The third (deep) layer is the layer at which the drive for making the claim in the first place exists. Though Lazerowitz does not focus on this so much, I think the drive often happens for simple confusion – we are not metasemantically transparent creatures, and often in doing metaphysics we literally don't understand what's going on (and we are, in a Wittgensteinian sense, idling the engine while thinking we're driving, or like roadrunners on a treadmill wondering why we're not moving).

But Lazerowitz's explanation is a bit more interesting – he holds that here the philosopher has a desire for the world to be some way, and expresses this desire, typically secretly and unconsciously, by holding metaphysical views. The philosopher knows in some sense that his attempting to change the way he or other people speak cannot change the world in this way, but there is a kind of sleight of mind where one entertains the illusion that perhaps, just perhaps, if I adduce enough arguments to show that time is unreal, time might stop. In other words, there is a recognition that since one can speak however one pleases, that one can in some sense 'make true' whatever one pleases, just by talking about it. But as we saw in the second layer, this has no descriptive effect, and cannot really change the world or even what one thinks about it. Yet making a sentence like 'time is unreal' true according to one's logic, which follows from the employment of words in a certain way, one can sort of blur the eyes and almost believe he has stopped time.

The third layer, therefore, exists on the border of the unconscious, where the philosopher harbors fantasies about the omnipotence of the intelligence, and tries to transfigure the world by means of a kind of 'verbal magic.' He can, like the sophists, 'talk about anything,' and indeed 'argue for anything' – so perhaps he can 'make anything true.' This does not work of course, and the philosopher consciously may know this. But the process itself is so intoxicating that it pulls us in pre-rationally. And it may even service deeper desires – for instance, if I fear change, the mantra that 'time is unreal' may comfort me, because that means change is unreal, and so change cannot hurt me. — Snakes Alive

I do not agree with this characterization of metaphysics at all. What the metaphysician seeks, as all honest philosophers do, is truth. As exemplified by Plato, and Aristotle who was the founder of metaphysics, the process is to delve deep into the practises of mysticism, and derive logical principles. This is not an act of attempting to change the world by changing the way that we speak about it. It is an act of determining the correct way of speaking about it, as exemplified by Platonic dialectics. Furthermore, it involves the very opposite to "fantasies about the omnipotence of intelligence", it involves recognition of the deficiencies of intelligence. I refer you to the thread on mysticism, and remind you that "being" is the subject of metaphysics. Lazerowitz's entire representation of metaphysics is nothing but "chitta chatta" as described below. We cannot get to the "deep layer" in this way.

What I mean by chitta chatta is all dialogue with other people, or with one's self and all conscious thinking. Also all unconscious thinking which emerges into the consciousness. Indeed all mental activity which is involved in and with the sense of self. Alternatively, If you practice meditation for a few hundred hours until you are able to still the mind, what you have stilled is the chitta chatta. The mental activity involved in communion with the higher self does involve some of this*, but is largely that which supports a growing together as an organism. Rather like the grafting of a plant, or a joining together of two plants at the graft. So that after the graft, the two plants merge and become, after some time, indistinguishable. — Punshhh

What I mean by chitta chatta is all dialogue with other people, or with one's self and all conscious thinking. Also all unconscious thinking which emerges into the consciousness. Indeed all mental activity which is involved in and with the sense of self. Alternatively, If you practice meditation for a few hundred hours until you are able to still the mind, what you have stilled is the chitta chatta. The mental activity involved in communion with the higher self does involve some of this*, but is largely that which supports a growing together as an organism. Rather like the grafting of a plant, or a joining together of two plants at the graft. So that after the graft, the two plants merge and become, after some time, indistinguishable. — Punshhh

Thanks Punshhh, I think I'm starting to better understand now. I think this chitta chatta is what I called mental habits, whether they are consciously initiated or unconsciously. According to Aquinas' interpretation of Aristotle, habits are properties of the potential for action. So in the case of mental activity, the potential for thought would be actualized in a particular way, a habitual way, and this would be chitta chatta. The Aristotelian metaphysical structure assigns potential to matter, so the attempt to still the chitta chatta would be an attempt to limit the material influence over the mind. This would allow communion with the soul itself, which is the proper source of activity.

I believe that metaphysics derives its principles from mysticism, through a sort of logical analysis of mystical practises and myths. We can see a lot of this in Plato and Aristotle. Plato brought the mysticism forward presenting it in a way which exposed it to analysis, and Aristotle applied logic to deduce some fundamental metaphysical principles. I'm going to cross reference your post here to the Lazerowitz thread, to support a disagreement I have about how the op characterizes metaphysics. Most of your post makes a lot of sense to me.

With pests adapting to our efforts to eradicate them and becoming super bugs, which can only be kept in check by using more powerful interventions with chemicals, or biological controls. Another is flea Beatle, which is controlled by neonicotinoids (which is now banned in the EU). — Punshhh

I've heard of efforts to restrict neonicotinoids, they're on some of the seeds I plant. But I hate flea beatles, they eat the Kale as fast as it germinates. The use of pesticides is a good example of how we do many things, when we really do not know what we are doing, and we only find out much later, when the effects become apparent, what we have done. Another good example is the use of CFCs and depletion of the atmospheric ozone.

But a lot of scientists believe in eternalism, and I'm pretty sure very few of them believe that there can be no motion under it. Are they just all that stupid for not realizing that motion is impossible under eternalism, or doesn't it have to entail that and the presupposed qualification sceme is simply misguided? — ChatteringMonkey

There's another option, that they believe there's something outside the eternalism framework, which provides the special metaphysical status for something like a spotlight theory. That these people are scientists, and this principle lies outside the discipline of science is reason why they would believe in it without giving it much thought. One can believe in eternalism, and also believe that eternalism gives an incomplete representation of time, without speculating about what is required to complete it. The discipline of science does not require that one speculate about the principles being applied.

What does that have to do with anything...? — jorndoe

Luke objected that I brought in religion to explain how time could be passing in an eternalist universe. But Luke didn't seem to realize that the moving spotlight theory had already smuggled in religion with the reference to a "special metaphysical status" being given to a series of instants.

Well I can easily distinguish between conversations I have with other people and those I have with myself, my inner narrative. Mystical practice can involve a number of different techniques in which one develops a space for communion, or for yogic practices. Practices which can develop aspects of the self not normally used. This can include developing the intuition through meditation and work with the chakras, so as to begin to open the crown chakra. — Punshhh

OK, I just wanted to get clear on what you meant by chitta chatta. I assume from this post, that it is conversations with others. But don't you distinguish between small talk and important talk? So for example, if you have an instructor for this practise, you might take some of the words of the instructor as important, and bear them in mind during the practise. You might not think of this as thinking, but it is a type of thinking, which is sourced from chitta chatta, remembering those words.

The communion with the higher self, as I see it doesn't include thinking, a dialogue, or any kind of chitta chatta. It is more like an osmosis, an imbuing, a merging, through the aura. A growing together. The mental activity manifests more in the way one playfully and creatively contemplates ones own motives, desires and those of the higher self and looks to them becoming the same, in alignment ( there is a great deal that can be said about this, I am barely scratching the surface here). — Punshhh

I'm trying to get a feel for what the higher self is like for you. If there is no proper communication between yourself and the higher self, then is there really any separation between these two at all? Would it be ok to say that these two are really one and the same being? And could I look at this as a transformation, in which the self is being transformed into a higher self? The lower self being the past self and the higher self being the future self.

I don't disagree with the points you raise, but we have evidence of the control over the ecosystem exercised by humanity. For example we have instigated a mass extinction event, one which is entirely of our own making. — Punshhh

But wanton destruction of certain aspects of the ecosystem cannot properly be called "control" over the ecosystem. The ecosystem as a whole is huge. Just because human beings have the capacity, the power, to destroy significant aspects of the ecosystem doesn't mean that they have control over it. Coming in and swinging a sledge hammer around does not give you control over the thing you are hitting. Nor does walking into a crowd shooting an automatic firearm give you control over that crowd.

A very similar principle to the one that I went through concerning teaching is applicable here. You cannot force another living bring into submission, to exercise control over it. You can kill another living being, but this is not the same as controlling it. The living being has to be treated in such a way that it has the will to serve you, then you may exercise control over it, just like the student must be encourage to develop the will to learn, as one cannot be forced to learn. We see this with domesticated animals, we often exercise control over them, but we must do this without abusing them or else we lose their trust.

Domesticated creatures, whom we might properly say we control, make up a relatively small part of the ecosystem. But I think you are correct in a sense, because the agriculture industry is huge, as it must be to support the massive human population. And we as human beings have wiped out massive parts of the natural ecosystem to replace it with the artificial, which we have some control over as domesticated plants and animals. I have some property which I landscape, and it looks aesthetically beautiful to my eyes. But the beauty I see is really just a stoking of my ego, to know that I have a certain degree of control over this part of the ecosystem. In agriculture we control the ecosystem out of necessity, to feed the people.

But the point I am making is that for a large population of humans to live sustainably on the planet, it will require a healthy functioning ecosystem. Something which we are putting in jepardy right now by our stupidity. — Punshhh

Yes I agree that there is stupidity involved, but it might be more like ignorance, or innocence. If a large population of human beings is going to live on the earth, we will need to control the ecosystem to a significant degree, in order to provide for them. This we have very little experience with, and little if any knowledge of how to do it safely. So, we proceed in our naïve and stupid ways, not knowing what we're doing. The population grows a lot faster than our knowledge of how to control the ecosystem, and Nuke is right to compare it to an algae bloom. I like to use the analogy of a culture in a Petri dish. When the conditions are right, the culture expands very rapidly. But the Petri dish has limited resources, just like the earth does, and the culture falls. As we see with the example of the virus, the ecosystem is stacked full of possible sources for the fall of the present human culture. And, we haven't the knowledge to control the ecosystem to the extent required to support the population. In other words, we control the ecosystem just enough to produce a huge population, but there are many layers of hazards within, which most likely will prevent us from sustaining a huge population. But that's part of the balancing system isn't it?

Yes, physical suffering goes back to the dawn of nervous systems. I was attempting to refer to psychological suffering, which I tried to indicate. — Nuke

I haven't seen any principles to distinguish physical suffering from psychological suffering. All suffering seems to have physical and psychological aspects so I don't see how one might be divided from the other.

Yes, thought is very often directed at the attempt to end psychological suffering. — Nuke

It's obviously directed toward ending physical suffering too, but I don't see how you can separate one instance of suffering as exclusively physical, and another as exclusively psychological.

Let's say I'm physically hungry, my stomach is empty. Thought is useful in identifying where I could find food. That's good! But I have to actually eat the food to fill my belly and satisfy the hunger. — Nuke

The will is what causes you to pick up the food and put it in your mouth.

Mysticism is like that, except that it addresses the mind instead of the stomach. Someone could write a book suggesting I meditate, and that suggestion could very well be helpful. But I have to actually meditate to receive the benefit. Just reading the book about meditation won't get the job done. — Nuke

Right, you must have the will to do it. And if you have the will to do something, there is a goal involved. That's why you cannot separate any practise like mysticism, from the goal which one has in taking up the practise.

If you wish to, please specifically identify which belief of mine you are referring to, and I'll attempt to provide the support. — Nuke

The belief I objected to as unreasonable, and unsupported, is your claim that thought is the source of suffering (of any kind).

Superseded by: — DrOlsnesLea

Don't you really mean "substituted by"? Which one provides the substitution sufficient for your needs?

So I've been told, over and over again, but I don't see why there is something fundamentally different about something existing at time t1, t2, etc ... and time passing (aside from the direction and the ontology which I already agreed with). The moments of times associated with past, future and present all exist in eternalism, but not at the same time, right? That's what the 4th dimension indicates. — ChatteringMonkey

Of course the moments are not the same time, they are identified as different times. But the issue is that since there is no direction, as you indicate, and no necessary relationship between moments, there is no time passage and no motion. This is what you seem to be missing, motion is what happens between the thing existing at t1 and existing at t2. The object moves from where it was at t1 to where it is at t2.

No it precisely doesn't assume something outside the four dimensions, that's the whole point, that one should adjust the concept of movement to the 4d frame. — ChatteringMonkey

One cannot "adjust the concept of movement to the 4d frame", because the frame does not allow for what we know as "movement". That's plain and simple. We might say that the frame is correct, and there is no such thing as movement, but that doesn't explain why there appears to be movement. Or we could move to a different frame which allows for movement.

Again I'm not a metaphysician and I don't assume words to have fixed meanings... but if you want to insist that the word movement doesn't apply, fine, then i'll have to invent another word with basically the same meaning for things changing position over time. — ChatteringMonkey

The point is that it would not be "basically the same meaning". That is because there is no principle which states that t1 is necessarily prior to t2, or that the order is not t10, then t250, then t8, then t654,482, or some other random ordering. There is no principle within the 4d eternalist theory which dictates a necessary order.

Furthermore, relativity theory produces a unique problem of numerous possibilities for the positioning of an object at any time point, each position dependent on the frame of reference. Therefore there are numerous possibilities for the positioning of every object, at t5, t6, t7, etc.. If we extend each possibility to the entire temporal extent of the universe we have an infinity of infinities of possibilities for each object.

If one says the block-universe is static or unchanging, one is looking at the whole picture, all the 4-dimensions, and says the 'line' or 'worm' in the eternalist graph as a whole doesn't change (thereby imagining another 5th dimension where that change would have to take place, i.e. 'viewed from the outside'). — ChatteringMonkey

There is no "line" or "worm" provided for by eternalist principles. That's the point you don't seem to get. The line must be produced by referring to something outside eternalism. We could produce the line on any arbitrary principles, including a random ordering of time moments. But whatever principle one might decide to use in producing that order, it is "outside" eternalism.

I use a practice of developing an imagined place in my mind, which is always still like a flame, where there is no breeze. This is kept separate from the chitta chatta. After a while this place develops and one can retreat there, or draw on it at any time. Also at a latter stage, make use of it in restructuring the mind one has controlled. A similar thing is done with the emotions via a safe space within the heart chakra. The aim being, not to become a clean slate to be brainwashed, but rather to further develop the communion with the higher self, or soul. — Punshhh

This is good. You've developed a place in your mind, free from the chitta chatta, which allows you communion with the higher self, soul. Can I ask, how do you distinguish the chitta chatta from the communion with the soul? The communion with the soul must consist of some sort of mental activity, how do you know that it's not just more chitta chatta?

I like to calm my mind in a similar but slightly different way. But I'm a doer, and I like to be active, (and as I explained the natural condition for human beings is to be active), so I put this condition of having a calmed mind to use, prioritizing what needs to be done, in what order, so that I can work efficiently without the confusion of the chitta chatta.

Why do you think that communion with the higher self is a better goal than organizing the activities which you need to do?

An advantage to the extent that we can control the entire ecosystem to our own advantage, or perceived advantage. — Punshhh

I don't agree with this. I think it's somewhat egotistical to think that human beings have the capacity to control the ecosystem. This is the false sense of certainty I referred to earlier, which modern science and technology has given us. We are really at the mercy of the ecosystem. Look at the covid-19 virus for example, we have very little control over it, and if it were more deadly it could wipe out a large part of humanity. Or look at Nuke's example of nukes, mental illness in human beings, or bacterial infection in the nervous system, could cause the use of nukes We really do not know what the ecosystem might throw at us from one year to the next, and there are many different things which it could throw at us which we are completely incapable of dealing with.. The point being that any one species, such as the human species, is much more fragile than the ecosystem as a whole. The ecosystem is made up of millions or billions of species, so the biosphere as a whole, has an enormous capacity to adapt. And it really doesn't matter if numerous species get wiped out, because new species are always being created, adapting to thrive in the same conditions which wiped out the other species.

On the other hand, if one feels as I do that that human suffering arises from the nature of thought itself, that's a different analysis which suggests a different remedy. — Nuke

I don't see how you could support this idea logically. Suffering was in existence long before there was thinking human beings, and a person's thought is very often directed towards ending suffering which is already there. As a child, I was suffering before I was thinking, and when I started thinking, I was thinking about how to end my suffering.

In my view, a key piece of evidence is that human suffering (psychologically) is pretty much universal in every time and place. This suggests a source that all of us share. That can't be the content of thought, as there is a great range of diversity in our philosophies, religions, cultures etc. — Nuke

This doesn't provide the needed support. Suffering existed prior to human beings, as we see that other animals suffer. So suffering has a source which not only human beings share, but other animals share as well. You might argue that other animals think as well, but just because thinking and suffering are coincident, this doesn't mean that one causes the other. Why would you not say that suffering causes thinking instead?

You want to do philosophy. This is philosophy. I challenge you in a friendly way to try to rip it to shreds, in the spirit of philosophy. Go for it! And when you realize that you can't, because nobody can, a couple of somewhat predictable things may happen. First, you may get mad. Then, perhaps you will vanish. Ideally then I would vanish too so that any collisions between my ego and yours will no longer be a distraction. — Nuke

There's nothing to rip to shreds here. You have a belief which appears to me as very unreasonable, which you have provided no logical support for. All I need to do is show that your believe has no support. Further, I can explain from my own experience, that thinking is used as a means for ending suffering. And this is why your belief is unreasonable to me. I can give you numerous examples of how I use thinking to end my suffering, such as when I'm hungry. That this end to suffering is not permanent is irrelevant. Time goes by, new suffering occurs, and the mind thinks of ways to end that suffering. Each instance of suffering is unique and distinct, so it makes no sense to talk about ending suffering in some general, or absolute way. Each time the rain starts to fall, it later ends. But it makes no sense to talk about the end of rain, in a universal way.

Another implication of this understanding is that there is no way to permanently fix the problem of suffering. — Nuke

Suffering is a personal thing, a property of the person's materiality, unique to the individual. Death puts a permanent end to a person's suffering because it separates the person from the body (which is the source of suffering).

Or put in another way, you cannot simply treat a 4d object the same as a 3d object, in the sense that the entire 4d object has to move in time, like a 3d object does. The movement happens within the object because the time-dimension is already included in its existence. — ChatteringMonkey

You don't seem to ever comprehend what Luke is telling you ChatteringMonkey. There is no movement within that 4d object because there is no passage of time. All time exists as part of the block, and for there to be movement something would have to go from one part of the object to another. But this thing would not be represented as part of the object.

Okay, maybe that is how some view the block-universe, I can't speak to how they view it of course. But still, I think using words like 'unchanging' or 'static' to describe the block-universe is misleading because it assumes a perspective from outside the 4 dimensions. — ChatteringMonkey

See, you're on the right track here. Now, do you see how your statement above, "movement happens within the object because the time-dimension is already included in its existence", is inconsistent with this? You cannot say that "movement" happens within the object, because it's a word classed with those others, "unchanging", and "static", which assumes something outside the four dimensions.

Movement requires a passing of time, and there is none of that within the four dimensions, unless you establish a timeline, an ordering, which requires an outside perspective..

You didn't say "more is better", but that is what is implied by an attempt to turn mysticism in to a philosophy. As you reported, we are lost in thought most of the time. If mysticism is made in to a philosophy then we are thinking even more, apparently upon the assumption that more is better. — Nuke

I don't know what you're trying to say, but this makes no sense. I didn't say we're "lost" in thought, I said we are always thinking. In case you haven't noticed, the world is a dangerous place, and if we were not constantly thinking we'd be dead really soon. If I'm saying that we're thinking all the time, I don't see how you can infer that I was talking about thinking even more. What would that mean, thinking faster? I think what is at issue is the subject matter of the thought. Or, are you arguing that mysticism involves no thought at all? If so, how could it be carried out by a human being?

So, how to have a quieter mind? There are a million ways, so the job is not to find "the right way" but rather one or more ways that work for us personally. So, one tries a lot of methods until one finds some that work for them.

For me, just one way, what works best is to nurture a relationship with nature much as one would nurture a relationship with a friend, invest LOTS of time, and open oneself emotionally to the experience.

I typically get up at something like 4am and spend time on the Internuts while I await the sunrise. This typically gets my nerdy overthinking mind fairly stirred up so when I hit the woods at dawn I'll observe myself pounding down the trail like a man late for an appointment. :-) If I stay in the woods long enough my mind and body will gradually and naturally slow down, not as an act of will, and at some point I'll find myself standing in one place for an hour just looking around, with no desire to be somewhere else, here and now enough. — Nuke

OK, a quiet mind is nice sometimes, just like quiet music is nice sometimes. But don't you like to crank up the tunes once in a while. Some people like the loud stuff more than others, it's a matter of personal preference. I wasn't suggesting that we should rule out quiet times.

The danger in making it a fancy goal and a fancy practice is that then it tends to become ripe for an ego take over, ie. even more thought. And it is thought itself which is obstructing the "here and now is enough" experience. — Nuke

I don't know what you mean by "ego take over". And, "here and now" is rarely, if ever enough, because time is passing, and the world is a dangerous place, so we need to be prepared for what might happen. Just because you are standing in the woods just looking around, doesn't mean that you are not prepared to move if a storm threatens, or a dangerous animal approaches. How could you be prepared to act if you were doing nothing other than enjoying the here and now? You are really judging the here and now. In relation to what though, the future?

So to the degree one tries to think oneself to a quieter mind (mysticism as a philosophy etc) one is actually poring more fuel on the fire. It seems all the great religions suffer from this problem to some degree or another, as does this post. — Nuke

I agree, trying to force a quieter mind is like trying to force oneself to go to sleep, it backfires, producing insomnia. But mysticism isn't only about a quiet mind, sometimes we like to crank it up a few notches.

A simple goal is meeting a simple need right now, like eating, sleeping, sex etc. I would propose that thought is just another mechanical function of the body and that it can be managed by simple mechanical means, which is really good news for the person who is serious. But perhaps bad news for the fancy philosopher? — Nuke

Again, you are speaking about personal preference as if it ought to be the goal of everyone. Some like simple goals, some like complex goals. Why do you think that only those with simple goals ought to be mystics?

A fancy goal is climbing some ladder to somewhere glamorous over time. That's what the attempt to turn mysticism in to a philosophy is really all about. The desire to climb the ladder arises from here and now not feeling like enough, and that feeling of lack arises from thought itself. — Nuke

No, the feeling of lack is not cause by thought, it arises naturally from doing nothing. All the simple goals you mention, eating, sleeping, sex etc., are not fulfilled when one does nothing, and this results in the feeling of lack. So the healthy, natural state of the human being is an active state. And to be active requires goals, and this requires thought. Climbing a ladder is not necessary because there are many goals which do not involve climbing ladders. But if one wants to hone a particular skill, this requires practise. Why cast this procedure, of producing skill, in such a negative light, as "climbing some ladder to somewhere glamorous"?

Mystics might proceed to different levels, but this does not mean that they are necessarily climbing a ladder to somewhere glamorous, so why would you say that the goal of any particular practise is to get somewhere glamorous. In reality, to get somewhere glamorous is a goal in itself, and many different practises might be used to get there.

The evidence for that claim is that a chronic feeling of lack afflicts pretty much everyone in all times and places. It's a seemingly near universal property of the human condition. That suggests that the source of this feeling is something we all share in common. — Nuke

I've had that feeling of lack before, and it arises from doing nothing. Doing nothing gives one nothing to think about, no goals, no activities. As discussed, we cannot turn off the thinking, so having nothing to think about results in thinking about nothing. Thinking about nothing is that feeling of lack. So the feeling of lack, and the thinking are one and the same, two aspects of the same thing. One is not caused by the other. But this condition is caused by doing nothing.

The experience of mysticism is not a goal oriented activity. What we think about that experience may very well be goal oriented. Better? I agree I could have said this more clearly earlier. — Nuke

This does not clarify anything. The "ism" suffix indicates a theory, a doctrine, or practice. I don't see how you can say that mysticism is an experience, that's simply a misuse of words.

These topics have been discussed in earnest for thousands of years, and the human condition remains largely unchanged. — Nuke

I don't think anyone can seriously claim that the human condition has remained largely unchanged for the last few thousands of years.

It is important to separate one of the first principles of mysticism from any intellectual analysis. The idea, or concept that the mystic is not going anywhere in the sense of attaining a goal. But rather attempting to cease any goal, or seeking of a goal. There is an objective, but the objective is the negation of objectives, the negation of determining goals and working towards them. It is a neat psychological trick, which I found very productive when I was younger. — Punshhh

Right, clear your mind of all goals, and also (the hardest part) the inclination to produce a goal. That this takes effort, will power, is indication that the natural state of the human being is to be active.

This is the first step of indoctrination, what some would call brainwashing, clearing the mind to have a clean slate. As I explained, we ought to rid ourselves of the negative connotations involved in these descriptive terms, as this is an educational process entered willfully, and carried out by the student. In no way is the teacher capable of forcing this procedure onto the student.

Yes, I am aware of this. I was only referring the pressing purpose of humanity as a whole. To reiterate, the pressing purpose of humanity is, to begin to live in harmony with/in the ecosystem, in a way which secures the health of the ecosystem and the human civilisation, for the medium and eventually long term. — Punshhh

I don't think that ecosystems can actually behave or exist in the type of balanced harmony you describe. There are ups and downs in one species or another, as one becomes strong and takes supremacy over another, then for some reason becomes weaker and becomes suppressed or even driven into extinction. It's not a balance at all, but a complex process of ups and downs, as one species prospers because of an abundance of the resource it requires, until this resource runs out, and it cannot adapt. Then another species might come into prosperity on the waste of that species, etc..

I keep Finding myself making a reference to a concept that has been developed over a long period, has a lot of theory behind it and used in its development, or derived from a divine revelation from a trusted source and yet is something not commonly talked about, or perhaps conceived. I think I might have to begin introducing footnotes to explain them. — Punshhh

I don't think I quite understand this concept you are making reference to. Is it a sort of metaphysical principle?

For example, is a geometer's knowledge of his science already complete from the get go or is this completeness achieved with time? — Two

As described in Aristotle's Metaphysics, the geometer's procedure of constructing and understanding geometrical figures is the actualization of potential. This is a temporal process.

When it comes to mysticism, it does tend to become relegated to part of the chitta chatta of the mind. However, personally I am of the opinion that mysticism and metaphysics can mesh together and provide a useful comparison. — Punshhh

I've been told in the past, that metaphysics is a form of mysticism, and I've see reasons to believe this. This is part of the reason why I do not accept Nuke's attempt to divide mysticism from philosophy as if it is not a form of philosophy. Some philosophers in the west attempt to exclude metaphysics from philosophy, claiming it is not valid philosophy, but a mysticism instead. I do not see how any good could come from enforcing a division between mysticism and philosophy, like the one requested by Nuke.

If we have different ways of doing the same thing, then despite the different ways, we are still doing the same thing. What one is doing is determined by reference to the end, the goal. So if we both have the same goal, we are doing the same thing, perhaps in a different way though. Nuke attempts to avoid this reality by claiming that mysticism is not a goal directed activity, but that is nonsense.

Indeed, I work from the premise that this kind of understanding and the experience of this incarnate world is an imperfect fabrication, construction. Not a principle. — Punshhh

I don't see any difference between these two, simply different words to refer to the same thing. To me a principle, which an individual might try to follow as a rule, is a construction, and human constructions are all imperfect. So a principle is always an imperfect fabrication.

In my mind, I believe that any principle, or rule to be followed, can only be followed willingly. But when we cross over, from the side of the student, to the side of teacher, the principle or rule to be taught, may be referred to by the descriptive terms of "doctrine", or "dogma". In some cases these terms develop a connotation of force, as if the doctrine, or dogma consists of rules which are being forced upon the students. Furthermore, in some instances the authorities act as if they believe that the doctrine is to be forced on the students. So we have a difference here in the attitude which the authorities, or teachers, have toward the rules or principles, and their relation to the students. In the one case, the person of authority sees oneself as a teacher who's task it is to educate the students concerning the rules or principles, such that the students willfully follow the rules. In the second case, the person of authority perceives a need to force the underling to follow the rules. I believe that the latter is a futile effort. So when we use terms like "doctrine" and "dogma" we must be careful not to conjure up those connotations which relate to that impossible effort. The image of a doctrine or dogma being forced on unwilling recipients is an illusion, and the closest we get to this is brainwashing.

If we conclude that the human mind is inadequate, then what is the alternative? — Punshhh

Remember, we were talking about evolution. So the fact that the human mind is presently inadequate does not mean that it will always be inadequate. And as I explained, I believe in a Lamarckian type of evolution which means that evolutionary changes come about as a result of the actions willed by the being. With these premises, attempting to understand what the human mind cannot presently understand, may help to bring about the evolutionary changes required to produce a mind which can understand this.

One of the first realisations of the mystic is that the mind (as it is conditioned) is inadequate and more of a hindrance to progress than a means to progress. That the nature of reality, indeed ourselves, our bodies and every experience is an unfathomably mystery*. The development of communion, or that kind of intuition which develops between the personal self (the personality) and the higher self, or soul, is regarded as of more importance and the establishment of some kind of direction via this intuition — Punshhh

I had a hard time understanding this passage, how the mind could be a hindrance to progress, until I grasped the importance of the qualification "as it is conditioned". So if we can separate the mind itself, from the habits of the mind, then it is not the mind itself which is the hindrance, but the habits which it currently has. I agree that it is very important to attempt as much as possible to separate the mind from its habits, as this would be the only way that we could come to recognize which habits are bad habits, hindrances. If the goal is freedom, as I suggested in the other post, then the mind must be separated from all habits, as any habit is a hindrance to freedom. Perhaps the type of revelation you describe in the footnote requires that the mind has this type of freedom, to a maximum possible degree.

The problem isn't one of identifying a purpose, the (immediate) purpose is clear to any intelligent person who gives it some thought, as I have pointed out. The problem is the choreography of the population to carry it out. Political and economic issues are likely to cause the demise of the current civilisation and the survivors will have to start again (I don't want to get into a discussion of these issues here). — Punshhh

Determining the purpose which unifies is not as easy as suggesting an "immediate" purpose. As we know, short term goals often conflict with long term goals. in the case of pleasure for example, we are tempted by immediate gratification sometimes at the expense of a long term negative effect. And different people are tempted by different things. So what you call "immediate" might appear like a long term solution to someone who has extremely short term goals like the pleasure seeker.

Eating is an essential aspect of our natural development. Does it follow that therefore we should eat all day long every day? More is better? Everything is all about eating? Or would it be more sensible to establish a healthy balance between eating and not eating? — Nuke

I never said we ought to do any single thing all day long. Nor did I say more is better. So this is all irrelevant.

Thinking is an essential aspect of our natural development. Does it follow that therefore we should think all day long every day? More is better? Everything is all about thinking? Or would it be more sensible to establish a healthy balance between thinking and not thinking? — Nuke

I do think all day long, it's not something I can turn off, and I don't see how anyone could. Even if I try in meditation, thoughts still come into my mind. My will is not strong enough to produce a blank mind. Is yours? If so, how do you start your blank mind back up after you've turned it off?

To try to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or a religion or any other thought based goal oriented project, is to kill it. — Nuke

You seem to be missing the point. Any sort of practise is goal oriented, that's what a practise is. And we set rules to guide the practise toward the goal. So if any type of mysticism employs any ground rules whatsoever, as Punshhh described, the rules must be formulated according to some goal, or goals. To say that mysticism is an activity which is not goal oriented is completely nonsensical because this implies that any random act is an act of mysticism. But as Punshhh explained mysticism clearly does not consist of random acts, it is structured on rules.

So now you are claiming that when you originally said that I dismiss eternalism because it requires religion to make sense of temporal passage, what you meant was that I accept eternalism because it requires religion to make sense of temporal passage. Except this doesn't make sense, because I don't accept eternalism either. — Luke

Sorry Luke, it seems like we're speaking different languages.

The Moving Spotlight theory already makes sense of temporal passage in an eternalist framework so no "religious principle" is required. — Luke

As stated in the op, the moving spotlight theory requires a "special metaphysical status" assigned to a series of instants. I simply validated this "special metaphysical status" by giving it something tangible to correspond with, "soul". Otherwise the series of instants with a so-called special metaphysical status, would be completely arbitrary. I could have used "God", but that seemed too religious.

However I went further, I realised incidentally (while contemplating other things) that the human logic exercised in such realisations may be naive, incapable of comprehending the formation and processes of sustaining material in a realm*. — Punshhh

When Aristotle is read thoroughly, especially his Physics and Metaphysics, it is revealed that matter is simply a concept. It is a concept employed toward understanding the observed temporal continuity of physical bodies. So this process you refer to, "the process of sustaining material in a realm" is thoroughly hidden from us, as "mysterious"; it is hidden behind this concept "matter". That's why I said western mysticism was directed toward matter. We are very clearly incapable of understanding this temporal continuity. But recognizing the reality of this inability to comprehend, and giving a name to the thing which appears to us but cannot be understood, is not itself naivety, as it is a recognition of naivety, and a very reasonable step toward understanding what is currently unknown.

Naivety enters this picture when people accept this name "matter", as referring to a named thing, rather than as referring to an idea or notion of continuity, which is just a placeholder for that "process of sustaining material in a realm". The naivety is produced because the name does not refer directly to that process, but to how the process appears to us, as temporal continuity. This makes the process into a thing "temporal continuity". And this naivety, or ignorance, the idea that the incomprehensible process is a thing, is propagated by Newton's first law which assigns a property to that thing "matter", inertia, thus reinforcing the naïve notion that matter is a thing. So a human mind might accept this law in an uninformed act of naivety, and accepting it in this way produces the naive idea that matter is a thing with this property.

* for example, I contemplate numerous more imaginative, creative solutions to metaphysics derived from other sources than the philosophical tradition. Often taking their lead from concepts presented in some form in the mystical and religious traditions. But as I said earlier this is a leasure pursuit in terms of mystical service, not really of any import, other than at more advanced stages of mystical development. — Punshhh

As we've discussed, there are different forms of mysticism. So if you have a different, "more imaginative" solution to this problem of temporal continuity, which is of course the basis of "identity" and "self", I would say that is to be encouraged, and perhaps you ought to explain it. But "more imaginative" does not equate with "better", as there is the issue of correspondence with reality, truth. And we must respect this. This is why "matter' has been adopted by western mysticism, it has been presented and utilized as the most useful principle of identity, in relation to truth.

So I suppose what I am saying in response to the metaphysics you present here, while it is good philosophy and a useful model for contemplation. It is attempting to form an explanation of something which the human mind is as yet unable to conceive. Also it doesn't appear to have any guidance from a route of divine intuition, although I may be mistaken here, but rather it is a bottom up logical summation from a position of ignorance. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that humanity is up to the task of understanding reality and manifestation, but rather that we are still at an early and naive stage in our progress in this endeavour. — Punshhh

I can't see that you have any valid criticism here unless you are attempting to deny the philosophical nature of human beings, the will to know. We've all, as human beings, come into existence from an evolutionary process which proceeds from a lesser knowing to an increased knowing. So the philosophical nature, the will to know, or desire to know, is inherent within the human being as an essential aspect of our natural development. Therefore, when we apprehend an aspect of reality which "the human mind is as yet unable to conceive", it is completely consistent with human nature, hence good, to name this aspect such that we can begin to talk about it, attempt to describe it, and proceed toward some form of explanation. In this case, that thing which we are "as yet unable to conceive", is what I have named the temporal continuity of physical bodies, and what Aristotle named as matter. Now, in this post I have proceeded toward describing this named thing as the basis of identity and self. Whether these principles emanate from what you call a "divine intuition" is completely irrelevant, something you merely throw in as a ruse, because what is important is correspondence with reality, truth. If your notion of "divine" is not consistent with what is provided for us by nature (the will to know, i.e. truth), then how would you ground it? is there some other aspect of human nature which is more potent or important than the will to know?

Maybe you do not take a serious interest in politics these days. In reality the civilisation we are in is deeply flawed in its constitution and is controlled largely by greed and exploitative forces, negating any progress for humanity. Leaving us in a very vulnerable position.

Going back to what I was saying about our work in terms of a progress in development of the race of humanity and individual people. Mysticism is concerned with working to improve things here. Even the mystic who is practicing alone, or in a tradition in which service is not focussed on, are working in a positive way, by exercising mysticism. There are for example, a large number of people who pray for humanity, or who at least are concerned for progress to be made. But unfortunately the world is held in a stranglehold by divisive and exploitative powers who seek to control the population for greed and power. Divide and rule etc. — Punshhh

I agree, the problem is very deep. And as I said, I believe resolution requires a deep understanding of the nature of "purpose". What unites people is to bring them together in cooperation toward a common goal. What divides them is the false certainty that a specific identified goal is the correct goal. So "purpose" is the double edged sword, it is what unites us, and it is what divides us.

This is like saying you dismiss salt because it requires religion to make sense of pepper. — Luke

Huh? I thought you didn't want to discuss this. Why make such a strange analogy? What I meant, is that you dismiss eternalism, because accepting eternalism requires that you also accept religion in order to understand the passage of time.

You have been harping about how eternalism makes the passage of time unintelligible, and I explained how if you accepted a religious principle (the soul), you could make sense of time passage in an eternalist framework. You said simply "please don't bring religion into this discussion". So I assume that this is the reason why you dismiss eternalism, because under an eternalist framework it requires religion to make sense of time passing. In other words, you seem to be biased against religious principles.

Yes, I agree, but this freedom and development of bodies is a further evolution within this physical system within which we find ourselves (as beings).
Let me put it another way, if we weren't constrained by our physical bodies, but some other kind, perhaps more subtle body, while our being is unchanged it's expression would be different due to the particular conditions of those bodies. So for example we might have direct telepathic communication whatever the distance between us, or could see each other's thoughts like pictures, or holograms and act in group formation like bees or angels and have entirely different kinds of experiences, or goals.
Just as we are placed into our material world and are learning it's ways, likewise we would be placed into this other world and would be learning its ways. The point being we are learning a process of that world. — Punshhh

I think it is a mistake to visualize this situation in terms of a "physical system", or relations between bodies. This is why the nature of time and its relation to freedom of choice becomes a very important feature. We describe the world which we sense as bodies and physical systems . But the sensible world is the world of the past. Everything sensed is in the past by the time that the living being has sensed it. The living systems, the systems within the living being, produce the images of bodies with spatial relations, and this (what Kant called phenomena), is the world of empirical science. A body is something which has been perceived as remaining relatively stable (the same) for an extended period of time, in the past, up until the present.

Now, the continuity of this stability (the perceived existence of bodies), into the future, is taken for granted by physicists, and expressed as Newton's first law, the law of inertia. It is the reliability of this law which supports the predictive capacity of physics, as a discipline.

However, this law is not completely consistent with observations of our experience of freedom of choice, and this is what creates the divide between the precepts of determinism and those of free will. As an example, hold an object in your hand with the intent of dropping it, or sit still with the intent of standing up. You can initiate any one of these sorts of actions at any random time, without an external cause. This is the power of the will, it can act in the physical world of bodies and physical systems (the world of the past), described by Newton's first law, at any moment, without a cause from within that physical world. This means that the will is an exception to the law of inertia. This law is supported by an illusion, the illusion of a necessary continuity of existence of bodies, from the past into the future. Once we grasp this illusion as an illusion, and accept this principle that free will violates the law of inertia as the truth, instead of accepting the universal applicability of the law of inertia, we see that the continuity of any body, any physical system, can be randomly annihilated at any moment of passing time, through an act of will. The human will of course is very limited in its capacity, having control over a relatively small body, but if we imagine a more powerful will, like a divine will, we can imagine limitless power to defy the law of inertia and the supposed continuity of existence of bodies. Further, the example of atomic reactions, and nuclear energy, demonstrates that the human capacity to annihilate the inertial continuity of bodies and physical systems at will, is not quite as limited as it might seem.

This inconsistency between the perceived necessary continuity of physical bodies, and the capacity of the will to randomly break that continuity, produces a peculiar problem in relation to one's understanding of the nature of time. In order to maintain the reality of what we intuitively know to be true (freedom of the will), we must reject the necessity of the continuity of physical existence. This has a significant effect on one's world view. If at any random moment of passing time, any physical body could cease to exist, then we cannot assume any physical existence in the future. There must be no physical bodies in the future in order that any physical body might cease to exist at any moment of passing time. This implies that the entirety of physical existence must be created anew at every moment, as time passes. What we notice as motion and change is the differences in the physical world, from one moment to the next. It is not the case that there is massive physical bodies extending indefinitely into the future, with small changes happening at each passing moment, it is the case that all massive bodies are recreated at each moment, with small differences. This revelation is very difficult to comprehend because we are trained to understand the physical world in terms of continuity and inertia. But the premise derived from the freedom of the will to make random changes necessitates this logical conclusion. So this necessary conclusion, that the entire physical world is created anew at each passing moment of time, completely humbles all of humanity who grasp it, by belittling our extremely deficient state of knowledge, as it becomes evident how extremely limited is our capacity to understand this reality.

Yes, but they still might destroy the ecosystem and cause their own demise. It will require them to learn how to prevent this demise and do their own housekeeping, keep their own house in order, now that they have developed the liberty to do so. — Punshhh

I believe, that since the desire for knowledge is inherent within the human being, as a fundamental driving force, then the humbling referred to above, which comes about from a recognition of the extreme inadequacies of the present state of human knowledge, is enough in itself, to inspire humanity to "do their own housekeeping". The process is ideological. The will to know is extremely strong, and when a vast area of unknown is revealed, there is a strong inclination to produce the means to proceed. To improve the state of human knowledge, and prevent human demise, ideology must change substantially.

Conversely though, many human beings presently believe that almost everything which it is possible to know is already known, and that a theory of everything is right at our fingertips. This false certitude is what breaks the will, sending us into demise, and self-destruction, as it is the very same sin as the sin of the fallen angel, conceit. It equates humanity with God, failing to see how deficient our knowledge really is.

In order for a civilisation of primates to live in harmony with its ecosystem, especially so when they are highly intelligent is a Herculean task and it is only now after a few million years of autonomy that we are beginning to understand what this entails. — Punshhh

Cooperation requires a common goal. That is why a clear understanding of the nature of purpose is so important. When society gets fractured, i.e. I don't agree with your goal, you don't agree with my goal, cooperation is impossible. Even if disagreement plunges humanity into crisis, it cannot pull itself out of that crisis without agreeable goals. I believe the desire for, and quest for knowledge is such a goal which can unite people in cooperation. But if there is a large number of people who believe that we already know all there is to know, these people have already reached a dead end in relation that goal, and cannot cooperate in that endeavour.

We find ourselves in a highly structured and rigid physical framework entombed in a body through which we have to learn to behave in a way developed through an evolution in this material. It is the nature of this behaviour which is being learned. How could it be anything other than this? — Punshhh

I don't see evolution in this way. I see evolution as a process, a passage forward, and this is why I reject the proposed divisions of . As such, evolution is expressed as a changing material body. In that change we the being must break free from the constraints of the past, allowing for more freedom. So the instinctual way is the constrained way of the past, constrained by that particular material body. Breaking free from these particular constraints means changing the material body into a body which allows for more freedom. This is the process called evolution. If we look at what is known about the history of biological evolution we can see many such stages of development toward more freedom, some obvious ones being the step from water based creatures to land and air, and the step from plant to animal. One might also characterize rational thinking as such a step.

So I see instinctual behaviour as hereditary, already having been learnt, far back in time. When we learn behaviour on the other hand, whether being self-taught, or taught by others, we are proceeding beyond the habits of the material body which only gives us instinctual behaviour, to learn new behaviour. The new behaviour is not intrinsic to the purpose of, or why that material body is the form that it is. The material body may then change (in evolution) to accommodate these new behaviours. This is Lamarckian evolution.

The point is, once the instinctive behaviour is lost it is lost forever, it is permanent, there is no way back. Hence it is a fall, a fall into an abyss.
This is so important IMHO I will reiterate it, the moment humanity took control of its own destiny, learnt the intelligence to supersede its natural instinctive behaviour in the ecosystem, it metaphorically left the Garden of Eden, with no way back, it was shut out, metaphorically was left to wonder in the wilderness forevermore and would now have to find its own way forward, or perish*. — Punshhh

I do not really agree with this passage. When "humanity took control of its own destiny", this was just a natural stage of evolution. Evolution results from the living being acting beyond its means, the means being why the living body exists as it does, to serve some purpose determined in the far past. Now human beings find new ways to use there bodies, ways that go far beyond the old actions which produced that particular form, so the form of the human body needs to evolve now, to follow.

Superseding the natural instinctive behaviour is the natural course of evolution. It doesn't matter that such behaviour gets "lost forever". It doesn't matter that when I die, the behaviour which is particular to me is lost forever. Nor does it matter that the specific behaviour which was particular to dinosaurs, or any other species which has gone extinct, is lost forever. All these forms of behaviour, like any living behaviour is just the means to an end. If the behaviour is meaningful it will be learnt and forwarded The end, in this example, is the "improved" body, brought about through evolution.

The point being that it would not be productive to turn back. We are on a journey forward, as evolution indicates. If we took the wrong route at the last fork in the road, by the time that this reality occurs to us it is too late to go back. We must simply try to correct for this at the next junction. And this applies for all life forms, some even get onto a dead end and wind up extinct. So if you think that humanity has taken a wrong turn, we can't go back, but we can try to correct for it in the roads ahead. Otherwise we could be on the road to extinction. The road we are on, at any given time, is very much determined by our past material bodies (instinctual behaviour). But the future road is not. So we always need to make corrections as we go, when it becomes evident that improvement is needed. This is what I believe Jesus did, show a needed correction.

Yes, indeed, but from fellow, more experienced mystics, not from philosophers who love to speculate, being unfamiliar with the internal adventures. — jgill

So far in this thread, there have been no principles established which would distinguish a mystic from a philosopher. It appears like the mystic is a type of philosopher, so your statement is rather pointless.

Consider my example. The sign needs to be interpreted for the mystic to proceed, so an appeal is made to "more experienced mystics". Don't you think that the more experienced mystics would need to engage in some degree of speculation in their interpretation? As a journey into the unknown, each sign is a novel and unique occurrence, therefore speculation is required.

So if speculation is a defining feature of philosophers, you have only made some mystics into philosophers, those who are capable of reliable speculation, the more experienced mystics. If the less experienced mystics were to speculate, their speculations would be misguided. This is very evident in philosophy, and on this forum; when undisciplined philosophers speculate, their speculations are misleading. But open, or public speculation really ought to be confined to experienced philosophers, those who have taken the time to learn the basics, just like it ought to be confined to experienced mystics. We do this by ignoring, (or on this forum, criticizing) the inexperienced speculations.

I am not familiar with the theology around Satan. The analogy I use is the fall, the mystery of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and how humanity in gaining intellectual knowledge lost its way. Because that knowledge enabled people to disregard their instinctive evolutionary behaviour which kept them within their evolutionary niche and in balance with the ecosystem. Once this balance was lost, at some point the people would have to manage their own position in the ecosystem to prevent destroying it. I see this as one of the important human initiations being undergone at this time (this instantiation of humanity), that humanity's task on this world in this epoch is to learn how to maintain and control its balanced position in a functioning ecosystem past the point of inevitable crisis. Each of us can play our individual role in this endeavour, but might experience powerlessness due to the poor state of human affairs at this time. It's a rocky road ahead. — Punshhh

The instinctive behaviour is a double edged sword. Because human beings, by their very nature, have a material body, they have a natural, instinctual inclination towards sin. It is the needs of the material body which lead us in temptation. On the other hand there is an instinctual, spiritual tendency, toward good and breaking the temptation, The so-called balance is a bit of a deception because the original fall is what forced us into a material body as a sort of punishment. The punishment of having the soul incarnate with a body is to make us know our place, as lower than God. But the same thing, which reminds us of that worst sin, (the sin of the fallen angel), the punishment which is to be chained to a material body, also inclines us to turn away from God and wallow in our sins. This is why punishment in itself, is that double edged sword. It may incline one towards respect for the authority, or it may incline one to disrespect the authority, depending on the circumstances. You might call this a balance, but I think that the two extremes tend to negate each other rather than balancing,. Being at the extremities they don't have the required support. This leaves those in the middle, neither vengeful of the punishment nor subdued by it, as the ones who must maintain the balance you refer to.

like I said it is a point of crisis for life, humanity in this epoch, the purpose of which, as we have already discussed is not known. Other than the wisdom of natural cycles of life and evolutionary development. In regards of the higher trinity, there would be Mystics undergoing initiations into the higher trinity within the population, their initiations playing out within the crisis conditions, but the goal of the whole of humanity attaining that goal is a long way off, eons away. They have first to learn to keep their house in order within a healthy ecosystem. — Punshhh

I look at the ecosystem here as the material body. To have a healthy spirit requires a healthy body.

So the mystic who thinks they are somehow orchestrating their mystical development is mistaken and should apply some humility, which would help and enable them to move forward. — Punshhh

I think this is an important point which needs to be stressed. If we could characterize mysticism as a journey into the unknown, then it would be evident that the mystic requires some guidance. The trip is into the unknown, so the mystic must have faith, or trust in whatever it is that is doing the guiding. Let's say that the mystic is guided by signs. In order that the sign can give any sort of guidance, it needs to be interpreted, and the interpretation is an explanation of the meaning of the sign. This is why I can't accept what says about removing explanation from the experience.

Let's suppose that a person enters this trip without any specific purpose, or any specific direction in mind. A sign appears, and the person must decide whether the sign says go left, go right, go straight ahead, or whatever. The person could make up anything, saying that for me, the sign means go straight ahead, so I'm going straight ahead. But that person is really just lost within one's own imagination, perhaps falling into some sort of mental illness or something. The real mystic would want to know the real meaning of the sign, to know the real direction to go, and therefore would seek help to interpret the sign.

Not interested. Please take it elsewhere. — Luke

You dismiss eternalism because it requires religion to make sense of time passage. That says a lot about you.

Please don't bring religion into this discussion. — Luke

In case you haven't yet noticed, religion offers the most intelligent understanding of time.

Couldn't you argue that Presentism presumes that same power, it just names it "time"? — Echarmion

Sure that's the case, but the two perspectives are completely different. One says that movement, what Luke calls "change", is the result of the active soul moving through the static universe, while the other says that "change" is the result of time moving in the universe. The eternalist perspective removes the soul from the universe.

How the mind works is the more interesting question. Given my description, it'd have to be outside the space-time block. That may be the reason Metaphysician Undercover called it a "soul". — Echarmion

That's right, the soul is commonly said to be eternal and immaterial, outside the space-time block.

That may very well be true. If one sees experience as a means to the end of understanding, then that could be a problem. If one sees experience as having it's own value independent of anything else, then not understanding the significance isn't such a problem. — Nuke

I don't think this would be any form of mysticism though, to value experience independently of everything else. Wouldn't this be some sort of extreme selfishness?

By now we all know that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are vested in the states, and that the states and municipalities are in charge of both their public health and policing. — NOS4A2

Obviously, viruses don't respect municipal boundaries, nor are they deterred by county lines or state lines, they run free with their hosts. A municipality, on its own does not have the power to prevent incoming traffic. Nor does a state have that capacity. So your point, which assumes that they do, is really pointless. Not surprising, coming from who it comes from.

The passage of time is not "re-defined" under B-theory Eternalism. Time does not pass according to the B-theory. — Luke

The passage of time in a B-theory perspective is completely psychological. The soul, as an eternal unchanging being, is thrust into the space-time world, and propelled through that world by a mysterious force. It is the movement of the soul through the space-time world which produces the appearance of time passing.

Since this perspective requires a soul with a unique power moving it through the medium, and most B-theorists would not accept such a premise, the more appealing solution is the simulation hypothesis. This hypothesis removes the source of movement from the soul, thereby removing that mysterious power required to move the soul through the medium, and replaces it with the idea that the entire space-time world is a simulation created by some mysterious power.

In either case, a mysterious power is required to produce the perception of movement.

We have two trinities the lower (physical body, the emotional body, the lower mind) and the higher ( higher mind, soul, spirit). This is the incarnate human, but there is also that present, which is not incarnate, or is prior than incarnation. This level is the level which is expressed in the six levels of incarnation, I Refer to monad here it could be seen as God or Brahman.

So the expression manifests as 6, but that which is expressed is also present in its unexpressed form, making 7. — Punshhh

Is the seventh, as prior to incarnation, an absolute then?

Also physical material is not treated as a principle, but more as a substrate which is not used when the person becomes resident in the higher trinity. — Punshhh

I believe that in traditional western mysticism, which I think has very little remnants today, the subject of incarnation becomes central. The prior, immaterial existence, what I called the absolute above, is taken for granted, understood as a necessary condition. But this opens up the question of what have we done to deserve incarnation, the incarnated state being an inferior state. So we have mystical teaching about Satan and the fallen angels. Satan, I believe was created by God as the archangel. But in seeing his great power he believed himself to be God, or equivalent to God, and therefore was exiled by God.

Instead of looking forward toward the higher trinity you describe, we as western mystics look backward to see the reason why we have been cast into this fallen condition. This is why matter is an important principle, because a lower trinity is always separated from a higher trinity by a material separation, matter exists by degrees. And matter is a principle of temporality which succumbs to corruption. So in the west we are stressed by our past. Why have we been thus saddled? We have been given this less than perfect conditioned, burdened with the deprivations of matter. We cannot rise to the higher trinity which you describe, to obtain freedom, unless we come to understand how we are chained to the weight of matter, and release the bonds which hold us.

I don't think the discourse should be taken as a replacement for the genuine mystical experience. — Punshhh

This ought to be self-evident, because without the genuine mystical experience there would be no description of it, or discourse about it, whatsoever.

Ok, but if one dumps the explanations then there is no course, other than to the experience. — Nuke

What I think and I described earlier, is that one cannot adequately understand the significance of such an experience on one's own. The mystic might apprehend that the experience is significant, and meaningful, but the meaning itself, or significance, will not be understood unless that person relates the experience to something else, and this is best done through explanations, descriptions, and comparisons with others. That is what brings out the true meaning of the experience. So to experience, just for the sake of the experience itself, without any discussion or explanation, leaves the experience completely meaningless.

Not quite a philosophical contributor. — Outlander

Exactly, very little, if anything of philosophical value there.

Please, don't let my dog know these opinions.

Anyway , the important news is that Trump is going to get a second term on the back of leftist stupidity. — Chester

Isn't this a direct expression of Hillary Clinton's and her supporter's problem last time around, believing herself to have won the election long before it even occurred?

Can we just dump the explanations? Most of the time, probably not. We're human so explanations are probably going to happen, especially if one has a philosophical nature. But we don't have to take the explanations too seriously, especially given that doing so is usually an act of taking ourselves too seriously. — Nuke

Do you think that the mystic ought not take oneself seriously?

On top of that, Flynn didn’t do a single thing wrong in that phone call, and threw water on a potentially dangerous situation. He was railroaded for it. — NOS4A2

The question is not whether he did something wrong in the phone call, it's whether he lied about it later. Clearly he did lie, because obviously he did talk to the ambassador requesting that Russia not take any actions which would escalate the situation. This is what he claimed that he did not do. He even recognized himself that he lied and plead guilty to making those lies.

If you can get yourself beyond this simple reality, instead of trying to rationalize his lying as something other than lying, then you might address the real issue of why he lied? Did he believe that what he did was wrong, having a guilty conscience, or was he subjected to undue pressure (torture or something) from the investigators, and this induced his lies? Did he simply forget? Or did he lie for some other reason?

agree, also I can work with that because it lends itself to the triadic axiomatic system (for want of better words) I use.
So the dark aspect I would equate with the father, God, will power. The lighter aspect with the mother, the Holy Spirit, nature(physical material) The grey area with the son of the father and mother, the Christ, the human mind. So I can draw a correspondence as follows.

1, first aspect............the dark,....father,.....God.....soul.......will
2, second aspect.......the light....mother.....Spirit....Body....Intelligence
3, third aspect............the grey....son..........Christ...Mind....agency

Although I prefer to swap 3 for 2 here in the trinity so we have father, (dark) and mother (light) at either side/side end and son (grey) in the middle.

So father is will, the creator, purpose.
Mother is the universe, the bearer of life, wisdom.
Son is humanity, the creation, mind, or agency. — Punshhh

The triadic system, or trinity, is very useful in understanding the nature of reality because it provides the basis for understanding the unity of the two distinct aspects outlined by dualism. A common attack against dualism by monist materialists is that the two distinct aspects proposed by dualism, the temporal and the eternal, cannot interact. But this is a very naïve criticism because the problem presented was actually resolved by Plato long ago with the introduction of the tripartite soul. And we can bet that Plato took the principles from somewhere else, so the problem has likely been resolved for as long as there has been dualism In this conception he explains the relationship between mind and body as occurring through passion or spirit, the third element.

In Plato's description the spirit might ally with the mind, so that the human being acts in a reasonable way, or in a corrupt soul, the spirit would ally with the body making the person act in a way contrary to what the person believes is the reasonable good. Notice that positing this third element, spirit, allowed Plato to account for the moral dilemma resulting from the observed reality that people will do what they know is bad. The sophists claimed to teach virtue, but Socrates demonstrated a problem with the idea that virtue could be taught as a form of knowledge, by showing that even if the person knows what is right, this does not necessarily impel the person to do what is right. This is a fundamental feature of free will which creates problems for moralists.

If we take Plato's median position, the spirit, and say that there are actions coming from the bodily source, through the spirit to end at the mind, and there are also actions coming from a mental source to end at the body, this would mean five distinct parts. If the median position, spirit, is different depending on which direction the action is going, we'd have six partitions, two distinct parts of each of the fundamental three, depending on which direction the activity is proceeding. How would I derive the seventh? Do these two distinct trinities, being distinct because the activity flows in a different direct through the three parts, require a further part to unify them? Could this be a third position of the median part? Could it be the will itself?

Augustine has a treatise on the trinity where he describes the three aspects in terms of the intellect itself. The intellect, he says, consists of memory, reason, and will. Notice that reasoning is an activity, will is the source of activity, and memory provides the static objects which are moved in that activity. But any degree of contemplating this trinity will reveal that things are not as simple as the simple trinity indicates. We cannot take the existence of static objects in the memory for granted, so we need to account for the creation of these objects, memories. In the conscious mind we can see that we reason, come to conclusions, and through the will we submit the conclusions to memory. But this reasoning still requires material, subject matter, which is provided by the memory, and being prior to the conscious effort of submitting to memory, it must be produced without conscious effort. So we have "matter", static objects in the memory, which have been created without conscious effort. Using the way that the conscious mind produces memories through reasoning and willing as an example, we can assume that there is a subconscious process very similar to reasoning and willing, which creates those subconsciously created memories. Now we have one process which utilizes memories (as subject matter) in reasoning, and another distinct but similar process, that creates memories, which cannot be called reasoning because it's more basic as more of a bodily process Therefore I see the validity in your layering of trinities.

I am not saying such things are ineffable in nature, but rather from our limited perspective. — Punshhh

I think that this is an important point to respect, and failure to do this is a problem which is very evident in modern cosmology. We need to differentiate between what is impossible due to the limitations of the human being, and what is impossible due to the limitations of the universe. The human mind has intrinsic deficiencies because of its dependence on matter. As expressed above, the material element is memory, and we cannot simply assume that the mind is immaterial in an absolute way and therefore unlimited in its ability to understand material existence. We must respect the material element which inheres within the mind as expressed by the trinities. Therefore the human mind's capacity to understand is limited. So when scientists approach extremely difficult subjects such as the nature of matter itself, and the origin of the universe, their capacity to understand is limited. There is a disturbing trend in modern metaphysics to assert that this inability for us to understand these aspects of the universe, is a feature of the universe itself. Instead of recognizing that the human mind is deficient in its approach to these aspects of the universe, and that's why we cannot understand them, these metaphysicians will assert that the universe has aspects which are completely unintelligible in an absolute sense. You can see how this is very counterproductive to the scientific enterprise and philosophy itself, which is the desire to know. If we dismiss certain aspects of reality as fundamentally unknowable within themselves, instead of recognizing that they only appear to us as unknowable because of faults within our capacity and technique, then we lose the inspiration required to develop the means for dealing with these deficiencies. I think that's why mysticism is extremely important, as being a means by which a person can confront one's own deficiencies. Only by understanding our own deficiencies can we properly apprehend the deficiencies of others.

It all depends on the nature of the thought experiment itself, and it's relation to the purported purpose. A few are well thought out and actually useful, but most are bad. Some are hardly even relevant to the intended purpose, making them very bad.

e either asked Kislyak to refrain from escalating or he didn’t. He in fact did not. — NOS4A2

There's more than one way to say the same thing. One can ask that another refrain from escalating without saying exactly "refrain from escalating".

Honestly NOS4A2, this has got to be about the lowest I've seen you go, in your attempts to avoid the truth. You've learned well from the man you continuously defend. Tell me please, is it worth the effort, to lower yourself in this manner?

I hear what you say about the grey area, but as I say, I am describing a structured mystical teaching. The decisions and separations as described in this structure do relate to aspects of the real nature of people. The use of black and white and grey are to convey understanding of aspects of people, being and self which cannot be easily distinguished within oneself without some kind of structure. But they must not be confused with the personal understanding, or nature of the individual mystic, which as I say is ineffable and not easily communicated, if at all. — Punshhh

I don't see the need for such multiple divisions in a mystical perspective. In the west the tradition is one division, the distinction is between the body and the soul. Then each has properties, mind is proper to the soul, and desires and emotions are derived from the body.

The problem I have with creating structure for understanding these differences is that the entire living being is a system, or systems of activity, and each activity crosses any proposed divisions. So if we assume any type of layering, then unless the layering is some sort of layering of activity, each activity which occurs within the living being will cross over through the layers, and we won't be able to adequately assign a specific activity to any particular layer as where the activity is located. And, if we layer according to distinct types of activities we'll find that interactions will cross the layers.

But if I take my conscious mind as my point of perspective for observation, (the only place I really have for this), I find that there is two directions in which activities are passing by this observation point. From outside of me activities are entering into me, in the form of sensual encounters. They stir me, having an effect on my conscious point of observation, so I know they are activities, active causes in arousing my attention. These activities having a source independent from me can be given a spatial presence relative to my conscious observation point Also, from deep within me come urges to move and do things, and these also stir me so they must be activities as well. Desires and intentions are active in directing my attention. I cannot give these activities spatial location though because they just sort of move me from the inside. If my conscious observation point is a point, they come from inside that point. Further, from my conscious observation point, I seem to be able to manipulate these two distinctly sourced activities. In the process of thinking, contemplation, I can divert the activities, making them go around and around, or opposing them to each other, preventing the externally sourced activities from going deeper and changing my mind, and also preventing the internally sourced activities from causing me to actually get up and do something, changing the external world.

So I think the black, white, and grey is actually a very good analogy. The externally sourced activities appear to be the white, easily sourced, and studied in broad daylight, as being locatable and analyzed by scientific methods. The black could be the internally sourced activities, dark and mysterious, and this is the real source of activity of a living being. The conscious mind is in the grey area, of activities passing by, right and left, or more accurately inward and outward. The average person will not take the time to look at these activities passing through the mind, and learn about direction. We might say that they live in a confused world, having very little understanding of their own activities. It is only if we take the time to look at the inner activity of one's own being, like a mystic does, looking toward that dark and mysterious inner source of activity, that we can understand our own activities. Since the internally sourced activity is activity which cannot be spatially located, being inside the conscious point, it appears to be activity which cannot be intelligently spoken about according to conventionally accepted principles of motion. Thus we have the appearance that the mystic deals with the ineffable.

I don't believe in this form of "ineffable" though. I think it is a faulty or false determination of what is impossible, and one which is very misleading. The restrictions on our capacity to communicate and speak about various things is a product of the cultural conventions, the direction which the society has turned in its communicative practise. If there is an aspect of reality which appears to a particular culture as ineffable, it is because that aspect has been neglected by that society. They do not talk about it, therefore they haven't the means to talk about it. Ability comes from practise. This is why different cultures have differing capacity for talking about things. So there is no aspect of reality which is in itself ineffable, it's just a matter of starting to talk about the thing which appears to be ineffable, and in this way we build the capacity to talk about it.
\
So the mystic doesn't really deal with the ineffable, only going beyond what the present communicative capacity of the society allows, and these societal limitation create a false sense of impossibility. So this is why we get various practises, and various description of different layering etc., because the subject dealt with is activity which is not understood by the conventional understanding of activity.

So are you reducing the sentient thinking person to a agglomeration of numerous subconscious levels, with the illusion of choice? And if so, what about the ego, where does that fit in? — Punshhh

The problem is that only a very small portion of activity which is going on within a human being is evident to the conscious mind. This small portion is the activity of thoughts in the conscious mind. All the other activity must be understood to be in subconscious or unconscious levels. The grading of various levels of activity would be very difficult because this activity is outside the conscious mind. So we have to examine things on the edge of consciousness, as they enter and leave the zone of thinking, to get an idea of what the different levels are. What I see, as described above, is two distinct directions for the entry of activity into the mind. The fact that the conscious mind can create a circle of thought in contemplation, and produce an abstinence through will power, thereby breaking any chain of causation which these activities could be involved in, indicates that freedom of choice is very real.

Above, I described internally sourced activity as the dark and mysterious, but this might just be an illusion, and perhaps we ought to turn this around. The internally sourced activity is really what is nearest and dearest to us. It includes all our desires and intentions, our projects, ideas and schemes, plans and conceptions, and these are the "objects" which we actually know the best. On the other side, what is external to us is actually the dark and mysterious, as we only have our sense to tell us about that world. That is why traditional western mysticism has made matter its subject. The problem is that huge advancements in modern science have given us the illusion that the external activities are well known. This gives us the idea that the dark and mysterious is what is within.

I will not comment about the ego, only to say that I am not familiar with Freudian terminology, and this term is too ambiguous, used in too many other ways, for me to say anything useful. I understand the Freudian "ego" as some sort of intermediary, but I don't think I would agree with the Freudian division which the ego mediates between.

So the physical body is the outer layer, the emotional body next, with the mental body next which is divided into two ( lower and higher) inside that. Then three more subtle bodies inside that, the soul (for want of a better word), a spiritual body, culminating in the Atman as I said earlier as number seven. Each layer is separated in a unique way from the others due to the nature of the evolution we have become expressed in and mystical practice in one way or another breaks down or bridges these seperations. — Punshhh

This all makes sense to me, but I don't see the specific need for seven, instead of five or nine or something like that. And since you don't lay out the distinction or boundary between each, it appears sort of random to me. For instance, I can somewhat see the need for the higher and lower mental body, but this could really be divided into numerous distinctions, because the boundary between the two seems quite vague, and could afford the imposition of more boundaries. Then the "three more subtle bodies" are even less well defined. Are all these parts meant to be "bodies", or is that just figurative? Referring to "bodies" seems to be an attempt to objectify the subjective.

Each layer is separated in a unique way from the others due to the nature of the evolution we have become expressed in and mystical practice in one way or another breaks down or bridges these seperations. — Punshhh

The difficulty I have with this point, is that I do not apprehend these divisions as natural divisions. They seem to be artificial, created through some form of intellectualizing, imposing boundaries, to say that this is separate from that, when perhaps it is not. So I see the mystical practise as actually creating these separations rather than bridging them. If they were real separations, with something real dividing them, we could point to that divisor, and say that this divisor needs to be removed to unite them. But if there is nothing real dividing them then there is no real separation which needs to be bridged, and you are creating an imaginary separation.

Here's an illustration. Suppose there is an object and one end of the object is black while the other end is white. There is a grey area in between, where the white fades to black. You see black and white as distinct, and needing a separation, a boundary of division for the two to have separate existence. So you impose an artificial division, saying this side is black, the other side white, and now you have two separate parts. Once you have separated those parts, you assume that we need some mystical practise (or something like that) to bridge the separation. Then you create the artificial bridge which unites the two by bridging the artificial separation. In this example, the whole process is an artificial creation of the observing mind. In reality, there is no division between the black and white, they fade into each other by degrees. Then you create the artificial division through some form of intellectualizing, just so that you might bridge that separation, and unite the black and white. Now the bridge you have created is not at all representative of the real, natural bridge which actually already exists as the grey area, because you have over looked the grey area in the original act of dividing the black from the white.

Going back to the mind, I have been referring to the thinking mind, by which I mean the sentient thinking being, I think, therefore I am. As distinct to the subconscious levels of the mind, or intuitive levels. These other levels are largely unconscious, or at least not deliberated on and directed by the thinking mind (ego/personality). — Punshhh

So that is how I see this supposed distinction between conscious and subconscious, as a grey area. The mind is always active, both conscious and subconscious, and the activities are constantly going back and forth, crossing through the grey area. So to make a divide between the conscious and the subconscious is to make such an artificial separation, an analysis not based in reality, which one might later try to bridge in an intellectual practise of synthesis. But that bridge would not be representative of the natural, existing bridge.

By turning down the volume of that which is generating the division. Thought.

If you're talking with a friend and you can't stay focused on what they're saying because the TV is blaring in the background, you turn the TV down or off. — Nuke

I can't see the point in you analogy. If your being is composed of a multitude of parts, you cannot turn one part down to concentrate on the other part, because the thing doing the concentrating is itself composed of parts. So in doing this you would incapacitate your ability to concentrate.

Is it true that thought operates by dividing reality in to conceptual objects? For example, the noun. — Nuke

No, I don't think this is the case. I think that sensation perceives boundaries, and it is the perception of these boundaries which makes us think of things as distinct objects. Conception doesn't naturally create objects, it create subjects, which are categories for classifying objects. The categories overlap and there is not really distinct boundaries between them unless we assume something like a dichotomy.

There's a form of realism though, Platonic realism, which for simplicity sake, assumes that concepts are just another form of object. But this is just a simplification which does provide a good representation of what a conception is.

By baring witness, I mean observing an experience as a direct result of having it, while not engaging the mind in its interpretation, or developing narratives. — Punshhh

I think of myself as actively creating my experience. Of course most of the creating is done at the unconscious level, but nevertheless the direct causes of what I consciously experience are all within my being, and I really cannot say that any of the external stuff which I sense is a cause of my experience. So the subject of observing my own experience is a very difficult one. I might say that as the creator of my experience, I am a biased observer. This is where intention and attention would mix. I would be trying to pay attention to my experience, to be a good observer, but at the same time, unconscious (instinctual and intuitive) forms of intention would be active in the creation of the experience, creating that experience for some purpose. Since I really don't know the purpose involved here (as described earlier), I don't know how this underlying intention is shaping my experience, and also shaping the way I observe it (the observation being part of the experience). So I assume that my capacity to observe my own experience is very limited.

My cat bears witness of my drawing of a Jabberwoky, she does not use her mind to interpret what she sees. — Punshhh

Observation requires taking note of what occurs, that's what observation is. So you might attempt to remove observation from the simple experience, but this would remove remembering it, and memory is a fundamental aspect of experience. Remembering is actually an interpretation because the thing remembered is the memory, not the experience itself.. If you remove memory from experience, in an absolute way, I would insist that you are not longer talking about experience.

Likewise I might have experienced my being outside conventional, or normal time and not used my mind to interpret it, at the time. This does not preclude me from thinking about it later, but I focus on the act of witness of a real event. — Punshhh

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that you can remember what happened at a past time without interpreting what was happening at that time when it was happening. This is because what is remembered is the mind's interpretation of what happened, not the real happening. But I will admit that some of this interpretation could be happening at a subconscious level. And I think it's a vague grey area of the mind where the unconscious is supposedly separated from the conscious. We might say that some actions are clearly conscious, and others clearly unconscious, but the majority are a mixing of the two.

I view myself as having seven parts, like layers on an onion, so I am seven beings in a sense, cooperating as a unity, but with some barriers of some kind between them. — Punshhh

Can you briefly describe for me, the seven parts?

As for intuition and communion, I am working on an assumption that my personality and parts of my mind are separated from my higher being (soul) due to evolutionary conditions and that the intuition and practice of communion are employed in bridging this divide. As I said, I am only concerned with this internal bridging in my practice, not anything else in my life. I do contemplate these other things etc, but I separate the activities. — Punshhh

Do the divisions between all the seven parts get bridged by the same principles, or does each division have a unique bridge? In other words, if intuition and communion bridge the divide between mind and soul, do different forms of the same thing, intuition and communion, bridge the other divisions?

Trump should simply walk away from the platform — NOS4A2

Great idea. His incessant tweeting is worse than a mosquito buzzing around my head. I just want to swat him. Maybe he could take the time to learn how to make an intelligent statement.

In secular lingo mysticism might be described as an act of transcending the division distortions generated by the nature of thought. Once we are not looking through a lens whose purpose is to create divisions, the unity of all things is easier to see and experience. — Nuke

If we apprehend "a person" as a being, we perceive a unity. But if we see that a person has a soul, and that the soul is a part of the person, then we apprehend a division. So the question is, how can the conscious mind commune with the soul itself, without utilizing such a division. Any way that we understand "soul" necessitates such a division. This is why philosophers are led to dualism.

It's not at all difficult to see the unity of things, that is the natural perspective. We apprehend things, objects, as unities. What is difficult is to apprehend the meaning, and fundamental nature, of unity, and this requires that we recognize the parts which make up a unity.