual, auditory and tactile sensory impressions have a distinct extended nature to them that helps us locate objects relative to the body in the environment with precision. We can feel and see things touching different parts of our body. The extended property of these sensory impressions helps us define the boundaries of our bodies. Most of the time I find myself intending to change the parts I can (my behavior) in response to changes I didn't intend to happen (the environment).

The will also precedes the recalling of memories. I can intentionally recall certain memories. Sometimes memories just pop into my head, or what I am thinking of can lead to another related memory. These are not memories that are preceded with intent. I can't say that all memories originate in the will, but many do. It also seems to me that observing the world is an intentional act and making an observation entails recognition, which uses memory.

it’s not unreasonable to say that changes in the world can happen without my will, but not reasonable to say that those changes can happen without will; the former is supported by direct empirical evidence while the latter is mere conjecture, that is, a mere belief.

Sometimes memories just pop into my head, or what I am thinking of can lead to another related memory. These are not memories that are preceded with intent. — Harry Hindu

and how do you know that there aren’t two wills within you? Goethe said “two soul, alas, dwell within my breast.” how come you only think that there is one? have you not yet met your entire self? what are you waiting for? scientific evidence?:lol:

Change does not have its origin in the will, nor does the will have its origin in the memory. — Harry Hindu

if change has its origin in will sometimes, and the will can activate neurons and therefore microcosmic change, and microcosmic change formulates the basis of the world, well then how can you say that the will cannot be the cause of the world of you have direct evidence that the will can cause microcosmic change?


if Will is not born out of memory, then memory and the will are mutually exclusive? Yet you can only will what is in you’re memory, and all of your perceptions are at the same time perceptions and contained within memory, so how is it that you’ve concluded that will and memory can be mutually exclusive?

you guys are all wasting your time. mysticism seems irrational until you become a mystic yourself. — TheGreatArcanum

Why would someone become a "mystic"?

And for the record. Traditional philosophy isn’t philosophy. It’s a last ditch effort to save materialism and atheism. It’s hilarious to watch. Such fools; they same can be said for nearly all of humanity. — TheGreatArcanum

Who then are the philosophers? Are the idealist philosophers materialists? Are religious philosophers atheists?

loser...stop wasting our time — TheGreatArcanum

And you think that hurling personal insults is not wasting our time? :chin:

I consider myself a pragmatist and view 'axioms' as merely 'assertions which may contextually work up to a point'..
This is in accordance with the spirit of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem' and a view of 'truth' as 'that which is good or useful to believe'. In addition, since language is. the currency of thought, and currency involves social agreement for its 'value' then philosophy which ignores those linguietic and social (paradigmatic) issues is vacuous. — fresco

Welcome to the forum. I like seeing a fiery pragmatist join the mix.

you guys are all wasting your time. mysticism seems irrational until you become a mystic yourself. there are preconditions for becoming one though. but after you’re initiated, there is a direct and constant experience of spirit, or rather, the soul; once you experience it, all other philosophies besides mysticism become laughably irrelevant. you share a body with God all day long yet you deny Gods existence and call yourselves “rational;” and there is rich humor to be found it that. — TheGreatArcanum

I can dig it. But I think a person can get high on Nietzsche, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Derrida,.... When a person is plugged in to what-you-may-call-it, there's a creation explosion of concepts. I've been there a few times. I've scribbled out manifestos of THE philosophy. When I come down, I usually still find value in the ideas but not the same supreme value.

For me these 'mystic' states were tangled up with iconoclasm. The 'illusions' and limitations of mundane thinking and even perhaps mundane morality are 'seen through.' Writing at the moment from a calm state of mind, I suggest that feeling is the heart of this experience. The apparently revolutionary thoughts vary, while the wide-eyed possession of whatever this Truth happens to be... actually lives in the blood.

For me these 'mystic' states were tangled up with iconoclasm. The 'illusions' and limitations of mundane thinking and even perhaps mundane morality are 'seen through. — ghost

there is a difference between transient mystical states and permanent mystical states. all of the greatest philosophers and scientists of all time experienced a constant mystical state of consciousness. If one does not have this experience, it is possible to become pretty good, like wittgenstein good, or Heidegger good, but not Plato good, or better than that.

there is a difference between transient mystical states and permanent mystical states. all of the greatest philosophers and scientists of all time experienced a constant mystical state of consciousness. If one does not have this experience, it is possible to become pretty good, like wittgenstein good, or Heidegger good, but not Plato good, or better than that. — TheGreatArcanum

So did you begin to have a mystical experience and it has continued unabated? I ask sincerely. I am curious. Maybe it really is different from my experiences.

I've been interested in the rhetorical mechanics of the mystical position for a long time. Really I could probably improvise a handful of types who appear on forums. To me all of them have their value. There's something lovably old school about the mystic. 'I, Plato, am the Truth.' It's the boldest claim. It goes for pure authority/truth without mediation. The mystic bluntly tells people that they just don't get it, that they are locked out of the secret (by a lack of faith or a cowardly conformity or...?) Why don't we get it? Are we locked out? Are you here to win us over? Enjoy your superiority? Look for the few others who are chosen ?

So did you begin to have a mystical experience and it has continued unabated? I ask sincerely. I am curious. Maybe it really is different from my experiences. — ghost

yes, it advanced and advanced a lot. but slowly over several years. I cannot say too much about it, but I can tell you that the will and awareness, which is generally bound to the body, becomes unbound, and the body that you once knew, in awareness, is not the same as it once was; so when I move my awareness about my body, I feel magical things, while the normal human just feels their physical body.

The mystic bluntly tells people that they just don't get it, that they are locked out of the secret (by a lack of faith or a cowardly conformity or...?) Why don't we get it? Are we locked out? Are you here to win us over? Enjoy your superiority? Look for the few others who are chosen ? — ghost

if you’ve read my responses to people, you will have probably noticed that I speak as if my truths are absolute, and this is because they are. I will be releasing a book with the next two years that will expound upon the truth in great detail, and if all goes as planned, it will change the world. Man has been living in darkness for long enough now, so it’s time that he poke his head outside the cave and see what he’s been missing. I am here to help make that happen. unfortunately, there are dark forces fighting against me, trying to steal their minds away from me and the truth, but they will not prevail because my mission comes from the highest of the high.

I will be releasing a book with the next two years that will expound upon the truth in great detail, and if all goes as planned, it will change the world. — TheGreatArcanum

Would you say that you are still organizing that book? And that the ideas we see here will find their way into the final book?

Man has been living in darkness for long enough now, so it’s time that he poke his head outside the cave and see what he’s been missing. I am here to help make that happen. — TheGreatArcanum

That suggests to me that your perspective can indeed be communicated through concepts?

unfortunately, there are dark forces fighting against me, trying to steal their minds away from me and the truth, but they will not prevail because my mission comes from the highest of the high. — TheGreatArcanum

Do you understand the dark forces to have a grudge against your mission? Or are they ultimately well meaning people who just misunderstand the mission and accidentally oppose? Or ?

Thank you also for being open and answering my questions.

Would you say that you are still organizing that book? And that the ideas we see here will find their way into the final book? — ghost

I’ve been writing, reading, and organizing for two-three years now. When I started, I basically knew nothing. Yesterday I finished the most important section of my book on ‘The First Principles of Philosophy;’ it has 10 principles of ontology and epistemology and 17 general principles or axioms of metaphysics. I have many many coherent paragraphs finished and 100s of pages of writing but nothing is really finalized yet. I’m organizing as I go though now. It’s coming together nicely. I’m working on a section on ‘The Freedom and Phenomenology of the Will’ right now which I expect will be legendary because of its profundity.

That suggests to me that your perspective can indeed be communicated through concepts? — ghost

to some extent, yes. It requires an extensive knowledge of what truly is; a knowledge that most all mystics have hitherto failed to provide.

Do you understand the dark forces to have a grudge against your mission? Or are they ultimately well meaning people who just misunderstand the mission and accidentally oppose? Or ?

Thank you also for being open and answering my questions. — ghost

yes, all of them place the will above love, the collective will; therein lies the distinction between angels and demons; both of which are above man, and this is because he man who wills to do great things is greater than the man who wills only to exist. the demons care only about themselves, the angels put the interests of others over their own; so they oppose anyone who might get in the way of this mission, and say, let humans know that they are enslaved to them.

Can you briefly describe your mystical experience/s?

not in detail, no; there is an oath of silence; I’ve told you about the detachment of the will. also I can tell you that when I move my awareness around my the circumference of my head I do not feel what you feel, I feel a crown with 16 spikes. You guys think that this stuff is a joke but it’s real and beyond what people consider to be amazing. The subset is amazing but the mystical body is the sweetest fruit in all of existence.