Good historians wouldn't question the validity of one's claimed experience, only how that claim functions in different narratives. Suggesting that claims of mystical experience are in fact myths is not the job of a historian, so I don't think either of you would be good historians.

Define mystical experience for me.

You can pinch my butt cheek if you'd like.

I realize that, but I'm saying that your experience has measurable phenomena. If you say that mystical experience is not measurable, then how can one even contemplate it? What's one to do with a mystical experience?

You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it. — T Clark

I'm not so sure. How're you not also observing your experiencing of eating dinner? You're experiencing it, so I think you're automatically measuring it somehow as being different from the experience of petting your dog.

I'm a dumb male, so I usually create more work for myself. I think I'm doing it wrong.

So, one's awareness of experience 'x' can't be measured or observed? How does one make sense of their awareness, or the experience, then?

Perhaps I've missed it, but each of you need to define mystical experience first. Some experiences from modern Christian mystics suggests hysteria, but if one looks back into medieval Christian mysticism, you find a starkly different picture for many. It'd be helpful to ground this discussion with good definitions.

If I reject substantiation because it's bullshit, but I ignore the bullshitery of quantum mechanics and believe it anyway, that means two things (1) I'm logically inconsistent in my beliefs, and (2) transubstantiation is bullshit. — Hanover

Really, it means only two things?

I mean I get the argument of "sure my beliefs are stupid, but so are yours," but is that really where you want to land on this? — Hanover

That's not my argument.

It's tiresome when about every discussion on religious ideas here is met with ridicule, mockery, and strawmen from one side. As I think Clarky tried to show earlier, the people who are dying of laughter from any suggestion of religious experience are probably same people who think quantum mechanics makes perfect, measurable, and logical sense.

Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know — Agustino

Experiences are experiences. Whether they are of mystical quality, whatever that means and however you define that, is what's debatable. Merely because one claims their experience is mystical doesn't mean that experience is in fact mystical.

Fry the crepes already.

If you don't know that it's false in advance, you've taken care to assess the evidence, and you're convinced that you're right, then it makes no sense to say that that's wrong and that you should not have acted as you did. — Sapientia

In Hanover's case: He didn't know, assessed no evidence because he had none and was provided none, probably wasn't convinced that he was right but didn't care either way, and so it makes no sense for him to have gone at Agustino.

I read what you said, and I also read between the lines. — Sapientia

Can you teach me how to do that? I want to misrepresent others too!

I agree. — T Clark

Dear diary...

I'll reiterate - I don't think there's any value, on this forum at least, in attacking someone as opposed to their ideas or behavior. — T Clark

Attacking one's behavior, rightly or falsely, tells you a lot about their person and their character. Can't really get away from that. Digging at Agustino's work ethic is also a dig at his character, which is of his person.

I told you to read, again. I know that's difficult, though. Apologies.

Why does it make a difference if the accusation is false or not? What value is there in accusing someone of anything on the forum? The rule is "attack the argument." I can't say I'm without sin in this regard, but I'm working on it. Moderators have a greater responsibility for temperance than the rest of us. — T Clark

I don't know what that value is for everyone. Maybe Hanover enjoys making fun of Agustino. Perhaps Sappy gets off to having circular semantic games for no real reason. Beats me, Clarky. All I do know is that if I'm serious with an accusation against someone then I do, or can, supply a wealth of evidence in support of my claim. Not everybody can do that, however, which is why it's so frustrating discussing topics like these with people who obstinately refuse to back up their claims.

Edit: Also, and I forget the thread, but several mods weren't even crediting someone for having made an argument merely because they disagreed with the poster's claims. That's a madness to me. That sort of snobbery and disingenuous behavior is really sad and I see it all over the place here.

False accusations are always wrong because they are false, therefore every false accusation ought not be made because each accusation would be wrong. You raped me, you stole my cat, you did x, y, z - the severity doesn't matter when every claim is false. Falsity entails wrongness, and that's only coherent structure that I understand and with which people should employ in their interactions with others. Falsely accusing someone of something is always wrong. Don't do it. There ain't no severity to one's wrongness. You're either right or you're wrong.

Regardless, I don't expect you or anyone else in moderating power to agree with me, otherwise many of you would need to apologize and change your behavior in future. Moderators like Hanover won't be on board with that, though, because it's so, so easy to pettily reply with, "Oh sweetie, but I didn't insult you as badly as if I accused you of being a rapist. So hur dur, stop complaining mister mongoloid pseudo man!"

Hopefully TimeLine can live up to the person of character that she's propped herself up to be. Nothing from her has led me to believe she'll be a good moderator or is a person of much character. It's up to her to prove me wrong, though.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I've been arguing type. READ what I have been saying, sweet Jesus. The type of offense isn't, and ought not be, appropriate here - from anyone.

Falsely accusing someone of something is wrong 100% of the time. Falsely accusing someone of something also makes you a dickhead 100% of the time. Doesn't matter what you falsely accuse someone of, if you are attempting to deride someone's character, and refuse to supply any or adequate evidence to support your claim, then you can fuck off. In the context of this forum, fucking off means being warned not to do that. However, one of the issues here lies in a moderator being the dickhead, which means the chances of them owning up to their game-playing is about nil. I don't even know why this is contentious when the moderator in question has admitted to being a dickhead in no uncertain terms toward Agustino.

Fundamentally, both are character digs. You can believe that Hanover was being gentle and curious with his post, but I'm not going to be convinced that he wasn't intending to be a dickhead. His other post, and even that same post if I'm not mistaken, attempts to tear Agustino down even further. Not a shred of evidence or good will is to be found in that post, which is why I'm saying that it's not appropriate. If I went on some deriding slander trip against you I'd highly doubt that you'd be so, "oh, gee, I really appreciate you baselessly assaulting my character, thanks man!" Perhaps you would and you're some sort of masochist, I dunno.

As I have already said in this thread, false sexual allegations destroys someone's life. Merely because a similar accusation made on a forum doesn't destroy someone's life, the principle at the heart of the issue remains the same. False claims are false, whether people shoot the shit over it or not.

Such a claim ought not be made in the first place. That is my point. Don't assert that someone is a sexist, racist, lazy bum if you've no evidence to back that claim up. A false claim is in itself wrong, it doesn't hinge upon the accused's reaction.

Buxte, I am not sure where your constructive feedback is and I am happy to listen; are you saying that I would be incapable, for instance, of being able to edit the content of a post without being prejudicial or bias? Just so you know, I am currently a graduate student in astrophysics, having studied to masters level law and political science and my issue has long been the lacklustre nature of some of the philosophy of science threads bordering the pseudo-science. In the former forums, I was responsible for bringing in philosophers like Graham Priest, David Chalmers etc to have discussions with the posters. If that is your grievance with me, I hope I have clarified enough to tell you that perhaps first allowing me to fill the role and prove to you all that I will be capable would be a much more logical approach. This works in line with my character that you may or may not like, but that is the nature of forums as long as I do not impinge on your right to speak freely. You may not remember or were unaware, but I am for freedom of speech. I am not the type of person who will delete posts.

Or, is your grievance in general the overall capacity of the moderation team? — TimeLine

Textbook belittling right here.

I've already posted enough of my thoughts in this thread already. For those with good reading comprehension, it's clear what my points have been. Even poster(s) who don't often agree with or like me have granted me my position.

It is what it is, as Posty might say. We will see how your personality and discussion style works as a moderator. Personally, I think it will result in a dumpster fire, and unfortunately, I doubt I'm the only one here who suspects that.

You don't understand my frustration at all. If you did, you wouldn't suggest that I go someplace else on the account of providing constructive feedback that you don't like. But I expected nothing less from you. Deflection and strawnen are the names of your game. And now you're a mod so you'll be getting away with that even more now, yipee!

Claiming someone's an unethically lazy person without evidence? A-OK. Have a differing opinion to that of the mods about public decency? You will be warned and then possibly banned for such behavior!

Yeah, I'll be right back, I think my eyes just rolled out of my head.

Unsubstantiated claims against someone's character isn't philosophy, it's disrespectful trash. Why are you surprised that the person insulted is insulted? It takes no great intelligence to understand why Agustino and others, including myself, are disgruntled with those who are rewarded for acting crassly and like children by being kept a moderator or being made a moderator.

~

Also, I'm still puzzled by what exactly all eight of the moderators have to do for "janitorial duties." What role does TimeLine now fulfill that wasn't before? Being female? Grabbing Agustino by the balls? What exactly? It's comical to me that we have so many moderators, now half of whom are complete dicks to other posters more often than they are cordial and even-handed.

In the end, I don't think the moderating dilemma here will be smoothed out anytime soon. When the owner of the site himself doesn't even think it's a big deal for someone to be falsely accused of rape apologia, sexism, whatever else, then the forum will continue to have strife among its members. In the real world, being falsely accused of something like sexual assault, rape, etc. ends up not only tarnishing someone's reputation and career, but their life as a whole. For this passive-aggressive, hypocritical behavior to be allowed and in some cased encouraged here on this forum beggars belief, really.

All of the moderators here need to reflect on the state of the forum as it is right now. It's not good enough for you all to act like nothing here matters and that you all have better things to do if, on the other side of the coin, you do care enough to strawman, warn, and threaten bans for members that you haven't given the time to understand or appreciate intellectually. This is hypocritical and goes against the whole point of having a philosophy forum. If you moderators don't want a fair environment wherein lots of different people can come together to discuss a wide range of topics, perhaps this ghost ought to be given up.

No. Is he new agey? I don't pay that stuff much attention.

Oh, I mentioned it here and there, but the guy I'm referring to is Eckhart Tolle. — Aurora

I've heard of him quite a bit but have never read him. I suppose that I should? Is he more insightful than the first Eckhart? O:)

I say what I have to say about this, not just as some obscure theory I read/heard somewhere and arbitrarily decided is true. I'm quite a practical person; theory doesn't appeal to me much without practical application. So, whatever I speak about here, almost always, is the result of direct practical application in my own life, i.e. based on my experience. Although I have been greatly influenced by one spiritual teacher, I don't take everything he says for granted ... some of what he teaches proved true in my life and some didn't. Needless to say, I'm talking about the part that proved true for me. — Aurora

Did you say to whom you are referring somewhere in this thread or did I miss it?

I just find it appalling that you all found it prudent to add a poster like TimeLine who has shown herself on many occasions to be an unapologetic, belligerent, strawmaning, twit. Apart from "ayes" and "yeahs", I'm struggling to figure out how on earth the mod team here thought TimeLine was any more qualified than a charleton.

Low quality, bannable offense that. You ought to be ashamed.

I vote darth for modship.

So, you're saying that you want the right wingers to flirt with you so they can become mods too? :o

And if Agustino or Thoro ask to be a moderator you all will be #triggered and deny his request immediately, lol.

You don't think she will delete, warn, ban posters who she thinks are sexists, rape apologists, etc.? You must not have been following TimeLine's "candor" the past months.

Wow, that's amazing, Jamal, thanks man. I'll be sure to keep my pants off when you come over to rape me, (Y)

You're welcome. Don't worry, I'll begin jotting down how many times I insult someone on here before I myself can become a moderator.

Ah, yes, this forum needed yet another mentally ill, narcissistic moderator. Wunderbar!

I have this creeping feeling that I just ain't wise. — Akanthinos

Truer words have never been typed.

If you're arguing that Christians and Buddhists - the respective faithfuls - both understand and mean the same things when they hear about or talk about belief and salvation within their faiths, I can assure you that is not the case. — tim wood

I've never argued that. Read my posts again.

If you mean that somewhere within the main texts of either of these faiths there is a clear and complete explanation of what belief and salvation are, that also is simply not the case. — tim wood

Oh really? How about you support that claim.

That alone make most discussions of particular beliefs or salvation an exercise in nonsense. The invitation to define is simply an invitation to ground the discussion somewhere. — tim wood

Why are you even here, then? I think the thread has done some good, seeing as it is now four pages in.