The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. — Harry Hindu

That seems to me to be a bit of a non-starter. Everyone is always talking about their own opinion of whatever it is they are talking about. You can purport and pretend to objectivity, this aspect can never really be discounted. You are splitting hairs.

Logic reduces to reasons. If you don't have reasons, or your reasons don't support the conclusion (as in a contradiction), then you simply aren't being logical. — Harry Hindu

Sorry, but this is just not true. There are lots of solid systems based on reasons which do not equate with logic. Popper's entire method of critical realism. I just finished two books by Habermas on communicative action which provide an extremely robust account of the evolution and reification of reason as a social construct. Your position is simply narrow.

Moreover, logic does not reduce to reasons: logic is a system of formalized relationships. And reasons certainly do not reduce to logic (although they may utilize it of course).

Edit: ie. https://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/RandL.pdf - why logic is not reason and vice versa

Meanwhile, the people who have successfully suppressed the mystical from their lives will see those discussing the mystical as speaking nonsense, insisting that they're talking about something which cannot be talked about. It's a sort of taboo. It's not that we cannot talk about it, it's that they have been trained not to talk about it and therefore have not developed the means for talking about it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep

This may be slightly off-topic, but I wonder if these experiences can be described as a combination of pronoia and derealization. To understand each other we surely must grasp something somewhere. — Zophie

These concepts seem unfamiliar to me.

The experiences I had did involve a profound feeling of goodness and inner peace, but they involved only myself. I know some people who have mystical experiences express a feeling of oneness with other people. I did not experience that.

I also did not see my own body (like derealization describes), but I lost awareness of it. I always saw some blue visual, which I can only describe as 'cosmic', like a star. The visuals only played a minor role, though. The sensations of inner peace and omniscience were much more profound and made a bigger impression on me.

Then why are you even here trying to put it into words? Why are you even trying to express something that you say is inexpressible? — Harry Hindu

Haven't you noticed? I'm not in support of mysticism. I think mysticism is nothing more than a bunch of people who've failed to understand something, here the truth about reality, the normal way, using reason, and are trying out alternatives and the only tangible results have been soft-spoken, half-asleep, long-bearded individuals with a cult following.

I don't see how non-linear thinking would be easier than linear thinking. If you want to abandon logic, then you are abandoning coherency. Just go back and read the above. It is incoherent - contradictory - to claim that mysticism is inexpressible while at the same time trying to express it. If that is truth to you, then we might as well part ways.

It's not that you find linear thinking difficult. You just don't like the answers it gives. You want to feel special - important - and logic doesn't give you that. Your feelings are in conflict with the conclusions of logical, reasonable thinking. — Harry Hindu

By "linear thinking" I meant logical argumentation - moving from a set of premises to whatever conclusions that follow. Mysticism, as I have been saying all along, involves an arational, not irrational, mode of thinking and that's going easy on it. I don't see any sense in abandoning traditional logic/rationality just because a problem seems unsolvable with them. The fault may lie with us and not in logic/rationality. I've heard people say "we're waiting for the next Einstein" (to make the breakthrough). What does this indicate but our inability to solve some of the biggest problems in science, philosophy, math, whathaveyou? At no point do we expect the next Einstein to be mystic who'll claim to have knowledge, for instance, the theory of everything, but then goes on to say that each one of us, to know it, must do so on faer own.

No worries. I do agree, it's hard to describe. But not impossible!

These two are distinctly contradictory. If credibility is obtained through reaching desired results, then just as the thing desired is something personal, than so is credibility. So you would have no choice but to take the person's word for it because only that person knows what is desired and whether the method fulfils that desire.

I suggest however, that it is the second statement which is wrong. Credibility is produced from proof, logical demonstration, and justification. It cannot be a matter of producing the desired results, or else people would always be fudging the evidence, making deceptive demonstrations for the sake of producing the desired results, and this is the very opposite of credible. This is why credibility is based in a judgement of truth, rather than desired results, which is personal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but in my humble opinion, I wanted to keep things as general as possible. A knife's credibility, taking into account its purpose, is all about the results we get when using it. If it cuts well then it gains credibility points, no?

Likewise, the credibility of mystical methods rests completely on whether it produces the results it claims it does. Also, the fact that credibility requires logical action e.g. proofs and evidence, mysticism is ultilmately a logical enterprise. Then why claim it to be different alternative to traditional methods involving logic.

The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. Maybe people are confusing the two, or are they the same thing - is mysticism a kind of opinion - if so, then an opinion about what? If mysticism is ineffable regardless of one's opinion, then what is the purpose of even talking about your opinion of it? If mysticism isn't necessarily ineffable, but can be also be expressible, then we are talking past each other, and not sharing opinions about the same thing. — Harry Hindu

It’s like love. When people have a strong experience if it it’s incredibly hard to appreciate that others have experienced anything similar and not ended up screaming, jumping and shouting about it.

It’s also prone to induce certain paradigm shifts that leave people floating in a void (aka some form of insanity).

We can sing and dance, spout poetry and chant. Mysticism is something like that imo but, well ... this is the problem. What I’m talking about isn’t likely to be close to what many people mean.

In tangible terms what I was hoping to talk about here was the artifacts of mysticism - ie. texts revered by all manner of people (the Tao Te Ching is certainly something that can act as a common point of focus, as can other revered works - and make no mistake, many of these texts are regarded as important reflections of the common human experience).

Ridicule is often the default mode when people mention ‘mysticism’. Choosing to show interest in such a human experiences/ideas can be useful. That is not to say there are many, many pitfalls. I’ve seen people post some crazy shit and I have a pretty good idea what got then there, but also realise - in many instances - there is little I can do to reach them.

From a scientific perspective there are some threads of research that explore these things tangentially. At the moment there is too much that is pure speculation, but not a very long time ago if you were interested in studying ‘consciousness’ in the neurosciences it was almost like ending your career as it was regarded as taboo.

Most of the time when the mystery of something is lifted people prefer the fantasy that came before. The so-called ‘mundane’ day-to-day living is the most extraordinary thing. If that was attended to more often things might go more smoothly.

What is unbelievable is just that. The best text I’ve read expressing this is the Tao Te Ching - that said aphorisms can be vicious things that can be put to horrible use. Rhetoric certainly plays it’s part in befuddling the most honest attempts to ‘discuss’ what can’t be ‘discussed’ and many a crackpot will unwittingly spoil the broth.

I could literally go on writing for days without stopping and give, at best, a possible glimpse of a gist of what slumbers within. It’s the human condition. It’s practically the same for everyone.

Stab a baby in the leg with a knife and see if it ‘understands’ pain. According to what you said I guess not because it can’t articulate it with words. — I like sushi

There is clearly nothing abstract in your scenario. If any part of the brain is involved it isn't the neocortex and I believe the neocortex is exactly what mysticism wants to engage although via different methods.

I don’t know what that means.

I was just trying to point out that words are more pliable when the subject matter has little substance. So suggesting ‘understanding’ is only possible if it can be articulated is a hard sell (for me at least).

I could literally go on writing for days without stopping and give, at best, a possible glimpse of a gist of what slumbers within. It’s the human condition. It’s practically the same for everyone. — I like sushi

I have the citation somewhere, but I think it was von Bertalanffy who said that what justifies any metaphysical theory is ultimately its elegance.....

That seems to me to be a bit of a non-starter. Everyone is always talking about their own opinion of whatever it is they are talking about. You can purport and pretend to objectivity, this aspect can never really be discounted. You are splitting hairs. — Pantagruel

That's your opinion.

Edit: ie. https://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/RandL.pdf - why logic is not reason and vice versa — Pantagruel

So is this Gilbert Harman's opinion of logic, or is he getting at what logic actually is?

The problem is that if we can only ever talk about our opinions, then what is the relationship between our opinions and what they are about? What information does one's opinion carry about the thing their opinion is about? If we can only talk about our opinions, then how do we ever know that our opinions are themselves about something? If our opinions differ, then how do we know our opinions are about the same thing?

Moreover, logic does not reduce to reasons: logic is a system of formalized relationships. — Pantagruel

Exactly - a relationship between reasons (premises) and conclusions.

It’s like love. — I like sushi

It's like god, as in "God-of-the-Gaps".

An unexplained experience is the same as an ineffable experience. The problem is that you explain it by naming it "mystical", or implying a mystical, or supernatural cause. Mystical, like god, is just a gap-filler in our knowledge of something that we haven't been able to explain yet.

In saying that an experience is "mystical" seems to be a loaded term that implies supernatural causes, whereas just saying that the experience is unexplainable is being more precise.

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

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

The problem is that if we can only ever talk about our opinions, then what is the relationship between our opinions and what they are about? — Harry Hindu

Quite. That is one of the core questions of epistemology isn't it? We are constantly fighting a battle to find a universally valid methodology for stepping outside of subjectivity. The scientific method is one, and it works well, to the extent the the subject matter is amenable. Systems theory uses a more abstract set of fundamental entities, but follows methods that are still essentially scientific.

Anyway, I've re-read my replies on the distinction between reason and logic and they are clear and well-founded, so I'm not going to waste time trying to persuade someone who clearly isn't open to reasoned arguments that don't coincide with their own presuppositions. Possibly they will be useful to someone else though.

Did you re-read your post where you said that all we can ever do is talk about our opinions? Is your entire post an opinion or fact about systems theory, the scientific method, logic and me being not open to reasoned arguments? You're the one that seems to not be open to your own "reasoned" conclusions that all you can talk about is your opinion, as you keep implying that you aren't talking about the nature of your opinion, but the nature of systems theory, the scientific method, logic and my mental states.

That is one of the core questions of epistemology isn't it? We are constantly fighting a battle to find a universally valid methodology for stepping outside of subjectivity. The scientific method is one, and it works well, to the extent the the subject matter is amenable. Systems theory uses a more abstract set of fundamental entities, but follows methods that are still essentially scientific. — Pantagruel

I believe I already addressed your concerns about the relationship between the subjective and the objective, per above. I didn't pretend to solve it, I just situated it in a context of rational discussion.

Thanks for your opinion of your opinion of opinions.

Possibly they will be useful to someone else though. — Pantagruel

But according to the other statement you asserted, someone else only has access to their opinion of your opinions, and what they would find useful is their own opinion, not your opinion, so then no one can really ever find use in any else's opinion because all they have access to is their own opinion.

I didn't pretend to solve it, I just situated it in a context of rational discussion. — Pantagruel

You could start solving it by backing off the statement that all we ever talk about is our own opinions because it leads to an infinite regress and doesn't seem like you actually believe it.

Ganz Andere.

Other people may or may not be implying some ‘supernatural’ stuff (which frankly, is a contrary term in my mind so I just default to ‘ganz andere,’ WHOLLY other not HOLY other.

Mysticism doesn’t have to involve woo woo. I understand that many people view Plato as woo woo, but it’s hard to deny there is actual tangible content to mull over - maybe it’s a matter of cultural heritage? The New Age caused a bizarre fetishism in the west for all things ‘eastern’.

I don’t know what that means.

I was just trying to point out that words are more pliable when the subject matter has little substance. So suggesting ‘understanding’ is only possible if it can be articulated is a hard sell (for me at — I like sushi

What does thinking involve? I think we should start from there. Words?

Mysticism doesn’t have to involve woo woo. I understand that many people view Plato as woo woo, but it’s hard to deny there is actual tangible content to mull over - maybe it’s a matter of cultural heritage? The New Age caused a bizarre fetishism in the west for all things ‘eastern’. — I like sushi

People are looking for answers to questions that science just hasn't been able to answer yet. Some questions have been answered by science and many people don't find those answers appealing because it doesn't make them feel important, or have a purpose. When their own culture doesn't provide appealing answers, then they look to different angles to answer the question. The assumption, though, is that our answers should be appealing. When you don't like an answer to a question, then is your dislike sufficient reason assert that it is an non-answer to then keep looking somewhere else, or with different means?

I'm not in support of mysticism. I think mysticism is nothing more than a bunch of people who've failed to understand something, here the truth about reality, the normal way, using reason, and are trying out alternatives and the only tangible results have been soft-spoken, half-asleep, long-bearded individuals with a cult following. — TheMadFool

Assuming these individuals and their 'cults' are genuinely happy, why does this bother you?

Assuming these individuals and their 'cults' are genuinely happy, why does this bother you? — Tzeentch

Being happy is one thing. Being knowledgeable is something else. It bothers me when someone confuses one with the other and expects me to have the same confusion, by not being clear about what their goal is - knowledge or happiness.

So you have a problem with people who are not knowledgeable but pretend that they are? Fair enough. What does this have to do with mysticism, though? I find these types of people everywhere I go.

Mysticism is being talking about as a kind of knowledge, or as a means of obtaining it. Is it a means of obtaining knowledge or happiness?

I can't speak for other people. I don't consider myself a 'mystic' nor a practitioner of mysticism. I do find certain philosophies appealing, which may be considered mystical, like Taoism, Buddhism, (Neo)Platonism. These have greatly contributed to my personal happiness and, dare I say, have made me a better person in general. As for knowledge, I know nothing about that.

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

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

This is not to deny anything about religion, or God, but rather they are not of importance within the practice. Others may disagree. — Punshhh

As I understand it most recorded mystical experiences are given within a religious or cultural framework. Absent any framework there is nothing to say about an experience except via poetry or allusive language. But then poetry has its inevitable cultural moorings, even in the absence of an explicit frame.

Mysticism, as I have been saying all along, involves an arational, not irrational, mode of thinking and that's going easy on it. — TheMadFool

This assertion highlights a common misunderstanding vis-a-vis the range of mystical experience.

Mystical experience as induced by certain meditative practices is not at all a "mode of thinking."

Let me shift to the first person: As a mystic, I'm quite capable of self-inducing a mystical ecstasy. At the same time, I'm quite capable of following or deploying a string of logical assertions. The first we call an experience, the second we call a "mode of thinking."

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

What method seems to work for everyone in gaining insight into reality itself - to the point where we can manipulate it on a planetary scale and extend our senses beyond the solar system?

As I understand it most recorded mystical experiences are given within a religious or cultural framework. — Janus

Exactly. Peyote is often taken to cause mystical experiences in the context of a religious ceremony, but if I take some Peyote for the psychedelic experience and for mental experimentation, I don't think of it as a mystical experience.

So it seems to me that you would already have some assumptions that you are basing your interpretation of the experience on. If you already believe in spirituality, mysticism, supernatural, etc. (name your favorite anthropomorophic buzz-word that makes humans special creations separate from nature), then you are likely to interpret some ineffable experience as such.

Would you agree that the people in the elevator believe that they are having a mystical experience?

Yes, but in my humble opinion, I wanted to keep things as general as possible. A knife's credibility, taking into account its purpose, is all about the results we get when using it. If it cuts well then it gains credibility points, no? — TheMadFool

That's an odd use for "credible" you've got there.

If it can't be expressed (in words), it can't be understood. — TheMadFool

Describe the logic by which you arrived at this broad-brush conclusion. How can the above be known to be true?

Before the invention of language, was nothing understood?