We find ourselves in a highly structured and rigid physical framework entombed in a body through which we have to learn to behave in a way developed through an evolution in this material. It is the nature of this behaviour which is being learned. How could it be anything other than this? — Punshhh
The point is, once the instinctive behaviour is lost it is lost forever, it is permanent, there is no way back. Hence it is a fall, a fall into an abyss.
This is so important IMHO I will reiterate it, the moment humanity took control of its own destiny, learnt the intelligence to supersede its natural instinctive behaviour in the ecosystem, it metaphorically left the Garden of Eden, with no way back, it was shut out, metaphorically was left to wonder in the wilderness forevermore and would now have to find its own way forward, or perish*. — Punshhh
Yes, I agree, but this freedom and development of bodies is a further evolution within this physical system within which we find ourselves (as beings).This is the process called evolution. If we look at what is known about the history of biological evolution we can see many such stages of development toward more freedom, some obvious ones being the step from water based creatures to land and air, and the step from plant to animal. One might also characterize rational thinking as such a step.
Yes, but the rest of the ecosystem doesn't change right along with it. The development might destroy the ecosystem which produced it, so causing its own demise.The new behaviour is not intrinsic to the purpose of, or why that material body is the form that it is. The material body may then change (in evolution) to accommodate these new behaviours. This is Lamarckian evolution.
Yes, but they still might destroy the ecosystem and cause their own demise. It will require them to learn how to prevent this demise and do their own housekeeping, keep their own house in order, now that they have developed the liberty to do so. When I say they can't go back, all I am saying is once they have reached this point, they have no choice they have to keep their own house in order, or perish, through inadvertently destroying the ecosystem which sustains them. They can't step back into their evolutionary niche and carry on as before if they want to. It is an initiation, a door is opened, passed through and shut behind them. They do not have the liberty to go back through that door. They can though through ingenuity recreate a world just like that garden of Eden, but with themselves acting as custodians in that idyll.Now human beings find new ways to use there bodies, ways that go far beyond the old actions which produced that particular form, so the form of the human body needs to evolve now, to follow.
So you are agreeing with me, that once the human race developed autonomy, it was required to keep its house in order and God through Jesus, offered a lesson in house keeping.So if you think that humanity has taken a wrong turn, we can't go back, but we can try to correct for it in the roads ahead. Otherwise we could be on the road to extinction. The road we are on, at any given time, is very much determined by our past material bodies (instinctual behaviour). But the future road is not. So we always need to make corrections as we go, when it becomes evident that improvement is needed. This is what I believe Jesus did, show a needed correction.
Yes, I agree, but this freedom and development of bodies is a further evolution within this physical system within which we find ourselves (as beings).
Let me put it another way, if we weren't constrained by our physical bodies, but some other kind, perhaps more subtle body, while our being is unchanged it's expression would be different due to the particular conditions of those bodies. So for example we might have direct telepathic communication whatever the distance between us, or could see each other's thoughts like pictures, or holograms and act in group formation like bees or angels and have entirely different kinds of experiences, or goals.
Just as we are placed into our material world and are learning it's ways, likewise we would be placed into this other world and would be learning its ways. The point being we are learning a process of that world. — Punshhh
Yes, but they still might destroy the ecosystem and cause their own demise. It will require them to learn how to prevent this demise and do their own housekeeping, keep their own house in order, now that they have developed the liberty to do so. — Punshhh
In order for a civilisation of primates to live in harmony with its ecosystem, especially so when they are highly intelligent is a Herculean task and it is only now after a few million years of autonomy that we are beginning to understand what this entails. — Punshhh
Yes I reached the same conclusion via a different route many years ago. Also Bhuddism says as much. However I went further, I realised incidentally (while contemplating other things) that the human logic exercised in such realisations may be naive, incapable of comprehending the formation and processes of sustaining material in a realm*.So this necessary conclusion, that the entire physical world is created anew at each passing moment of time, completely humbles all of humanity who grasp it, by belittling our extremely deficient state of knowledge, as it becomes evident how extremely limited is our capacity to understand this reality.
I believe, that since the desire for knowledge is inherent within the human being, as a fundamental driving force, then the humbling referred to above, which comes about from a recognition of the extreme inadequacies of the present state of human knowledge, is enough in itself, to inspire humanity to "do their own housekeeping". The process is ideological. The will to know is extremely strong, and when a vast area of unknown is revealed, there is a strong inclination to produce the means to proceed. To improve the state of human knowledge, and prevent human demise, ideology must change substantially.
However I went further, I realised incidentally (while contemplating other things) that the human logic exercised in such realisations may be naive, incapable of comprehending the formation and processes of sustaining material in a realm*. — Punshhh
* for example, I contemplate numerous more imaginative, creative solutions to metaphysics derived from other sources than the philosophical tradition. Often taking their lead from concepts presented in some form in the mystical and religious traditions. But as I said earlier this is a leasure pursuit in terms of mystical service, not really of any import, other than at more advanced stages of mystical development. — Punshhh
So I suppose what I am saying in response to the metaphysics you present here, while it is good philosophy and a useful model for contemplation. It is attempting to form an explanation of something which the human mind is as yet unable to conceive. Also it doesn't appear to have any guidance from a route of divine intuition, although I may be mistaken here, but rather it is a bottom up logical summation from a position of ignorance. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that humanity is up to the task of understanding reality and manifestation, but rather that we are still at an early and naive stage in our progress in this endeavour. — Punshhh
Maybe you do not take a serious interest in politics these days. In reality the civilisation we are in is deeply flawed in its constitution and is controlled largely by greed and exploitative forces, negating any progress for humanity. Leaving us in a very vulnerable position.
Going back to what I was saying about our work in terms of a progress in development of the race of humanity and individual people. Mysticism is concerned with working to improve things here. Even the mystic who is practicing alone, or in a tradition in which service is not focussed on, are working in a positive way, by exercising mysticism. There are for example, a large number of people who pray for humanity, or who at least are concerned for progress to be made. But unfortunately the world is held in a stranglehold by divisive and exploitative powers who seek to control the population for greed and power. Divide and rule etc. — Punshhh
So the philosophical nature, the will to know, or desire to know, is inherent within the human being as an essential aspect of our natural development. — Metaphysician Undercover
To try to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or a religion or any other thought based goal oriented project, is to kill it. — Nuke
Yes, I would say also of extension. I appreciate your focus on time, I prefer to lump space and time together. But also to allow for the presence of that which is beyond our understanding. In the sense that it might be foundational to manifestation and space and time are a consequence of it.We are very clearly incapable of understanding this temporal continuity.
Yes, as I said I do not want to diminish the value, or relevance of metaphysics for philosophy. When it comes to mysticism, it does tend to become relegated to part of the chitta chatta of the mind. However, personally I am of the opinion that mysticism and metaphysics can mesh together and provide a useful comparison. But only where the proponents have that particular interest, rather than as some kind of doctrine. By naivety I am referring to our primitive kind of understanding shaped by the kind of experience we have informed by the issues of incarnation in this particular kind of world. Indeed, I work from the premise that this kind of understanding and the experience of this incarnate world is an imperfect fabrication, construction. Not a principle.. But recognizing the reality of this inability to comprehend, and giving a name to the thing which appears to us but cannot be understood, is not itself naivety, as it is a recognition of naivety, and a very reasonable step toward understanding what is currently unknown
Quite, by imaginative I mean as an alternative to a logical rational process.But "more imaginative" does not equate with "better", as there is the issue of correspondence with reality
The problem isn't one of identifying a purpose, the (immediate) purpose is clear to any intelligent person who gives it some thought, as I have pointed out. The problem is the choreography of the population to carry it out. Political and economic issues are likely to cause the demise of the current civilisation and the survivors will have to start again (I don't want to get into a discussion of these issues here).I agree, the problem is very deep. And as I said, I believe resolution requires a deep understanding of the nature of "purpose". What unites people is to bring them together in cooperation toward a common goal. What divides them is the false certainty that a specific identified goal is the correct goal. So "purpose" is the double edged sword, it is what unites us, and it is what divides us.
Eating is an essential aspect of our natural development. Does it follow that therefore we should eat all day long every day? More is better? Everything is all about eating? Or would it be more sensible to establish a healthy balance between eating and not eating? — Nuke
Thinking is an essential aspect of our natural development. Does it follow that therefore we should think all day long every day? More is better? Everything is all about thinking? Or would it be more sensible to establish a healthy balance between thinking and not thinking? — Nuke
To try to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or a religion or any other thought based goal oriented project, is to kill it. — Nuke
When it comes to mysticism, it does tend to become relegated to part of the chitta chatta of the mind. However, personally I am of the opinion that mysticism and metaphysics can mesh together and provide a useful comparison. — Punshhh
Indeed, I work from the premise that this kind of understanding and the experience of this incarnate world is an imperfect fabrication, construction. Not a principle. — Punshhh
If we conclude that the human mind is inadequate, then what is the alternative? — Punshhh
One of the first realisations of the mystic is that the mind (as it is conditioned) is inadequate and more of a hindrance to progress than a means to progress. That the nature of reality, indeed ourselves, our bodies and every experience is an unfathomably mystery*. The development of communion, or that kind of intuition which develops between the personal self (the personality) and the higher self, or soul, is regarded as of more importance and the establishment of some kind of direction via this intuition — Punshhh
The problem isn't one of identifying a purpose, the (immediate) purpose is clear to any intelligent person who gives it some thought, as I have pointed out. The problem is the choreography of the population to carry it out. Political and economic issues are likely to cause the demise of the current civilisation and the survivors will have to start again (I don't want to get into a discussion of these issues here). — Punshhh
I never said we ought to do any single thing all day long. Nor did I say more is better. So this is all irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover
I do think all day long, it's not something I can turn off, and I don't see how anyone could. Even if I try in meditation, thoughts still come into my mind. My will is not strong enough to produce a blank mind. Is yours? If so, how do you start your blank mind back up after you've turned it off? — Metaphysician Undercover
You seem to be missing the point. Any sort of practise is goal oriented, that's what a practise is. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well as you say, there are many kinds of mysticism. The majority I find would agree with Nuke, to the extent that trying to work it out with the mind is a distraction. There are some though, perhaps only a few, who do also seek to develop some kind of intellectual understanding. This is exercised alongside other practice and does require some discipline to prevent it becoming a distraction.This is part of the reason why I do not accept Nuke's attempt to divide mysticism from philosophy as if it is not a form of philosophy.
It is important to separate one of the first principles of mysticism from any intellectual analysis. The idea, or concept that the mystic is not going anywhere in the sense of attaining a goal. But rather attempting to cease any goal, or seeking of a goal. There is an objective, but the objective is the negation of objectives, the negation of determining goals and working towards them. It is a neat psychological trick, which I found very productive when I was younger.If we have different ways of doing the same thing, then despite the different ways, we are still doing the same thing. What one is doing is determined by reference to the end, the goal. So if we both have the same goal, we are doing the same thing, perhaps in a different way though. Nuke attempts to avoid this reality by claiming that mysticism is not a goal directed activity, but that is nonsense.
Yes, I should have been more specific*. What I was referring to is the belief that the world we are living in** is artificial in that it is a construct conceived of, created and maintained by a divine being. That it has no independent existence, it is not inviolable.I don't see any difference between these two, simply different words to refer to the same thing. To me a principle, which an individual might try to follow as a rule, is a construction, and human constructions are all imperfect. So a principle is always an imperfect fabrication.
Yes, it would be required in a large number of the population, not 50%, I expect, but a sizeable amount of the population. Something not very likely anytime soon. Still the clock ticks as the crises mount. If however we are talking of the individual, yes I wholeheartedly agree with you. For me though, there are numerous other means of developing such a mind alongside practicing philosophy. Although I find Philosophy is important in its rigour and scepticism.With these premises, attempting to understand what the human mind cannot presently understand, may help to bring about the evolutionary changes required to produce a mind which can understand this.
The * again, I find myself skirting a large area of thinking to make an initial point. Mysticism is very much concerned with conditioning, principle because it entails the purification of aspects of the being, specifically the those related to this incarnation. So all forms of conditioning are addressed. Also the products of this enquiry ( into one's conditioning) become useful in contemplation, reorientation and rebuilding the transfigured self.I had a hard time understanding this passage, how the mind could be a hindrance to progress, until I grasped the importance of the qualification "as it is conditioned".
Quite.Perhaps the type of revelation you describe in the footnote requires that the mind has this type of freedom, to a maximum possible degree.
Yes, I am aware of this. I was only referring the the pressing purpose of humanity as a whole. To reiterate, the pressing purpose of humanity is, to begin to live in harmony with/in the ecosystem, in a way which secures the health of the ecosystem and the human civilisation, for the medium and eventually long term.Determining the purpose which unifies is not as easy as suggesting an "immediate" purpose.
Nuke attempts to avoid this reality by claiming that mysticism is not a goal directed activity, but that is nonsense.
You didn't say "more is better", but that is what is implied by an attempt to turn mysticism in to a philosophy. As you reported, we are lost in thought most of the time. If mysticism is made in to a philosophy then we are thinking even more, apparently upon the assumption that more is better. — Nuke
So, how to have a quieter mind? There are a million ways, so the job is not to find "the right way" but rather one or more ways that work for us personally. So, one tries a lot of methods until one finds some that work for them.
For me, just one way, what works best is to nurture a relationship with nature much as one would nurture a relationship with a friend, invest LOTS of time, and open oneself emotionally to the experience.
I typically get up at something like 4am and spend time on the Internuts while I await the sunrise. This typically gets my nerdy overthinking mind fairly stirred up so when I hit the woods at dawn I'll observe myself pounding down the trail like a man late for an appointment. :-) If I stay in the woods long enough my mind and body will gradually and naturally slow down, not as an act of will, and at some point I'll find myself standing in one place for an hour just looking around, with no desire to be somewhere else, here and now enough. — Nuke
The danger in making it a fancy goal and a fancy practice is that then it tends to become ripe for an ego take over, ie. even more thought. And it is thought itself which is obstructing the "here and now is enough" experience. — Nuke
So to the degree one tries to think oneself to a quieter mind (mysticism as a philosophy etc) one is actually poring more fuel on the fire. It seems all the great religions suffer from this problem to some degree or another, as does this post. — Nuke
A simple goal is meeting a simple need right now, like eating, sleeping, sex etc. I would propose that thought is just another mechanical function of the body and that it can be managed by simple mechanical means, which is really good news for the person who is serious. But perhaps bad news for the fancy philosopher? — Nuke
A fancy goal is climbing some ladder to somewhere glamorous over time. That's what the attempt to turn mysticism in to a philosophy is really all about. The desire to climb the ladder arises from here and now not feeling like enough, and that feeling of lack arises from thought itself. — Nuke
The evidence for that claim is that a chronic feeling of lack afflicts pretty much everyone in all times and places. It's a seemingly near universal property of the human condition. That suggests that the source of this feeling is something we all share in common. — Nuke
The experience of mysticism is not a goal oriented activity. What we think about that experience may very well be goal oriented. Better? I agree I could have said this more clearly earlier. — Nuke
These topics have been discussed in earnest for thousands of years, and the human condition remains largely unchanged. — Nuke
It is important to separate one of the first principles of mysticism from any intellectual analysis. The idea, or concept that the mystic is not going anywhere in the sense of attaining a goal. But rather attempting to cease any goal, or seeking of a goal. There is an objective, but the objective is the negation of objectives, the negation of determining goals and working towards them. It is a neat psychological trick, which I found very productive when I was younger. — Punshhh
Yes, I am aware of this. I was only referring the pressing purpose of humanity as a whole. To reiterate, the pressing purpose of humanity is, to begin to live in harmony with/in the ecosystem, in a way which secures the health of the ecosystem and the human civilisation, for the medium and eventually long term. — Punshhh
I keep Finding myself making a reference to a concept that has been developed over a long period, has a lot of theory behind it and used in its development, or derived from a divine revelation from a trusted source and yet is something not commonly talked about, or perhaps conceived. I think I might have to begin introducing footnotes to explain them. — Punshhh
I yearn for that moment. I have on occasion camped out in the woods, also in the Himalayas and stretched that moment out for weeks, or months.If I stay in the woods long enough my mind and body will gradually and naturally slow down, not as an act of will, and at some point I'll find myself standing in one place for an hour just looking around, with no desire to be somewhere else, here and now enough.
It is a widely used practice in meditation and particularly Raja Yoga. The aim being to regulate and eventually tame the mind through coming to terms with the conditioning. Also to get rid of any unnecessary baggage and bad habits.This is the first step of indoctrination, what some would call brainwashing, clearing the mind to have a clean slate.
I agree, but in the case of humanity we have developed something called a thinking mind. This has given us a strategic advantage above all the other organisms in the ecosystem. An advantage to the extent that we can control the entire ecosystem to our own advantage, or perceived advantage. One might think all well and good, but it has also given us the agency to pervert the ecosystem to some divisive end, to pollute the whole ecosystem for some internally determined need. For example exploit fossil fuels so that we can all move around faster, while polluting our environment. And when a scientist steps forward and says if we pollute in this way we will destroy the ecosystem, someone like a president Trump steps forward and says that's nonsense, we need to exploit more and more shale gas now and make America great again.I don't think that ecosystems can actually behave or exist in the type of balanced harmony you describe. There are ups and downs in one species or another, as one becomes strong and takes supremacy over another, then for some reason becomes weaker and becomes suppressed or even driven into extinction. It's not a balance at all, but a complex process of ups and downs, as one species prospers because of an abundance of the resource it requires, until this resource runs out, and it cannot adapt. Then another species might come into prosperity on the waste of that species, etc..
You know like some of the more difficult metaphysical concepts that take a while to understand and might require a lot of rational steps to get there. Well it's the same in mysticism. I might find myself referring to such a concept which without many pages of careful explanation is not adequately conveyed.I don't think I quite understand this concept you are making reference to. Is it a sort of metaphysical principle?
It was sad to hear the story of Eric Clapton's life, he was for many years a tortured soul. — Punshhh
I have on occasion camped out in the woods — Punshhh
I think what is at issue is the subject matter of the thought. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree, but in the case of humanity we have developed something called a thinking mind. This has given us a strategic advantage above all the other organisms in the ecosystem. — Punshhh
I'm portraying it as a bad thing, part of the fall of man. — Punshhh
The way I understand the fall and the story depicted in the bible is just that. That the development of thinking in early humanity was the beginning of the problems which lead to the nuclear weapons down our throats. — Punshhh
So I think it is a good thing and it is progress, but we now have to step up to the plate before someone presses the button and collectively take responsibility for our own actions. Not least for our own survival, but for the fate of the other members (species) of the ecosystem, to show respect for them, to care for them in their vulnerability. — Punshhh
If someone were about to press the button like they were about to do during the Cuban missile crisis. I suspect there would have been some covert divine intervention to prevent it. — Punshhh
I use a practice of developing an imagined place in my mind, which is always still like a flame, where there is no breeze. This is kept separate from the chitta chatta. After a while this place develops and one can retreat there, or draw on it at any time. Also at a latter stage, make use of it in restructuring the mind one has controlled. A similar thing is done with the emotions via a safe space within the heart chakra. The aim being, not to become a clean slate to be brainwashed, but rather to further develop the communion with the higher self, or soul. — Punshhh
An advantage to the extent that we can control the entire ecosystem to our own advantage, or perceived advantage. — Punshhh
On the other hand, if one feels as I do that that human suffering arises from the nature of thought itself, that's a different analysis which suggests a different remedy. — Nuke
In my view, a key piece of evidence is that human suffering (psychologically) is pretty much universal in every time and place. This suggests a source that all of us share. That can't be the content of thought, as there is a great range of diversity in our philosophies, religions, cultures etc. — Nuke
You want to do philosophy. This is philosophy. I challenge you in a friendly way to try to rip it to shreds, in the spirit of philosophy. Go for it! And when you realize that you can't, because nobody can, a couple of somewhat predictable things may happen. First, you may get mad. Then, perhaps you will vanish. Ideally then I would vanish too so that any collisions between my ego and yours will no longer be a distraction. — Nuke
Another implication of this understanding is that there is no way to permanently fix the problem of suffering. — Nuke
Yes, although, as I was saying, I don't think it's unique it might have happened a few times before on earth and many times in the cosmos. Quite predictable I think.Yes, although I'm not at all a Bible person, I find it pretty remarkable how well the first book of the Bible predicts where we find ourselves today. A knowledge explosion, threatening to evict us from the garden of eden.
I know, I am thinking more about humanity living in harmony with the ecosystem (and themselves) long term.Regrettably, there isn't much evidence this will happen any time soon.
Yes, I looked into this in the early 1990's, when the Ashtar tapes came out, talking about this stuff, it gets interesting when one considered that there is a crossover between extraterrestrials and divinity. What I was thinking of though is divinity subtly changing the course of events through happenstance. Rather than any grand intervention.If that interests you, you might investigate the work of Robert Hastings who has extensively researched reports of UFOs interfering with nuclear weapons systems. https://www.ufohastings.com/ He's more about aliens than divine intervention,
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.