Never heard that one before. Spliffs are build like carrots, though.

Been there done that got the tshirt.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PObknmaH9po

Attempts were made to do that in NYC. The virus was already present, though. They were too late to contain it. At that point, locking down only saves lives in that it keeps the hospital system from being overloaded so that patients don't die of hypoxia, dehydration, DKA, etc. for lack of any care at all.

Same for the economy. If you're able to contain the virus, you could minimize the effect on the economy. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of the way the virus interacts with your particular population.

Yes, the US did have enough notice, just like the UK they didn't take it seriously to begin with. Now in the UK some commentators are suggesting that we may not be able to unlock significantly for a long time. The tracing app is being prepared, but it may not be effective enough to keep R below 1. Also the virus is widespread in the community, so there might be to much infection for the tracing to be manageable.

There are questions being asked about if the lockdown was called to late, which is code here for, it was to late, by about 2 weeks.

Currently the UK has now recorded the highest death count in Europe at around 30,000 and the death rate is not going down anytime soon, as care home deaths are still increasing.

The economy is in a bad place too and how it's going to be got back to anything near normal is going to be a long time off.

The clowns have spilled out of the government onto the page. I hope it's not infectious.

The above points might have just touched on something that many people have issues with. That is the idea of ‘thinking’ that isn’t verbal. Some people find that extremely hard - I guess they lack the ability to purposefully visualize in high resolution.

I practice the ability to think on other ways than those instilled by conditioning along with alternative kinds of knowing.

Ah, but if the old people unfortunately die of Corona, it's not a problem anymore. We need less immigrants then because there's less work for them to do. Win win. I'm sure that Cummings is thinking of the economic boom after the Black Death in the Middle Ages. It literally solves all their problems. No wonder Steve Baker and the Tory Grandees (billionaire backers) are calling for the lockdown to be lifted.

Oh and that one about robots doing the menial jobs is a classic ( I reminisce about Frank Zappa' Joe's Garage, cyborg). They'll be wiping our arses and various other roles I don't want to mention.

How many thousands I'm sure I've moved more than that. I've moved over 15 tons in the last couple of weeks and I'm older than you.

Whatever floats your boat, I would say.

Are you suggesting that there should not be secularization within mysticism? If so, why?

No, rather that it can become an obstacle in discussing mystical experience, philosophy etc. I mentioned it because for me mysticism is primarily about the self, not religion, or God. This is not to deny anything about religion, or God, but rather they are not of importance within the practice. Others may disagree.

says a lot about your ilk.

But I am of your ilk remember, I'm working class from up north.

that’s why I mentioned literary theory as one such point that is perhaps easier to access?

Do you mean a transcendence of meaning, as found in poetry, or a story?

I agree about the Tao Te Ching (I'm a bit rusty on that one)

The idea of gaining insight minus the logical labor we usually think is necessary is new isn't it?

Insight in mystical terms does not require logic, it does require a mind, but that is as an instrument of experience, the intellect is not necessarily involved in this.

I have had experiences like that too. They are so difficult to share through language.

Meditation aimed at inducing peak experiences a la Maslow.

Nice, I hadn't come across him. If I were to go down that route though, I would use contemplation as the primary means, although meditation would be some help in relaxing into mindfulness.

My focus would be the assimilation, or synthesis of the self with nature, which is rather like Maslow's actualisation, but not only actualising the person, but also the something beyond the self which could be described as something within nature, which is also in the self. The goal being in some sense a transfiguration of the self into a part of nature while also an actualised self.

I am not a massive Tory fan , they are just the best of what's available.

Nice, now these clowns are presiding over the highest death count in Europe and we're not finished yet, as the death toll in carehomes is still increasing.

Your careless support for these clowns is costing people's lives.

Indeed. The methods of mysticism are new but they lack credibility unless you want to take the mystics' words on it.

The methods are not new. Anyway, credibility is not important, rather an interest is what is important. I would point out though, that the laymans understanding of mysticism doesn't quite cover it. Rather like a laymans understanding of quantum theory as jgill pointed out. Pantagruel has got a handle on it, I think.

And when I speak I say even less.

I noticed, I didn't want to speak (say anything), but maybe I should have.

I'm a mystic - what do you want to know?

Where is the focus of your mysticism?

You always speak volumes in your silence Banno.

I think there is a problem in the west of vanity, or glamour when it comes this subject. To illustrate, I once knew a Guru who was put on a pedestal by his western followers. He would never touch them (except within the established religious rites) and they would intellectually if not physically cower, or revere in his presence. Whereas with his Asian followers there was a lot of physical contact, no intellectual cowering. It all seemed more relaxed and natural like family. He once ran his hand through my hair out of the blue, in a casual setting and I was aware of a ripple of a reaction through the western followers, I sensed some of his greatness had rubbed of onto me in their eyes. There was also a feeling of jealousy amongst devotes who had not received such treatment over years of devotion and yet I had only been there a week. There was a tangible difference in the way everyone reacted to me afterwards.

There is also the peculiar vanity and fear around not knowing what one is talking about, which might explain why in your case the others where reluctant to engage. There is a sense amongst western followers of a secret mystery, or knowledge which the guru (by definition) understands, but which is not bestowed upon the followers. This can cause a sense of inadequacy in which the follower feels stupid, that he/she cannot even understand the simplest thing about what is going on. Indeed one can feel like an empty vessel intellectually just going through the motions of the practice with a gaping hole of emotional and intellectual inadequacy inside.

All these things are western vanities which one has to overcome before one can make progress, I think many people never get past this stage. I don't think the practitioners in the original cultural setting where the guru came from experienced any of these problems. This not to say that they didn't experience another set of culturally developed problems of their own.

What I am saying is that there are a host of cultural problems in attempting to transfer Eastern practices to the west.

No shit, down our way we call one like that a Camberwell carrot.

Thankyou for allowing such a lowly working class fool as me teach you my liege.

Beware handwaving ;)

Has something been blocked? I noticed that the Spartans tried to block something.

I saw Steve Baker, a spartan, on the box today desperate to get us out of lockdown. All his Singapore on Thames dreams in tatters.

I wonder why we were enlisting slaves to do our nursing, and countless low paid frontline jobs. It must be globalisation undercutting our industries that did it.

Well, that clears everything up..

Not quite, that is a description of the Catholic tradition, although I have little to argue with in there. If one is to talk about talking about mysticism, how the exhalted state is achieved might be of interest.

and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.
— Wiki

I appreciate your take on these issues, however what I am concerned about within mysticism is described in this phrase in your Wiki quote. All the other phrases there are more platitudinous in nature.

You say yourself that you have little experience of mysticism, so you might learn something new.

Any effort to translate from the sphere of institutionalized practices (e.g. Buddhist meditation) to uniquely personal experience (which mysticism is by definition - e.g. samadhi) is going to be prone to the subjective-terminological quagmire problem. Do we de-mysticize mysticism in order to discuss it?

No, although I don't want to diminish the quagmire you describe, I agree with that, but what I think we can do is describe it, what is involved and what the outcomes are, or might be.

Thanks for the thread anyway, it might prove interesting, although I expect there will be numerous folk who will not find anything, stimulating, shall I say.

Yes I agree about the stage of watching and learning, especially where there is someone on the path to observe. A study of human behaviour, nature and of their place in this world. Along with an inquiring, questioning and free mind. This would include a similar study of the personal self and an appreciation of ones position in humanity and the world. I think in a sense of seeking an individual, personally shaped interpretation, knowing of these things. Also this is often accompanied by an enquiry into religion, or God in some way.

I think there are people who for whatever reason find themselves in this position and who naturally follow this path, rather like the shaman.

There are others I think who are more driven as well and seek out with a passion experiences and answers to these issues. Personally I was more driven in this way, driven also to explore philosophies and religious and mystic teachings, theories, practices and experiences.

The issue I think here is not so much a discussion of what happens up to this point in a person's development, but rather what happens next. If it can be described, or discussed in an analytical, or impartial way within a philosophical setting.

This I think is where the big stumbling blocks rapidly emerge, of the language, do you use language from one tradition, or another, can you agree on the terminology, can you forge a path, so to speak through this minefield. Also rendering personal experience into language which can be effectively communicated. Even trust, "beware false prophets" etc.

Also there is secularisation within mysticism, which I am about to get embroiled in I expect with a couple of other posters.

Nice article and so the solution is a great big up yours. Nice.

No one ever said it was going to be easy to unify Europe, so they can work together. No one said it would be easy to leave the EU did they. Oh wait a minute, the Brexiters did, we would have the exact same benefits, we would have the sunlit uplands of free trade with the world, we would have our cake and eat it etc etc.

We would train our own to do the jobs of the EU workers after they have left, dream on.

I know we can get all those workers who are going to lose their jobs juring the lockdown to pick cabbages and cauliflowers 12 hours a day, or wipe arses. Good honest graft. Just what this country needs.

Perhaps the way to approach the issue is to talk about talking about mysticism, rather than talking about mysticism.

One way of engaging the issues is through mutual understanding and experience of an established mystical tradition, such as can be found in Hinduism for example. But this is fraught with difficulty too, because the analysis, or academic understanding, or interpretation of the tradition in question easily becomes confusing, opaque even secular. This combined with the degree of, or personal interpretation of the tradition, or lack thereof, by the person engaging in conversation. Also mystical understanding is intensely personal and is often gained through personal experience. Such an experience may be either unintelligible to the person, or uintelligable to another. Or how do you find the words, or do the words mean the same thing to another.

In my experience the best mutual understanding I have achieved with another is through spending time together, spending time with people in an ashram and having a teacher disciple relationship with another. I have had interesting experiences with gurus, but again there are problems sharing understanding with gurus. I found this was overcome by repeated worship in the presence of a guru in puja.

This investigation viewed in hindsight was just one of a number of formative experiences and explorations in my path towards a mystical understanding. Part of the reason for coming to sites like this was for me to try to integrate some of this with the philosophical tradition, but this has not been easy, not withstanding my belief that they are not incompatible. I find the philosophy quite rigid.

Any thoughts?

My reply was not about my position, but a notional person who had an unearned income.

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

So I found this place. And I guess it's better than other places where nobody wanted to talk philosophy at all. But I still get the impression that most people here aren't interested in the same kind of big-picture philosophy-as-a-whole thing that my interest is all about. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

But I'm still curious. Why are you here?

I am here for a bit of intellectual stimulation where there is a high standard of thought. To achieve this in the area where I live would not be easy and would mean seeking out the right kind of people and travel and therefore logistics and time, would be required.

Rather like you say, my particular area of interest does not fall into a philosophical category, as academic philosophy describes them. I refer to mysticism, whenever I bring up the subject I either get a blank, I am put into some sort of weirdo category, or if someone does engage they tend to give up, or lose interest, once I say something like, you have to look beyond your intellect. It just doesn't seem to compute. There are one or two folk on here who do understand to a degree what I am thinking, but even then it is virtually impossible to engage. This is probably why I find myself in the politics section at the moment, because it is possible to engage.

Yes, and that's why in the UK, a lot of people think the poor are undeserving, idle and should be dispised. While we, the well off, are derserving, indeed entitled to feel superior, to have our wealth because we happened to be in a position to buy property (for example) in an area where house prices became vastly inflated and sold up and bought a number of buy to rent properties in less well off areas and charge extortionate rents from our poor tenants. We worked hard for our privelidge and sense of superiority.

Have you seen the movie Wall-e. It's a kind of satire of a future where robots do most things.

I can't remember where I saw it, but I watched an article on how some Norwegian people became depressed, or were loosing motivation because a lot of their needs were provided for. Sorry I can't be more specific.

I can't pretend to know about finance, I don't. But it seems to me that you can bend the rules provided everyone agrees to it. Getting everyone, whoever that is, to agree might not be possible, but there might be a role for the IMF.

That's quite a reefer he's smoking.

A wise man in Australia is called a Nostradamus, In Aussie it translates as knows his Shielas

Nostra = nose
damus = shielas

P.s. Love Courtney Barnett

If all the countries stand in line with their debt written down and all agree to cross off an agreed number of noughts, what's so wrong with that. It's not as though we're going to start doing it all the time?

One should look out for those hands that wave, or for sleight of hand.