I do remember that one. I would say part lunatic, part lord.
Part lunatic in that he took himself to be god's gift to humankind - in his own words to the woman at the well. — ZzzoneiroCosm
However, studies show that those who are mysticism-oriented aren't mentally unstable - they tend to have jobs, families, friends, no criminal records, and have never been diagnosed with a mental affliction. — Agent Smith
(deep) meditation. — Agent Smith
This is precisely how deep meditative states feel: a movement toward sleep and dream while retaining full to partial conscious awareness. (I've been an avid meditator for more than 20 years.) — ZzzoneiroCosm
I'm scatter-brained — Agent Smith
Meditation is the antidote for scatterbrainedness. But, sure, it's not for everyone. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm
It does not take long to see that every religious prophet was exposed to such stresses — I like sushi
No pressure, no diamonds. — Thomas Carlyle
ought the Dalai Lama be given medications till he holds no more belief in Nirvana and related and/or derivative Buddhist ideas - this on grounds that mysticism is linked to madness? — javra
I never said anything remotely like the above.
Keep reading the thread if you want to learn more about the link. I'll be posting more soon. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Are all insights from the vast array of mystics to be considered the delusional insights of madmen - and, in so being delusional, thereby devoid of any existential truths? — javra
I’m asking you so as to find out if I’m wrong in so assuming. — javra
Not only wrong for so assuming but wrong in methodology as apparently your approach is to make a wild, baseless assumption and then ask if it's wrong. I don't get that. Why do that? — ZzzoneiroCosm
. So what conclusions do you draw from the links/connections correlations you’ve presented — javra
Now you want to revise my phraseology. I said links and I meant links. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Oh, and materialists are prevalent on this forum. — javra
link — javra
As in there can't be mysticism devoid of schizophrenia, bi-polarity, or the like? We may have different understandings of the term "link". — javra
Materialism tells a good part of the story - but any kind of extremism is, to my view, ill-advised. — ZzzoneiroCosm
What I mean to say is there is some kind of relationship (link, connection) between mystical and schizophrenic phenomena and experience. It's a complex relationship (link, connection) and this thread is designed to increase my understanding of it. — ZzzoneiroCosm
That said, do you have a working thesis on what distinguishes mysticism from madness that is more philosophically precise than the metaphor of how one deals with waters one is surrounded by? — javra
At any rate, this to me signifies that materialism/physicalism as a doctrine (and not the presence of the material/physical) is in some way false. — javra
The materialism-antimaterialism debate no longer holds much interest for me. — ZzzoneiroCosm
I think this is why the Muslims believe that Mohammed is the last prophet. Because there is something innately disturbing about prophecy. Islamic mysticism is about poetry, not about predicting the future. Jewish mysticism is heavily debated, as everything within the Jewish community has been heavily debated for millennia. Having had psychoses myself, I can certainly tell that there's a very thin line between sanity and insanity. Having almost fully recovered now after 10 years, I can certainly say that the psychoses made my life better. It's about the nuances. There are certainly sanities & insanities in mysticism. But also so much more than that. — Kevin Tan
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. — John the Revelator
It is natural to assume that normality is an end in itself, or that the 'normal' mode of life is all that can be aspired to. People generally hold great stock in normality as a mode of being. But just because normality is our modus vivendi (way of life) does not make it our summum bonum (ultimate end.) Anyone spiritual must realise that normality is simply a transitional state and not the end of life. You don't want to be subnormal, but spirit calls you to be more than normal. It calls you to a state beyond the 'normal' concerns of the 'normal' life.
The way normal people worship fame and riches betrays the notion that, for them, 'normality' defines all our notions of reality and they can conceive of nothing beyond it. For being rich and famous - being a Star - is conceived of by the normal person as being the best thing that normality has to offer. Being A Star is the excellent version of normality, that to which all of us ordinary bourgeois individuals can only aspire. Stardom, or being rich and famous, is the Ultimate in Normality - it represents all of the things which normal people have and enjoy, but in more or less infinite supply and variety. Getting everything you want, in a world where getting what you want is the most important thing. Hence the paparazzi, and a large part of the 'normal' media. People are transfixed by it. They will kill for it. And because most people are normal, then naturally this is an enormous audience.
But I also see a different dimension to the human condition, that of the 'Self-Realised Individual' in the sense defined by the non-dualist schools of Indian culture. Now without going into the profound meaning of this term, let us just say that 'Self Realisation' is definitely not part of the normal condition of humanity. In other words, 'Self Realised Persons' are not 'normal persons'. The normal person is not self-realised, and the self-realised individual is not a normal person.
But self-realised individuals are not sub-normal. They are actually super-normal, they are outside the scope or realm of what we call 'normality'. Yet they are not mad, or psychotic, or degenerate. My thesis is, that if degrees of normality can be represented on the Bell Curve, then the self- realised individual is on the extreme right side of the curve.
So at the far left of the Bell Curve of normality are the sub-normal: psychotics, sociopaths, those who for one reason or another cannot live in 'normal' society (defined by Freud as 'the ability to love and to work').
Then you have the vast bell of the curve, 'normal people', moving, from the left, from those who are barely integrated, through the middle, where almost everyone you will ever know is, to the right of the bell curve, where superbly integrated people are - commensurately few in number, of course.
Then, probably fewer in number than the psychopaths and sociopaths, are the highly integrated humans, those who are as far above 'normality' as your psychopath is below it, on the extreme right of the bell curve.
There's closely-related accounts of holy (usually wandering) vagabonds and vagrants who are great spiritual beings in disguise, that are the subject of (usually edifying) tales, often both enlightening and humorous (like the classic Mullah Nasruddin stories from the Islamic culture). — Wayfarer
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.