It matters if you want to know, or want to not know. Philosophy is a - the - way of knowing. Mysticism, of any kind, the the way of not knowing. Which?

I don't think there is any 'trick' to attaining those states of insight. First, it is a gift, and not everyone possesses it. Secondly, it has to be given priority in your life, rather than being an add-on or diversion. That's why I think that in practice, mystical spirituality is nearly always associated with a contemplative religious life, which is both dedicated to principles and regulated in accordance with a spiritual preceptor.

There are opportunities to study those forms of understanding in today's world, but overall, Western culture is extroverted, materialistic, and generally pretty hostile towards mysticism (unless it's of the Hollywood kind that will appeal to celebrities and can be exploited for profit).

There's quite a good series of podcasts of Evelyn Underhill's books on mysticism here. It includes discussions of mysticism and philosophy, and its origins with neoplatonism. Underhill's work is quite dated now, but it's a good starting point as she was a good scholar.

Thanks for letting me know and I am aware that speaking of Mysticism in a philosophy forum would probably be pointless. Good book source as well, I found out about the connections of Mysticism and neoplatonism as well in my own contemplations which I find interesting. Do you have more information on neoplatonism itself?

Again, Underhill is a good place to start. Many of her books are now in the public domain. Dean (Wiiliam) Inge is another - he was an Anglican clergyman who wrote a regular newspaper column in the UK. You can find some of his books here. Both these authors are from late nineteenth-early twentieth century, and there have been many since, but if you study the subject at university level, their books are still on the curriculum. Bernard McGinn's books are more recent and also well regarded.

A good current book on Christian mysticism is Dangerous Mystic: Meister Eckhardt's path to the God Within, Joel Harrington. In some ways, Eckhardt could be regarded as the be-all and end-all of Christian mysticism. (Eckhart Tolle named himself after him, I think.)

Neoplatonism is a hard subject to study. It's not that it's complicated - in fact it's difficulty lies in the fact that its basic ideas are very simple but extremely profound. I don't feel I've ever really understood it, although there are sayings and passages from those writings which resonate with me. Pierre Hadot's Plotinus: Or the Simplicity of Vision is a good starting point.

The problem is NOT lack of things to read or study. As they say about the Internet, it's like 'drinking from a fire hydrant'. The problem is finding the one teaching or source that really resonates and sticking with it.

I would start my investigation of cause and effect with Sextus Empiricus's Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Understanding the difficulties in merely asserting a cause-effect relationship helps to frame and qualify all later discussion of the topic. With this in mind it becomes possible to both appreciate Aristotle's work on the matter and dismiss offhand more recent obscenities like Hume's constant conjunction.

On another thread I had just written a post about the whole question of the nature of causes because I believe that it is extremely complex. The context of the discussion had been about the nature of self -fulfilling prophecy. I had suggested that I believe that causality is not simply about what occurs in action and that I believe that it involves thought and intentionality.

I spoke of the idea of karma, which is of course in it's most basic idea about cause and effect, but I would believe that it involves consciousness on some level. The simplistic explanation has been about punishment and reward but I would say that it is a lot more complicated than that.

I also referred to the law of attraction as expressed in the ideas of Esther and Jeremy Hicks and many other authors. The law of attraction is about how we can create manifestation in life according to our intentions. It is not in itself straightforward because we are dealing with the subconscious mind, which may incorporate conflicting wishes.

I do believe that the laws of causality are complex, whether one approaches it from a scientific angle or a mystical one. I do not think I understand it in any depth, but I definitely believe that it involves consciousness and intention. I do believe that both karma and the law of attraction offer insight and that while they are apparently different, the two might be interconnected in some way.

Is there any tricks to perceive this world of causes that you know of, like the Sages of yore? If so this is the discussion to give and receive such knowledge. — Thinking

Causation is a temporal concept. To understand it properly requires a true representation of time.

Here's my proposal. Start with a temporal line, as a representation, with a divisor representing the present. Let's say that the left side of the divisor is the past, and the right side is the future. The divisor, which represents the present, is not static in this representation, it is always moving toward the right, such that the left side, the past, is always growing bigger.

The past is the world of sensation, and empirical knowledge. Everything, by the time it has been sensed, is in the past, in relation to the sentient consciousness, which is experiencing the sensations. Further, empirical knowledge, inductive reasoning, gives us a principle of contingency, telling us that everything which has come to be, in the past, has come to be for a reason, has been caused. This might be called the principle of sufficient reason.

Now we have a past which is continuously expanding, growing bigger, being filled with things that are coming into being, or existence, at the present. We also see that the principle of contingency dictates that this world of things coming into being at the present requires a cause. According to the concept of causation, the cause of a thing is prior in time to the effect. In this representation (what I call the true representation of time), the future is prior to the past. This is because the divisor, which is the present, is always moving up the line into the future, as the part of the line which was formerly the future becomes the past. You can see how the part of this line, that is the future, is the future first, then later becomes the past, as the divisor moves. Therefore the future is prior to the past in the true representation of time.

There is another slightly different representation you could make. We could assume that the divisor, the present is completely static. In this representation, "the world" which is the future, is being forced through the static divisor, to become "the world" of the past. This, "the world of the future being forced through the divisor to become the world of the past", is what we observe as activity at the present. Notice that there are two distinct worlds, the world of the future, and the world of the past, and the act of being forced through the static divisor creates a transformation of one into the other. Again, you can see that in this representation, "the future world" is prior to "the past world", in the sense that whatever will come to be in the past world, was already in the future world, in a different form, being transformed by being forced through the present. In the true representation of time, the future world is prior to the past world, as the past world comes to be from the future world.

You ought to be able to see now, that the "world of causes" which you refer to is the future world. True causation can only be represented in this way because we have to be able to account for how possibilities which exist in our representations of the future, are selected for, and transformed into actualities in the past. The scientific way, which looks only at the world of the past, empirical knowledge gathered from sense data, and assumes that the past will continue indefinitely into the future, in the exact same way as it has in the past, is deficient because it does not allow for real change. Real change is denied by the assumption that the future will continue in the exact same way as the past. In other words, it's deterministic, and does not allow for the real change which is brought about by free willing choices. This scientific representation, which shows "the cause" as what arrives at the present before "the effect" is really not objective, because it is derived from the subjective perspective of an observer at the present. The true objective perspective removes the observer, to see time itself passing the present, thus recognizing that the observer dependent perspective creates an inversion which makes the true effect into the cause, for the purpose of prediction. Such prediction cannot account for the cause of real change though.

Since past and future are concepts of the mind and are ultimately illusory, then the only real "time" will always be the present. The reason being is that the causations for the past and the potentiality of the future exist in the first place only in the present moment. Following your logic, the present moment has infinite potentiality and therefore causality. To maintain the unity of time since past and future are ultimately illusions of the mind, perhaps it is the present that is capable of being causal unto itself?

It appears that, from my cursory reading of the wikipedia entry on mysticism, the main objective is to achieve some kind of union with god and if not that an intimate contact with the divine or some transcendental truth about the universe. I'm employing a broad definition in order to be inclusive of as many religions as possible.

Coming to your concern regarding the nexus between cause and mysticism, all I have to offer is that god, in Aristotelian and other traditions, is regarded as the first cause aka the prime mover. Thus, mysticism, if there's any substance in its claims, should lead you directly to the first cause viz. god himself.

Sages of yore — Thinking

I'm one of those I reckon. I'll make up some shit about panpsychism and causes in a bit if I get the time. Basically forces are wills, maybe.

Since past and future are concepts of the mind and are ultimately illusory, then the only real "time" will always be the present. — Thinking

If you cannot get beyond the idea that past and future are illusory, you'll never understand causation.

I see your point, but then what is the cause for the present?

You ought to be able to see now, that the "world of causes" which you refer to is the future world. — Metaphysician Undercover

You present valid and interesting third person perspectives of time. I wonder if you would be able to illustrate a first person perspective of time as experienced , and then compare it to your third person perspectives, and elaborate on the differences and your conclusions?

I believe that the difference between the first person perspective (that of science), and the third person perspective (the one I propose), is best understood through acknowledging the difference between determinism and free will.

If we start from the human perspective, you can see that we observe the activities associated with the passing of time, and we make generalizations, inductive principles, concerning these activities. At the base of these generalizations, I'll call them 'laws', is the fundamental assumption that things will continue to be as they have been in the past. One form of this, is Newton's first law, but what I'm talking about is even more fundamental, everything must continue as it has, so Newton's first law is more of a specialized form of this fundamental assumption.

The fundamental assumption is based in observation, and is itself an inductive conclusion. It is produced for a purpose, and that purpose is the predictions which it supports. That itself is extremely useful. Now, notice that the fundamental assumption is based in good induction, very true, and prediction can only occur if it is true, therefore it is self-confirming in its truth through accurate predictions. However, it is created for a purpose, therefore fundamentally subjective. So it can be described as the first person perspective, how a human being naturally grasps time.

If we move to the third person perspective, we must look at the complete human being, living and acting in time. Now we must consider not just the capacity to predict, but the use of the predictions. We have a problem here, that of the unpredictability of human actions. This unpredictability is grounded in freedom of choice which is contrary to the determinism that is supported by the assumed inductive laws created for the purpose of prediction. So this third person perspective gives us evidence of an aspect of reality which is outside of, or in violation of the fundamental assumption.

So we have the fundamental assumption about the passing of time, which is that things (physical bodies) will continue to exist as they have, while time passes, and change must be "caused" by an interaction with another physical body. That's the determinist sense of "cause". To account for free will, we need to look at exceptions to the fundamental assumption. The fact that there are exceptions indicates that there is something deficient in this fundamental assumption, it's not really representing reality properly. So let's consider the nature of the exceptions, to see what they show us.

Let's magnify the exceptions to the extreme, and see what happens. The fundamental assumption, or law, dictates a continuity of existence as time passes. The free will indicates that at any moment as time is passing, this continuity of existence can be broken. Therefore the continuity which we observe, and is responsible for the fundamental assumption, is not a necessity. It appears as a necessity because it is based in logic, but it is inductive logic, therefore probabilistic. If we magnify the exception, we can see that at any moment as time is passing. a free willing agent might annihilate any continuously existing object. That continuity of existence, expressed as inertia, which is fundamental to determinist causation, is not necessary, it may be broken at any moment by a free willing act.

If this continuity is not necessary, it must therefore be contingent. This means that it is caused. Therefore all these things that we take for granted, that the world will still be there tomorrow morning, etc., are necessarily dependent on a cause. Furthermore, that cause must be active at each moment of passing time. If, at any moment of passing time, the entire physical universe might cease to continue existence in the same predictable way that it has, we must assume that at each moment of passing time a cause acts to reinstate its existence in that predictable way

Besides some evidence like trees mature over "time" and we revolve around the sun some days of the year. There is no absolute proof that the "past" exists outside of the present moment. Especially same with the "future". We can conceptualize past and future but both only exist within the mind. The only thing we will ever experience is the present moment so how do you rationalize that? Especially since it seems beyond the mind?

Einstein: The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

The only thing we will ever experience is the present moment so how do you rationalize that? — Thinking

It's very easy to rationalize that. I cannot change what has happened in the past, and what has happened in the past has a very real effect on what I am experiencing now. And in a similar but different way, I cannot deny that things will happen in the future, but I can have a very real effect on what will happen. So anticipation of the future is just as much a real part of my experience of the present, as is memory of the past. I remember the past as real, and anticipate the future as real.

Since this is the way that I experience the present, as the past being very real, and also the future being very real, then you would have to provide me with a very good argument that they are not real in order to make me believe otherwise.

Both past and future only really exist in your mind. What happened in the past actually happened in each present moment, while the potential for the future is revealed and only actually in every present moment. The only thing that truly exists then as far as "time" is concerned is the now, the eternal present moment.

Obviously I don't agree with you on that. This is because I think that time was passing before I came into the world, and I think that time will still be passing after I am gone from this world. And for time to be passing, it is necessary that there is future and past. Before I was here, my mind was not here, and after I am gone, my mind will not be here. Yet there will still be time passing, along with the prerequisite future and past. Therefore I do not believe that past and future exist only in my mind.

Objectivity cannot be experienced from a subjective point of view. You can think about the idea of looking at your reality from a third person's perspective, but that's just a thought experiment of one individual who is picturing what objectivity could be. That objectivity is “subject” to that individual's perspective, which makes it subjective by definition.
A thought is not an experiential reality. Reality is taking place in front of you, in the present moment, where if something new happens, you have the chance to experience it. As soon as you explore the ideas of the past or the future, or entertain any other thought, you're no longer focusing on reality, but only focusing on a thought or a concept of what reality is or could be. The only time that you can ever experience is taking place right now and the "now" keeps changing. Possessing that point of view takes the “line” out of timeline. And if time is not viewed linearly, then THE future can be viewed as many probable futures that can be reached, depending on one's actions through free will in the present moment. That makes the concept of time more like a two dimensional plane instead of a line.
Being in the present moment is focusing on your senses instead of your thoughts.

Thanks for your very thorough analysis. I was originally taken aback by your original construction as I couldn't find logical fault with it, but it differs with my own instinctive understanding, which is more in line with @Thinking. In pondering it, it dawned on me that this is an interesting situation in that the first and third person perspectives change the reality of the situation. I couldn't understand how that could be, but then I realized Einstein's time is relative. And so there is a big difference in the first and third person perspectives.

Whilst the third person perspective is an invaluable conceptual tool, I tend to question to what extent is it real given nobody can ever experience that perspective? The experienced perspective is the first person perspective, and concerning time is quite a different beast. At the extreme end, I as the first person can be standing still in time at light speed, whilst the third person sees me travelling in time :chin: This example is extreme, but the relationship is similar at lower then light speeds, and still exists at walking speed vs standing.

Who's point of view is valid? Is it valid to apply a third person perspective to a first person perspective of time? I don't think so. That would be saying they are in my time and space, which they are not - they have their own time and space. It would seem that only the first person perspective is a valid view in this case. Thus Einstein's conclusion - relativity. Or time and space are relative to the observer.

From the first person perspective experience occurs in the present moment, where the future is a probabilistic abyss. There is no absolute certainty that it will occur. It has been our experience in the past that it will continue to occur, but there is a non zero probability that it wont ( particularly in covid times ). So that there is a future is an assumption, in my view.

Your causation is one of determinism plus free will ( compatibilism ). I take my que from systems such as covid19 and see causation as determinism plus a slight element of randomness, such that there will be a main causal thrust and then some variation to it, such that when the multiplicity of causal elements are combined the picture becomes quite random indeed. This randomness acting upon the multiplicity of causal elements causes emergent properties to come into the future. This makes it probabilistic and uncertain.

Anyway, good to compare notes.

Whilst the third person perspective is an invaluable conceptual tool, I tend to question to what extent is it real given nobody can ever experience that perspective? The experienced perspective is the first person perspective, and concerning time is quite a different beast. — Pop

The issue here is the question of how much of reality is not experienced. We know there is a huge portion of reality which is unexperienced by us. Quantum physics tells us about fundamental particles which are not experienced by us, and cosmology tells us about things like dark matter, dark energy, and spatial expansion. I believe that these are just the tip of the iceberg, and the world of the unexperienced is actually much more extensive than what is experienced.

Assume that time is passing, and there is reality on both sides of the present. The human experience gives us a very narrow window on that reality. Our "present", being the things we can experience, is a very narrow range. Maybe we experience everything between one one hundredth of a second, and one tenth of a second, that's just a guess but it's probably actually much narrower. Anything faster or slower than that, we cannot experience, but we understand from memory, logic, and reasoning.

Who's point of view is valid? Is it valid to apply a third person perspective to a first person perspective of time? I don't think so. That would be saying they are in my time and space, which they are not - they have their own time and space. It would seem that only the first person perspective is a valid view in this case. Thus Einstein's conclusion - relativity. Or time and space are relative to the observer. — Pop

If this is your assumption about what is valid, then all instances of logic being applied toward understanding things which are not actually experienced would be invalid. Of course that's incorrect, because if the only valid knowledge was things which are directly experienced, first person, then nothing obtained from the application of logic would be valid. So there would be no point in using logic because it would be all invalid for going outside experience.

In reality we apply logic in an attempt to get us outside the first person perspective, to develop a more objective outlook which is not tainted by the constraints of the subjective human experience. However, the premises which logic proceeds from are derived from the first person experience, so it is very important to find sound premises, most widely applicable, in an attempt to ensure that they are as least tainted as possible. So when we look at time, we can see that there is a substantial difference between past and future, and this difference influences every aspect of our lives, and is therefore very widely applicable. The idea that there is a substantial difference between past and future makes a very sound premise to proceed logically from, towards understanding what is not experienced by us.

From the first person perspective experience occurs in the present moment, where the future is a probabilistic abyss. There is no absolute certainty that it will occur. It has been our experience in the past that it will continue to occur, but there is a non zero probability that it wont ( particularly in covid times ). So that there is a future is an assumption, in my view. — Pop

At the fundamental level, there is only assumptions. This is because we cannot justify every principle, or else there would be infinite regress, or a vicious circle. So the fundamental principles can only be validated by experience. And how we relate to, or explain, our experience, takes on the characteristics of assumptions. That we remember the past, and anticipate the future are fundamental aspects of our experience. That the past and future are real, therefore is an assumption. But since these aspects of our experience, remembering the past and anticipating the future, are so fundamental to our experience, as the most basic aspect of our experience, then to deny that we can conclude therefore that there is a real past and future, would be equivalent to asserting that our experience cannot tell us anything about reality.

Your causation is one of determinism plus free will ( compatibilism ). I take my que from systems such as covid19 and see causation as determinism plus a slight element of randomness, such that there will be a main causal thrust and then some variation to it, such that when the multiplicity of causal elements are combined the picture becomes quite random indeed. This randomness acting upon the multiplicity of causal elements causes emergent properties to come into the future. This makes it probabilistic and uncertain. — Pop

The difference between my perspective and yours then, is that free will is fundamentally intelligible, in relation to causation, while randomness is not. So these aspects of reality which are outside of our experience, and presently outside of our capacity to understand them with logic, you assume that they are to be accounted for by randomness, which indicates that you believe they are fundamentally unintelligible in terms of causation. I believe that we are just not applying the proper premises in our logic. And if we accounted for the reality of free will in our premises concerning the nature of time, things which appear to you as causally random would start to look far more intelligible. .

.

I believe that these are just the tip of the iceberg, and the world of the unexperienced is actually much more extensive than what is experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

Anything faster or slower than that, we cannot experience, but we understand from memory, logic, and reasoning. — Metaphysician Undercover

From a systems perspective: As a self organizing system we are attuned to all those elements that we as a consciousness are not aware of. They have causal power, its just that we are not aware of it.

If this is your assumption about what is valid, then all instances of logic being applied toward understanding things which are not actually experienced would be invalid. Of course that's incorrect, because if the only valid knowledge was things which are directly experienced, first person, then nothing obtained from the application of logic would be valid. So there would be no point in using logic because it would be all invalid for going outside experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Logic is experienced in the first person. Every thought is an experience. So logic prevails, but yes, it is a conundrum isn't it? The third person perspective cannot include the first person experiential element, and is different in time and space, so it is logically dissonant, it seems. I'm not sure what to think really. It is a big issue, and one I currently cannot answer.

I don't really want to debate the issue, I just wanted to compare notes. If you find an answer to this first person vs third person conundrum please let me know.

Logic is experienced in the first person. Every thought is an experience. So logic prevails, but yes, it is a conundrum isn't it? The third person perspective cannot include the first person experiential element, and is different in time and space, so it is logically dissonant, it seems. I'm not sure what to think really. It is a big issue, and one I currently cannot answer.

I don't really want to debate the issue, I just wanted to compare notes. If you find an answer to this first person vs third person conundrum please let me know. — Pop

Well, if we want to get really technical, there is no such thing as the third person perspective. We're all somewhat independent, having our own personal perspectives. Therefore we all have a first person perspective and that's all. But we always seem to have a desire to empathize, to put ourselves in the shoes of the other, to determine why the other is different and why we have problems understanding each other. So we've developed logical rules which enable us to better "compare notes", because the rules are meant to be a standard not specific to any one of us.. However, I am never quite able to completely understand you, and you won't totally understand me so we will never properly identify with each other. I believe therefore, that we create an imaginary "third person", which is neither you nor I, but some other, "they", who is supposed to be some sort of intermediary or independent third party..

Interesting. I do think there can be a 3rd perspective in a sense that you are simply observing a situation.

Well, if we want to get really technical, there is no such thing as the third person perspective. We're all somewhat independent, having our own personal perspectives. Therefore we all have a first person perspective and that's all — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

I don’t know about anybody else’s consciousness, but this is how I see it. There is a lot of traffic in the mind. There are thoughts, memories, feelings, dreams, daydreams, ideas, wants, needs, imaginations, inspirations, assumptions, intuitions, beliefs, understandings, knowing, the inner chatter, etc. They all have their own distinct properties and each one has its own level of focus which determine the level of one’s awareness. Consciousness is always focused on something. I could focus on my thoughts and imaginations of what reality could be, or I could focus on my senses which will get me in touch with the physical reality. There is a difference in experiencing reality and thinking about it. It’s the difference between knowing and understanding. When I say I “understand” something, what I really mean is that there is a concept of it in my mind that when I compare it to reality, it matches. However, when I say I “know” something, I really mean that I truly know it and if I’m not sure of something, it’ll always remain in the category of the things I DON’T know. Therefore, I “know” about my consciousness, but I only “understand” other people’s consciousness. All the things that I know to be true for a fact, I have personally learned through first-hand experience and all the interesting things that I don’t know, I learn by trial and error through experiment and taking action, which can only be done in the present moment. The things I know, I never have to remember. I live with them as they decode my reality. The things I think I understand are accessed through memories and I have to try, sometimes very hard to see “if” I remember them. So, I could say with confidence that I “know” about the present moment, but I only “understand” how the near future will most likely turn out, depending on my past memories, but I don’t know about all the unknown, probable variables that the future holds, nor do I remember every little detail about my past. So, all I really can work with that is reliable, is in the present moment. That third person perspective is created in the mind, solely from the first person’s understanding of its own experience of reality. All the unknown variables that are not within the experiences, understandings and assumptions of the first person, are not considered, as they remain unknown. That’s the whole idea that the third person perspective is trying to achieve in the first place; to understand the unknown. But in order to have that third person perspective, you must first consider EVERYTHING in the bigger picture, or else it’s no different than the first person perspective and in order to consider everything, you must first have a third person perspective where you can observe all the unknown things that the first person can’t possibly observe, which makes the whole thing an illogical loop. All of that will always remains in the level of thoughts which determine how aware the individual is in the shared, physical reality, where everyone has access to experiences, not just the inaccessible reality of one individual’s thoughts.

I do think there can be a 3rd perspective in a sense that you are simply observing a situation. — Thinking

You need to respect the fact that one can only observe what is made possible from one's own capacity for observation. So the observation is fundamentally subjective, according to the limits of one's capacity.