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

I don't see evolution in this way. I see evolution as a process, a passage forward, and this is why I reject the proposed divisions of . As such, evolution is expressed as a changing material body. In that change we the being must break free from the constraints of the past, allowing for more freedom. So the instinctual way is the constrained way of the past, constrained by that particular material body. Breaking free from these particular constraints means changing the material body into a body which allows for more freedom. 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.

So I see instinctual behaviour as hereditary, already having been learnt, far back in time. When we learn behaviour on the other hand, whether being self-taught, or taught by others, we are proceeding beyond the habits of the material body which only gives us instinctual behaviour, to learn new behaviour. 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.

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

I do not really agree with this passage. When "humanity took control of its own destiny", this was just a natural stage of evolution. Evolution results from the living being acting beyond its means, the means being why the living body exists as it does, to serve some purpose determined in the far past. 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.

Superseding the natural instinctive behaviour is the natural course of evolution. It doesn't matter that such behaviour gets "lost forever". It doesn't matter that when I die, the behaviour which is particular to me is lost forever. Nor does it matter that the specific behaviour which was particular to dinosaurs, or any other species which has gone extinct, is lost forever. All these forms of behaviour, like any living behaviour is just the means to an end. If the behaviour is meaningful it will be learnt and forwarded The end, in this example, is the "improved" body, brought about through evolution.

The point being that it would not be productive to turn back. We are on a journey forward, as evolution indicates. If we took the wrong route at the last fork in the road, by the time that this reality occurs to us it is too late to go back. We must simply try to correct for this at the next junction. And this applies for all life forms, some even get onto a dead end and wind up extinct. 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.

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, 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This might seem a simple thing to do, what is there to worry about. But it is not that easy a thing to achieve. The idyll of the garden of Eden from which humanity emerged was a finely tuned environment and humanity was a result of such fine tuning. 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. Unfortunately we have been slow learners and have belatedly reached this point at a stage in human development in which the pressures of overpopulation are coming to bare. The climate is becoming irrevocably (in the short term) changed, putting great pressures on the ecosystems. And we are not showing much willing to make the required changes to remedy the problems we have created. It is now going to be quite a struggle for us to pull through with any kind of civilisation intact at the end of it.
Slow learners indeed.

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

I think it is a mistake to visualize this situation in terms of a "physical system", or relations between bodies. This is why the nature of time and its relation to freedom of choice becomes a very important feature. We describe the world which we sense as bodies and physical systems . But the sensible world is the world of the past. Everything sensed is in the past by the time that the living being has sensed it. The living systems, the systems within the living being, produce the images of bodies with spatial relations, and this (what Kant called phenomena), is the world of empirical science. A body is something which has been perceived as remaining relatively stable (the same) for an extended period of time, in the past, up until the present.

Now, the continuity of this stability (the perceived existence of bodies), into the future, is taken for granted by physicists, and expressed as Newton's first law, the law of inertia. It is the reliability of this law which supports the predictive capacity of physics, as a discipline.

However, this law is not completely consistent with observations of our experience of freedom of choice, and this is what creates the divide between the precepts of determinism and those of free will. As an example, hold an object in your hand with the intent of dropping it, or sit still with the intent of standing up. You can initiate any one of these sorts of actions at any random time, without an external cause. This is the power of the will, it can act in the physical world of bodies and physical systems (the world of the past), described by Newton's first law, at any moment, without a cause from within that physical world. This means that the will is an exception to the law of inertia. This law is supported by an illusion, the illusion of a necessary continuity of existence of bodies, from the past into the future. Once we grasp this illusion as an illusion, and accept this principle that free will violates the law of inertia as the truth, instead of accepting the universal applicability of the law of inertia, we see that the continuity of any body, any physical system, can be randomly annihilated at any moment of passing time, through an act of will. The human will of course is very limited in its capacity, having control over a relatively small body, but if we imagine a more powerful will, like a divine will, we can imagine limitless power to defy the law of inertia and the supposed continuity of existence of bodies. Further, the example of atomic reactions, and nuclear energy, demonstrates that the human capacity to annihilate the inertial continuity of bodies and physical systems at will, is not quite as limited as it might seem.

This inconsistency between the perceived necessary continuity of physical bodies, and the capacity of the will to randomly break that continuity, produces a peculiar problem in relation to one's understanding of the nature of time. In order to maintain the reality of what we intuitively know to be true (freedom of the will), we must reject the necessity of the continuity of physical existence. This has a significant effect on one's world view. If at any random moment of passing time, any physical body could cease to exist, then we cannot assume any physical existence in the future. There must be no physical bodies in the future in order that any physical body might cease to exist at any moment of passing time. This implies that the entirety of physical existence must be created anew at every moment, as time passes. What we notice as motion and change is the differences in the physical world, from one moment to the next. It is not the case that there is massive physical bodies extending indefinitely into the future, with small changes happening at each passing moment, it is the case that all massive bodies are recreated at each moment, with small differences. This revelation is very difficult to comprehend because we are trained to understand the physical world in terms of continuity and inertia. But the premise derived from the freedom of the will to make random changes necessitates this logical conclusion. 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.

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

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.

Conversely though, many human beings presently believe that almost everything which it is possible to know is already known, and that a theory of everything is right at our fingertips. This false certitude is what breaks the will, sending us into demise, and self-destruction, as it is the very same sin as the sin of the fallen angel, conceit. It equates humanity with God, failing to see how deficient our knowledge really is.

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

Cooperation requires a common goal. That is why a clear understanding of the nature of purpose is so important. When society gets fractured, i.e. I don't agree with your goal, you don't agree with my goal, cooperation is impossible. Even if disagreement plunges humanity into crisis, it cannot pull itself out of that crisis without agreeable goals. I believe the desire for, and quest for knowledge is such a goal which can unite people in cooperation. But if there is a large number of people who believe that we already know all there is to know, these people have already reached a dead end in relation that goal, and cannot cooperate in that endeavour.

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.

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*.
Also I find an affinity with the concept of all material as the physical expression of beings in other kingdoms of nature, allowing for an equivalence with the formation of a human as an expression of being.

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.

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.

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.

* 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.

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

When Aristotle is read thoroughly, especially his Physics and Metaphysics, it is revealed that matter is simply a concept. It is a concept employed toward understanding the observed temporal continuity of physical bodies. So this process you refer to, "the process of sustaining material in a realm" is thoroughly hidden from us, as "mysterious"; it is hidden behind this concept "matter". That's why I said western mysticism was directed toward matter. We are very clearly incapable of understanding this temporal continuity. 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.

Naivety enters this picture when people accept this name "matter", as referring to a named thing, rather than as referring to an idea or notion of continuity, which is just a placeholder for that "process of sustaining material in a realm". The naivety is produced because the name does not refer directly to that process, but to how the process appears to us, as temporal continuity. This makes the process into a thing "temporal continuity". And this naivety, or ignorance, the idea that the incomprehensible process is a thing, is propagated by Newton's first law which assigns a property to that thing "matter", inertia, thus reinforcing the naïve notion that matter is a thing. So a human mind might accept this law in an uninformed act of naivety, and accepting it in this way produces the naive idea that matter is a thing with this property.

* 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

As we've discussed, there are different forms of mysticism. So if you have a different, "more imaginative" solution to this problem of temporal continuity, which is of course the basis of "identity" and "self", I would say that is to be encouraged, and perhaps you ought to explain it. But "more imaginative" does not equate with "better", as there is the issue of correspondence with reality, truth. And we must respect this. This is why "matter' has been adopted by western mysticism, it has been presented and utilized as the most useful principle of identity, in relation to truth.

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

I can't see that you have any valid criticism here unless you are attempting to deny the philosophical nature of human beings, the will to know. We've all, as human beings, come into existence from an evolutionary process which proceeds from a lesser knowing to an increased knowing. 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. Therefore, when we apprehend an aspect of reality which "the human mind is as yet unable to conceive", it is completely consistent with human nature, hence good, to name this aspect such that we can begin to talk about it, attempt to describe it, and proceed toward some form of explanation. In this case, that thing which we are "as yet unable to conceive", is what I have named the temporal continuity of physical bodies, and what Aristotle named as matter. Now, in this post I have proceeded toward describing this named thing as the basis of identity and self. Whether these principles emanate from what you call a "divine intuition" is completely irrelevant, something you merely throw in as a ruse, because what is important is correspondence with reality, truth. If your notion of "divine" is not consistent with what is provided for us by nature (the will to know, i.e. truth), then how would you ground it? is there some other aspect of human nature which is more potent or important than the will to know?

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

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.

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

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?

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?

Mysticism is an experience of the real which provides a balance to our typically compulsive immersion in the symbolic realm. To try to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or a religion or any other thought based goal oriented project, is to kill it.

If one wishes to focus on a religion or philosophy, ok, no problem. So call it a religion or philosophy. Don't get it confused with mysticism. Trying to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or religion is like going on a diet which involves eating butter all day. Eating butter all day is not a diet. It's pigging out. If one wishes to eat butter all day, ok, but call it pigging out. Don't get it confused with a diet.

A similar problem exists in Christianity, probably all the major religions. Jesus suggested we "die to be reborn" a radical psychological process involving the surrender of "me" (ie. symbolic) and a rebirth in to the real. But his audience said, "Well, we don't really want to surrender the "me", so let's create a religion about dying to be reborn", which they then used to reinforce the "me".

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

Good point, Nuke, but I don't think these guys are going that far. They simply want philosophers to provide "guidance" by interpreting mystical journeys. Good intentions, but reminiscent of similar attempts by non-practitioners to influence the nature of mathematics. Fun for all! :cool:

We are very clearly incapable of understanding this temporal continuity.

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.

. 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

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 "more imaginative" does not equate with "better", as there is the issue of correspondence with reality

Quite, by imaginative I mean as an alternative to a logical rational process.

If we conclude that the human mind is inadequate, then what is the alternative?

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

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.

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).

* an unfathomably mystery to our rational mind, in the absence of revelation, that is. Meaning that the self may behold the reality of the mystery and understand, know that truth. In such revelation, the mind takes a back seat and often cannot process what was known after the event. Where the mystery is of a more profound nature, the self may only behold the reality by being temporarily transfigured by the guide in the revelation. That the self sees it through the eyes, and mind of the guide as her own being is incapable of the degree of revelation. She will of course not be able to process/interpret the experience afterwards and will develop a narrative which intuitively approximates the experience.

Good point, Nuke, but I don't think these guys are going that far. They simply want philosophers to provide "guidance" by interpreting mystical journeys. — jgill

No problem, I'm attempting to do just that. I don't object if a reader prefers another interpretation.

I happened to watch a documentary on Eric Clapton lastnight. It was interesting to learn that Duane Allman collaborated on his Layla album. It was apparently an intense and highly creative collaboration. They were apparently "inseparable" throughout the recording sessions and jammed continuously day after day.

Yes, it seems they had quite the musical connection. That album is a blues rock classic for sure. My favorite Clapton album by far. Duane did a good bit of work as a session musician and played behind other great acts like Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett and others. If you'd like to learn more about Duane Allman there is a great documentary on streaming (Amazon Prime?) called Song of the South. Here's a preview on YouTube.



Although the Brothers probably did too much coke to be called great mystics :-) legend has it that they used to often smoke pot in a cemetery near their house in Macon, where 3 of them are now buried. Getting high in a cemetery, that could be an open door to some kinds of mystical experience?

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

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.

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

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?

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

You seem to be missing the point. Any sort of practise is goal oriented, that's what a practise is. And we set rules to guide the practise toward the goal. So if any type of mysticism employs any ground rules whatsoever, as Punshhh described, the rules must be formulated according to some goal, or goals. To say that mysticism is an activity which is not goal oriented is completely nonsensical because this implies that any random act is an act of mysticism. But as Punshhh explained mysticism clearly does not consist of random acts, it is structured on rules.

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

I've been told in the past, that metaphysics is a form of mysticism, and I've see reasons to believe this. 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. Some philosophers in the west attempt to exclude metaphysics from philosophy, claiming it is not valid philosophy, but a mysticism instead. I do not see how any good could come from enforcing a division between mysticism and philosophy, like the one requested by Nuke.

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.

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

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.

In my mind, I believe that any principle, or rule to be followed, can only be followed willingly. But when we cross over, from the side of the student, to the side of teacher, the principle or rule to be taught, may be referred to by the descriptive terms of "doctrine", or "dogma". In some cases these terms develop a connotation of force, as if the doctrine, or dogma consists of rules which are being forced upon the students. Furthermore, in some instances the authorities act as if they believe that the doctrine is to be forced on the students. So we have a difference here in the attitude which the authorities, or teachers, have toward the rules or principles, and their relation to the students. In the one case, the person of authority sees oneself as a teacher who's task it is to educate the students concerning the rules or principles, such that the students willfully follow the rules. In the second case, the person of authority perceives a need to force the underling to follow the rules. I believe that the latter is a futile effort. So when we use terms like "doctrine" and "dogma" we must be careful not to conjure up those connotations which relate to that impossible effort. The image of a doctrine or dogma being forced on unwilling recipients is an illusion, and the closest we get to this is brainwashing.

If we conclude that the human mind is inadequate, then what is the alternative? — Punshhh

Remember, we were talking about evolution. So the fact that the human mind is presently inadequate does not mean that it will always be inadequate. And as I explained, I believe in a Lamarckian type of evolution which means that evolutionary changes come about as a result of the actions willed by the being. 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.

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

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". So if we can separate the mind itself, from the habits of the mind, then it is not the mind itself which is the hindrance, but the habits which it currently has. I agree that it is very important to attempt as much as possible to separate the mind from its habits, as this would be the only way that we could come to recognize which habits are bad habits, hindrances. If the goal is freedom, as I suggested in the other post, then the mind must be separated from all habits, as any habit is a hindrance to freedom. Perhaps the type of revelation you describe in the footnote requires that the mind has this type of freedom, to a maximum possible degree.

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

Determining the purpose which unifies is not as easy as suggesting an "immediate" purpose. As we know, short term goals often conflict with long term goals. in the case of pleasure for example, we are tempted by immediate gratification sometimes at the expense of a long term negative effect. And different people are tempted by different things. So what you call "immediate" might appear like a long term solution to someone who has extremely short term goals like the pleasure seeker.

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

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.

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

These are good questions. My vote would be that we discard most of the fancy philosophy talk and focus on practical questions like this. How to produce a blank mind? Well, as a place to start, that's a quite ambitious agenda so let's be more realistic and replace that question with, how to have a quieter mind.

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.

You seem to be missing the point. Any sort of practise is goal oriented, that's what a practise is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, point taken, reaching for a quieter mind, establishing balance with the lost in thought mind, is a goal. Agreed. But it can be a simple goal and a simple practice, much as when one is hungry one eats something. No big deal.

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. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This negation of goals and seeking is foundational to meditation and the quieting of the mind is achieved through practice of meditation. For me it took perhaps 100-200 hours of practice before I found I was able to quieten the mind and there is no problem in starting it up again, it bounces back every time. One is only quieting the chitta chatta.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Perhaps the type of revelation you describe in the footnote requires that the mind has this type of freedom, to a maximum possible degree.

Quite.

Determining the purpose which unifies is not as easy as suggesting an "immediate" purpose.

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.


* 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.

** the world we are living in, does not just refer to the physical world, but more specifically the results of incarnation.

Nuke attempts to avoid this reality by claiming that mysticism is not a goal directed activity, but that is nonsense.

Does this help clarify? 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.

As for the future of humanity and so on....

It's debatable how much such topics can transform an individual. Many grand claims have been made, some of them may be true, I don't claim to know. It seems most accurate to say that some number of people have been helped to a modest degree.

What's not debatable is that these techniques, insights, experiences etc are not scalable to the degree that would required to transform humanity as a whole. These topics have been discussed in earnest for thousands of years, and the human condition remains largely unchanged. It wouldn't be very philosophical to ignore such a large pile of real world evidence.

It is perhaps possible that the insights arising from such investigations might be helpful in assisting science in developing some technology which is scalable to large populations. A happiness pill or some such. Logically it would make sense that the majority of science be aimed at such a target given that most of our problems arise from internal psychological issues. But, we are not a logical species by and large, and science seems more interested in almost everything else.

I suspect the future of humanity might be compared to the weather. You can buy an umbrella, but you can't stop it from raining.

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

I don't know what you're trying to say, but this makes no sense. I didn't say we're "lost" in thought, I said we are always thinking. In case you haven't noticed, the world is a dangerous place, and if we were not constantly thinking we'd be dead really soon. If I'm saying that we're thinking all the time, I don't see how you can infer that I was talking about thinking even more. What would that mean, thinking faster? I think what is at issue is the subject matter of the thought. Or, are you arguing that mysticism involves no thought at all? If so, how could it be carried out by a human being?

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

OK, a quiet mind is nice sometimes, just like quiet music is nice sometimes. But don't you like to crank up the tunes once in a while. Some people like the loud stuff more than others, it's a matter of personal preference. I wasn't suggesting that we should rule out quiet times.

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

I don't know what you mean by "ego take over". And, "here and now" is rarely, if ever enough, because time is passing, and the world is a dangerous place, so we need to be prepared for what might happen. Just because you are standing in the woods just looking around, doesn't mean that you are not prepared to move if a storm threatens, or a dangerous animal approaches. How could you be prepared to act if you were doing nothing other than enjoying the here and now? You are really judging the here and now. In relation to what though, the future?

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

I agree, trying to force a quieter mind is like trying to force oneself to go to sleep, it backfires, producing insomnia. But mysticism isn't only about a quiet mind, sometimes we like to crank it up a few notches.

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

Again, you are speaking about personal preference as if it ought to be the goal of everyone. Some like simple goals, some like complex goals. Why do you think that only those with simple goals ought to be mystics?

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

No, the feeling of lack is not cause by thought, it arises naturally from doing nothing. All the simple goals you mention, eating, sleeping, sex etc., are not fulfilled when one does nothing, and this results in the feeling of lack. So the healthy, natural state of the human being is an active state. And to be active requires goals, and this requires thought. Climbing a ladder is not necessary because there are many goals which do not involve climbing ladders. But if one wants to hone a particular skill, this requires practise. Why cast this procedure, of producing skill, in such a negative light, as "climbing some ladder to somewhere glamorous"?

Mystics might proceed to different levels, but this does not mean that they are necessarily climbing a ladder to somewhere glamorous, so why would you say that the goal of any particular practise is to get somewhere glamorous. In reality, to get somewhere glamorous is a goal in itself, and many different practises might be used to get there.

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

I've had that feeling of lack before, and it arises from doing nothing. Doing nothing gives one nothing to think about, no goals, no activities. As discussed, we cannot turn off the thinking, so having nothing to think about results in thinking about nothing. Thinking about nothing is that feeling of lack. So the feeling of lack, and the thinking are one and the same, two aspects of the same thing. One is not caused by the other. But this condition is caused by doing nothing.

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

This does not clarify anything. The "ism" suffix indicates a theory, a doctrine, or practice. I don't see how you can say that mysticism is an experience, that's simply a misuse of words.

These topics have been discussed in earnest for thousands of years, and the human condition remains largely unchanged. — Nuke

I don't think anyone can seriously claim that the human condition has remained largely unchanged for the last few thousands of years.

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

Right, clear your mind of all goals, and also (the hardest part) the inclination to produce a goal. That this takes effort, will power, is indication that the natural state of the human being is to be active.

This is the first step of indoctrination, what some would call brainwashing, clearing the mind to have a clean slate. As I explained, we ought to rid ourselves of the negative connotations involved in these descriptive terms, as this is an educational process entered willfully, and carried out by the student. In no way is the teacher capable of forcing this procedure onto the student.

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 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..

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 don't think I quite understand this concept you are making reference to. Is it a sort of metaphysical principle?

Thanks for the link to the Allman Brothers. Yes what they produced on that album was something. It was sad to hear the story of Eric Clapton's life, he was for many years a tortured soul. It is a testament for the human soul that just at his lowest point, when his son died, he turned and took control of his life for the better and now is a completely reformed person. He has set up a rehabilitation centre on Antigua for recovering alcoholics, who don't have the money to seek help and thrives on helping his fellow man. We could all take a lesson from that strength of character.

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.

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.

This is the first step of indoctrination, what some would call brainwashing, clearing the mind to have a clean slate.

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.

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.

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..

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.

You see, it's the fall again.

I don't think I quite understand this concept you are making reference to. Is it a sort of metaphysical principle?

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.

When I used the word principle, I was adopting the phraseology used in my source material. So I think it might have seemed out of place. Anyway it was in relation to the idea that the physical world is not an inviolable reality, but a construct devised, created and maintained by a being who is inviolable and drawing on inviolable principles and powers. By inviolable I mean having an eternal presence, existence, reality.

It was sad to hear the story of Eric Clapton's life, he was for many years a tortured soul. — Punshhh

Same for Gregg Allman. These guys worshipped at the alter of the blues, music born of tortured souls. Be careful what you ask for I guess.

Of possible interest is the career of Derek Trucks, son of Allman Brothers drummer Butch Trucks. If I understand correctly Derek Trucks embraced the musical style pioneered by the Allman Brothers, but turned his back on the drugs and hard living etc. Keep the good stuff and say goodbye to the bad, seems sensible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Trucks

I have on occasion camped out in the woods — Punshhh

I am blessed to live on the edge of town and have a big largely empty state park just 4 miles down the road. What I've learned there is that it's not the place that matters, but one's relationship with the place. Which is good news, as the relationship happens inside of one's head. Seems true of very many things in life. It's not so much what is happening that is determinative, but rather one's relationship with what's happening.

I think what is at issue is the subject matter of the thought. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree this is a crucial issue upon which much depends.

If one feels that human suffering (psychologically) arises from the subject matter of thought, then philosophy seems an appropriate remedy. Perhaps this describes your understanding and approach?

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.

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.

You might ask yourself, why has this conversation been going on for thousands of years, and yet we're still as nutty as ever? My answer would be that, as you suggest, we have to think to survive, and the price tag for this powerful tool is suffering. To have one is to have the other.

Here's how that works....

Thought operates by dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual objects. This allows us to re-arrange these conceptual objects in our heads to create new visions of reality. That is, the divisive nature of thought allows us to be creative, our genius.

The very same process of conceptual division is what makes us insane. We experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very very small, and "everything else" being very very big. This perspective gives rise to fear, which in turn is the source of most human problems.

My screen name is Nuke because, in my view, nuclear weapons almost perfectly represent this marriage of genius and insanity. We are smart enough to know how to build nukes, and insane enough to actually do so.

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.

If you stick with the philosophical process, as you say you wish to do, eventually you will realize that human suffering can not be healed in thought, because it is thought itself which is the source of human suffering. That understanding will transform your relationship with philosophy.

Another implication of this understanding is that there is no way to permanently fix the problem of suffering. The great promise of mystical philosophies is a false hope. Instead mysticism is best looked at as a form of management.

With every other process of the human body we take it to be an obvious given that regular management is necessary. We are never so foolish as to think that if just eat the right food that will solve the problem of hunger once and for all. It's the same with the bio-electrical cabbage machine between our ears.

This is not a glamorous story, and so it tends to be rather unpopular. Apologies, I can't do anything about that.

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

Um, just a reminder, we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat, an ever present hair trigger existential threat which we typically find too boring to discuss. Thinking mind? Strategic advantage? As example, just 50 nukes would be more than enough to destroy all of America's largest cities, leading to a collapse of the food distribution system, mass starvation, and unprecedented and unimaginable social and political chaos. If North Korea doesn't already have that many nukes, they likely will soon.

Imagine if you will that you invite me to the philosophy club meeting at your house. I show up with a loaded gun in my mouth. You are alarmed and try to talk about the gun with me, but I keep waving you off in a rather impatient and annoyed manner because I want to talk about Hegel's theory of something or another instead. That's who we are folks, that guy.

The thinking mind strategic advantage stuff is all on the surface. Just below that thin veneer lies madness. Humanity is perhaps best compared to an out of control algae bloom. We will explode all over the planet in an impressive manner until we run out of the fuel which sustains us, and then the bloom will collapse.

To learn more about this, buy my new book, "HOW TO NEVER GET INVITED TO PARTIES". :-)

Strategic advantage?

I'm portraying it as a bad thing, part of the fall of man. You make a good point though, all sorts of people can talk good words and the like. But those warheads are still pointing down our throats. I'm reminded of Dr Strangelove.

I'm portraying it as a bad thing, part of the fall of man. — Punshhh

We could explore in that direction if you wish to.

Fall Of Man: As thought evolved in human beings and became an increasingly prominent part of our experience, we lost the primal bond with nature which wildlife and earlier more primitive humans enjoyed. Well, we didn't lose the primal bond so much as we were distracted from a focus on reality by the chitta chatta, as you would put it.

Is this movement from the real to the symbolic a "fall"? Is it a bad thing? I dunno, I guess to answer that we'd have to establish some value which we are measuring against. It would seem obvious that the emergence of thought had survival value, but as nuclear weapons would seem to illustrate that may depend on what time scale one is using. Advantage in the short term, fatal over the longer term?

Yes I agree with that. 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. I don't know if the bible predicts nuclear weapons, but it predicts something like a nuclear holocaust. The rest is history.

As to whether it was a good thing, the right thing, progress. I see it as an inevitable crisis of the development of intelligence in nature. Wherever such a development happens, the same crisis will occur. So if intelligence and more advanced life forms exist in nature this point of crisis has been reached before and the species concerned must have survived beyond it. This is humanity's chance to survive the crisis of the fall.

The New Testament depicts God giving us a helping hand through the life and story of Jesus. To pick ourselves up and take responsibility to clean up our own mess, like nappy training.

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.

P.s. 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. It would be quite an expensive mistake, in ways beyond our understanding.

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

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. The Adam and Eve story was written some 3,000 years ago for an audience of uneducated peasants, and according to some interpretations at least, it still works today.

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

Regrettably, there isn't much evidence this will happen any time soon. After studying the subject in earnest for about 6 months I've come to the conclusion that nothing meaningful will happen on nukes until after the next detonation. And then.... who knows? Not me.

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

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, but the idea is the same, higher forms of intelligence trying to save us from ourselves. Here's a YouTube video that summarizes his work.

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

This is good. You've developed a place in your mind, free from the chitta chatta, which allows you communion with the higher self, soul. Can I ask, how do you distinguish the chitta chatta from the communion with the soul? The communion with the soul must consist of some sort of mental activity, how do you know that it's not just more chitta chatta?

I like to calm my mind in a similar but slightly different way. But I'm a doer, and I like to be active, (and as I explained the natural condition for human beings is to be active), so I put this condition of having a calmed mind to use, prioritizing what needs to be done, in what order, so that I can work efficiently without the confusion of the chitta chatta.

Why do you think that communion with the higher self is a better goal than organizing the activities which you need to do?

An advantage to the extent that we can control the entire ecosystem to our own advantage, or perceived advantage. — Punshhh

I don't agree with this. I think it's somewhat egotistical to think that human beings have the capacity to control the ecosystem. This is the false sense of certainty I referred to earlier, which modern science and technology has given us. We are really at the mercy of the ecosystem. Look at the covid-19 virus for example, we have very little control over it, and if it were more deadly it could wipe out a large part of humanity. Or look at Nuke's example of nukes, mental illness in human beings, or bacterial infection in the nervous system, could cause the use of nukes We really do not know what the ecosystem might throw at us from one year to the next, and there are many different things which it could throw at us which we are completely incapable of dealing with.. The point being that any one species, such as the human species, is much more fragile than the ecosystem as a whole. The ecosystem is made up of millions or billions of species, so the biosphere as a whole, has an enormous capacity to adapt. And it really doesn't matter if numerous species get wiped out, because new species are always being created, adapting to thrive in the same conditions which wiped out the other species.

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

I don't see how you could support this idea logically. Suffering was in existence long before there was thinking human beings, and a person's thought is very often directed towards ending suffering which is already there. As a child, I was suffering before I was thinking, and when I started thinking, I was thinking about how to end my suffering.

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

This doesn't provide the needed support. Suffering existed prior to human beings, as we see that other animals suffer. So suffering has a source which not only human beings share, but other animals share as well. You might argue that other animals think as well, but just because thinking and suffering are coincident, this doesn't mean that one causes the other. Why would you not say that suffering causes thinking instead?

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

There's nothing to rip to shreds here. You have a belief which appears to me as very unreasonable, which you have provided no logical support for. All I need to do is show that your believe has no support. Further, I can explain from my own experience, that thinking is used as a means for ending suffering. And this is why your belief is unreasonable to me. I can give you numerous examples of how I use thinking to end my suffering, such as when I'm hungry. That this end to suffering is not permanent is irrelevant. Time goes by, new suffering occurs, and the mind thinks of ways to end that suffering. Each instance of suffering is unique and distinct, so it makes no sense to talk about ending suffering in some general, or absolute way. Each time the rain starts to fall, it later ends. But it makes no sense to talk about the end of rain, in a universal way.

Another implication of this understanding is that there is no way to permanently fix the problem of suffering. — Nuke

Suffering is a personal thing, a property of the person's materiality, unique to the individual. Death puts a permanent end to a person's suffering because it separates the person from the body (which is the source of suffering).

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.

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.

Regrettably, there isn't much evidence this will happen any time soon.

I know, I am thinking more about humanity living in harmony with the ecosystem (and themselves) long term.

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,

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.

Mysticism. Why I don't care!
Superseded by:
* Philosophy (especially phenomenology)
* Sciences
* Paranormal sciences (also paranormal psychology, though it's not psychology as such)
* Organized religion (Civ-series is correct about something, surely)
Good? :up: :smile:

PS: Doing voodoo (with that ugly mentality) is just too stupid in the name of bygone mysticism.