Your question of what is everything is interesting. There is so much which we cannot explain. We have many grand theories and systems thinking, which tries to find ways of providing structures or frameworks. However, it does seem that our scope of understanding is limited. It may be a mixture of looking for explanations through the sciences, rational understanding, and searching for wisdom within oneself.

Some of the esoteric writers came up with answers, but as you realise their claims to exclusive truths were open to question. Nevertheless, some of the most esoteric writers, such as Rudolf Steiner, were seeking to explore the search, or attempt, to understand everything, insofar as that is possible for a human being. I am aware that is probably more in the area of spirituality, which is so unique and to each person.

Some might argue that the term, spiritual, is a cop out but, it does appear to me that it represents the boundary where we move into the subjective experience of truth. Philosophy, as a discipline, is more able to consideration to the more objective aspects of truth. However, individuals argue about this and, most are also wishing to find the ultimate truths on an objective level, so it is a complex web.

However, individuals argue about this and, most are also wishing to find the ultimate truths on an objective level, so it is a complex web. — Jack Cummins

I do wonder whether it's exactly ultimate truths that we're seeking or rather a role for ourselves in this mess of a world. Who should I be? How should I be? A person might decide that certain questions are either not answerable or not after all the questions that matter to them. The goal for me is to be often (as often as is ethical/decent) in a state of creative play. A big part of this play, I must admit, is clarifying a vision of existence, trying to find grand truths, however fuzzy, and finding better and better words for them. A good analogy is worth paragraphs of abstractions.

.

I think that you make a good point, because, in most instances, we are not just looking for abstract truths, but ones which serve a purpose in helping us to understand our lives, and help us in the messiness of this. That is probably where those who see it from a religious perspective, or some kind of spiritual vision, usually believe that we can find some way of seeing and becoming part of the flow of the universe.

It may be that the extent to which we perceive ourselves as having such a connection is part of the reason why some people prefer a spiritual viewpoint, while others do not. However, whatever way, life can be extremely difficult, aside from looking for answers about ultimate truths. But, it seems likely to me that an essential aspect of any mystical viewpoint is connected to it having some kind of "healing' aspect, even though this may remain as subjective. Perhaps the subjective, personal healing element makes it easier to express their ideas in poetry sometimes, rather than as in the more abstract, rational form of philosophical arguments.

it seems likely to me that an essential aspect of any mystical viewpoint is connected to it having some kind of "healing' aspect, even though this may remain as subjective. — Jack Cummins

:up:

I completely agree. I think the only thing that's generally resented or feared about mysticism is its perceived tendency to invade others' 'spiritual'-intellectual process with a certain arrogance. For me rationality is fundamentally ethical. It's an attitude toward others that manifests itself in embracing one's own fallibility, making a case for bold claims, listening to objections and adjusting one's fallible position in the light of such objections, and so on. I don't think we can perfectly articulate what it means to be rational (or good or ...). We do our best, and it's a big part of the Conversation.

If a mystic or student of mystics is satisfied or comforted by certain statements, they won't be interfered with in a free society. It's only when they bring their claims to market and impose them as truths-for-all that they'll encounter resistance.

Here's a blend of Popper/Kojeve that might be helpful. The primary act is the generation of a theory-myth. Imagine a pre-rational tradition where people simply bring a variety of such myths to market so that others may adopt them, because humans typically want their myths to become your myths to satisfy a desire for spiritual recognition. Now imagine the birth of a 'rational' tradition where it's not simply a matter of choosing myths according to which one feels best but rather of discussing them, locating contradictions and ambiguities, editing them, and combining them. In this light the rational tradition is dynamic, open-ended and conversational, whereas the mystical tradition is static & oracular (the Sage is understood to be complete, infallible, in direct possession of 'It.') One the beautiful ideas in Hegel (maybe the beautiful idea) is that all individual, mortal philosophers participate in a larger Conversation which is the self-consciousness of the species. They pick up the conversation, move it forward, and die as mortals must. But their lives are sanctified or lit up by participation in something greater than them. 'Know thyself' until 'nothing human is alien to me,' with the implication being that the self which is known is the universal or shared self.

Perhaps the subjective, personal healing element made it easier to express their ideas in poetry sometimes, rather than as in the more abstract, rational form of philosophical arguments. — Jack Cummins

Exactly. Even 'rational' philosophy depends on metaphors and analogies, so it's a matter of degree and style. I read Sartre as a prose-poet who finds words for strange aspects of experience. He uses terms like 'being' and 'nothingness' but this 'white mythology' is still poetic inasmuch as it articulates 'how it is' or how it feels to be (a certain kind of) human.

That is probably where those who see it from a religious perspective, or some kind of spiritual vision, usually believe that we can find some way of seeing and becoming part of the flow of the universe. — Jack Cummins

In a 1927 letter to Sigmund Freud, Romain Rolland coined the phrase "oceanic feeling" to refer to "a sensation of ‘eternity’", a feeling of "being one with the external world as a whole", inspired by the example of Ramakrishna, among other mystics.[1][2] According to Rolland, this feeling is the source of all the religious energy that permeates in various religious systems, and one may justifiably call oneself religious on the basis of this oceanic feeling alone, even if one renounces every belief and every illusion.[3] — link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling

Some thinkers have simply made this feeling the essence. I've had some peak experiences that involved the generation/appreciation of metaphor/myth (along the lines of Christian mysticism) but, as much as the metaphor adds to & expresses the experience, the feeling is the main thing.

Perhaps music is the best language for the mystic (perhaps great musicians are 'mystics.')

I think that it is a major problem when people try to impose their views on anyone else, whether it is a mystic vision, or any other. It is unfortunate that people get so carried away with their way of seeing that they think that it is applicable to everyone else.

I agree that music and the other arts do involve entering into states of consciousness resembling the mystics. Even here, we have a problem with people disagreeing about the right way of seeing. I can't relate to classical music and I know that some of the rock/metal that I listen to is not compatible with others' view. We are hearing or tuning into different experiences of 'reality'. However, I don't write or perform music, although I use music to inspire me when I make visual art.

I definitely agree that Sartre is poetic. I discovered that when I began reading 'Being and Nothingness' recently. Perhaps this is because his writings are coming from a deeper level of experience. But, I am sure that not everyone can relate to prose, so it probably comes down to some common language, or some shared experience of a particular angle of perception.

I think that it is a major problem when people try to impose their views on anyone else, whether it is a mystic vision, or any other. It is unfortunate that people get so carried away with their way of seeing that they think that it is applicable to everyone else. — Jack Cummins

Yes. I guess that's the central problem. Politically, decisions must be made. So we vote. Almost no one gets exactly what they want, but it's better than despotism. One huge issue that we have to decide is the boundary of the private sphere. Even what's yours and mine to decide personally is a matter that must be decided publicly. Issues like abortion and gun control are edge cases, in the US at least.

I agree that music and the other arts do involve entering into states of consciousness resembling the mystics. Even here, we have a problem with people disagreeing about the right way of seeing. — Jack Cummins

Right, and I think these are 'inner circles' in their way. There are classical music snobs and obscure punk rock music snobs and so on. So much of life in relatively affluent societies is about cultivating an image through what we consume, including the 'higher' things like music, art, and novels. IMO, lots of our angst involves this freedom we're condemned to. Instagram, for instance, is a torrent of envy-generating self-advertisement (a this-worldly Hell is created from images of a this-worldly false Heaven.)

I like John Berger's ideas on art, who has interpreted the neglected majority of oil paintings as expensive selfies. It's the exceptions to portraits of the rich and their abundance (or exceptional examples of even just this) that get celebrated as high art.

Publicity is effective precisely because it feeds upon the real. Clothes, food, cars, cosmetics, baths, sunshine are real things to be enjoyed in themselves. Publicity begins by working on a natural appetite for pleasure. But it cannot offer the real object of pleasure and there is no convincing substitute for a pleasure in that pleasure's own terms. The more convincingly publicity conveys the pleasure of bathing in a warm, distant sea, the more the spectator-buyer will become aware that he is hundreds of miles away from that sea and the more remote the chance of bathing in it will seem to him. This is why publicity can never really afford to be about the product or opportunity it is proposing to the buyer who is not yet enjoying it. Publicity is never a celebration of a pleasure-in-itself. Publicity is always about the future buyer. It offers him an image of himself made glamorous by the product or opportunity it is trying to sell. The image then makes him envious of himself as he might be. Yet what makes this self-which-he-might-be enviable? The envy of others. Publicity is about social relations, not objects. Its promise is not of pleasure, but of happiness : happiness as judged from the outside by others. The happiness of being envied is glamour.

Being envied is a solitary form of reassurance. It depends precisely upon not sharing your experience with those who envy you. You are observed with interest but you do not observe with interest - if you do, you will become less enviable.
... ...
The bogus religiosity which now surrounds original works of art, and which is ultimately dependent upon their market value, has become the substitute for what paintings lost when the camera made them reproducible. — Berger

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2507145-ways-of-seeing

Berger focuses on paintings and modern advertisement photography, but clearly other cultural artifacts are caught up in this game. For intellectual types it's books, famous intellectuals, the 'right' intellectuals. This kind of critique of consumerism and vanity goes at least as far back as the Epicureans, who I understand to be escaping (among other things) this sad-manic hustle.

Of all the means which wisdom acquires to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is friendship. — Epicurus

I do wonder whether it's exactly ultimate truths that we're seeking or rather a role for ourselves in this mess of a world. — j0e

The latter first and foremost. "Ultimate truths" are useless if they do not orient us to "a role for ourselves" in the grand scheme of things (i.e. "this mess of a world").

One the beautiful ideas in Hegel (maybe the beautiful idea) is that all individual, mortal philosophers participate in a larger Conversation which is the self-consciousness of the species. They pick up the conversation, move it forward, and die as mortals must. But their lives are sanctified or lit up by participation in something greater than them. 'Know thyself' until 'nothing human is alien to me,' with the implication being that the self which is known is the universal or shared self. — j0e

Beautiful, but I suspect you've read too much 'Laozi' or 'Nāgārjuna' (even possibly Spinoza) into that old Swabian neo-platonist.

Does it make sense to explain everything? — j0e

To map the territory 1:1? No. Not if that map (i.e. that explanation of 'everything') is to be useful as a map (i.e. an explanation for anything).

For instance, if we say that God created the world and therefore explains the world, then the world is not everything and does not include God. To explain everything is to explain God and world. In other words, why God? More can and has been said on this.

"Why" ... which, of course, is question-begging (or infinitely regressive).

What are explanations?

In my understanding, 'explanations' are models, or precise accounts, of how, under specifiable necessary and sufficient conditions, a particular state-of-affairs (A) transforms – can be caused by some agency to transform – into a particular state-of-affairs (B). The better, more useful and fecund explanations, are effable, falsifiable and defeasible.

What do we mean by why?

"Why" pertains only to 'intentional agency' e.g. Why did you eat the soap? When asked Why do the stars twinkle on a clear night? one can only answer by translating the question as How do the stars twinkle on a clear night? because stars are not (recognizably) intentional agents, that is, they do not answer questions.

What do we mean by everything?

The colloquial term denotes anything at all (without exception) ... but does not posit "the All", which makes about as much sense "all the numbers".

Beautiful, but I suspect you've read too much 'Laozi' or 'Nāgārjuna' (even possibly Spinoza) into that old Swabian neo-platonist. — 180 Proof

Thank you, and guilty (almost) as charged. I confess that I've updated (fixed) Hegel here with the help of later thinkers. I know Spinoza so far only through Durant who adores him. I have spent some time with Laozi. Feuerbach & Kojeve shaped my repair of Hegel, and I must confess that Rorty (whom I don't think you like) was a big influence.

To map the territory 1:1? No. Not if that map (i.e. that explanation of 'everything') is to be useful as a map (i.e. an explanation of anything). — 180 Proof

I agree, though I do make allowances for 'large' metaphors. The world is 'the Vale of Soul-Making' or that sort of thing.

In my understanding, 'explanations' are models, or precise accounts, of how, under specifiable necessary and sufficient conditions, a particular state-of-affairs (A) transforms – can be caused by some agency to transform – into a particular state-of-affairs (B). The better, more useful and fecund explanations, are effable, falsifiable and defeasible. — 180 Proof

That's an excellent definition. Perhaps you'll agree though that many itch for something More, without being able perhaps to explicate this 'more' (and which turns out to be just a role to play in 'this mess we're in.'

"Why" pertains only to 'intentional agency' e.g. Why did you eat the soap? When asked Why do the stars twinkle on a clear night? one can only answer by translating the question as How do the stars twinkle on a clear night? because stars are not (recognizably) intentional agents, that is, they do not answer questions. — 180 Proof

That sounds like a sharper, cleaner way to use the word, but perhaps you'll agree that everyday usage is sloppier than that (which I'm not celebrating or defending.)

"Why" ... which, of course, is question-begging (or infinitely regressive). — 180 Proof

:up:

Indeed. I accidentally started down the metaphysical path while trying to make sense of what I had been told as a child (Catholicism, Pentecostalism). I couldn't. So I let it go.

The colloquial term denotes anything at all (without exception) ... but does not posit "the All", which makes about as much sense "all the numbers". — 180 Proof

Agreed, allowing for large metaphor talk & the notion of 'The World.'

I mentioned feeling being made central to religion for some thinkers without a concrete reference.
I dug up one in case you are interested.

Schleiermacher has a large measure of sympathy with the skeptics about religion whom he means to answer. But, at least in his early period, his sympathy with them also goes much deeper than this. In On Religion he is skeptical about the ideas of God and human immortality altogether, arguing that the former is merely optional (to be included in one’s religion or not depending on the nature of one’s imagination), and that the latter is downright unacceptable. Moreover, he diagnoses the modern prevalence of such religious ideas in terms of the deadening influence that is exerted by modern bourgeois society and state-interference on religion. He reconciles this rather startling concession to the skeptics with his ultimate goal of defending religion by claiming that such ideas are inessential to religion. This stance strikingly anticipates such later radical religious positions as Fritz Mauthner’s “godless mysticism”.
...
...for Schleiermacher religion is founded neither on theoretical knowledge nor on morality. According to On Religion, it is instead based on an intuition or feeling of the universe: “Religion’s essence is neither thinking nor acting, but intuition and feeling. It wishes to intuit the universe”
...
He recognizes a potentially endless multiplicity of valid religions, and strongly advocates religious toleration. — link

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher/#PhilReli_1

Perhaps you'll agree though that many itch for something More, without being able perhaps to explicate this 'more' (and which turns out to be just a role to play in 'this mess we're in.' — j0e

Yes. Absurdists (e.g. Zapffe & Camus) point out that our 'minds' demand more of the world than the world offers us, and that either claiming to have found or denying that there is more leads to same absurdity: living as if we know what we cannot know. If there is more, all well and good, but no one knows this more for sure, here and now, and yet we must thrive together only on what we can know here and now. Or else succumb to the absurd (i.e. philosophical suicide e.g. 'otherworldly superstitions' or 'decadent/terroristic nihilism'). Like decadent bourgeois Rorty, you sussed-out correctly, j0e, whom I can't stand.

Beckett wrote to me about my book Démiurge, "In your ruins I find shelter." — Emil Cioran, Cahiers 1957-1972

:death: :flower:

I don't think it's a problem talking about mysticsim. but it may be a problem talking about the dire state of the philosohy department.

You have a point about the difficulty of communicating the mystic philosophy when it is not with an individual. For this reason I don't delve very far into the teachings and practices but just stick to the metaphysics, since this is immediately accessible to anyone with an interest.

My point is always much the same. It is to point out that philosophy is incomprehensible and interminable in the absence of a knowledge of the non-dual doctrine, This is the experience of all philosophers everywhere.

.

Thanks, I plan to read more in the direction of non dualist philosophies, because it does seem to me that it may be a useful way forward in thinking.

Great! You are now a mystical philosopher. Within a week or two you'll know more about mysticism than most professional philosophers. . .

If there is more, all well and good, but no one knows this more for sure, here and now, and yet we must thrive together only on what we can know here and now. — 180 Proof

:up:

Like decadent bourgeois Rorty, you sussed-out correctly, j0e, whom I can't stand. — 180 Proof

Just curious, but is there anything you like in him? And what do you loathe? I can guess to some degree from "decadent bourgeois," but more detail would be appreciated.

Beckett wrote to me about my book Démiurge, "In your ruins I find shelter." — Emil Cioran, Cahiers 1957-1972

:fire:

There are several mysteries which seem essential to the philosophical quest; the existence of God, free will and, life after death. These seem to be central to philosophy. Endless books have been written on these subjects. However, no one seems to have come up with any clear answers, and it seems to me that they remain as unsolved mysteries. We all contemplate these aspects of life, but it does seem that there are no definitive answers. Perhaps the whole aspect of mysteries is central to philosophy and what keeps us searching. Are they unfathomable mysteries, beyond human understanding? — Jack Cummins

I think they've probably been solved. We just lack a method to publicly force agreement unlike science. I know people still keep denying scientific findings way beyond what is reasonable doubt, but by and large there is such a thing as reasonably settled science.

Surely, it would be rather futile to try to 'force' agreement. I think that it goes beyond people trying to deny scientific findings, but how we interpret the facts and make sense of them. Also, it does seem to me, that even though we may seek information and general frameworks for thinking, that we need to think through the ideas for ourselves individually.

Surely, it would be rather futile to try to 'force' agreement. — Jack Cummins

The scientific method forces agreement without trying. Philosophy does not have a method that can do that, except perhaps in very tightly defined logical contexts.

I can see that science is forceful in the way in which it provides evidence which cannot be ignored. However, there are probably biases, especially in what gets researched in the first place and it may be that it is possible to create evidence for certain ends. I have read some accounts how evidence is often manufactured by certain pharmaceutical companies, for their own benefits. So, while science is believed as knowledge, it is not value free or completely objective.

This topic seems to be very similar to the one on philosophy and metaphysics and I believe the answer to be essentially the same, i.e. everything is a matter of perspective.

For example, in a scientific perspective the earth goes around the sun but in everyday experience it's the other way around. Metaphysical reality is different. By definition, we can't know what it is because neither ordinary experience nor science provides us with the necessary knowledge.

This is why many philosophical or metaphysical systems recommend certain techniques such as meditation as an aid to raising our consciousness to higher levels of experience that go beyond normal experience and thought-processes. Unless and until we've reached those higher levels of experience, all we can do is speculate or philosophize. Perhaps something within us prompts us to do so. Some would say it's a fundamental desire to return to something higher that is also our original source.

There are probably overlaps between the questions raised in this thread and the one that was started on metaphysics today, mainly the whole questions surrounding consciousness. I do believe that perspective is so important and people view it so differently. For example, most neuroscientists see the experience of consciousness so differently from that of the mystics. However, there are convergence, such as those of the new physicists and mystics.

It probably depends on our basic perspective as to how we change our consciousness. In particular, the neuroscientists may prefer to use chemicals, such as tablets to aid people to relax, whereas those who see it from a more mystic angle may look towards mindfulness meditation, or other forms of meditation. It probably also depends on what we find helpful, and how we perceive what works for us probably influences the particular metaphysical conclusions which we come to. However, it definitely seems that some people gravitate more towards the search for the higher states of consciousness.

The phrase “philosophical mysteries” implies things that we don’t know. The very fact that we are discussing this (or posing the question) presupposes a desire to find out.

Is this desire “mere curiosity” and if yes what is the exact definition of it? On the other hand, could it be that this curiosity is really the natural desire of consciousness, individual or collective, to know more about itself? If yes, then this would operate on a metaphysical level that is outside the scope of the mind - which is a limited form of consciousness.

This is why over the centuries – and we must remember that philosophy used to be a practical, not just theoretical endeavour – philosophers, especially those thought to have practical experience of the realities described or pointed at in philosophical theory, recommended a “suspension” of the mind, of everyday consciousness, in order to allow the supramental consciousness to experience itself as it is, without the distortions and limitations imposed on it by the mind. See Plotinus (Enneads) and others.

So, it would seem that a mind that has been “suspended” in supramental states of consciousness would be unable to communicate that experience to either itself or other minds. This is why mystics tend to use symbolic language and describe mystic experience in terms of “light”, “bliss”, “love”, etc. that can only vaguely hint at the actual experience without describing it. Even normal experience must be experienced to be fully understood or “lived” and this applies even more to metaphysical experience.

It is easy to see why this can lead to scepticism and cause some to doubt the authenticity of mystical experience. At the same time, however, the mystics’ persistent insistence on their experience being real, in fact, more real than anything else we might experience, suggests that it does actually exist. The difficulty is that it cannot be “known” by the mind as a result of which it is not capable of being expressed in words in the same way a sensory perception, emotion or feeling, cannot be transmitted from one person to another (like a physical object might be) but must be experienced in person.

So, the answer would be, yes, philosophical mysteries can be known, but not in the ordinary sense of the word, i.e., not by the mind but by a higher aspect of our consciousness.

So, it would seem that a mind that has been “suspended” in supramental states of consciousness would be unable to communicate that experience to either itself or other minds. This is why mystics tend to use symbolic language and describe mystic experience in terms of “light”, “bliss”, “love”, etc. that can only vaguely hint at the actual experience without describing it. — Apollodorus

I can remember one peak experience in particular (on drugs , yes, with the closest friends I could have hoped for) and it was terror that turned into a flood of love with the help of myths. I am happy calling it (the 'mystical' higher experience) intense feeling at its core. I felt a torrent of love after accepting the terror of death and forgiving it, finding my 'immortal' self in others, in friends, the species. But it was 'just' feelings and myths to steer and manifest that feeling in another a medium.

I'm just one guy, of course, but my sense is that 'knowledge' might be a misleading metaphor. Or at least 'higher mind' seems too mentalistic and conceptual to me. More like higher state of heart? But one that can't be owned. It's too simple. The words have all been said. The difference, seems to me, is the feeling that lights those words up.

Well, that's correct. It isn't something that can be described in words, it must be experienced. And it is experienced when the mind is "suspended" or still, in the same way we cannot see the bottom of a lake unless the water is clear and still.

Plotinus has a beautiful passage where he says that you must not chase after it but "wait quietly" for it to happen in the same way the eye awaits the rising of the sun over the horizon or from the ocean and gives itself to the eye to see.

For this very reason, stillness of mind has been recommended by all mystical traditions. In contrast, there is a tendency nowadays to use language and thought processes that are too intellectual and abstract and instead of leading anywhere, they actually lead us further and further from the truth.

Simplicity and stillness are the key to it. As also observed by the Church Fathers, the part of us that experiences it is not the mind but our heart and we experience or "see" it with the "eye of the heart"

And yes, "higher mind" and "heart" are one and the same thing. It refers to the innermost core of our being, where experience is lived in the most immediate and "personal" sense possible or imaginable. But as I said, language is inadequate and in my opinion a return to a simpler, more intuitive and less "rational" terminology would be indicated.

And it is experienced when the mind is "suspended" or still, in the same way we cannot see the bottom of a lake unless the water is clear and still. — Apollodorus

That may be the case for some 'mystical' experiences, and I'm familiar with that view, but personally my experiences (two of the brightest) were like the clearing away of a storm. Terror and/or angst followed by a 'forgiveness of God.' I mean a forgiveness of reality as a whole & the enjoyment of it all as a grand music, where the ugly things are a necessary dissonance.

I'm open to the idea of lots of different kinds of peak experiences. Why assume all 'mystics' were expressing the same thing? Might just be a family resemblance?

in my opinion a return to a simpler, more intuitive and less "rational" terminology would be indicated. — Apollodorus

To me that just means (in a good way) myth and poetry taken as myth and poetry, that gestures unpretentiously at 'just feeling' and not 'knowledge' that's neither flesh nor fowl.

Your "clearing away of a storm" is the same thing. It all depends on your state of mind, emotional and intellectual, that can be totally different from person to person.

Some may experience it as a "clearing away of a storm", others as the "stilling of waves" on the surface of a body of water. Just because we experience it one way or the other doesn't mean we must dismiss other people's experience.

Again depending on the state of mind you are starting with, a sensation of "fear" can also be present. This may be explained by the mind being overpowered and thrown out of its habitual "comfort zone" but as you say it is temporary and is followed by an experience of tremendous peace and happiness that can move us to tears.

I think you are talking from the assumption that there's just one state-of-heart (or whatever) that all the mystics use myths to express, provide ladders to. Perhaps that's so. I don't know. I haven't studied Plotinus closely but I was moved by some passages in him. I did think of him as an intense introvert, a guy inside his own imagination, lost in the ecstasy of what he found there. It might be the childhood Christian background talking, but for me forgiveness was central, of life (one time) and of death (a different time.)