Given this nonsense, the implication is that the moderating mergerer generally views mysticism as similarly nonsensical. Tellingly, they did not delete the topic or move it to the lounge but merged it into a topic that discusses mysticism in general. — praxis

I see it more as showing disrespect for discussions of mysticism in general. I thought the "What is Mysticism?" thread was a good one. It had some rigor and clarity. It really helped me get a hand on what the word means. I think it helped others too. The moderators brought it back from four months in the past just because a couple of us referenced it and it was easy to dump it in the trash with the new thread.

Pisses me off.

This is an old thread. Anand-Haqq was banned two months ago.

I don't understand why @1 Brother James new "Is Mysticism capable of being 'experienced' by the use of the Intellect?" discussion was jammed in here. This thread is four months old and covers mysticism in general. The new thread was addressing one specific issue associated with mysticism.

It doesn't make sense and it disrupts the discussion.

1) An endstate (maybe the same as “teleute” but nicer sounding): an actualized result; an actualized completion, conclusion, or consummation of one or more processes, activities, events, or changes
2) A telos: A potential result toward whose actualization one or more givens strive, strain, stretch, bend, or move; respective to sentience, a goal, aim, or objective.
3) A telosis: A given’s activity or process of striving, straining, stretching, bending, or moving toward a telos; respective to sentience, the act of intending. — javra

So:

• Telos = goal
• Telosis = plan for achieving that goal
• Endstate = intended future condition.

What value is added by using highfalutin philosophicalistic words? It just confuses things.

Let me see if I can summarize your point. My goal is to achieve a certain future condition. I have developed a plan, a series of actions, to meet that goal. When I've implemented that plan and the intended future conditions are achieved, they will have been achieved by backward causation because, as you've written, "a goal as telos is always found in the future."

Response - All the factors we are considering - goal, intended final condition, and plan - exist in the present. They are not in the future. Therefore, we are talking about just normal old everyday causation.

That is, can one's brain experience Mystical phenomena? I suggest it cannot, and my reason for saying this is that the term Mysticism is a label for that which the brain [being physical] cannot experience. And this naturally leads to the topic of "Intuition," which is a label for an aspect of the Soul, which is composed of Spiritual Energy. Can Intuition be proven via one's intellect? No, because no part of one's thinking is capable of perceiving Spiritual Energy. — 1 Brother James

The word "mysticism" has many definitions. Yours - "that which the brain cannot experience" - is a bit confusing. You say that mysticism cannot be experienced because mysticism means what the brain cannot experience, which is circular. Here are some common definitions, positive and negative, from a discussion called "What is Mysticism" from a few months ago.

[1] Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

[2] Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

[3] The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality

[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis

[6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

[7] Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

[8] The belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God

[9] The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth). — T Clark

I think you're right, intuition is a big part of mysticism. For me, intuition is a normal part of human mental processing and doesn't involve what I would call "spiritual energy."

Oh, yes, and welcome to the forum.

Again - gracefully and artfully translated. Many translations feel forced and clunky. Yours are poetic.

Some questions:

• Do you work only from the text or also from other translations?
• Did you find those other translations unsatisfactory? Why have you chosen to translate these verses again?
• Have you done any translations of verses of the Tao Te Ching?

Thank you for this.

We need to find the cure for reactionary religion, whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, or anybody else. Reactionary religion is nothing but trouble. Some would include all religion as troublesome, and that may be the case. — Bitter Crank

In the words of Winston Churchill, or was it Chico Marx, "What could possibly go wrong."

Really incredible. Clear and straightforward. Written in 415 by one of the early fathers of the church. If someone were to read it without knowing the attribution they'd probably think is was written last week by a liberal protestant, except for some of the language. I'll keep this in my stack-o-quotes to bring out when I want to show my erudition.

You are always pointing the finger — Gregory

If you look you'll see that I make many positive comments, but when I see something I think is intellectually dishonest, I often point it out.

Finally, where are your threads? Are you strong minded enough to make them or do you just trash others — Gregory

If you look, you'll see I've started many threads. It would have made sense for you to check before you asked this question.

I feel bad that I haven't responded before this. I really like talking to you. I think we share a common outlook, an openness, on many of the issues we're discussing. It's just that you are playing on a piano, maybe a pipe organ, and I am playing on a three-string banjo. This old banjo is just right for the song I'm trying to sing.

It’s difficult to imagine anything in reality being significant or measurable without some aware entity to go “oooh!”. But if we go by evidence, life wasn’t always around and therefore there must be a cold dead universe that existed before it could be appreciated. — Benj96

I didn't contribute to this discussion when it first started. I wasn't sure if it would go anywhere interesting, but it did. Not much got covered in any depth, but it has covered a lot of ground and asked some interesting questions.

Some of the posts here have hovered around the metaphysical concept of reality as described in Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching. The Tao is the name for the unnameable ground of all being. Lao Tzu was fully aware of the irony. I guess that makes it "reality" as we are discussing it. It is similar to @Wayfarer's universe with no point of view. I'm sure he is aware of that.

In the Tao Te Ching, the Tao is identified with "non-being." The universe where we live on a daily basis is identified with "being," or "the 10,000 things," as Taoists sometimes call it. Being develops out of non-being by the act of naming, which, to me, seems very much like observing, measuring, etc, which are acts of consciousness. Some people do not agree with my interpretation.

As I noted at the beginning, the Tao is a metaphysical concept. There are many out there. I find this one particularly useful.

In this thread I want to discuss how we can have a certain understanding of what ancient texts say... I want to provide the Bible as a good place to start to see if we can really understand what ancient texts mean. — Gregory

Here's what Wikipedia says about textual criticism - "Textual criticism is a branch of textual scholarship, philology, and of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification of textual variants, or different versions, of either manuscripts or of printed books."

Let's be honest. You have no interest in textual criticism. You don't even know what it means. This is just another claptrap jab at Christianity. I guess there's always room for one more.

Philosophy asks the most basic questions. About what? Everything. Then what are basic questions? Questions that underlie everything. They sit quiet as assumptions in a place that gives all knowledge claims there foundation. — Constance

I agree, but is that all of philosophy or just metaphysics, including epistemology?

The technical side of philosophy lies in the disciplined body of theory and inquiry regarding all things at this foundation...the way analytic philosophy goes after the givenness of the world." — Constance

I like this. I might even agree with it. I'll think more about it. Except, for me, there is no "givenness of the world.

Where do we get this qualia idea? From ordinary experience...the source is always everydayness — Constance

The idea of "qualia" does not match my experience. This is my objection to much of western philosophy, even phenomenology, acknowledging my limited knowledge. Philosophers say it's from experience, but it's not. Not directly, anyway. They take experience and cover it with jelly and syrup and marshmallow. Rational jelly and syrup and marshmallow I guess. It obscures true experience.

It depends on what you mean by religion. ...These play off Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety, as does all existential philosophy. — Constance

I'm not sure how to respond to this long paragraph. It feels like the Constance philosophy train has switched tracks and is headed off in a different direction than mine. We probably were on different tracks to start with.

Not sure what other modes of thinking would be. — Constance

I think most of what we know, understand, use is not knowledge of facts or propositions at all, i.e. justified true belief; Gettier; etc. I think there is a model of the world built into each of us. The model is built up from our interactions with the world, our parents, language, education from the time we are babies. It probably also includes factors that are hardwired into us. I feel this model of the world in myself very viscerally all the time. I recognize it as the source most of my day to day decisions both consciously and unconsciously. I guess you would call it intuition. Generally, new knowledge has to get incorporated into that model before it is used. That is vastly oversimplified.

Obviously, they are mistaken. — Constance

I was getting worried until I came to this.

I apologize for all the philosophers I threw out at you. But they are what I think. These guys are simply too interesting not to mention. Phenomenology is, as I see it, the only wheel that rolls in philosophy. — Constance

I took two courses in philosophy in my first try at college back in 19(mumble, mumble). The first was "The Mind/Brain Identity Problem." I remember thinking in my first week of class "This is all bullshit." And I was right. That set the stage for the rest of my experience with western philosophy. I have maintained this bias to a certain extent up till today. I found a home of sorts with Lao Tzu and Alan Watts. They were talking about things that really did match my personal experience of the world.

Since I've been on the forum, I've met several people, yourself included, who've convinced me that western philosophy can be a powerful tool to understand what is going on. I've found some of the discussions moving. People have showed me that they have the same goal I have always had, but their paths have been a little different. In some cases, I've felt that philosophy saved those people. Gave them a ladder out of confusion and despair. It's hard to argue with that, even though that path definitely doesn't work for me.

So - no need to apologize.

I don't see how any of this changes my first response. I'll summarize - are the two situations, i.e. driving drunk and going in public without vaccination; analogous? My answer - yes. Are they identical? No.

I agree in principle, but in reality, none of us are islands. — Hanover

I don't disagree with the distinctions you are making, but I was trying to keep focused on the specific question @Tuckwilliger asked - whether or not the analogy between drunk driving and vaccination is valid.

I am looking for a discussion about whether this drunk driving analogy holds up — Tuckwilliger

If you drive drunk, you put vulnerable people in the public at risk without their knowledge or approval. Being drunk is ok. It's going in public that's wrong.

If you go out in public unvaccinated, you put vulnerable people in the public at risk without their knowledge or approval. Not being vaccinated is ok. It's going in public that's wrong.

No, I'm not trying to say that the risk associated with drunk driving is equivalent to that for going in public unvaccinated.

I strongly suspect this is not an epistemic act at all, but rather a distinction brains are hardwired to make. — hypericin

It makes sense to me that there are aspects of what we know that are not learned, but hardwired. On the other hand, the distinction between inside; what Constance calls "a brain thing or any of its interior manifestations;" and outside seems like something that would have to be learned.

He said without knowing what he was talking about. I really should do some more reading. Recommendations - science, not philosophy.

If you're going to reopen a thread from months or years ago, it would be nice if you'd let people know. Responding to old posts on threads that have run their course and sometimes from people who aren't even active on the forum any longer can be a waste of time.

An aspect of science is formulating hypotheses, and this is a hypothesis. Its where science starts. I purposely made it as easy as possible to understand, so your claim that it's some kind of word salad is consternating. — Enrique

Hypotheses have to come from somewhere connected to current knowledge. Just tossing some jargon from various theories, e.g. entanglement, superposition, wavicles, consciousness, neuroscience..., is exactly what you called it. Word salad.

The basics of consciousness are almost fundamental, emergent from material properties, essentially the superpositions amongst entanglement that I described. So soul exists, but has a mechanistic sort of explanation. — Enrique

This doesn't mean anything. It's just some technical and spiritual terms juxtaposed to sound profound. How do you test this? I'm perfectly comfortable with discussions of spiritual matters based on insight into personal experience, but when you start calling it science and using scientific language, there are different standards.

Have you seen the kind of posts that are made on a regular basis? — Enrique

True. There's lots of crap on the forum. As I noted, I don't have any objection to your stuff remaining here. On the other hand, what you've written is not legitimate science in any way that I can recognize. I don't think that's caused by my lack to scientific understanding.

Furthermore the fact we all going to die one day, it gives more anxiety the fact of the lovers I will leave behid in our path to the "final days".
If you live alone, probably you will not live such difficult situation and probably, you would able to understand that we are finite.
But, it hurts when your parents or pets dye before you... It is so sad really. We have to understand it because is the "natural process" — javi2541997

I agree with what you've written so gracefully. I don't look forward to death, but I'm not particularly afraid of it. Is it a natural part of life? I don't know what that means. As you note, it's coming for us whether or not we want it. Why let that fact interfere with the life we have now.

I guess I hurt your feelings with my last post.

It is intrinsic of matter as it perpetually quantum entangles to also superposition, its wavelengths blending into hybrid structures of variable dimension. The nature of these superpositions is not only to occupy space but to feel in some primitive, fragmentary sense. Most of these entanglements discompose as rapidly as they form, but in conscious entities superposition persists long enough and achieves sufficing organization to supply the fundamentals of mind. — Enrique

What does this mean? It means nothing. Nothing in this post means anything. As the saying goes, it's not even wrong. It says nothing about anything. I'd like to say this is pseudo-science of the worst kind, but it doesn't even rise to that level. "Twas brillig and the slivey toves did gyre and gimbal in the wabe" tells us more about the nature of reality and consciousness than this post does.

This does not belong on this forum. I don't mind if it's allowed, but I want to make sure what it really is is recognized.

I barely ever even read the entire threads that I post in ... — thewonder

He said, with pride.

What sets philosophy apart from other disciplines is its desire to know the truth at the level of basic questions, which is why all categories of thought are inherently philosophical regardless of way they differ in content. Going through your mail and doing quantum mechanics share that same foundation of structured thought and experience taking up the world. What does it mean at all to think, to solve problems, to experience pain and pleasure or art and music. Not this art or that love affair, but At ALL, how does one analytically approach those truly basic questions that are presupposed by all the things we say and do? — Constance

If philosophy is nothing more than our everyday experience and actions, then it is really nothing at all. At least nothing worth mentioning. You talk about philosophy consisting of analytic approaches to truly basic questions. Much, most, almost all of our daily experience is non-analytical, and good thing. It seems to me, without being able to point to specific evidence, that the only presuppositions to most of our daily experiences are more related to the structure of the mind than to analytic propositions.

Metaphysics? There is bad and good metaphysics. The former asks about, say, God's angels, actions, responses to sin, his kingdom, accessibility through prayer, God's omniscience, omnipotence, and so on, and so on. — Constance

I don't share your... prejudice against religion, but it has always bothered me that the existence of God is considered a metaphysical question. That's because the existence of a monotheistic God present as a conscious entity is a matter of fact, true or false. That takes it out of the realm of metaphysics to me. I think other aspects of Gods and religions are appropriate subjects for metaphysical discussion.

Empirical science? This is the naturalistic attitude. Philosophy is about what is presupposed by this, what assumptions are in place for this that make it possible to think and experience at all. Otherwise, you just doing scientific speculation, not philosophy. — Constance

Agreed, except I think that science has presuppositions beyond those for other modes of thinking and experience. If not, you've diluted the idea of metaphysics, including epistemology, to insignificance.

an object is a synthesis of overt, observable, features, and the contributions of the observer, and ponders the question as to whether there is any epistemic connection at all between out there and in here. — Constance

This is a metaphysical position. I think very few scientists have this kind of abstract understanding of what they do. Maybe I'm wrong.

What they usually do is take the naturalistic world, assume there is a connection, and simply move forward with that, putting aside any presuppositional objections. — Constance

This probably answers my question, although I thought the two statements were contradictory. I think I misunderstood.

Doing philosophy is not doing science, or, when a scientist does science, if she starts wondering about underlying philosophical issues, to that extent, she breaks away from her discipline. — Constance

I agree that doing philosophy is not doing science, but I don't agree that scientists don't need to understand underlying philosophical issues. Unless, I guess, you want to significantly limit the scope of science.

I've enjoyed this discussion. I am skeptical of the role you give phenomenology in your philosophy, but my understanding is based on reading summaries rather than primary sources.

You're right. There is no counter argument, so you elegantly avoid the discussion of it. — god must be atheist

Of course there's a counter argument. I'm not a theist and I can see it. The fact that you are so smug in dismissing the possibility just shows you are captive to the Dawkinsist ideology. I decided not to go further with the discussion because it is not consistent with the original post.

Forgot to say - A well-written and clear post with good ideas. With which I don't agree.

I think people like me also have our own valid (& logical, rational) reasons to be a pessimist (or agreeing with philosophical pessimism), when looking at the world, life, (human's) society, existence, & basically the cold, harsh, cruel reality around us everyday (I still even haven't discussed about depressive realism, antinatalism, pro-mortalism, efilism, suicide, etc etc). — niki wonoto

Please don't take this as criticism. I think that the underlying basis of our philosophies reflect our temperament as much as our intellect or circumstances. I am often the Pollyanna in these discussions. I think the world is a wonderful place and I feel like I belong here. The world and I, all of us, were made for each other. Oddly, this does not make me a particularly happy person in general. I recognize my responsibility for my reaction to the world.

I do live a privileged life and I have no reason to complain about what I have been given. I'm not sure how many happy privileged people there are, but freedom from fear is a good thing.

Faith is independent of facts and of reason, and therefore no amount of facts or reason will shake anyone's faith (unless they give in to reason). — god must be atheist

This is the "realist" lie about faith. Not that I think there is a need for "intelligent design" for life to begin and proliferate. This is probably off subject, so I won't take this any further here.

hope was banned for low quality. — jamalrob

Not surprised. Too bad. I kind of liked her.

Yes, but it also makes us reassess how likely the existence of life in the universe is and calls into question the assertion that life 'must' be abundant in the universe. — EnPassant

I don't think life must be abundant, but that's where I'll put my money if I have to bet based on the very limited evidence I provided and just because.

But what if life does not arise by chance? By a statistical physical mechanism? What if life only evolves if it is brought into existence by intelligence? This alters the picture radically. — EnPassant

If I'm right, then we don't need an explanation for life based on outside influence. As has been noted many times before - the idea of life being created by aliens or extra-dimensional entities just moves the question of how life started to a different location.

Complicating the matter greatly is the fact that the evidence suggests two things:

1. These beings are nuts-and-bolts, biological, space-faring aliens.
2. They are spirits or interdimensional beings who travel here via the 'Astral Plane' as some call it. — EnPassant

I am not aware of any convincing evidence.

Physicists' language has no place in genuine philosophy. — Constance

I read this quickly while passing through, but didn't stop. Now I keep thinking about it. Do I believe this? Let's see.

First off, I get annoyed when people claim that each new discovery calls for a reevaluation of our understanding of reality. Does quantum mechanics require us to rethink metaphysics? My first reaction is to say no. I want to keep my metaphysics separate from physics. But on the other hand, I'm wonder if I'm being rigid.

I went back to your previous comment in this exchange.

But then, what is it to test? This is a philosophical question. Consider that one tests what stands before one, some thing of event. What are these at the level of basic assumptions? This is not a scientist's question, but one of science's presuppositions. Neil Degrasse Tyson has no insights to offer as a physicist, and the standard scientist's assumptions are out the window. they don't (typically) step outside their world to discuss questions like, What does it mean to call an object real at all? The ones that do end up speaking nonsense. (Keep in mind that someone like Daniel Dennett is not a naive realist. He simply doesn't read phenomenology, and in this he IS naive). — Constance

Doesn't this point to a weakness of understanding in the scientists? Shouldn't they be interested in the metaphysical underpinnings of what they study? Can you effectively study something without being aware of your presuppositions? How can you apply the scientific method unless you understand it? Doesn't that mean that physicist's language does have a place in philosophy?

Am I talking about the same things you are?

Maybe that's because I taught Lao Tzu everything he knows and everything he based his book on. — hope

So, what's LT really like? He seems pretty cool.

You will not go away. You shall engage with me and Gregory until we discover a new paradigm in physics and understanding of reality. — Outlander

Yes, master.

It's expressed incorrectly most of the time. — hope

I named this thread "My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching." It's purpose is to discuss the meaning of specific verses in relation to the whole document. I still have some thoughts of starting it up again. It's pointless for you to spout off your superficial opinion of what Lao Tzu was saying without any reference to the text itself or to the context of the whole document. It's self-indulgent.

It's just a general thread about medieval thought. If you don't like it go away — Gregory

Your opening post was intellectually misleading. I pointed it out. I will go away now, unless you keep it going.

The argument that the simulation is the reality for the brain in the vat cannot accommodate the situation where the brain is housd in a body again — hypericin

I don't understand why it would matter.

I quoted Aquinas's arguments on why he thought light was immaterial. Just as people quote and criticise Aristotle's physics.. — Gregory

Criticizing either from 1,000 or 2,000 years in the future is pointless. Both are important for historical reasons. Both come from periods before there was a distinction between science and philosophy.

"If you can't explain it to a 12 year old you still don't understand it." — hope

I think I could explain it to a 12-year-old. People here, @Noble Dust's "cantankerous autodidact philosophers" are more set in their ways. They've read philosophy, found philosophies they like, and become more rigid in their beliefs. Less open to alternative ways of seeing things.