This was Southend beach in the UK today, it barely made the news today and now that the government has absolved responsibility the lockdown is crumbling.

Not only are you hypocritical, you're topsy turvy.
"Modern nationalism is intensely democratic"
That's actually the opposite of the reality. You really have fallen for the populism hook line and sinker.

Do you think that hoodwinking the population to vote for a hidden agenda against their interests is democratic? I suppose Trumpism is incredibly democratic too!

I'll make a prediction for you...the jocks will not vote to leave the UK in my lifetime...they are all talk and bluster. I hope they do leave but I'm afraid that they are too dependent on us (they benefit from the UK tax system at the expense of the English, we're by far their biggest export market and the rest of the UK supplies 90% of Scottish tourism)...most of them also know how useless the SNP is. It's a shame, but there you go.

Here's your hypocrisy again. You assume the Scott's won't fall in behind nationalism, while people like you and most Brexiters did just that and you won't reconsider even while your country is going down the plug hole. They will do the same especially when a Johnson keeps sticking it up to them.

How likely is that in the meantime? I haven't been paying much attention to that for awhile now.

Yes it has gone quiet, I expect the SNP are giving all their time to the Covid crisis and biding their time regarding Brexit. In the knowledge that Johnson and Co are so incompetent that it will be a bad Brexit, which will fuel calls for Scottish independence. Johnson almost daily insults the Scotts and discriminates against them.

To me it looks more likely by the day.

The issue is whether we ought to try and understand as best as we can. If yes, the vicar stays. If no, the vicar wanders off and does any random thing.

Rather tenuous and not a requirement. The mystic is free to work out, learn, take an interest in an understanding of anything they like. This understanding though, does not constitute the route to mystical practice, although It may help the individual adjust to it.

It is too much to ask. If the person has no desire to do this, there is no point in asking one to do it.

The mystic has already freely chosen this course of action.

This is where a revelation could play a roll.

Yes, this is commonly called a calling.

The cell, on the other hand is involved in very important actions, and because you do not fully apprehend these acts with your conscious mind, you dismiss them as insignificant in relation to your conscious acts.

You have misunderstood what I am saying and portrayed me in this light.

Going back to the hierarchy of being, there is a progression in being from a small expression to a larger expression. This involves an evolution of complexity in what is apprehended by the individual being in that hierarchy. So the cell, if it is apprehending anything, it is something to do with its interaction with the surrounding cells, the enzymes etc in circulation and its own processes of life. Whereas the person running for the train will have whole libraries of information on the shelves at home, interact with complex situations with numerous organisms and their constructions, and has developed things like personality and ego for example to process all this apprehension. Likewise further up the hierarchy of being the being of the biosphere, Gaia, there is likely to be a larger step up in complexity of apprehension, the likes of which we really couldn't imagine. As the the importance of actions of beings, then we would need to refer to the being at the top of the hierarchy whose purposes we are acting out, somehow Idoubt we would understand if she told us.

I still can't see the relevance of your example. You are mixing up intentional acts with unintentional acts (accidents) If it were revealed to you, that for some reason you needed to cut your finger off, to make some sort of statement or something, and you felt very strongly about this, then you would proceed with this act.

My example was to show how performing acts which go against our animal instincts, human frailty, is difficult, causes personal trauma and risks the task not being carried out. Why go through all that when if it is carried out on a need to know basis, none of that comes into play. Also you seem to think that we can determine if an act in our life is of importance, necessary. We don't know if my injury was as necessary, or not, as was the crucifixion of Jesus.
A mystic can't become the arbiter of what is of importance in regards to the purposes of being, this is an elementary realisation.

We really do not understand purpose to a very significant degree at all, but the mystic has developed some special incite, allowing a clearer capacity for good ideas

Yes, but as I say the insights which the mystic develops are a side issue, because the practice is concerned with procedure. Although there is a psychological aspect to this and a healthy philosophical mind is advantageous for that.

I've been trying to get at these general terms, but you don't agree. All the features of western mysticism which I bring up, you want to exclude from mysticism in general, because you seem to think that only features of eastern mysticism qualify as genuine features of mysticism. Perhaps we can start with a most general definition. I propose, interest in the mysterious, what is beyond human understanding. Feel free to change or adapt that to your liking.

Do you remember that I suggested this at the start and you said it would be better to go round the houses first. I was saying what it means to me, what it means and entails will be different for each individual, so it is probably a case of agreeing on some common principles and referring to relevant schools, or teachings to cross reference.

I agree an interest in the mysterious is a good start, a desire to understand reality somewhat. Or what is often the case, the individual has a calling of some sort through some kind of revelation. Giving them a motivation, or desire to delve into these matters.

When it comes to mystical practice, the individual would have read, or been taught about mysticism in religious practice. So would be motivated to get involved in some kind of practice.

When it comes to what is necessary to carry out this practice, the individual will follow a path of discovery perhaps of what is entailed. This is where some ground rules come into play as I mentioned in the beginning.

Then there are more advanced levels of practice and involvement, which can be evidenced in the lives of the saints, or bodhisattvas and deities. This might entail yogic practices, or practices with the goal of reaching enlightenment, or nirvana, or union with God, for example.

Times like this happened after the referendum. And all those immigrants who came here before the end of Jan 2020 from Europe will be able to stay and have free movement and privelidges throughout Europe. They will have the best of both worlds. It's only the British who will be denied freedom of movement throughout Europe.

Although it will prevent EU nationals who are not already here, moving here, if they earn less than £25,600, they still retain their freedom of movement around Europe. And now there are going to be exceptions for nurses, care home workers farm labourers, the list gets longer and longer. Alongside more people coming in from the rest of the world, there will probably be about the same number coming in anyway and we will be stuck here with them.

Well when Scotland leaves, at least I won't be stuck, I will be rejoining the EU.

Yesterday Priti Patel said in reference to the immigration bill,
"It will end free movement and open up global Britain".

Today Mat Hancock said the second time,
"We put a protective ring around care homes".

Priti Patel in one swoop ended our privelidge of free movement around Europe and made anyone who earns less than £25,600 per annum a second class citizen. Interestingly Polish builders who are allowed to stay here are more privelidged than us, they will get a British passport and retain full privelidges throughout Europe.

More evidence that Brexit is an act of self harm. Most of our privelidged access to the European market will thrown under the bus in the next few months to be replaced with a begging bowl to hold out for Trump to throw some scraps into.

Mat Hancock has now fallen from grace in uttering those words in the house.

You seem to think that the so-called pawn we were talking about, could continuously carry our one's task without apprehending the need or purpose for this task. This would be like a machine, carrying out its activity by the necessity of the forces of physics, rather than a living being which acts according to some perceived need. Without perceiving the need for the task, the living being would wander off and start to do something else.

So let's say we have a devout vicar who is interested in mysticism as part of his service. If he didn't know, or understand what God is upto, Gods purpose as expressed through his ministry. He might feel like a mindless mechanistic pawn and wander of and do something else instead? This is stretching the point rather.

How do you think that the mystic could wander into mystical practise and remain in that practise without any purpose?

The purpose of the mystic is to offer service for the betterment of humanity, or nature, or the biosphere. That is an end in its self.

It is implicit in the choices entailed in this enterprise (the enterprise of mysticism) that the mystic may be called on to express some higher purpose, which may be unknown during their practice, or life. This is not to much to ask is it?

In this analogy, you are assigning importance in a completely disproportionate way.

The point of the analogy is that it is obvious that the cell in my body is not aware of the bigger picture. That I really want to catch the train. Also that it is plain to see that the cell does not need to know about this in order to carry outs role in the body. It's that simple.

Now look at the activity of the cell, and the information which it has with genetics and DNA. That cell could very well know more about the reason why you are running for the train, than your conscious mind knows.

Yes, it might be better tuned in the purposes of the biosphere. But one thing is for certain, it doesn't know that I am running the catch the 11.15 from Paddington station. Which is what the organism embodying the cellular colony of which it is a part is doing.

Now we need to know what you mean by "the duties it has signed up to", when you are talking about the cell.

The duties of the cell are those entailed in being a particular part of a healthy multicellular organism. Any more than that is labouring the point, and the cell is not likely to go of in a huff and join another body, or go fishing, or something like that.

I still don't see the relevance here. Jesus sacrificed himself willingly, so this was a strong showing of will power. He decided what needed to be done and he did it at the cost of personal pain and suffering. The revelation to Jesus was that this sacrifice had to be carried out. His death was planned. There was no matter of fight or flight, just will power and determination to carry out what he believed needed to be done, as revealed to him.

You don't know this and on the assumption that it is on a need to know basis, Jesus does not need to know the specifics of what is going to happen until the point where he shouts out God why have you forsaken me, when the whole reality of the situation is laid bare. Also I consider that that laying bare was required for the specific initiation that Jesus, the Christ, was undergoing.

Let me give you another example one which did actually happen to me so was very real. A number of years ago I lost the end of a finger in an accident at work. Of course I didn't have any idea it was going to happen and from the moment it happened, my body went into shock protecting my psyche from the horror of what happened, I was in a delirious state of shock, I felt no pain and psychologically I was in a dream like state, which enabled me to get through the trauma unharmed psychologically.

Now let's consider that I knew this was going to happen beforehand, a day or two beforehand. Imagine the psychological impact and the state of mind as the event approached, or even the urge to place my hand somewhere else at the last moment so that the accident didn't happen. I would have to fully consciously place my hand into the machine knowing what trauma was about to happen. It would have been a Herculean task and I don't think I would have recovered psychologically from such trauma. When in reality it was not traumatic at all, there was no pain, just Some shock and ruffled feathers and I was over it in a few days with no psychological trauma. This was done on a need to know basis and I wouldn't have it any other way.

How could there be any degree of certainty, higher than a 50/50 chance, that the mystic would turn right, unless the mystic perceived some purpose for turning right?

Happenstance, the butterfly effect. The mystic has developed a means of receiving direction from a guide of some kind, a nudge process.

Really this is basic stuff and we will end up chasing our tails. Perhaps it is time to actually lay out what mysticism entails and look at it in more general terms.

Its about time he got back in his turdis, lol.

What you are saying about the intellectual understanding of the consequences of the mystic's action (during practice) makes sense, but from my position is largely irrelevant. Because the mystic may not have the capacity to understand, or conceive of any meaning, or purposes. Also such understanding would be an impediment unless it was some endeavour initiated by the mystic for the purposes of doing one thing for another in her small world.

As per my analogy what business does a cell in my body have in understanding that I am running to catch a train which leaves any minute now and I'm still a hundred yards away from the station? It is irrelevant, the cell simply carries out the duties which it has signed up to in being a part of the colony of cells. The situation is the same for the mystic, but on a more complex level. Any curiosity, interpretation, vision, or need is irrelevant and it is the choice of the mystic whether to forgo any such impediments as identified.

Regarding revelation, my lottery number analogy is relevant. Let me give another equivalent example. Let's take the crucifixion of Jesus. Now I have always thought that he did not know exactly what was going to happen and at what moment, because if for example he knew the horror and pain that he was imminently to endure. There would be a fight or flight response in him due to his human frailty, or survival instinct to take avasive action. If it had been revealed to him what was about to happen, which it may, it would have taken tremendous powers of self control for him not to take evasive action. Whereas if it had not been revealed he would have not needed these powers of self control, or only some of them. When he shouts out "God why have you forsaken me" (my words), presumably he did at that moment behold the true nature of the event, initiation, he was involved in. By that point he was powerless to take evasive action and so that knowledge was not an impediment.

Or another example, let's say a mystic where given the powers to move objects at a distance, or to make them disappear and appear somewhere else. Likewise human frailty would become exposed again.

For reasons like this, presumably, it would operate on a need to know basis only.

What you say about drawing a distinction between what is happening inside the mystic and what is external is important here. Namely most of what the mystic does in their practice is internal. What is external is nothing more than good neighbourly relations and some kind acts, consciously at least. What is going on unconsciously, or behind the scenes could be anything and is of little concern to the mystic. For example the sole act in a Mystics life which is of value might be to turn right instead of left at a crossroads at a certain point, on a certain date. It is the role of the mystic to be impressionable enough to the hierarchy of being, or some guide so as to somehow impell, or guide them to that place and that time and to cause them to turn right, when they might have turned left. This might require a lifetime of preparation within the mystic to reach that level of impressionability. Also there is an issue with mental illness, I would think though that were this to occur then the mystic would fail to carry out anything meaningful and would follow a path often followed by people in general.

I don't see how a lower being could get to the point of understanding the procedures which one is involved in, without conceiving the purpose of the higher being who directs the procedures. You could be a pawn simply following orders, a cog in the wheel, carrying out your activity in a perfect fashion, but you need to understand what the wheel is doing in order to truly know what you are doing.

I don't see the requirement for the lower being to truly know what they are doing. Provided this being is happy to and able to, carry it out there is no requirement for this. Aren't we all pawns anyway, with a little bit of freedom thrown in?

Let me give an example which for me was a profound example, once I realised it. Let's say my body is a colony of cells, which cooperate to form a whole which acts as a larger organism, a human. None of these cells are aware of the purposes exercised by that human organism. But they carry out their role in the cooperative and the fact of their not knowing why they are carrying out their role does not hinder their effectiveness in playing their part. Likewise I am a cell in the body of the biosphere and the biosphere is a cell in the body of the Sun, or the galaxy for example. The cell in my body is also carrying out a role in the body of the biosphere by carrying out its role in me and also its role in the body of the Sun and the galaxy. But in all of this the hierarchy of purpose means that the most senior purpose being carried out in this scenario is the purpose of the being whose body of expression is the galaxy. Now I know that the cell in my body I refer to couldn't understand this purpose and likewise, I could not understand it, it is to all encompassing from my perspective and I would have to know of the affairs of that larger being to have any conception of the purpose we are all engaged in, likewise for the cell in my body.

Having mystic minds, we want to see beyond the physical motions. Aren't those inclined toward mysticism already exceptional cases?

I don't know the answer to this, although there is a good reason which I have identified. These people inclined towards mysticism are human and subject to an extent to human nature, meaning that they are compromised by human frailty. I will give an extreme example, let's say that you or I were given a revelation of a greater purpose, or plan and inadvertently during this revelation, next weeks winning numbers for the state lottery were revealed. What would you, or I do on the run up to the lottery, would you buy a ticket and use those numbers? I would find it very difficult not to do that. Because I am embedded within the society and culture, which includes money worries, or with relations experiencing money problems. Or I could do with a bigger house, or better car etc. There are many other repercussions and problems caused by this unfortunate revelation and many other less extreme examples like this, where human frailty can become exposed.

I don't see how you can separate purpose from meaning in this way.

I only separate them because of the difficulty of imparting the purpose of the being at the top of the hierarchy as I have pointed out. Otherwise I don't disagree with what you are saying.

You might see forms of this in the type of mysticism you practise. You might learn a particular procedure, and get proficient at it. This indicates that you understand the first level of meaning in the instruction, you can proceed with the requested action. As you carry on and learn more procedures and grasp how they all fit together, you might look back at the first, and see that it now has a different meaning.

Yes, this could be a problem, better that the pawn doesn't know the purpose and meaning.
You do realise, presumably, that the mystic was aware of the requirement to forgo any knowledge of the purposes, or meanings that they are going to cooperate in before they follow that course. It is one of the preconditions for discussion, I was going to provide earlier. There are a number of preconditions like this which a budding mystic must offer to cooperate in before they are a suitable pawn for service in this fashion. There is no compunction for anyone to follow this path, it is the choice of the mystic.

And this is why you and I see exactly the same thing, though we come from completely different directions (east and west), and use completely different words and imagery to describe it. It's what's built into, inherent within living organisms. In seeing this we do not lose our autonomy we just facilitate our own decision making by relieving the stress of not knowing one's position in the world, and thereby being unsure in decision making.

Yes, I agree, but as I said earlier, I don't see any requirement for the mystic to be privy to the purposes they are to become involved in. Their actions could be directed intuitively, or unconsciously, thus avoiding the exposure of their human frailty.

it just means that the apparent good has become the same as the real good

Yes, this is the point I was making. However if it is going on within a person, it is more comprehensive and transformative.

It looks like the government is now descending into chaos. There are rows in cabinet around plans to unlock, some schools refuse to open and many distrust the government. A report has come out this morning that HS2 is becoming derailed, the costs are spiralling and the first stage won't be completed until the 2030's. The Brexit talks have gone no where fast this week as predicted, as it is becoming evident that the British negotiating stance is a sham, a concoction designed to skupper the talks and blame the EU for the chaos and the resulting economic hit to come.


I would have the governance of the EU anytime compared to the shower of chaos the UK is having to endure at the moment.

This is questionable. If a lower being can conceive the purpose of the next higher being in a hierarchy of being, then there would only be an inconceivable purpose if there was an infinite regress. But you've already assumed that there must be an initiator of the purpose, so there is no infinite regress.

I didn't say that the lower being can conceive of the purpose of a higher being (except in the exceptional circumstances I refer to in the second to last paragraph). No one is conceiving of the purposes except the one who initiates the purpose. Also infinite regress is a peculiarity of logical thinking in a limited mind. I don't use it, or find it of any value in these matters. Likewise I am not assuming there is a purpose, just allowing for there to be one.
I would point out also that getting to concerned with material initially is a distraction and likely to lead to dead ends. My primary concern is not with material, but being (I do consider being to be material in some form, along with the immaterial but not physical material).

Revelation is not really another subject. You described a significant aspect of mysticism as coming into contact with the higher power (God). In the west, this is called revelation.

Yes, but we were discussing purpose, I see purpose, even when acted out by a person on the lowest rung of the ladder of purpose, as something which is not revealed and not any kind of revelation. I mentioned it when responding about meaning, which is more commonly revealed.

However, for the person whom pondering meanings is for some reason important, this will be what that person is doing, finding doing other things as distracting from this.

Yes, I draw you back to what I was addressing when I pointed out what I meant when I say mysticism, "So when I use the word mysticism, I am referring to this process of refinement and development of the individual and through this the refinement and development of the being of the biosphere. This is necessarily a big subject". This refinement includes the alignment of the individual with the hierarchy of being, that the higher purpose be realised in some way. As such the motivations, purposes of the individual are the same as those of the hierarchy of being, there is no seperation. And as I also said earlier in my response to Javra, the individual hasn't lost any autonomy, or agency, or freedom in this, the purposes of the individual and the hierarchy of being just happen to be the same, hence " I and the father are one" John 10:30

Aristotle identified contemplation as the highest virtue.

He's wasn't a mystic, but a philosopher, I do agree that contemplation is the most important mental faculty of the individual.

Accepting "I don't know the meaning of this" can either inspire one in an attempt to determine the meaning, or turn one away in futility.

Yes, but as I say this has already been accepted and the person has already agreed within themselves that the action, or service is primary and their personal inquisitive interest is secondary and can be contemplated at leasure after the event, provided this doesn't become an impediment to the enterprise.

I don't disagree with what you say about the purposes of an individual as in the example you give. I should have been more precise, I am only referring now to purposes in the acts of practicing mysticism, or more accurately acts of service.

Also, Regarding the purposes of said higher power, I don't think we can come to any conclusions about the nature of their agency, or degree of awareness of what they are doing. Although I agree that processes of their living bodies, or vehicles will to a certain degree dictate what those purposes may be. I caution in this way because the lives of such beings may be inconceivable to us in multiple ways.

Also if one factors in that purposes are deferred up the hierarchy of being, then the being initiating the purpose would be uniquely inconceivable, even to exalted beings below them in the hierarchy.

I agree with what you say in the last paragraph, but with the qualification that this is only one of numerous ways in which revelation becomes imparted. We are not here discussing revelation, that is another subject.

And that is the reason why meaning, as what was meant by written words for example, cannot be attributed to the purpose of the author of the words. The author doesn't even know one's own purpose. The purpose, as the inspiration for action, and therefore what was meant, and meaning, actually comes from an external source, the higher power. So our acts of discussion, between us is how we attempt to actually determine the meaning, and that's why people say meaning is something public. We cannot simply refer to what the author meant, because the true purpose is something outside the mind of the author, which inspired those acts.

I agree with what you say, it is like a relativism of purposes and meaning. Again I make the distinction with regard to mystical practice. The mystic realises that the purpose acted out, or contributed to by herself is necessarily unknown or unknowable for her in her practice, while the meaning may be revealed. The meaning might be revealed through revelation, or epiphany, in the orientation of a beholder looking upwards towards the higher power which may be represented as a form recognised by the mystic. Whereas the purpose of the same circumstances cannot be apprehended from below because the orientation is downward from above viewing the hierarchy from the exalted position wherein the purposes where conceived.
The conception of the purpose requiring the full cognition and consciousness of the exalted being to behold. Although I expect that the mystic can be taken up to behold the vision directly, which would require their mind to behold that level of cognition, this would be an exceptional event and would result in the mystic being transformed to the extent that she would become unusually exalted on earth, making social interaction problematic. There are examples of this in the lives of the saints etc.

Due to unnecessary complications like this (not to mention complications with the ego, or personality)it is more appropriate for the mystic to relinquish any concern for such matters and to simply follow the practice and service in humility. I have myself found myself in situations where if I were to ponder purposes, or meanings, I would become distracted in what I was doing ( when I say what I am doing, I am referring to practice, in which I have already accepted that I don't know the purposes, or meaning, or what is going on, not personal things that I am doing in my day to day life, which I do know about).

I hope you don't have it and if you do that it is mild. If you do need to contact the authorities you have to sharpen your elbows, I have heard stories of people with symptoms being ignored by Covid doctors until the symptoms are severe. Or people having to beg to be taken into hospital.

In the east, the tradition might be an effort to maintain with consistency over millennia of time, a similar practise.

It's more about continuing a lifestyle in which mysticism is to a degree a part of everyday life in the community and the mystics, the sadhus and gurus play an integrated and revered role within the community. I saw this first hand on many occasions in India. Indians are adept at adopting modern ways of doing things, but behind this there is always this deep connection with a living vibrant mystical tradition, going back unchanged for thousands of years. If you go the puja, the religious ceremony everyone present is open to and indeed expecting something magic, or the divine to play out before them. The congregation will naturally adopt this stance, equivalent to the exhalted mystical state of a sadhu.

Here in the west all this was lost millennia ago, although there are ocassional exceptions in places like Lourdes, or Ireland where something magical happens. Religion became corrupted by power and then distrusted by science.

I see an issue here with the question, "why?". What Plato assumed, or claimed, is that people have a fundamental curiosity, "wonder", and this is at the root of philosophy. So we can't simply dismiss the importance of "why?". If you commune with nature, as you say, you'll see that other animals possess this curiosity as well, they are often inclined to check things out. So there are some things which are a deep mystery, like matter, but it is natural for us to be curious. Now when you say that something is or is not important, this is relative to a person's individual perspective.

Yes, when I said purpose is not important it is my personal view, but not without good reason and others do agree on this point. Purpose for me is a curious thing, it can only be known by the agency whom for whatever reason adopted it and inline with the aspiration of the mystic of following the course of one's higher nature, or spiritual guide, for lack of a better word, that purpose is naturally deferred to a higher power. Indeed it scales up through the hierarchy of exalted beings to the very top. Meaning that the purpose of anything that happens in the world of the mystic, or indeed in the world of being is expressed for a higher purpose the nature of which is unfathomably profound( profound, only in the respect of being far reaching, beyond what a limited mind can comprehend).

So just like the mystic differs their agency to a higher purpose, also they defer their reason why, or the purposes for what they do, to a higher power. This both means that the mystic is not at all interested in why, or for what end they do what they are doing. But also and crucially, their purposes, their motivations, their wants and desires are aligned with this higher goal and don't differ from it. In the sense that in following the higher goal they are not foregoing any freedoms, rather they simply agree with the higher goal, because it equates to their own personal goals.

I see Nissan are suggesting that Renault should manufacture in the UK....it's fantastic that foreign businesses manufacture here in order to sell here.

Duh! You've just agreed with me, that car manufacturers need to manufacture in the market they need to sell into to be cost effective. Renault obviously wouldn't expect to sell many cars here which it manufactured in France because of tariffs, red tape etc. So they would contemplate building an expensive factory in the UK to do so.

Can't you think rationally, your arguments don't compute, you constantly contradict yourself.

No,acute...otherwise they'd be millions dead in the UK alone...

But only 220,000 people have been tested positive in the UK. Maybe if there were 50,000,000 infected there might be a million dead, but we're not there yet. The infection rate in the UK has been about 3,500 per day, it's not dropping, even in lockdown. As soon as the lockdown is relaxed that number will start to grow, in hotspots it will grow really fast.
Do you know that the experts told Johnson on 23rd of March that unless he locks the country down immediately there could be 500,000 deaths. Then suddenly he changed the policy and locked the country down the same day. Thank God he did, otherwise we would be at about 500,000 deaths by now. Along with economic chaos, social unrest and food shortages.

Thanks for your summary of western mysticism. I am familiar with most of it, but am not widely read, or formally trained. I have a copy of Timaeus, but haven't read if for over 30 years, so it's a bit rusty. I veered off in the direction of Bhuddism and Hinduism after that and use Hinduism for any structure I require.

I find with the western tradition it stems from attempts to understand existence through reason, hence the development of philosophy. This is not to diminish mysticism in the Christian church, but there is a seperation between this and reason/philosophy/science. Such that Christian mysticism seems to have been discarded by the later. I find the Eastern traditions far more of use.

So my mysticism is fashioned around the Hindu traditions. In which rather like what you describe in reference to Plato, material is a tool of expression and that the mystical path is concerned with a refinement of that expression specifically through the vehicle of the human body and mind. Any purposes in this, in relation to that body, or the wider world are (I noticed you referred to the purpose of matter) not important as they are a deep mystery, other than the natural processes of the personal development of the mystic.

So when I use the word mysticism, I am referring to this process of refinement and development of the individual and through this the refinement and development of the being of the biosphere. This is necessarily a big subject.

The ONS figures which came out this week estimate the death toll in the UK to be about 50,000 as of last week.

The government has been massaging them down. The excess deaths in care homes in April was 18,000, above the death rate in April the year before. The government is only admitting that 8,000 of these were due to Covid.

I have to say that I get the feeling that this Covid 19 virus is real ( though the risks are overblown) but masks an underlying scam. I'm not sure what the scam is , but I've read that the economy was about to tank this year in any case...so maybe the two are connected.

Yes, the economy was going to tank because of Brexit. Now they can blame it on Covid, so they will push for the hardest Brexit possible and head in the direction of a Singapore on Thames. So they can line their pockets and build their mansions in the posh resorts in Devon and Cornwall.

Look at it this way the US manufactures its cars for sale in the UK actually in the UK, so as to avoid the costs of importing them from a third country, so does Japan. In fact Japan manufactures cars in the UK to sell in the EU. When we leave with no amenable deal with the EU, those Japanese factories will relocate into the EU. If Germany wanted to sell large numbers of Mercedes, or VWs in the UK after we leave with no trade deal, it would only be cost effective for them to build new factories in the UK to manufacture them. But they won't, it's not profitable enough to justify building new factories. They will just develop their markets in Eastern Europe instead, with the added benefit of consolidating and developing those markets inside the single market.

All this stuff is basic economics. Something that the Tory Brexiters don't want you to know. They just want you to keep going on about sovereignty, or hating on immigrants, while they do their shady tax haven deals with their billionaire palls. They don't give a shit about ordinary British workers. We will just become a cash cow, like the US population is over there.

Yes, but that is a label, just like the label, this thing, this cat is a being. One is referring to a property and the other is referring to a thing. Although when I say my cat has being, I am not using either label because I am using a language in which there is only being, the material and things are constructs made out of the tool of material.
— Punshhh

I've read this numerous times and it still makes no sense. Your using a language in which there is only being? Everything you say means being? I don't understand, it appears like you're skirting the issue, trying to claim that it cannot be spoken about, or something like that.

I wanted to explain this a little more, it may be difficult to put into words what I mean, but for me being is present where there is life, in a certain sense it is life, but not physical life, more an underlying essence. I may have to stray into Hindu terminology to explain this. An essence of Atman,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism)

If you are familiar with Hindu cosmogony it might be easier to use that terminology, or to cross reference.

My cat has Atman and I have Atman, we know our Atman through family bonding, or communion.

They're evidently not doing a very good job at being a solution.

But they have to look incompetent at this point, otherwise people will Rumble them. They will reveal the solution soon, any minute now.

There you go again having a rant about the Labour Party, while the clowns in government are going to drive us of a cliff in December. Oh yeah it's all the Labour party's fault.

They couldn't (or wouldn't) prevent the carnage in the carehomes, what makes you think they can get something workable with the EU. Everything Johnson touches turns to dust.

The way it works on this forum is you ask or answer a debating point and someone responds on that point. It's not a place for ranting and ignoring the questions or answers provided.

Going back to Germany(which has one of the best healthcare services apparently, (with a socialist government)). Put this in your pipe and smoke it. Germany doesn't need our custom, with tariffs and mountains of red tape etc attached. It has a massive emerging market in the Eastern European accession countries. And the great thing is, these countries are fully integrated members of the single market. What's not to like.

I may have been vague in my use of intellectualisation and academia, normally this is not an issue, but here I think more explanation is necessary. By academia I refer to the Western academic tradition (WAC), as taught in Western Universities and derived from Greek and Latin historical sources. I accept that other schools can be included in academia, but I am not referring to them, only what I have just pointed out. I am not aware of any mystical training in these traditions, other than some reference to it in theology. If you can suggest any, I would be interested.

Regarding intellectualisation, I may have to veer further away from what is described in the WAC here. I consider that there is more than one level or form of mind conducted in the brain and body. In such a way that the intellect is one of a number of mental processes. It appears to me that WAC reduces the person to a singular intellectual individual (II) and doesn't allow for much else that equates to mind going on in the brain, or body. This reduction appears to insist that all understanding, knowledge and intelligent action must pass through the prism of this intellectual individual (II) and as such can be fully analysed and be rationally dissected through intellectual thought and science.

This essentially reduces a human to a unit of intellectual activity divorced from the body of that individual, for the purposes of analysing its mental activity and that logic can be exercised, applied and imparted on this (II). Thus any aspect of experience is regarded as a psychological, or rational process exercised by this II.

I am not criticising the results of understanding a human through this process that is achieved, but rather what it ignores, or insists must be rendered through this intellectual prism.

As an alternative to this analysis of a human, I come to it from a different direction, in which there is a being, a being, expressed through an organism who through the good fortune (or not) of recent evolutionary development has developed the ability for intellectual thought. That prior to this development there was a mind, a being, an experience. This can be observed in animals and plants around us.

Also I come to it from an appreciation of life as an animating force. Animating rather like the way idealism describes the world. But rather than viewing it from the perspective of the individual human, I view the whole biosphere as one individual and each human is a part of it. This biosphere being an expression of a being via material.

Also I come to it from the appreciation of a spiritual dimension of which the being of the biosphere is an expression. An expression in which humanity embodies the development of an awakened mind. But a mind newly emerged, which is having to learn a new.

There is a difference in emphasis, in which I do not attempt to explain human experience through the prism of mind of (II). Indeed this is a minor consideration. There is greater emphasis on ones position in the life of the being of the biosphere and ones communion therein. It's true that the intellect is involved in this, but only as a tool of articulating thought in an integrated organism.

Perhaps this is enough for this post and I can address the other questions later when this has been looked into.

You don't seem to be able to link a post to its response. I was agreeing with you that a few old people will die, but being a bit more realistic.

Nearly the entire population is a leftist to you, so calling me one is meaningless.

You really are stupid if you think Germany is coming to the rescue, or the US won't rip us off.

You only need to read up on the TTIP negotiations between the US and the EU to see how the US operates in this way. We will be eaten alive from a point of weakness, worse than What happened in Greece, because there will be no one to bail us out.

Wake up!

Britain just thinks it is reasonable that it should be treated as well as Canada, South Korea etc. Given what a huge market the UK is for EU goods (compared to those countries) that is not too much to expect, is it?
I think that the Germans will ensure there will be a reasonable deal, they'll override those within the EU (and those like you within the UK) who seek punishment for the UK from the EU, the Germans know how important we are to them.

The EU would happily give the UK a Canada like deal, they've said that all along. They were waiting two years for the Tories to fight it out amongst themselves about what kind of future relationship they wanted (and don't go blaming Labour, they were not in power throughout this whole sorry saga). Theresa May did a remarkable job of somehow squaring the circle of how to remain close to the EU and not in it. But the Tories skuppered every attempt to reach consensus. The EU looked on in bewilderment as the Tories descended into a group of cats in a sack squabbling and lashing out at the EU from time to time. It really is disgraceful the way the Tories have brought our country to its knees on the world stage. And you think any other countries would try and strike a deal with those clowns and sycophants. The only country that will is the US and their corporations will suck us dry like a spider devouring a fly.

The German car industry etc didn't come to the rescue did they when we kept forcing a cliff edge. Get this, if anything the Germans industrialists are not going to come to our rescue, they value the integrity of the single market far more.

There is vast scope for trade increases with the USA. If elements of competition , and therefore US in put ,are allowed within the NHS that can only be a good thing. When people bleat about how wonderful the NHS is they never compare it ,to say ,the German system...a German system that has been doing far better with this virus than the NHS.

I won't get into the folly of selling of the NHS right now, I don't have the time. I will point out that in the US patients pay about four times the price for the same US drugs we get through the NHS and they need private health insurance to afford it.

There is only a tiny chance of being killed by covid 19 , almost all deaths are people already in a bad way in hospital and care homes...so releasing elements of the lockdown are a good idea.

Yes this is a great idea if you're Dominic Cummings, or a Tory Grandee. It solves the problem of the demographic time bomb which was going to bankrupt Brexit Britain, because they were going to have to foot the bill for looking after all the old folk. It solves the NHS crisis, what's not to like. It gets the economy going so we can steal an advantage over the Europeans. It's genius.

Oh until someone points out that there are 2 million vulnerable people currently shielding with health conditions, disabled, or on immunosuppressants who will have a mortality rate above around 18%. Might as well get rid of that lot as well, because they cost the NHS a lot by definition. Genius!

Nicely put.

Would you accept that "being" as a property, in the sense of "my cat has being", signifies something conceptual?

Yes, but that is a label, just like the label, this thing, this cat is a being. One is referring to a property and the other is referring to a thing. Although when I say my cat has being, I am not using either label because I am using a language in which there is only being, the material and things are constructs made out of the tool of material.

How could this be the case? Your cat is itself a being, so how could it have another being, which is other than itself in order to say "my cat has a being"?

I haven't found myself in this position, perhaps this is a quirk of intellectualisation.

You are saying that if someone or something, such as you or your cat, experiences something, then they know that thing. So you claim that you, and your cat, each knows its respective property of being, simply by experiencing that being. But that's not consistent with any acceptable use of "knowing". Simply experiencing something is not sufficient to produce knowledge of that thing, other factors are involved

This may be the crux of the issue, the knowing you describe as acceptable is the result of intellectualisation. A knowing via rational thought, Aristotelian. This kind of knowing is entirely an abstraction of the results of experience.

The knowing I refer to is an innate knowing of experience, this does not require intellectualisation, although intellectualisation can be employed in its contemplation. Memory and association both occur in my cat, just as they do in me (absent my intellualisation). I know this because we are both mammals, closely related. The difference being that the memory and association probably occur unconsciously in the cat, whereas I tend to ignore this in me and follow the route of intellectual reference to memory and association.

We address these things through metaphysics. But as I said, metaphysics is the same as mysticism.

Well I will agree with this on this occasion, for purposes of discussion, as you have repeated it, but I do maintain that there is the difference in the use of the intellect. Namely the metaphysics requires an intellectual result, or product to determine the course of progress, whereas mysticism rejects this in a preference for natural, or spiritual processes to determine the course of progress. This is why when I engage with a metaphysician, she tells me that it has to fit the rationality before I can go there and if it doesn't, it may as well be a unicorn.

Language is a social construct. What we can or cannot say about existence is determined by our language. And this is a reflection of our knowledge, both intellectual abstract knowledge, and other knowledge

This is not exhaustive, Things can be known and conveyed about existence by other means. This means is through being a part of nature and communing with nature. When I commune with my cat, this is what I am doing. All one is required to do to see this is to contemplate the idea that life is a direct expression of being and that everything else is a construct provided for the expression and development of life/being. If you spend a few hours in a quiet natural setting you will have a glimpse at some point of this, provided you can spot it. If you then spend many hours, or years training yourself to be able to commune with nature and forego intellectualisation, you will find it easier, indeed natural.

I am happy to go with you in your description of space and time for now, as the understanding of these things by metaphysics is adequate at this stage. As I say in mysticism this is only to be tackled at a more advanced level.

The spiritual is self-evident. That's fundamental, a first principle in philosophy, basic philosophy101. Those who deny this are undisciplined. They claim a philosophy which is actually unphilosophical. So if this is what is necessary for mysticism, we're both on the same track. And if this is the type of ground rule which your talking about, then I can accept that.

I presume you are referring to theology here. Spiritualuality is unfortunately nebulous in the way it is treated by academia, like mysticism. There may be as many different types of spirituality as there are people who say they are spiritual.

You do realise presumably that on the assumption of spirituality, there is a flip of authority here, as metaphysics takes a back seat and mysticism a front seat. For example, the kind of knowing I am using becomes the primary form and intellectualisation becomes a frail attempt to explain the perfect, or pristine by a limited, embryonic mind, emerging from nature.

Oh have you got the new slogan from the PM for releasing the lockdown, it's just use your common sense. Cummings's master plan to blame the victims of Covid for their own demise, namely they died because they didn't use their common sense.

Just like Rees Mogg claiming the the victims of the Grenfell tower tragedy died because they didn't use their common sense and run out of the building.

Clarity and leadership.

That's bullshit, the draft agreement sets out positions so that the Britain can have its cake and eat it. All Barnier wants to do is maintain the integrity of the single market and Union, so he can't agree to anything which compromises that. It's not his job to look out for the interests of a member state that chooses to leave, the integrity of the single market is far and away more important than that. So if the UK can't come up with something credible in this regard they won't negotiate.

The UK team along with the government has no intention of presenting anything credible because they want to heap the blame for everything on the EU and these sham talks enable them to do it. They have to heap the blame because the people who lended them their vote will be looking for someone to blame when the shit hits the fan and it's better for the government to blame the same old bogeyman.

Meanwhile there are secret trade talks going on in the US intended to throw something together without passing it by congress, or the senate, or parliament in the UK. To sneak a trade deal with the US through the back door. The problem is that Johnson will have to sell our soul for the yanks to agree to this and that includes the NHS.

Although, I gather you don't rate the NHS either, might as well sell it to the US if we get our freedom back.

I don't see your point here. Being is a concept. If you are thinking of something other than a concept, you are not thinking about "being", but "a being". And any concept is limited by the way it is understood. But that's a big issue, because the way that we understand a concept is tempered by our education and cultural background, and the conditions for understanding extend into intuition and innate factors. So I might understand "being" in a way completely different from you, and this fact makes Platonism (within which a concept is supposed to have independent existence) very doubtful.

I think we need to see if we can agree on what being is here. By reducing it to a concept we limit it to a product of intellectual deliberation. Or if we are a bit more generous, a product of mental life. A product which requires being to exist, as it is a content of being. But these contents are abstractions, abstractions produced by the being they are questioning. Perhaps there are difficulties in seeing the wood for the trees here. My cat has being (a being), she knows/is her being equally as I am and know my being. She doesn't require intellectualisation to be. Therefore neither do I, so in expelling my intellectualisation of being (putting it to one side), I can experience my being absent conceptualisation. I find actually that I have a better understanding, or knowledge of my being while in that state. The trees in my garden have being, arguably they know their being better than my cat knows it, (they have less intellectualisation than the cat) or at the very least to the same degree. Indeed the cat may well be more aware, have better knowledge, of my being than I am/have.

To me, this elucidates a very important distinction between empirical knowledge and mystical knowledge. In the empirical sciences we observe physical things, and describe these objects according to the limits of the thing, as observed. In mystical knowledge we are describing limits which inhere within the knower. These limits are mysterious, because we do not directly observe them, and we cannot truthfully say that they are a product of the culture. So for example, my education, and my culture, contribute to the limits of my understanding of "being", but I go beyond this in my imagination and speculation, producing new, original limits, which are distinct from those that others impress upon me. Since the nature of these limits, how they get created or where they come from, is very mysterious, the study of these is properly mysticism.

But these limits you talk of are intellectual constructs, my cat knows nothing of them. I know more of the being of my cat through sitting with my cat than through intellectualisation. Where are the limits in this sitting?

Mysticism is the study of things beyond intellectualisation, as I have repeatedly pointed out. A fact which I keep pointing out to Banno, in which he finds himself speechless. Quite a good response I think. Oh, indeed here it is referenced in your post:

Mysticism delves beyond the intellectual, or mind derived understanding of being, self and "I".
— Punshhh

Right, because "understanding" implies limits already produced, so to approach the process which creates the understanding, and this is the truly mysterious, we must delve beyond the understanding itself. This type of knowledge cannot be properly called understanding.

How are you going to address that which is beyond intellectual understanding, other than through mysticism?

I don't understand this criticism. By "temporal concept" I mean a concept based in time. And I don't understand time to be an aspect of the physical world, it's more like something which makes the physical world possible. As such time is therefore mysterious, and a subject of mysticism. It's existence is not evident through any senses and so it is not revealed to, and cannot be a subject of empirical science. In this way time is very similar to matter. We never sense matter itself, only various configurations of matter, the configuration rather than the matter is what is sensed Both time and matter are taken for granted by empirical science, but since they cannot be in anyway sensed, they are beyond empirical science's capacity of study, being limited to things observed. That's why the nature of these things falls into the category of mysterious, and it is only mysticism which can properly apprehend them. Life, the soul, falls into this category as well. All three, soul, time, and matter are aspects of being, and are subjects of mysticism. It wouldn't be correct to reduce mysticism to the study of one or the other, because one cannot be properly apprehended without apprehending its relation to the others.

I think the key here is the phrase, spacetime, as far as I am concerned space and time are two sides of the same coin, both necessary parts of extension. Matter, material and it's attendant time, is an innate product of this extension and cannot exist, or be regarded as existing absent the time involved in that extension until the duration of it has ended. This is what Einstein told us, is it not.

I agree that time and material are of interest to the mystic, but as I have already said, it is not what is important initially in mystical enquiry and the study of it is only in regard to how being is developed and expressed through extension, or incarnation. This is very complicated and for more advanced levels of mysticism, as I understand and regard it.

I don't see the distinction between metaphysics and mysticism. Metaphysics deals with the very same subject matter as mysticism. If anything, one might be a form of the other, like metaphysics might be a form of mysticism, or vise versa. But since we can go either way with this, metaphysics is a form of mysticism, or mysticism is a form of metaphysics, this induces the probability that they are actually both just different words for the same thing. As such, I can see that it would be an extremely arduous task to establish proper ground rules, or any principles which would be used to recognize a "genuine mysticism". However, in metaphysics it is not difficult to distinguish the different degrees of seriousness which people assign to the discipline. The serious devotees are identifiable by the quality of the discussion.

The distinction is simple, metaphysics is the study of what the intellect can say about existence and is couched in the history and dictates of academia etc. Mysticism rejects this initially and enquires into the same through other means namely life and experience. The intellect is necessary to do this, but only in the interpretation and understanding of it. Also in the contemplation of it, but not in the intellectualisation used in academia. This is perhaps a controversial distinction, which is partly why the mystic steals clear of academia initially.

There's very good reason for skirting the edges when approaching a subject , and this is to avoid narrowing it down too soon. It's very easy to get distracted by one particular aspect of a thing, and focus on that aspect, as if it is the only important aspect, or the essence of the thing, or something like that. Then you don't get the whole big picture, zooming in quickly to focus on one particular part. So the skirting is necessary to determine the required scope of the enquiry, prior to laying down any ground rules. Circumscribing the whole of the subject is an act of unification whereas singling out a particular part without first establishing a strong unity, would be divisive. Notice, a form of synthesis is prior to analysis, because we need to establish what it is which is to be analyzed.

Yes, I accept this, although I think it necessary to define what mysticism is and how it differs from philosophy and visa versa. So as not to confuse metaphysics and mysticism.

I think that in the case of mysticism it might be a very good idea to keep skirting for a long time. The subject matter, by its very nature, is not immediately evident, hidden, mysterious, so we need to take our time in finding the things which belong in this category. What I find is that there is an element of the mysterious which permeates all knowledge, of all things, so there is a need to apply some mystical principles in all of our practises, making allowance for the unknown. Mysticism is what protects us and saves us from things like superstition and paranoia in our endeavours, which are a fear of the mysterious.

Mysticism avoids this by focussing initially on the self, the person and not getting bogged down in what is not understood about the external world. These can be looked into much further down the line when the aspirant understands the distinction between mysticism and the sciences and academic knowledge.

As you can see, I'm not big on ground rules of discussion. I think ground rules may be a little bit counterproductive to the mystical process. By limiting the subject through application of ground rules, we might sort of create an understanding, thereby negating the mysteriousness which is actually supposed to be the subject. Understanding is created by dispelling the mysteriousness. So I think we really need to relax the rules, allowing freedom of discussion, until we develop a better idea of what we are talking about.

I think you misunderstand me, I simply mean to define mysticism and what it is doing, what it involves and which does require at least one assumption. The assumption that there is some kind of the spiritual, for want of a better word, in the world we find ourselves in. If one were to work on the possibility, or conviction that the world we find ourselves in is nothing more than a place of material as described by science, then mysticism become irrelevant.

A parody of Johnson's speech lastnight about easing the lockdown lol.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WDzqCUbUQW0

I agree, "being" is the starting point, the point of interest. But for me, "being" leads straight to temporality. It's a temporal concept, and there's no avoiding this. Sure you might prefer your type of mystic approach, go to the guide and say lead me, but the guide will inevitably lead you down that winding path toward temporality, because there is nowhere else to go with this interest in "being".

You say being is the starting point and is of interest and then limit it in your view of it as a concept and therefore subject to time. This seems to not see the baby in the bath water.

In English we have a term, "happening", which means occurring, as events. And "being" in modern, western lingo, is sometimes replaced by "happening". Notice that "being" might signify a static unchanging existence, while "happening" signifies activity. Happening is similar to the ancient concept of "becoming", which is often contrasted with "being". "Being" signifies something staying the same as time passes (the suffix "ing" indicates that time is passing), while "becoming" signifies something which is changing while time is passing. Time is the underlying theme. So I approach "being" from a western background, seeing the world as happening, and wondering what is happening. From this empirical, scientific background, there is no "being" for me, being is some sort of mystical ideal, what you've called a platitude.

You do acknowledge here that there is at least the notion of being as something beyond the temporality of concepts. You then reduce it to a meaningless aspect of the physical world.

So there is this mystical concept, "being", which doesn't really relate to anything real in the world, in the way that I understand the world, as consisting of events, happenings. But let's say you and I have both had an interest in this mystical concept, "being", so we've delved into it. You appear to have opted to enroll in some sort of formal mystical training, with a guide, while I have taken the philosophical approach, which is to look into as many different philosophies as possible, approaching the subject from many different directions, and in a sense to be self-guided because I can choose my directions of approach.

Likewise, I am a veritable magpie for collecting philosophical, religious and mystical concepts and traditions. It has though become distilled into a very simple philosophy and view.

What I have been doing here is suggesting some ground rules from which to explore the issue. Just like the philosophical foundations, or ground rules which are required for a discussion of metaphysics for example. These ground rules are necessary so as to be discussing genuine mysticism as practiced down the ages by people who take the discipline seriously. Rather than skirting around the edges which people tend to do who have not studied the discipline, just like with metaphysics.

I haven't really been discussing my personal view, or practice, but rather the equivalent of an academic approach, but for mysticism. Which unfortunately doesn't have much in the way of a formal academic structure in western learning.

I think you express the wrong attitude toward the philosophical approach here. The opposite of what you say about the rigidity of the philosophical approach, is actually closer to the truth. In the philosophical tradition there is a vast array of different approaches to the same issue, being. As you know, philosophers do not agree. The problem with the philosophical approach though, is that there is far too much variance, so unless you go to an organized school, a university or something, and have professors, as guides, who point toward the appropriate material, you might get lost, overwhelmed by the vast material, perhaps wasting a lifetime getting nowhere. So you have chosen a guide instead, but the guide gives you that rigidity of a singular approach, the way that the guide knows. Unless you recognize when you have gotten as far as that guide can take you, and you move along to another guide, in the same way that we switch professors and courses in university, you will not get as far as you might want to get.

Yes some varied background reading and approaching from more than one established path of entry into the discipline. Along with talking with a diverse group of adherents does help one to get a rounded take on the discipline. I suppose what I was getting at in my first post that you reference is that often the philosopher one engages with will require you to use established terminology, follow the ground rules and will be critical, or dismissive of anything which does not fit therein.

Notice how you describe your progression as a type of growth, which is a becoming, rather than a being. This is an odd tendency. We want to refer to ourselves as beings, human beings, such that the self has a temporal extension as the unchanging "I", yet when we describe ourselves we describe a changing, growing creature.

This falls into what I described a minute ago as skirting around the edges of the issue while not adhering to the ground rules. I hadn't gotten around to any ground rules regarding being, or self, or "I"

The natural inclination appears to be to relate to ourselves as beings, something which is, like Descartes said, "I am". However scientific endeavors demonstrate that what we are is changing, growing, evolving things. By what means would I say that I am the same "being" that I was twenty years ago? So science provides no place for the "I", the self. The perception is that expressed by ancient Greece as "becoming". Plato and Aristotle demonstrated and incompatibility between being and becoming, so the concept of "matter" was proposed to reconcile them, to bridge the gap.

Mysticism delves beyond the intellectual, or mind derived understanding of being, self and "I".

I think that the concept of matter provided the basis for a revolution in western mysticism. In pre-Socratic times mysticism consisted of ancient myths concerning the relationship between the gods and the world, as well as the relationship between souls and bodies. These relationships were not well understood, and the myths were very sketchy. After Aristotle the main focus of western mysticism became the nature of matter, whether it's real, whether its inherently evil, etc.. Matter is a central concept in the western world, but there are two very distinct ways of looking at matter. The scientific approach takes matter for granted. The mystical approach does not attribute any necessity to matter.

I don't really perceive a problem, or crisis within mysticism from the modern views and discoveries about matter, physical material.

I see this as the key point, and the reason why time becomes so important. We apprehend ourselves immediately as "a being" because we have memories which provide the base for an "I" or "self", extended in time. However, we also have to relate to what you call here "the animation of events". And this is a very practical issue, which opens up all the questions of freedom, constraint, and agency. We simply cannot deal adequately with any practical issues without having the required understanding of the role of time in the animation of events. The extent of the requirement varies by degree, depending on the subject. But to ourselves, as beings, time only appears as a particular extension, or dimension, of existence. The temporal extension of the self provides the testimony for this. So there are two seemingly incompatible notions of time at play here. One plays a role in my static identity as "I", and the other plays a role in the animation of events.

Yes you point to a potential conflict between temporality and permanence/perfection. Like I have said physical material, as far as I am concerned in this endeavour, is a tool of expression of being. Time and space, spacetime is an aspect of physical extension and material.

I know that this last point could become a point of contention here and I do accept that mysticism does become concerned with matter and time. But only really at a more advanced level and we would need to have established the ground rules of discussion before reaching a point where this can be adequately expressed.

I'm not, as I said it's globalisation what did it. Google globalisation.

It's globalisation what did it. Wages went down in other countries outside the EU too.

OK, but I'm having difficulty grasping what you mean by "pure and divine", "perfect". I've been told before, that if I want to better myself, I need to apprehend this (let's call it an ideal), because I won't be able to truly judge better from worse, without some sort of scale which would be based in the ideal, the notion of perfection. But I don't completely apprehend that need. Can't I just judge one thing as better than another thing, in relation to a third thing? So the one thing is closer to the third thing than the other thing, and therefore better. This would make the third thing the best, of all those three things, without the necessity of being perfect. Now I need to question what makes this third thing the best, and I can't just relate it to a fourth thing, and a fifth thing ad infinitum, so maybe I really do need an ideal to ground the notion of "better".

I will try to address your concerns here. But first I want to put in context what I have been talking about in this thread. What I am referring to is a set of mystical practices, practices which are precisely targeted at a process developed to help a natural growth within a person, rather like practicing Yoga for your health. In this the concern is relationships between aspects of the self of the practitioners so entirely internal. It is the case that the practitioner is living in our world simultaneously to this, but the practice is the focus and in this time is of little importance other than its role in the animation of events. I do accept that time does on occasion become the focus of such practice.

So going back to your concerns. People may tell you to look to perfection of some kind to better ones self, but it is nothing more than a platitude I think, like if you eat more carrots you will have better eye sight. As for judging better from worse, this depends on the perspective when the judgement is made. In mystical practice this is contemplated, but no judgement is made other than what is perceived to be appropriate for the practice. Of course one is free to come the judgements for personal consideration, opinion etc, but this is separate from the practice. I should point out that I don't think the human mind is equipped to understand reality, this is not to say that it is not equipped to behold it, but rather to work it out unaided.

I think that attempting to position the soul in your time theory might be useful, but I don't think we can find the truth of the situation, but what makes sense to us. I am familiar with your thoughts on the metaphysics on time, which I broadly agree with, but haven't enquired into much myself as I am not so concerned with the metaphysics of physical reality. Rather that physical material is a tool for the expression and development of being and that being is of more interest.

I perceive a problem for the human mind in coming to a definitive metaphysics, due to not having any idea where reality begins, or ends, or how deep it goes. Rather like trying to peddle without peddles. I am open to being corrected on this, but don't hold my breath.

An asshole is going to be an asshole after ‘enlightenment’. They might even be an asshole with a more inflated ego, because they’ve experienced selflessness, oddly enough.

Somehow I don't think an asshole would fit through the eye of the needle.

I don’t think we can begin to imagine what is beyond our little fishbowl of experience.

Nicely put.
This would suggest to me that we are not going to figure it out with our little minds, but rather it is revealed to us, or not, as the case may be.

RIP Little Richard.