:up: Yep, that pretty much sums it up for me as well (unfortunately)...

Is imperialism necessarily bad, or can its negative side be lessened? Has it spread civilization, helping modernize many countries? Or is it a mixed blessing? It appears to me that the USA is an empire that disavows its own nature, after picking up somewhat where the British Empire left off.

And along with Capitalism, I wonder about the psychological imprint imperialism leaves on people. Both the proponents, and those negatively affected by it. Would there be as much racism, sexism, or other forms of intolerance without the history of imperial conquests? Or is life guided by the cliched “law of the jungle”? IE: do unto others before they do unto you? Are countries ethically accountable?

Perhaps this could be a subject of another thread, but it seems to me of relevance...

Compare and contrast, if you will, fascism with imperialism. Some periods of ancient Rome seem to exemplify some levels of both. Is imperialism necessarily bad, or can its negative side be lessened? Has it spread civilization, helping modernize many countries? Or is it a mixed blessing? It appears to me that the USA is an empire that disavows its own nature, after picking up somewhat where the British Empire left off. Thoughts?

:up: Definitely agree! And while we’re complimenting the software, the auto-saving feature is a real help. You have to intentionally erase something, which is perfect. I’ve never lost a draft yet! :smile:

If you ask this question again, we'll immediately take you outside, push you up against the wall and shoot you. What the heck, your family too, bullets are cheap. — Jake

I see what you did there. Irony.... erm, at least I hope it is! :sweat:

Following the example of nature, specifically our older siblings the animals is a good basic default position. Early humans watched what plants animals ate to know that they were at least not poisonous, if not delicious. Except for food and self-defense most animals are surprisingly peaceful. There is little evolutionary advantage to risk injury by fighting all the time. They fight for territory and mating, too. But often these are more like quarrels than battles. To follow their general example is a good starting point, though obviously humans are different in many ways. (Which should go without saying).

I am usually suspicious of extreme or absolute statements of morality and behavior. We live in the relative world. Statements that frame things in “black-and-white” usually lead to “whack-and-blight” thinking, so to speak.

The creation of sanctuary cities began before Trump took office. — raza

Of course, as well as ICE and FEMA. I see more similarities than differences between the last 5-8 US Presidential administrations. I would generally agree with the view expressed in Klein’s The Shock Doctrine that the tried and true strategies of “disaster capitalism” have found a home in government policy and military actions.

I'd rather see more analytic criticism of Trump than the emotional/hyperbolic. But it's totally off base to claim this is some new phenomenon. — Relativist

Oh, me too. But there’s something different about Trump than any other major politician of recent history. Just near impossible to pin down, and I think that is intentional. Not talking about policies, or even his level of intelligence or whatever. More about his style, his operating procedure. He is so unpredictable so often that one has to wonder if its a defensive coping mechanism. Maybe if one is a famous billionaire a protective camouflage layer of BS forms on the surface. He is almost like an octopus. (No, not that way! :wink: ). Whenever under the slightest scrutiny (which is constantly) he releases a cloud of ink and tweets. And then disappears.

Maybe the former conservatives have begun to congeal into a FASCIST GLOB?

From what I've been reading (comparative fascism) doctrine is unimportant. Fascism is more about method and style than content. There usually is content somewhere, but it doesn't have to be an organizing principle. Opportunistically stroking resentments, prejudices, patriotism, religious atavism, militarism, poverty, and so on and doing so inconsistently even, can be a winning strategy. It doesn't matter what so much as how.

I don't think The USA is headed towards fascism, but that doesn't mean that someone won't try. Our method of governing (checks and balances, a 2 wingéd political party that pretty much monopolizes power, pretty much fixed periods between elections, etc) doesn't allow a whole lot of room for an upstart fascist party to acquire much power.

Fascism usually governs by dictatorship, but it isn't altogether required. The terror of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, labor suppression (post WWI), McCarthyism, and the suppression of labor's capacity to organize and exercise power (current) all took place within a regularly elected political system. The KKK was the closest we came to developing a proper fascist movement.

Moreover, it isn't necessarily the case that most of the population would be miserable under fascism if we had it. Some people would be, (make up your own list) but most people would probably find that things were, you know, OK. Meyer's study of working class German attitudes toward life under the Third Reich was that many people thought it was just fine -- well, except for the bombing they had to put up with and of course there weren't many Jews to include in the study.

Is Trump a FASCIST GLOBLET? He's certainly inconsistent in a number of ways, and appears to be opportunistic. He has a following who seem to not care what he does. They like his style of doing it. "Trump fucked us, but he did it with such panache--who can hold it against him? Fuck us again!"

I don't know whether Trump is a fascist globlet, but he could be a successful fascist yet. There is no formulae for fascists to get into power -- all they have to do is find a way. He is already in a very good position to do even worse and more inconsistent things. Stay tuned. — Bitter Crank

(@Bitter Crank, saw your comments here, so thought this thread is currently relevant and could use a bump. (Or maybe not, who knows!)

Good points about Trump riding the ragged edge of fascism. Even many of his supporters would say so. They might respond to any such accusations with a reply like “you say fascism like it’s a BAD thing! This is the NEW AND IMPROVED FASCISM. Now with WIFI and 30% less brutal violence!”

When I hear that word “fascism” the first word association for me is the word “power”. That comes from the whole Roman leader bundle of rods association. The concept that there is strength through the unity of the rods, seems more utilitarian than egalitarian (ie. we get to be “another brick in the wall”). The connotations of fascism are also the related concept of some mutant type of social Darwinism (In the jungle, might makes right for the survival of the fittest). Fascism seems to focus on the basic factors (brute force?) of society/civilization. All else above a certain frequency is cut, like some kind of YouTube compression algorithm. Because they would claim that all that fancy stuff (art, politeness, comparative religion, even certain scientific research) is distracting, effeminate, unproven, inefficient, and most of all... a waste of taxpayers money, folks! (that tired refrain)...

Some questions that occurs to me (and don’t have a definitive answer for):
Is (one type or another of) fascism the unavoidable destination or end result of Capitalism?
Or is it at least so in “our” Capitalism in the current world situation?

Good point. But weren't they a group of conservative billionaires making the mistake of thinking they were buying themselves a controllable stooge?

Trump would ride his populism to get in. Then deliver the kind of tax breaks, market deregulation, small government, policies they expected once he was surrounded by solid grown-up Republican advisors.

Those like Thiel and Mercer have been expressing buyers remorse - despite getting a lot of that legislation implemented. — apokrisis

Thanks for your reply! It would be interesting to see a video of the idea being seriously pitched to Trump of being president. Or maybe it would be slightly nauseating. But one can almost imagine the talk of those floating the idea:

• :point:
  “You’ve got great recognition value Donnie because of The Apprentice. “You’re Fired!” Brilliant, baby! America loves a tough talker who puts themselves out there! Especially a tough guy from New York City. You can be The Godfather. And your family is perfect for the role of first family. Very Game of Thrones. Very photogenic... especially Ivanka. We’ll have to feature her prominently. She’ll add a little Instagram fashionista zing for the millennials... Is she really dead set on Kushner? He isn’t scoring well with our testers. She loves him? Ok, fine whatever. We can work around that... Barron is cute... gotta play that up. But Donnie, you are the man of the hour! You are the brand that America is dying to be a part of. Everyone wants to be rich like you! You are the living f***ing American dream, baby! Pardon my vulgarity, but you are going to be the next president!” <applause and exuberant handshaking, followed by expensive cigars being lit. >

But seriously... it’s probably impossible to tell for sure what Trump’s investors were thinking and wanting, and the level of disappointment or anger there is now amongst the billionaire backers. One could sarcastically tell them “welcome to the party!” In any event, if Trump burns those bridges, he might be setting his big red tie on fire too. But I imagine that he knows who butters his bread.

My argument is thus that Trump is a rational phenomenon that reflects "the wisdom of the crowd".

There are dark forces in play in that many ordinary folk have it in the back of their minds that rough and turbulent times are coming. So let's provoke the crisis that is going to bring it on ... because we know we have the power when it comes to the show-down. — apokrisis

There was and is much anger at Washington and Wall Street. (Are the two really even separate entities any more?) That’s a given across the whole political spectrum, I think. That’s the reason Bernie Sanders is as popular as he is, and it’s what pushed Trump over the top. His outsider status and image as a successful businessman were large positives. The voters’ hatred of Hillary was like having the wind at his back. I think one has to go back to the 1800’s to find an example of such a political outsider becoming the POTUS, except for Eisenhower maybe. But Ike was busy winning the war. The ball is his now, to score with or fumble away. I am definitely not a fan of his. But for the sake of the country (and the world), I want this administration to have some success. But if Pence or someone else somehow takes the reigns, so be it. (Trump doesn’t seem like the healthiest guy around, and the stress isn’t helping him. What if he had to resign because of health reasons? Not totally impossible).

The worst thing that could happen is the US is tipped into such domestic turmoil that there has to be a big social clamp-down. All the names on the watch list need to be rounded up in black SUVs and taken to the FEMA internment camps for the duration. :)

What percent of the US population coolly and rationally thinks that might not be such a bad thing? Bring it on. — apokrisis

Well, this is the nightmare scenario. The dread that most rational people of all persuasions are (hopefully) pushing against with all their might. I hope to God that I am delusional and merely dreaming this possibility up. That it is not the growing hurricane it appears to be. The round-up of undocumented residents by ICE (or as they might be called: American Revival Storm Enforcement, or ARSE) is unsettling for a lot of people, even those that believe something must be done about immigration. As the last of the survivors of WWII era Europe pass away or enter their 80th year, will the world forget what happened? Or is it too late to put on the brakes, even if we try? Will the whole World War II scenario seem almost tame by comparison? Despite the bitter differences, the Left and Right must together avoid such an abyss.

:up: Thanks for that, well said. I’ll just add the obvious fact that for someone to be elected POTUS they of course must get hundreds of millions in donations. So doesn’t that make them the employee of the largest donors? Or any other trillionaire who wants a favor? Who’s really calling the shots? Sorry to stray into Alex Jones conspiracy territory, but who does the POTUS (whether Republican or Democrat) answer to? The American people? Yea, the same way I answer to my cats... “it’s ok snookums!”

:vomit: — Sapientia

Eat a bad mouse, O Esteemed Owl? Or perhaps you grew so tired of Eeyore’s complaining that you scarfed him down? Need some Pepto Dismal? :blush:

Sometimes someone is in the right place at the right time...

As long as were being entertained, that's all that matters. :yum: — frank

Yes... distracted, fooled, hypnotized, drugged, abused... not unlike a victim of date rape. Not to sound too cynical. Kind of a worst case scenario through skeptical eyes.

One facet of it is that Democrats are thought of as the compassionate, intelligent, more civil part of the American culture. The term "elite" expresses angst about that. Republicans are the pragmatic, less PC folks who are capable of "handling the truth," as Jack Nicholson's character screams in that movie. — frank

For a while in the USA, it seems like the the Democrats and the Republicans are staging the largest production ever of that old Broadway favorite “Good Kop, Bad Kop: Keystone Tragi-Komedy” :groan: :blush:

I think I would agree with him too. The fissures we notice across the cultural landscape go too deep to heal, precisely because we're dealing with a phenomenon where the two groups have so diverged from each other, that they effectively live in two different worlds.

The technological, social progressive, Democrat, global elite along with most who work for them (corporatists) have a vision of society that is totally antithetical to more "rooted" values. On the other hand, the traditionalist, conservative, Republican, rural folk have a completely different worldview which values local community, family ties, social conservatism, etc. significantly more.

There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. The two groups have got accustomed to entirely different ways of life. And the former feel that they're just about (or were just about) to get the world the way they wanted, so they will not slow down, while the latter feel that they're about to lose their world as they know it.

Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully. — Agustino

I would agree there is a split such as you describe (as long as we are discussing a general, big picture meta-view).

However... I feel that it is dwarfed by another much more primal division. Let us imagine two neighbors in an average, economically struggling city. Let’s say that Jane is a far left-leaning lesbian. Her neighbor John is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who appreciates the wit and wisdom of Fox news. Jane rolls her eyes at John’s four huge American flags displayed prominently as well as his enormous pick-up truck with the fierce patriotic bald eagle motif. John sneers at Jane’s rainbow flag and hippie decorations. And they both resent the other’s many election signs on their lawn.

Two totally different people, right? Or are they merely mirror images of each other? Aren’t they really more alike than different? Isn’t this a matter of tradition, preference, taste, emotions, etc. Important and serious, but not totally unresolvable.

Now contrast John and Jane with just about any political “mover and shaker” member (Liberal, Right-winger, or whatever) of the so-called economic 1%. The cream of the crop, the billionaires calling the tune that the rest of us have to dance to. Compared to the ruling billionaires, John and Jane look like siblings who just prefer different TV shows.

This is the division which divides us.

This schism is fostered by the mega-wealthy to keep the “common people” from uniting against them, and surrounding the castle with a pitchfork and torch-bearing crowd. Nevertheless, I am certain that any attempt at some kind of French Revolution 2.0 would be disastrous. Subtlety, calmness, and stealth are needed. Think WWII French Resistance rather than guillotines and Marie Antoinette. Violence as a political game-changing plan has been shown to be counterproductive, and is a certain magnet for a gov’t crackdown.

But the basic dynamics and outlines of the drama are getting more similar each day. The pressure increases each day, as does the temptation to blame our neighbor. Whatever the prescription is, I do not know. In any case, this appears to be the only slightly exaggerated meta-view and diagnosis from this corner.

But ultimately... or as ultimately as one can imagine... there is no “us and them”. There is only us, creating and re-creating our world in each moment. The planet Earth is a given, a solid reality of matter and energy. The human world is our creation, and always has been.

I have no clue what's going on here. :lol: — Posty McPostface

I don’t know either, but that’s never stopped me before. I think I was attempting some joke or extended metaphor about us being like unruly kids sometimes. You want half of my PB&J sandwich? Hope you’re not allergic to nuts... though if you were you probably wouldn’t even be here. :grin:

That's how my world will end, not with a bang, but with a sort of naked spinning babbling episode in the town square. — Hanover

Oooh, sounds intriguing! Mind if I come with? :yum:


:smile: And thanks for your other contributions, as well as your perseverance... hang in there. :up:

:up: I was thinking before of a simple thread that dealt with grammar, style, formatting questions and answers. Starting such a thread would not require a software update or such. True, it not the forum’s main purpose. It could just be another thread in the Lounge. Personally, I’m still not sure about certain grammatical rules, despite google searches. In this proposed thread, quotations from posts could be examined for how to possibly improve the presentation. The quotes need not be linked to their author, to avoid any embarrassment. Examples of excellent style (as opposed to the content) could also be cited.

We all make mistakes (thanks heavens for spell check and optional auto-complete), and some of my posts could even be used as examples of what not to do, especially concerning run-on sentences and getting over-enthusiastic with parentheses (which might be very helpful, even educational; and by the way, does the punctuation mark go on the inside or outside of the parentheses?)?
:wink:

Or maybe the moderators are just too busy driving their Lambos and hanging with Elon Musk and the Winklevoss twins. :snicker:
— 0 thru 9
Yes, we recently got a fifty percent payrise on our zero dollars per lifetime rate. Chuffed with that — Baden

:sweat: Well deserved! But seriously though, thanks for your responses in this thread and gratitude to the moderators for all that they do to keep it grooving here. Thanks for being the parents in this fun philosophical playground. Umm, that reminds me... Posty has been eating stuff out of the sandbox again, Agu is making faces at the girls, and BC called me a big fat poopy head... not that I’m tattling or anything. :monkey:

So, "I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and may find it deficient and remove it. There is no appeal. Suffer, bitch. I will strive to do better in the future." Agree (check) Disagree (check) — Bitter Crank

Good idea. That is one kickass disclaimer! :up:


The specifics of your idea may or may not be possible to implement, but the thought and feeling behind it are commendable. New members might need a little patience and direction. They would find a good example in your well-written posts. There are certain little things about this wonderful forum that might possibly benefit from tweaking or updating, IMHO. Could be a software limitation thing. Or maybe the moderators are just too busy driving their Lambos and hanging with Elon Musk and the Winklevoss twins. :snicker:

Noted — Baden

Thank you.

But let's please keep this discussion purely about bannings. Not wanting to be heavy handed but anything else will be considered deleteable. — Baden

Sure thing. :up:

Marcus has not been banned! :party: — Baden

Yes, I was aware of that, thanks.

If I may expand this topic slightly to include closed threads... (If not here, would it be better in the Shoutbox, or a new thread?). First of all, many thanks to the moderators for their work to keep this place up and running, and not devolving into a mud wrestling match. Easier said than done, probably like trying to herd dozens of obstinate cats. :wink:

But I wonder if in some cases, the closing of a thread like for instance the one by @Marcus de Brun about education and racism (which was probably started because of a understandable and deserved banning) was a bit premature. I mean, even if the premise of a thread is borderline wacky, maybe giving it time to be shown or proven to be “wacky” or wrong would perhaps be better than quickly putting a padlock on it. At least for appearances sake, which is not unimportant. And also to let others attempt to argue against the OP or at least give some differing takes. I know you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but maybe there is a point buried somewhere in the haystack of words. Of course if a poster is trolling, baiting others, or looking for a glorious funeral pyre martyrdom, then that is another thing entirely... Also, for the sake for being fair I think the option of a temporary suspension should be seriously considered. Even IF they “don’t work” 99% of the time, suspensions would STILL be a good idea, imho. The appearances of fairness is not mere window dressing. But, just my two cents. Please do what you think best... :up:

Related to the OP, or possibly buried within it, are certain persistent questions. (A persistent question being somewhere on the spectrum between simple questions of fact and the eternal and perhaps unsolvable questions of life). One might be summarized by a post by @wellwisher in the “Our bodies house Two Minds” thread. This concerns the difference and sameness factors that can applied in many comparisons. And which is reflected in basic math, by subtraction (difference) and finding the GCD (greatest common denominator) between two numbers. Many other mathematical examples exist, most of which quickly go beyond my comprehension. But they are generally rooted in the basic principles.

Even more basic perhaps in human recognition is the apparently binary distinction between self and other. Is it “me” or “not me”. Then as mentioned above is the same/difference distinction. In a comparison by one person about another, the questions would be “are they similar?” and “are they different?”. And then “how much difference exists?”

One thing about that has interested me lately is the notion of “problem”. Problem solving of course is a significant topic. But also problem recognition and labeling. Such as when one is walking down the street, there are constant potential “problems” of various degrees. Watching for things one might step on or trip over is a big one. (Don’t step on a crack! :gasp: ) Traffic, other people, animals, all present themselves as various problems or issues. Running into a person is the problem, not necessarily the person themself. Unless one sees them as a physical threat, such as a robber or mugger. In the news of late there are countless examples of people making threat assessments that turned out to be very mistaken. And led to injury, death, or an unwarranted call for police assistance. Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. We seek a clear vision in the ever-present moment which includes both the details and the big picture. This is probably a whole other topic, another persistent question. But it does tie in.

So in relation to OP and notions of racial differences, there are several possible responses. In the example of a black child happily playing with a white child, one could conclude several things. Possibly the two children aren’t aware of any differences between themselves. Perhaps they are aware of differences, but don’t think that they are very big. Perhaps the similarities between themselves as children overrides the differences. For example, either child might be more afraid of an adult of their own race due to their sheer size. Maybe the two children in this example realize there is a difference between them, but it is not a “problem”. Similar to the way a person will love a dog, despite (or perhaps because of) being extremely different from a human.

Also, this brings to mind one’s reactions to a stimulus which seems problematic. One person may go into a near panic. Another might treat the same situation as a fun puzzle to solve. There seems to be a portion of reality that is malleable, that is raw potential. I would NOT go so far to absolutely say that “reality is what we make it”. But there seems to be a core of truth there, regarding our perceptions and consequent choices.

The political or ideological leanings or inadequacies of certain professors is nowhere near the top educational problem in the USA. The public elementary and high schools are falling down. The teachers there are a step above prison guards in some schools. The vast majority don’t make it to universities.

Just an aside... I know we all identify with our respective homelands to a certain degree. But saying “you” and “us” when referring to countries might possibly be getting too personal. Example, the Canadian government did this or that. Joe who lives in Toronto did not do it. He may or may not support it, but unless he is a high ranking official, he didn’t do it. Similarly, as a sports fan... “we” did not beat the New York Yankees yesterday. The Cleveland team did, and unfortunately I had nothing to do with it despite being ready to fill in at shortstop. FWIW. :wink:

<strokes beard> Yes, I zee, I zee... Now, tell me about your father. Did he give you mit zee huggings and touching? How did zat make you feel?

(Edit: well, now this comment is (even more) nonsensical without the Marcus LB hilarious post about naked Trump. I’ll leave it here for the sake of posterior. What level of literalness the OP was written is unknown to me. But funny is funny.)

:lol: Hilarious! You got him down to a “T”. (Well, maybe tragi-comic is a better term than hilarious, or maybe it is gallows humor. Whatever). You nailed it. I think that is pretty much what he would say. America first... well actually ME first! It’s the Me Generation!

And what is this thing with the right-wing and Trump using the word “folks” so damn much? I hear it on talk radio, which I listen to out of morbid curiosity and can stand for about 5 minutes. I think Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to popularize the term in the recent past. “Folks” is just so... folksy. So chummy and buddy buddy. Just good honest hard workin’, salt-of-the-Earth people. (No welfare queens or drug dealin’ pimps here. No sir!)

Existence precedes essence (it sounds better in the original French... l'existence précède l'essence).
A little Sartre tablet usually helps me with existential or societal Nausea, if not curing then at least making it tolerable. (burp!) :nerd:

Ha! He sees himself as supreme ruler. I really think that he doesn't think that impeachment could ever be possible — Metaphysician Undercover

Very possibly true! We are only engaging in educated speculation perhaps, at least I am. But that may be the case. Time will tattle. I remember rumors that Obama was not going to ever give up the office of President. Whichever party is in office, the system of checks and balances has become most unbalanced. However, the system of checks (or preferably unmarked 100 dollar bills) buying the officials is better than ever. The bloated and broken two-party system. One hand washes the other, like Lady MacBeth. The tale will go on and on as long as it is allowed to. I have no answers, only vague impressions. But a diagnosis comes before the prescription. :confused:

Though the agency was formed in 2003, the Trump reign has lately made much of ICE. Which makes me get metaphorical. The “ice” comparison really seems to fit Mr. Trump. Hard, cold, and slippery are adjectives are could describe both. He is the cloudy and opaque type of ice, not the clear variety. Very strong, when the temperature is right. But also very brittle. One could imagine Trump giving up the Presidency if he felt cornered, and sick of the whole thing. He has been a politician less then three years. Easy come, easy go. (Or more bluntly... “F*** it all! I don’t need this. I’m retiring to Mar-a-Lago!) I doubt loyalty to the Republican party would prevail IF the heat became inescapable. Right now, it is merely warm. The ice is still hard.

Richard Nixon started his long political career after serving in WWII. He weathered many storms and losses, including the 1960 election. Yet he still understandably surrendered when surrounded. Whether a Trump impeachment or resignation would truly help the USA is debatable. Would it really change anything? Would it just bring on more bitter divisiveness? Would it make the desperate times even more desperate? I am on the fence about it, mortar shells flying overhead from all directions, the wounded groaning and holding on to life...

The indictment of the 12 Russian intel officers brings a few questions to my mind. Apologies if they are premature, exaggerated, or have already been mentioned in this thread.

Is this the straw that will break the camel’s back, so to speak?
And will President Trump see the writing on the wall, and resign office before impeachment?
If so, when? And finally, in a Trump speech announcing such, would he show even a small percentage of the dignity and class that Richard Nixon (of whom I’m no fan) showed in his resignation speech?

Agreed,

The likelihood of the wild card is dependent (but not entirely so) upon the 'ability' of the trainer and the passions of the horse. — Marcus de Brun

Also agreed!

Given that we are possibly in agreement more than disagreement, we must ask is being agreeable more pleasurable than the fire and fury of disagreement? — Marcus de Brun

Hmmm... good question! So for the sake of unpredictable variety, I am going to disagree and move for “re-buttal” ala Homer Simpson.
<drops pants> :blush:

I do not think that all mystical experiences are the same, but I think that there is some affinity between them. To borrow an analogy used by Wittgenstein, I think that there is a "family resemblance" between them. However, a very common element, IMO, even more common than "non-duality" is that of "something higher", that inspires respect and reverence. Non-duality too is widespread that there are many traditions where it is absent, or at least not very emphasized.
Regarding the distinction between intellect and awareness, well, I agree. Immediate awareness is nonconceptual, one simply is "cognizant". Concepts arrive later, but conceptual knowledge is mediated, not immediate. I think that immediate awareness comes into degrees. Maybe, "mystical experience" are at the "high-end" of the scale, so to speak. — boundless

Thanks for the reply and further details! Good point about the “family resemblance” between mystical experiences. They do seem to cut across traditions and epochs. To me, there is a unmistakable similarity (not identical of course but similar) between Sufis, Christian mystics, Taoist sages, and even animist Aboriginal tribal shamans. They are not reducible to each other nor interchangeable. But there seems to me to be a thread that connects them all. It is probably the whole exoteric vs esoteric topic.

And thanks for the Tricycle link. Will check it out. :up:

Instinctual imperatives for the most part are sub-conscious. However they can be brought to the level of consciousness through endogenous-insight (intelligence), and (or good psychoanalysis) and then be subject to logic and reason. IE independently or with assistance, sub-conscious instinct can be brought to the level of consciousness and subjected to reasoned analysis.

My point is that this process (insight) must occur prior to the possibility of a change in ones opinion or view. When this does not occur it is quite possible that subconscious instinct will direct reason and cause one to cling to irrational or illogical beliefs despite evidence or logic to the contrary. — Marcus de Brun

:up: I would generally agree with those statements. With the additional comment that (in my opinion) the subconscious can be seen, analyzed, directed, and controlled roughly in the same way a horse can be tamed and ridden successfully. It can be done of course. But there is always a possible wild card in the deck. Some moment when the horse gets spooked, or decides to stop to munch on some leaves despite your commands. Similar to the unpredictable selection of dreams the unconscious decides to screen for our entertainment or edification or goodness knows what.

The general public is much more prone to be manipulated to be passive and complacent than aggressive and violent I think. — Baden

I would agree that. Trained to await the next instruction of how to feel about a particular news event or issue. Or what to purchase next. What’s “hot” or “in fashion”. As for aggression, there is usually a plan for that. Be it a “Day of Rage” in the Mid-East, Two-Minutes Hate in Orwell’s 1984, or the celebration of a sports championship in Philadelphia. :wink:

Please declare what is your emotional relationship with the evacuation of your bowel? — Marcus de Brun

If I may... Dr. Freud would say that there is at least an unconscious influence. But I do agree with your point in general. :up:

This is wrong. There can be no logic without emotion. Logic without emotion is dead, it doesn't do anything, and cannot decide anything. — Agustino

My iMac does get weepy and emotional at certain times of the month. Sometimes I can’t touch it at all without a scene. Is it an Apple thing? I’ve always wondered why... :wink:

It's odd that Peter and Jesus speak to each other in Latin. When in Rome, I suppose. — Ciceronianus the White

I theorize that they used Latin to speak secretly in a code not understood by others nearby. (Kind of similar to parents speaking pig-Latin in front of their children.) I think the Apostles spoke Greek when they wanted to sound scholarly and deep. And of course, they reserved Ye King’s English for the most especial of occasions. I have not yet found any support for this theory however... :chin:

So eternally grateful am I (though a bit embarrassed still) to those here, who after much argument back and forth, finally convinced me that despite appearances the earth is absolutely and definitely NOT flat! :blush:

Joking aside (if that qualifies as a joke. Sorry, what was the question again?)... I will take whatever tidbits of information, knowledge, wisdom, insider betting tips, dirty limericks, and revolutionary theories I can find here as elsewhere. Perhaps every thought and idea has its parents and grandparents. As well as its siblings and off-spring. It is the rare idea that cannot find companionship and even mate with another idea. Originality is not more valuable than the heritage and ancestry of a single thought. Always with pragmatism in mind. I will do what I can with what I can get. And if even half of the brilliant ideas I encounter can make a dent in this rock of a brain, then gratitude and sharing would be a logical next step. That is, if I want my next step to avoid being a stumble.

We as humans may get glimpses of “unfiltered reality” or pure gnosis or the like. I think the (arguably) widespread view of mystics or maybe theologians is that we can’t handle it for very long. Which is completely and totally OK.
— 0 thru 9

Well, I think there is some truth in this view (even if I do not think that it is universal, despite being widespread) because, after all, our minds are accustomed with ordinary reality. On the other hand, "mystical experiences" can be very extra-ordinary, so I imagine that they can affect even our physical health somehow since I do not see mind and body as completely "separate". — boundless

Thanks for your reply, as well as your other contributions to this thread. :up:

I completely agree with your statement about mystical experiences and the interconnectedness of the body and mind. And I would say that likewise the faculties of the mind are intertwined. Lately, I’ve been wondering what the difference and relationship between one’s intellect and one’s awareness is. A mystical experience seems like it would be pure expanded awareness mostly (for lack of a better term). Some call it non-dual consciousness. Any intellectual sorting and naming would come later. Which is to be expected; no problem there. The intellect is an indispensable part of us.

If I may go out even further on this limb... One could compare a mystical experience to unexpectedly seeing a herd of wild horses up close. They seem to come out of nowhere into your area. And they exude a strong life force that is hypnotic. In this example, this mostly would fall into the category of “awareness”. Where the intellect (and mostly the ego) might enter the picture is if the person then decided to capture all of the horses, either to keep or sell. Not judging the morality of such an action, but there is a clear difference between the experience and decision to possibly capture the horses.

So I guess what I’m saying here is that awareness can be expanded. You would certainly agree with that, I imagine. There seem to be many practices in collective Buddhism that do so. And do so while perhaps temporarily “putting the brakes” on the intellect, the emotions, the ego, etc. Just giving the awareness a chance to grow by tending to it like a garden, watering it and pulling some weeds. The intellect and all the other mental powers we have are valuable. And any cautious approaches to such would be with the intention to make them even more valuable and useful to us. Like you said...

I like the apophatic approach because gives me a sense of awe and reverence. It is also true that, unfortunately, I have a somewhat compulsive need to philosophize about the "ultimate". Anyway, I think that is very useful to find peace. — boundless

Completely agree. I think that as long as the “need to philosophize about the ultimate” is counterbalanced by awareness and the sense of awe you mentioned, one can proceed both cautiously and confidently. There is a verse from the Tao Te Ching that might be related:

You can do what you like with material things. But only if you hold to the Mother of things will you do it for long. Live long by looking long. Have deep roots and a strong trunk.

The title of this thread reminds me of this song. The lyrics as I take it refer both to Jesus and the lyricist, who is trying to wake up. It is weary and tired. Like one of the more desolate Psalms: I am poured out like water, and all my bones are disjointed. My heart is like wax; it melts away within me.