Banks should seperate the gambling wing from the primary role of the bank which should be to provide banking facilities to their private customers etc. If they are going to gamble they should do it only with profits they have made and separated from their banking responsibilities and capital.

Hopefully appropriate regulation is being put into place.

Thanks Metaphysician Undercover and John for rehearsing these ideas.

As I see it one would have to include animals in our passing time and present, indeed the entire biosphere. Although I am not saying that these entities are or are not aware of it, they are present here with us. Simply I feels it necessary to group the whole biosphere as one entity in this phenomenological realm, an entity which has developed into seperate organisms, which operate as seperate entities, but members of a common community.

Where you say there is duration, it is this moment of duration which I am referring to as the eternal moment. A phenomenon which does sweep forward through phenomena like a wave of present. But it is the experience we have of the moving wave of now which we can't easily conceive of as an fleeting glimpse of something broader and more permanent. If one considers our spacetime bubble as confining us in this wave of now. Then the moment I am referring to is transcendent to it, while present in it in part.

I also had memories of a previous life, well more feelings of emotional atmospheres and certain Victorian furnishings and effects would have a strong and mysterious impact on me.
For me I was always from a young age fascinated by these ideas even before I had words for them. As I grew up, I would avidly seek out any literature on the topic read them and look for something more meaningful just like a pig sniffing out truffles. I ended up at the Theosophical society in London which felt like finding my way back home.

I am aware of the way in which it might be wishful thinking, it was only a stepping stone for me anyway. The ideas take their place along with all the others I have found and developed myself in a kind of virtual library in my head.

I turns out that Leary arrived in Kasa Devi (cranks ridge) a few months before my conception. Does that make me a spring chicken I wonder.

Aha! I was once under the influence of something very strong in a quiet valley in the Himalayas. I was told shortly afterwards that that is where Timothy Leary used to go to drop acid. A place called cranks ridge, a magical place indeed.


I would point out that I was meditating a few hours a day and only indulged at weekends. It wasn't all decadence and debauchery.

Quite that's what I thought you meant.

I tend to refer to the Theosophical or Hindu tradition as a framework to work from. As I am not well versed in the Hindu cannon, the Theosophical will do.

The idea is basically that each entity progresses or evolves from the atom to a god through a long period of "incarnations". Humanity is at a key stage in this progression, that of individuation*.

Mysticism is the manifestation of folk(souls) who are of the disposition, or chose, to play an active role in the progression of the group. This does on ocassion result in a mystic reaching a prominent position in the progression of the group of humanity, or any of the other kingdoms of nature( such as the Christ or the Buddha).

I am interested in your view of where in this scheme the "direct route" of Buddhism would fit, if atall, or if this scheme is not applicable?

*By the use of individuation I am referring to a development of mind as well and all the consequent issues, which we know all to well. Or to put simply, metaphorically,- To climb up into the branches of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and eat of its fruits.

Yes, I am not familiar with "intergral spirituality" are you using it to describe spirituality in general?

Anyway I agree with the emphasis on the transfiguration of the person of the seeker as the primary goal, while living an ordinary life. The transformation being internal with a consequent expression externally, which would take the form of a kind and constructive member of the community. One could be living next door and you wouldn't know.

You've lost me, in both paragraphs were you mention sophomoric. I just can't work out what your saying.

Anyway as I said, what I am doing, while it could argued that it is believing things, is an intellectual act which could also be described with other words like accept, or in my opinion. I use these words rather than belief and I know I don't hold any beliefs in things which can't be verified in principle, because I have actively rid myself of such notions and would have to actively opt into them anyway.

There are no beliefs here, don't you believe me?

Try telling someone who believes in God that it's a sophomoric misunderstanding.

Justified true belief is an analytical device. I don't use it and I have no beliefs around the movement of the planets around the sun. I don't have a problem with you believing that I have a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. But do you really believe that I do? I don't believe that you do.

The word belief is just a word to describe the attitude of a person in a situation. That attitude can be described using other words.

For me being born was rather like waking up. There was in some sense a me already formed who discovered myself in this world in a little body.

Nice post, pointing out the primary goal of what I would label "Western mysticism". This self actualised being is I expect the mystic who "becomes one with God", or who "becomes God". What could be described as the science of mysticism( within faith schools, or channelled through mediums), or esoteric teachings, layout systems of treading this path.

From my perspective the aspirant will at some point find their own level in treading this path. A level dictated by the evolutionary state of their being and only a very few would reach the stage of becoming one with God at any one time in the development of humanity(although I would expect it to be an organic progression through the development of the species). While the majority of aspirants would fall short in some way and would reconcile themselves with playing a constructive part in the whole and performing service of some kind( or at least to be a constructive person).

Esoterically one could view this process as a loose network of individuals following the will of God and collectively forming metaphorically the hand of God in the world.

My point is that it seems interesting that we associate this idea of 'I' with a very limited perspective of the totality that we occupy (our bodies).

There are many people who don't conclude that the limited perspective given to us by science and the fashion for scientism based common thought, is the reality. I live in a predominantly irreligious community, I wouldn't say atheist, but perhaps agnostic. Many of these people readily consider reincarnation, souls and the supernatural as a possibility. There is a predominant predisposition that such cannot be determined either way and folk just get on with their lives.

Actually it is only in recent history in the west that there are a sizeable number of folk who don't take an afterlife, or reincarnation (and from there perhaps resurrection) as a possibility.

Could you explain what you mean when you say that all time, space, and being, are present in one point? is this an extremely large point, or what type of "point" are you talking about here, some type of black hole

It is something like the "one thing" of Parmenides*. Or spacetime reduced to one point rather than extended, rather like it might have been at the point of the Big Bang. The size of it does not have meaning in the absence of another thing to compare it to. Also in terms of mind, it is the equivalent Brahman, infinite while indivisible, transcendent yet present. Or one could describe it as the single point of origin in a monism.

This is why I mentioned it as a mystical view. I work with many concepts like this, which are tools in developing perspectives beyond our conditioned knowledge and understanding.

*In comparing my concept with that of Parmenides's one thing. I view it only as a local thing amongst other things in some transcendent, or eternal realm.

I do buy "Justified true belief", but I think the use of the word "belief" is technical and precisely defined. In reality the belief in this use is equivalent to what is understood in the word "acceptance", acceptance of a view, perspective or condition.

So it isn't really a belief in the way belief is used in reference to things which can't be tested, or determined,like God. A use much closer to the spirit of the word.

The other common use of belief, is I think entirely unnecessary and sloppy language. Namely I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Belief is not required here, rather I know the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't require belief in this to accept that the sun will rise tomorrow and hence to know that it will rise tomorrow, while I do not believe it will rise tomorrow.

I don't see the relevance of politics in mysticism other than in its absence, apart from ecological concerns. Surely any mystic would be a member of the Green Party, as I am. If ever I am political it is always over the concerns of climate change, biodiversity, protection of habitat and the avoidance of pollution. Each one just as important as the big political issues we repeatedly see splashed across the headlines.

Is it not the desired aim, or the destiny of humanity in the mind of a mystic, to become a custodian of the biosphere of the planet. Along with seeking sociopolitical strategies which will aid in bringing this about and making it work.

I don't see us any way near this trajectory at the moment, but at least there are a minority of people concerned with this, so that potentially we have the intellectual knowledge and technology to follow this course. There are serious issues and problems pressing on humanity at the moment*, the most of which is blindly ignored or dismissed by our leaders and the majority. It's looking as though it will require some catastrophic crises of some sort, resulting in a dramatic culling of population, which is going to be very painful before we even find ourselves in a position to follow this course. The balance of probability though is a fall of civilisation and a return to a dark age, something which has happened many times before and is the default state of humanity, between cultural flowerings.


*The problems we face are manifold, but near the top of the list would be population, some kind of stable global politics, some means of successfully educating the populous to, ln a phrase, "love thy neighbour and the planet"and sociocultural structures which add stability and longevity to such projects.

Big ambitions indeed, and who is raising them, seeking to implement them?

I know it along with many other things I know. Why would I add an affirmation of belief to such knowledge?

A surrealist way ahead of his time.

I don't believe it, it's just an idea, expressing some concepts arrived at while contemplating time, along in this case with a unity.

Actually I don't hold any beliefs, I regard them as a kind of halt, or full stop in the development and refinement of ideas.

Yes I am aware of those perspectives, also the phenomenological interpretation provided by John. I suppose my perspective as I am presenting it here is a mystical conception in which all time, space and being is present in one point in space and time and what we experience as the present and the passage of time is a fraction of the whole, rather like a thread following an incarnate arc across the span of a certain combination of parts of the whole. The eternal present is immanent in that thread of now, whereas the past and future are also in that one point, but inaccessible to us due to us being experientially locked into that thread.

The above is a physical description, I would also give a mental description in which the one point is a transcendent God like being to which we are attached by a thread of spirit, embodying and sustaining a fraction of meaning and experience of the one being. In which we experience time similarly as in the physical description. But different in that the mental thread is straight and immanent, rather than an arc and the physical thread is curved tangential and causally distant.

Interestingly this conception describes a cross, the upright in the mind and the cross piece in the body, with the present in both meeting at the crossing point in the moment.

Some Dali
free image uploading

Nice!

Reminds me of the work of Savador Dali.

Yes, the final work of art is one's self. Yes the realisation that all is art, or what someone says is art was a coming of age. Before this point I had struggled for years to get to the bottom of art, to understand the philosophy of art. Even to find the philosophy of art, if it was out there somewhere. All I found were historical, or sociocultural comment. Perhaps the most fruitful route was to look at the art itself, ignore the critics and see it's meaning, quite a pilgrimage.

Now I know and understand art, it is a joy, in all its guises* and history. I will be going to view the Abstract Expressionist exhibition at the Royal Academy in a few weeks, I can't wait. Some nice Pollock and Rothko to dwell on.

* unfortunately I do have a pet hate in the guise of degenerative Brit Art. But I see very little merit, I blame it on the ex hippy lecturers that frequented the art schools in the 80's.

Second the above. I went to some of the Science and Nonduality (SAND) conferences in California - some of the speakers were genuine, but there was a lot of pseudo-mystical quantum woo being put about.

Yes and there are many false prophets these days. There was less of this in the past when the mystical traditions were cloistered.

I would point out here and in reference to the Eckhart quotes each being dwells in and expresses a reality in measure to their condition of evolutionary development*. So in a sense, it matters little what they say, provided they don't hinder others. So there may be two people in the same place talking the same words, of differing evolutionary positions, for whom their experience and meaning differs by orders of magnitude.

Also there may be people of high evolutionary development, true Mystics, living an ordinary life as an ignorant farmer or washer woman.

* by evolutionary development, I am referring to the development of the soul ( for want of a better word)

But as Rumi says, there would be no fool's gold if there were no gold

Nice quote.

It is the conception of the moment as a series of nows which is incorrect. From my perspective it is one continuous period, continuous in an eternal realm in which our being is present, as a soul or spirit(or mind, or the like), but due to us inhabiting a physical body we experience what seems to be a brief moment, dictated by the chemical action of the atoms in our environment(including our brains). So I am positing an underlying eternal time, which we can only access through the mechanisms of the physical body and the environment it is evolved to experience.

I do think that for animals and uneducated tribal people the moment is eternal, they don't or only rarely intellectually divide or limit their moments, there is just now, which is very extensive.

I don't think we can view the moment as a series of brief moments as ticks on an atomic clock, which is in tune with all other atomic clocks, or the like. This is because as time (as we experience it) is actually a result of chemical reactions and atomic activity in the physical material of our world. This is an organic progression, in which there is some small variation in the progression of time, also that events happening closer, or farther distant from the observer are experienced with a delay, due to the effects having variations in delay.
Also our brain is rigged to create the perception of a greater breadth of moment for better interaction in our environment, which is why I used the phrase "holism". This holism my be artificially constructed by a divine process to mirror a breadth of moment in the experience of the soul or spirit in the eternal moment in another parallel realm, as I suggested at the top.

And I haven't said anything about knowing or experiencing the transcendent, because both notions are incoherent. There is no transcendent apart from the immanent, and that is precisely Hegel's point

To know or experience the transcendent might be rationally incoherent. But this does not mean that both don't happen in the life of a mystic. In humanity's ignorance a bit of rational thought does not change, or dictate events or facts on the ground.

I would agree though that the transcendent is in the immanent. There may be processes in revelation in which a being is caught up in the transcendent and sees the unseeable.

It sounds like you've got something good going on. I can't help but interpret this "A" and "B" as names for different mental states. I don't believe in squircles, but I love the word. I do of course know some beautiful math. The real numbers are a black and seamless sea, and also an "uncountable" infinity. Unlike the rational numbers, we can't print them out one by one or line them up. It's beautiful to me that such psychedelic and "drippy" numbers get called the "reals." The rationals are shiny and crystalline. The reals are like wet, black smoke

Yes A and B are different brain states, there may be some difference other than the fact that one is internally directed and the other externally, but the science hasn't been developed into being yet and I expect it is some way off. But I fully expect to find that there is an organ in the brain which uncannily enables transcendence. You are free to sculpt yourself, to have two sides to your coin. Even to embrace spuircles(surely a romantic would do that?). You are free to develop the conceptual tooling to take you to where you want to be. Now there's a question.

The divine reals, I wonder if the rules of math can be bent squared, why would they be constrained, who in their right mind would do that, if they had the freedom to do otherwise?

But this is just some guy's interpretation and synthesis of his favorite texts in the largely emotional and sensual context of his experience

Yes, we each take what we find around us in terms of concept, to weave into our "coat of many colours".

I would point out that along with the perspective of seeing the silence, the stillness, negating ones thoughts and feelings which is a sort of feminine, or negative technique. There is also a masculine or positive technique in which there is the presence of deities, gods, sensual stimulation, a transfiguration of thoughts and feelings and a sense of presence. This for me is embodied in Hinduism and the approach of silence and stillness is embodied in Buddhism.

No I don't see you as someone who experiences side B. I was trying to explain the distinction between externally orientated being and internally orientated being. I know that I keep appealing to mystical practice as does Wayfarer, this appears to be because we approach this from an Eastern perspective.
Anyway, I will change my approach now that I have made the point about the route of mystical practice. Suffice it to say that I do consider the body (also the mental body) as an apparatus which one would seek to operate correctly.

I don't wish to negate your approach as I am of the opinion that there are people among any culture who experience mystical awakening of all kinds through the prism of the culture and knowledge they find themselves in and in each culture mystics or prophets emerge and leave a body of work in attempt to convey, or teach their experiences.

In the Satre quote he mentions along with yourself facing existence face to face. This is described by some as facing God face to face. This contemplation is a kind of meditation, communion which enables one to shed the shackles of cultural conditioning and the like, in the light and knowledge of this stance. I use this stance in contemplation of divine geometry such as squircles( giggle) transcendent states and techniques, along with a kind of personal subjective preening, or sorting and refining of conceptual architecture in the self. There is also a clear division, or membrane between side A and B, here, although the activity bridges this divide and there is also a process of conceptual refraction across the membrane enabling more subtle conceptual sculpting.

It looks as though you are up to similar things, but in a more "heretic" way.

I concur with Wayfarer on this point, that what mysticism(the practice) is concerned with is a different way of seeing, of thinking, experiencing, the side of ourselves which is on the other side of the coin(side A)if one considers that a normal person only lives on the one side(sideB). For the practicing mystic a whole world opens up as extensive as side B, but is both different and the same, from another perspective, even a kind of rebirth.

. Well it is precisely Voegelin's point that there is something which cannot be known - which will forever exceed the human grasp, even though it can be experienced and encountered, but it can never become object - the known.

It strikes me that this is speculation on Voegelin's part. How do we know that the human mind, or body is not designed to experience transcendence and how can we conclude that an experience cannot be known. Transcendent experiences which can be known and recollected cannot be understood, perhaps, but that is different from knowledge of them. I know this because I have had such experiences, such that cannot be understood, or easily conveyed and may perhaps only be known via experience. But I do know the experience I had and recollect it and attempt to creatively convey the experience.

Yes, I agree with this. My point is that most animals communicate, often in complex ways. Also they can be very good at learning and understanding of aspects of their environment, or their evolutionary niche and communicating it. People have improved on this by adding a level of conscious conceptual thought, with a consequent subtly complex language. But we have not progressed far from our supposedly unconscious relations in the biosphere.

Note that the deity is sitting upon the thousand petal lotus representing the activated crown chakra.

There is experiential learning and knowing, in which the mind is a bystander looking on.
You know the laughing thing, well it's the same with art, suddenly everything is art and you have to restructure what art means from a position of knowledge, aware of the futile struggling you were doing before the revelation, veiled in ignorance.

The mystical revelation is like this, one sees what is revealed, it has meaning, alters and adds to your being. There are square circles by the way(chuckle).

Yes, I laughed too! Like a laughing Bhudda, indeed I laughed for years, but I had to restrain myself to avoid cramp, or lock jaw;)

Close up.

The mirage at Holkam beach Norfolk UK

Yes, I know it is a difficult thing to think about. The way I think about it is that there is space in the moment, of a second or two, rather like the feeling of three dimensional space around us. We experience many events happening around us in this space, things may happen symultaniously, but appear to us to happen at slightly different times and visa versa. There is a breadth to the moment, with a second or two of past and future appearing to us as now. I know that our body enables us to experience this through complex processes. But the moment I am thinking about is a mental thing and considers a reality in which mind, or soul is more real than the external world.

Yes we are probably using mysticism in different ways. I was going to make this distinction at the beginning of the thread, but have had a busy weekend. There are two kinds of mysticism to point out here, there are the folk who are creatively embracing mysticism as a concept like yourself. I am with you as creativity is one of my great passions. Also there is mysticism as a spiritual way of life. Which is a technical exercise like yoga or something.

This distinction should clear up the differing points presented.

As I say, I am with you in your approach, for me I have followed a Grail quest in the field of art and aesthetics(I have no formal training in philosophical aesthetics), creativity. Along with heroic efforts in the development of creative conceptual architecture.