I don’t distinguish between words and experience. Words are not ‘tools’ that represent thought. Language IS thought, and thought IS experiencing. So the ‘serious limitations’ of language are a reflection of the serious limitations of experiencing. — Joshs
All communicating is mediate and interpretive. — Joshs
some of the most "profound and intense" experiences were some of the last. I — Janus
the experiences with meditation, when I was able to 'breakthrough', were also more intense later rather than earlier. — Janus
the altered state") is paradoxical; always new and yet always the same; it is not subject to the ordinary logic you seem to be wanting to apply to it. — Janus
What made them profound? What did you learn from them, and what made them different from the psychedelic experiences that weren’t as profound( assuming the same
drug and dosage)? — Joshs
What accounts for the undependability of the experience? — Joshs
It seems to be subject to some kind of logic in your mind:you said it can come or not come , depending on certain variables, and there is something the same about all the experiences.
If you achieve ‘breakthrough’, to use your words,
is the experience from that point on like a plateau ? Is it monolithic? If it gives feelings of love or peace or bliss, is does this feeling persist as exactly the same homogenous tone of feeling thoughout the experience, or does it have modulations and textures? — Joshs
You are trying to reduce it to analysis; cannot be done. IF you had these experiences yourself you would know that. — Janus
Profundity in this context is a matter of feeling, not intellectual complexity and conceptual density or depth. — Janus
Maybe I have had these experiences myself but have a way of dipping into them and extracting sayable sense from them. Eugene Gendlin‘s focusing provides one such method. I do know that any feeling, no matter how profound, is an ineffective guide to life if one cannot find a way to articulate it further. — Joshs
My experience is that the unexpected connections are precisely not made in the "normal" way, they don't feel 'normal' at all. Having said that I'm not sure what your conception of "being made in the normal way" is. It may be different for each person, so if you say it is like that for you, I can only accept your word on it. — Janus
It is ineffable only insofar as nothing propositional or determinate can be said about, or on the basis of, the experience. For me this is what poesis (making) is all about; evoking (showing) what cannot be literally said. — Janus
Literature, employing metaphor, parable and profoundly affective depictions of human life, is most effective for this; much more effective than philosophy. That's probably why there is a Nobel prize for literature and not for philosophy. Philosophy is limited to exposing and correcting errors of reasoning and creating schematic worldviews, with the former function being more useful in my opinion. (Although the latter is not without artistic interest). That's my two cents anyway. — Janus
I take your point. It may well be that we construe differently, but consistent with constructivist theory and phenomenology we would each have only one way to do it with. So if something is construed - it was done in our normal way. — Pop
but basically we can only construct upon what has already been constructed, or we can only understand that which we are familiar with already - that can e understood in terms of our already established understanding. — Pop
I would be hesitant to take Varela and Thompson's word for it as they, as originators of the theory have a vested interest, and they seem to describe a fairly superficial situation, that can be variously accounted for. — Pop
You previously mentioned psychedelics, and perhaps this is the cause of our dissonance. I was really only referring to mindfulness. I have not tried them ( but I'm curious :smile: ). According to the theory, perhaps in this case, it is I who am blind! — Pop
So what to make of this? I would say that all views are experientially valid, but some are supported by theory whilst others are not. So theory cannot invalidate the first person experience. It remains a valid first person experience despite being theoretically unsound, and it must be so to maintain the integrity of the self in question - according to the theory, as I understand it. — Pop
Why would "we each only have one way to do it with, though" ? I am not aware of any compelling argument for that conclusion. — Janus
I think novel constructions are possible; indeed commonplace. — Janus
where the feeling is of universal inter-connectedness — Janus
If you reject a theory on the basis that its originators have a vested interest in it, you would be rejecting most, if not all, theories it seems. — Janus
I think the same kinds of altered states may be realized with meditation as with psychedelics, but perhaps not as reliably :wink: . — Janus
The theory implies that there is only one system of knowledge accumulation and interpretation at play, so when we say we perceive something, we have only one way of doing it. This is consistent with being a singular self, which psychedelic's may indeed challenge? — Pop
And I believe this is aided more by great literature (and music and art study and practice, meditation and psychedelics) than by philosophy. Both are desirable though; sharpening of the critical faculties and cultivation of the affections. However one can live a good life, ethically speaking; while holding central beliefs that from a philosophical point of view, are absurd, just as one can have the sharpest critical intellect, hold few absurd beliefs, and yet be a total arsehole. — Janus
I'm glad you have found something that gives you a feeling of universal interconnectedness. I feel sad that we should have to look to altered states for such a feeling. — Pop
But why only one way of accumulation? — Janus
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.