No other sensations?

It sounds like an altered state of consciousness - something I’ve experienced myself. There are various triggers, what were yours? What was the lead up to this?

Yes, many, many more.

it sounds like an altered state of consciousness - something I’ve experienced myself. There are various triggers, what were yours? What was the lead up to this? — I like sushi

Yes, it’s altered, permanently altered. It’s been a slow development. I’ve had so many good memories, like the day back a few years ago when I discovered that I could flex my brain hemispheres for the first time, and also that they could be flexed for me; this dubstep song came on and my brain just went crazy flexing with the beat and I just smiled really wide...there are so many experiences like this that are very special to me.

You should listen to the New Agers more; there are some things that they are right about. You can approach it with a skeptical mind, that’s fine; but know that there is a way to experience this and that the Eastern traditions have known about it for thousands of years. It can be accessed through mantra mediation and philosophical contemplation, as well as the opening of the heart towards all beings; you must place love and reason up on a pedestal because these are the the qualities which the Creator values the most.

Thanks for the welcome !

What about what instigated this? What habits/techniques were in motion (consciously or otherwise)? Common triggers for ASC’s are trance dancing, fasting, sensory dep. and several others.

this experience isn’t triggered by that kind of stuff. have you ever read any of the esoteric writings of like Manly p. Hall? I suggest that you read his ‘Secret Teachings of All Ages.’ You will find what you’re looking for there. It’s a fascinating book too. You’ll very much enjoy it, I presume.

Well, prepare for a fall then. It is necessary. Then you’ll remember what the triggers were ... it won’t be pleasant, but it is certainly necessary (that’s just the mystic in me talking though so take it or leave it).

I’m reasonably well read on the history of occultism and such. It’s basically a very bizarre and confusing array of purposeful self-deception - a kind of self-hypnosis. It has its uses and dangers.

yes, I’m well aware that “man is a bridge between man and overman, a bridge over an abyss,” as Nietzsche said. I’ve spent many of days in the abyss now, and I think I know why it is and how to avoid it.

Either way your philosophical proposal falls before it even starts as you attach absolute claims to sensible items. Logic is abstract not existent. That is how you open your and that is why it fails instantly.

By this, if it isn’t clear enough already, I mean that you flip from logical abstraction to objects of perception as if they are interchangeable. If A is a part of B and you then say both A and B are existing objects you’ve stepped outside of pure logic yet you continue as if you haven’t stepped outside of pure logic.

Claims of some mystical truth that will change the world followed by fear of plagiarism don’t add up. You mean to put your fame and pride before the benefits to humanity? That doesn’t sound like a particularly ‘loving’ or humane rationale.

If you’re coming from a phenomenological perspective then say so. The phenomenological approach is the only instance where the so called ‘real’ doesn’t matter. It is essentially a science of subjectivity and so cannot then be extended as an existent absolute.

Even if you do actually have something slightly original to say I fear your lack of attention to the concepts used will make it illegible - definitions of definitions and a requirement to address epistemic and semantic problems. It will be a very hard thing to do and require concentration and luck; and you’ll never be able to express something tangible to anyone else, ‘felt’, without physical evidence to back you up.

Humility will kill you, but clearly you need to die before you can get off that treadmill. That is my honest view (if I’m wrong then I guess we’ll see how things pan out for you over the next few years).

Thanks for the answers. I guess what I'm trying to specify is how much you associate rationality with mysticism. Clearly you are interested in concepts, so the truth as you see and value it has a conceptual aspect. So that leaves me trying to figure out where the mysticism comes in.

My take is that some 'internal' experiences are as rare as they are potent. So descriptions of that experience aren't going to mean much to most people. I'd say that people who really love Nietzsche (for example) have probably all found a mirror there for something that they suspect is missing in many others. It's a gleam in the eye. It's divine malice and golden laughter, etc.

Either way your philosophical proposal falls before it even starts as you attach absolute claims to sensible items. Logic is abstract not existent. That is how you open your and that is why it fails instantly. — I like sushi

I’ve edited quite a bit and done quite a bit of thinking about the document I sent you. When I sent it to you it was 10 pages, now it’s 17. And I’ve changed the stipulations of my principles of ontology to include universal and absolute truths only. so it doesn’t fail from the start. Of course, logic is eternal and existence has always been identical to itself so it’s always been a subset of the law of identity.

By this, if it isn’t clear enough already, I mean that you flip from logical abstraction to objects of perception as if they are interchangeable. If A is a part of B and you then say both A and B are existing objects you’ve stepped outside of pure logic yet you continue as if you haven’t stepped outside of pure logic. — I like sushi

I use the phrase “ontologically distinct entities” meaning that they can be abstract or concrete. I say that one can refer to them (objects) as abstractions because the essence of a thing is abstract and its qualities are concrete and (quality is a subset of essence). This is why I say that quality is really just an actualized concept or set of concepts.

Claims of some mystical truth that will change the world followed by fear of plagiarism don’t add up. You mean to put your fame and pride before the benefits to humanity? That doesn’t sound like a particularly ‘loving’ or humane rationale. — I like sushi

My philosophical principles and axioms are the best ever created. Spinoza’s don’t compare. I’ve found a way to bridge ontology and logic, a way that works in every case. I don’t need to use mystical truths to convince them of anything. I will release the axioms and principles just before the book comes out.

If you’re coming from a phenomenological perspective then say so. The phenomenological approach is the only instance where the so called ‘real’ doesn’t matter. It is essentially a science of subjectivity and so cannot then be extended as an existent absolute. — I like sushi

I am writing in phenomenology. I have man ideas that haven’t been spoken on before, but I don’t root my philosophy in it. Mostly, I’m concerned with proving that all objects are contained within the subject.

Even if you do actually have something slightly original to say I fear your lack of attention to the concepts used will make it illegible - definitions of definitions and a requirement to address epistemic and semantic problems. It will be a very hard thing to do and require concentration and luck; and you’ll never be able to express something tangible to anyone else, ‘felt’, without physical evidence to back you up. — I like sushi

can’t find anyone to read it and critique it who can give constructive feedback, unfortunately, I can’t even pay anyone to critique it. I have the first principles of philosophy here and with a little help, or even a little more thought and effort on my part, they can be revolutionary. All facts require interpretation. How are we to interpret them properly without knowable of the absolute context in which they exist? My goal is to establish what must be true for science to be true, so that we can know how to give meaning to the facts.

Humility will kill you, but clearly you need to die before you can get off that treadmill. That is my honest view (if I’m wrong then I guess we’ll see how things pan out for you over the next few years). — I like sushi

Humility? Don’t you mean egotism? don’t you think I was chosen to have the experiences I have for a reason? they pretty much force me to write everyday, not because no one is going to read or be inspired by my writings, but because man are. I’m going to be the best human to ever do it., this I am sure of.

can’t find anyone to read it and critique it who can give constructive feedback, unfortunately, I can’t even pay anyone to critique it. — TheGreatArcanum

I'm surprised that your money isn't talking. Are you ambivalent about being critiqued? What kind of money have you offered?

Humility? Don’t you mean egotism? don’t you think I was chosen to have the experiences I have for a reason? they pretty much force me to write everyday, not because no one is going to read or be inspired by my writings, but because man are. I’m going to be the best human to ever do it., this I am sure of. — TheGreatArcanum

I meant “humility”. You have expressed what I can only call arrogance more than once. I meant that part of you will have to die at the hand of humility.

As long as you know you’ll everything should go well enough.

Good luck.

Ps. If you want professional critique then post an ad somewhere with a figure and what qualifications you expect people to have. It is unusual for people to pay to have their philosophy critiqued so it’s no wonder people are unwilling to believe you’re genuine (I don’t and I’m talking to you).

My take is that some 'internal' experiences are as rare as they are potent. So descriptions of that experience aren't going to mean much to most people. I'd say that people who really love Nietzsche (for example) have probably all found a mirror there for something that they suspect is missing in many others. It's a gleam in the eye. It's divine malice and golden laughter, etc. — ghost

Fascinating.

But...that way of looking at people, ideas, experiences (common/rare impotent/potent) leaves you liable to being dashed against the rocks, over and over. Sirens, etc. If you think most people are missing something you have, you won't blink an eye at flattering people just enough to carve a space where you can supply what they're missing. And so forth and so forth until it allsnowballs into something...what do you think?

Thanks for the answers. I guess what I'm trying to specify is how much you associate rationality with mysticism. Clearly you are interested in concepts. So the truth as you see and value it has a conceptual aspect. So that leaves me trying to figure out where the mysticism comes in. — ghost

I call my philosophy ‘rational mysticism.’ Typically the mystics avoid rational thinking because the absolute cannot e known rationally, according to them. But I think that’s baloney, and that the laws of logic extend their way back eternally, and that since the laws of logic apply to the absolute, that we can know it. the mysticism comes from the notion that consciousness precedes and contains all things and that consciousness can exist apart form bodies, and bodies only exist to both expand and limit the concepts that can be known, also, feeling is only possible with bodies, and also seeing.

My take is that some 'internal' experiences are as rare as they are potent. So descriptions of that experience aren't going to mean much to most people. I'd say that people who really love Nietzsche have probably all found a mirror there for something that they suspect is missing in many others. It's golden and yet connected to brutality, a kind of holy violence that laughs at all things mortal. Personality becomes a transparent mask for the one greed for status. The mask is also the primary tool of this greed. — ghost

Yes, some are beyond what others can understand. People must know that since the all is mind; nearly anything is possible; with expanded consciousness comes less limitations on how the mind can effect the world.

Nietzsche was a mystic but a fallen mystic; hence the reason he had such a negative attitude towards mystics; I have read many of his books; I will be incorporating his philosophy of the overman in my own book, but not much else. He’s really created a lot of chaos here on earth that I have to now fix.

This is creepy, obviously, but it only describes an aspect of a personality who also loves deeply in the usual way and fits in with the world, just with an extra wicked gleam in the eye that comes and goes. A person can forget that they are only pretending to be someone or resume pretending that they are outside of all that is trapped inside. Perhaps you'd call this a left handed or demonic path. Altruism is not at its center. Yet it's not cruel without reason. Why should 'it' interrupt its self-satisfaction and sober joy for some low level bullshit? — ghost

Like the moon, everyone had a dark side. there is a demonic aspect to being; only because nothing can be forgotten, and all the memories that we create are stored forever. this is what creates “hell” every person, and especially the mystic, is sort of on an island, surround by demons, as it were, and these thoughts can influence people if they get depressed and the mystic if his energy is lowered. I think that people who pursue this path will eventually find more pain than joy; they all come back to love eventually.

I'm surprised that you money isn't talking. Are you ambivalent about being critiqued? I'd think that there are lots of underpaid philosophy majors out there. — ghost

I emailed like 20 professors from various respected universities around the country and even several from the local D3 college in my area and I got zero responses even despite offering to pay money. One thing you might not know is if you mention the word “mysticism” everyone runs as if it’s the plague or something. I keep hearing phrases like “that would be considered mysticism” from people on this forum, and when they say this they act as if it’s a contradiction or an impossible conclusion or something. little do they know that they’re dead wrong.

But...that way of looking at people (common/rare impotent/potent) leaves you liable to being dashed against the rocks, over and over. If you think most people are missing something, you won't blink an eye at flattering people just enough to carve a space where you can supply what they're missing. What do you think? — csalisbury

It's complicated. I guess it depends on how one values that missing thing. Obviously it's got to be talked about carefully. It's not far from madness in the emotional sphere. But is it really just rock and roll? Immigrant Song, Stairway to Heaven , Nativity in Black , Machine Gun? What does the scream of Hendrix's guitar mean in Machine Gun? It's not innocent, but it's not petty either. It's the magic of the king, the energy of the emperor. Patriarchal mystique perhaps.

It is unusual for people to pay to have their philosophy critiqued so it’s no wonder people are unwilling to believe you’re genuine (I don’t and I’m talking to you). — I like sushi

I solved the problem of causation today. I’ve solved the problem of subjects and objects. I’ve established 10 new principles of ontology and epistemology and 17 general principles of metaphysics. I’ve done all of this in two years with no college degree. I’m doing just fine. And in ten years, I suspect that your opinion of me will have changed drastically.

I emailed like 20 professors from various respected universities around the country and even several from the local D3 college in my area and I got zero responses even despite offering to pay money. — TheGreatArcanum

Who needs professors though? Is there some validation to be had from academia? That's the tension in your position for me. If it's reason alone, then it's philosophy. If there's an appeal to rare experience, then most people will want to call it religion or mysticism.

You could always just pay a skilled writer to organize it so that it sings. That writer wouldn't even have to understand or agree with everything.

Who needs professors though? Is there some validation to be had from academia? That's the tension in your position for me. If it's reason alone, then it's philosophy. If there's an appeal to rare experience, then most people will want to call it religion or mysticism.

You could always just pay a skilled writer to organize it so that it sings. That writer wouldn't even have to understand or agree with everything. — ghost

What I’m trying to have edited isn’t my prose, but my philosophical axioms, principles, and definitions, the logical basis and framework of my philosophy. I didn’t mentioned mysticism, it’s just that my ideas are so rare today in philosophy. for example, I think that objects are subsets of subsets and that all lies within; that all is contained within a non-spatial point and that therefore a non-spatial aspect to reality exists as well as two variations of time, a relative and an absolute time. I also think that the psyche is dual in the sense that there are two minds and two wills within us, and also that the source of the will is beyond space (the perceiver of the perceiver); and also that concepts precede the existence of things and things are just nested hierarchies of actualized concepts. I also think that there’s a soul and an objective basis for morality....so yeah, needless to say, post-modernism and my philosophy aren’t compatible. People usually respond the way this sushi guy does, with contempt, disbelief, and no rational counterarguments to justify them.

You're the one quoting "Rorty;" loser...stop wasting our time. One cannot be both a philosopher and an anti-mystic. those who aren't mystics and call themselves philosophers are just playing pretend. — TheGreatArcanum

This reminds me of the great mystic Al Ghazali:

"Knowledge exists potentially in the human soul like the seed in the soil; by learning the potential becomes actual, loser" ~ Al-Ghazali

What I’m trying to have edited isn’t my prose, but my philosophical axioms, principles, and definitions, the logical basis and framework of my philosophy. — TheGreatArcanum

Ah. Well I guess you are asking for a difficult thing. It sounds like you want a co-creator of the philosophy. Even if people were willing to do it, they'd be afraid that they wouldn't know how.

People usually respond the way this sushi guy does, with contempt and disbelief. — TheGreatArcanum

Well your philosophy directly clashes with the basic self-conceptions of other people. If you are right, then they are wrong about fundamental things. But the reverse is also true. One of the themes that I like to focus on is our drive to project ourselves and win recognition. Others were writing about this long before I was born, but it's something that's always fascinated me. I suffer/enjoy Kierkegaardian self-consciousness, let's say. Personality is mask. There's something absurd about being attached to a finite face and finite name. Something higher wants out, wants to indeed be rootless and continually transcend its last move.

I digress. But from my perspective the angst of selling yourself is profoundly educational. We learn most from rhetorical wounds scored fairly against us and from overhearing ourselves as we try to make ourselves understood to the stranger.

It's complicated. I guess it depends on how one values that missing thing. Obviously it's got to be talked about carefully. It's not far from madness in the emotional sphere. It might be as rational as you please, coldly rational, ironic (as I think you know.) And in my more Nietzschean youth I used the charisma that comes with this 'gleam' in ways that look pretty shoddy now. But I also made people feel empowered. It's related to faith, I'd say. Christian heresy. — ghost

It's funny you mention faith. Coincidentally, that's something I'm interested in. It is complicated. Kierkegaard, as I'm sure you know, found he could only express his faith through a hodgepodge of various personas. & That's a whole question unto itself. What is the function of a persona? How do various personas interact? Is there a difference between a collection of personas arrayed radially around a central topic as opposed to a series of personas taking different, though similar tacks? How would we understand the difference between the two approaches? What about empowerment? Can we establish an axis [momentary ego-boost] ---------[long-term benefit] that relates to concentric versus serial personas?

Along similar lines : Is it possible for a singular person to consider the relationship between the concrete and the abstract, the metaphysical and the real without integrating all of their personas? And what is the relationship between private integration and public?

It's funny you mention faith. Coincidentally, that's something I'm interested in. It is complicated. — csalisbury

It's awkward to talk about. It's mostly that one expects to be misunderstood. I enjoy talking about these things, but they push all kinds of buttons in people. Have you seen Unforgiven? Eastwood is the mystic. Hackman is the scientist. Faith is just 'always being lucky' or feeling a kind of fate/luck that is ultimately beneath all reason or justification. Or that's one spin on one kind of faith.

Kierkegaard, as I'm sure you know, found he could only express his faith through a hodgepodge of various personas. & That's a whole question unto itself. What is the function of a persona? — csalisbury

That's a profound question. I think usually the persona is the self one is invested in constructing, maintaining, protecting. The mask just is the face. But something happens in human consciousness, for all of us I think, especially those who live in words. The 'true' self is made of words. But words are the infinite medium. Concept is the highest manifestation of religion some might say. So a single face and a single history are a sort of absurd vessel for the infinite voice. The mind inside is a theater crammed with voices. But one of those voices understands itself as a theater crammed with voices, commanding them like Prospero.

oh dear

Is there a difference between a collection of personas arrayed radially around a central topic as opposed to a series of personas taking different, though similar tacks? How would we understand the difference between the two approaches? — csalisbury

The radial situation might just be pragmatic. Or trying to write the same poem again from scratch, just a little better, including what has been learned in the meantime. The other approach reminds me of drama. Some themes have to be exaggerated perhaps in order to shine forth. So the writer yanks out a partial self, cranks up the volume, but then needs distance from he, the sane citizen, recognizes as excessive. That none of us are quite the sane citizens it is our duty to appear to be is another issue. Comedians are allowed to confess that for all of us.

That was hilarious

At least the fall to the bottom is shorter for the fool. The bigger the fool the less likely they are to recognise a fall.

Well I guess you are asking for a difficult thing. It sounds like you want a co-creator of the philosophy. Even if people were willing to do it, they'd be afraid that they wouldn't know how. — ghost

I don’t need a co-creator. I need someone very familiar with the history of metaphysics and logic to critique my first principles on their validity and soundness, mostly. It’s actually quite simple in its elegance and complexity; much more simple and straightforward than say Kant and Hegel’s philosophy.

We learn most from rhetorical wounds scored fairly against us and from overhearing ourselves as we try to make ourselves understood to the stranger. — ghost

yes. this is true. but I haven’t really found much constructive criticism here.