Perhaps this thread demonstrates not that one doesn't care about mysticism, but rather there is little interest in the philosophy of mysticism. — jgill

I haven't done a scientific poll, and it would seem to be quite difficult to find and poll mystics not interested in discussing mysticism. So I guess we're discussing mysticism on the Internet, a somewhat hilarious concept really, but anyway, here we are.

What I've seen is that what we might call the "philosophy of mysticism" is very popular. I would speculate two reasons for this..

1) The kind of folks who gravitate to mysticism are often going to be people like me, folks with naturally over active minds. You know, one doesn't go to the hospital unless one is sick. Interest in anything typically arises from some need. So, folks such as myself who are incurably philosophical from birth are typically going to try to turn mysticism in to yet another philosophical topic to chew on. I'm doing that very thing in this thread myself, even as I attempt to undermine philosophical mysticism, as that perspective is itself a philosophy.

2) Many or most people who get involved in this are looking for some flavor of glamour. Perhaps they tried other becoming trips like popularity, wealth, status etc and those didn't work out as one hoped, and so now they try the "enlightenment" becoming trip. The enlightenment becoming trip can be very seductive because it typically offers or implies some form of permanent solution to psychological suffering. Yes, yes, I know, those selling enlightenment trips can be very clever in dancing around this in all kinds of different ways, but typically glamour is the product being sold. Don't take my word for it, just go to any new age style forum or thread and observe all the fancy words and concepts being thrown around, ie. various flavors of glamour.

The point here is that philosophical mysticism is an easy path to the experience of glamour, of becoming something more than just another ordinary human being. One reads a few books, memorizes some phrases, shares them with their friends, and persuades oneself that they are not small and ordinary, but rather special, elevated etc.

What these good folks typically don't get at first is that this glamour process is a very old game that's been run over and over and over again for thousands of years. It is in fact quite ordinary, as all becoming trips are.

So if one wishes to be truly special, or at least persuade oneself of that fantasy, the trick is to pretend you are above becoming trips and mystical philosophy. If you are articulate enough, with a well developed case of typoholic obsession, all you need do is find some forum thread where people are trying to be glamorous, and proceed to take it away from them. If you persist in doing so what typically happens is that the crowd turns on you, and starts talking about hammers and nails, and bannings and so on. And then you can play the holy martyr game, the sage who was never understood until he was gone, and all of that. And, don't ask me how I know all this, it's all topic secret need to know only stuff. :-)

Ego. Endlessly inventive.

Thanks for sharing the Pentagon videos, a great contribution.

Imho, I agree, the existence of UFOs is sufficiently proven. What they are exactly is a whole other question still mired in wild speculation.

If it is true that there are unidentified craft which seem to be under intelligent control navigating our atmosphere an interesting questions arises....

Why are we talking about anything else???

Aliens from other planets? Life forms from other dimensions? Mass hallucination? Humans from the future? Something else we can't even imagine?

Aren't all these possibilities more interesting than those topics we typically discuss?

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence for UFOs is the sheer number of reports from credible witnesses. Credible witnesses include folks like airline pilots, military pilots, radar operators, astronauts, nuclear weapons launch officers, police, Jimmy Carter :-) and so on.

If we take just a particular incident it's understandable to seek to dismiss the claim based on unknown information about the event and so on. But when you add all the reports together it's quite a bit harder to dismiss the entire pattern. That's the value of the documentaries above, they collect the most credible reports and present them together as a package.

With credible witnesses the possibility of hoax can probably be taken off the table most of the time, which makes the calculation easier. Mistaken identity is still a possibility, but some of the reports are very specific. As example, astronaut Gordon Cooper claims a UFO landed within full view on the ground in front of him, he describes details like the landing gear of the craft. There's no way that's swamp gas or strange weather phenomena etc. So that narrows the options to lying, insane, or factual report. Why would Cooper lie about such a thing? Where is the evidence that he's insane?

Nuclear weapons launch officers are another interesting class of credible witnesses as I assume that before the government gives you the keys to a collection of nuclear weapons they check you out pretty carefully. I would guess that any hint of wackiness and you're out of there in a jiffy. Nobody is perfectly credible, but these guys would seem to get as close as is humanly possible.

Adding to their credibility are their reports that once they say anything about UFOs mysterious agents swoop in and make them sign documents changing their story. If UFOs are nothing, what's the point of these deceptions? If UFOs are a fanciful tall tale, why are nuclear launch officers who make such reports left on the job?

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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

Yes, thought is very often directed at the attempt to end psychological suffering. This has it's uses which I'll try to illustrate with the following example.

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.

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.

This doesn't provide the needed support. Suffering existed prior to human beings, as we see that other animals suffer. — Metaphysician Undercover

Please re-read my post and see where I inserted the word "psychologically" so as to clarify what kind of suffering I was referring to.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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

Struck out with that blonde in Mrs. Sherman’s French class? — Mww

Ha, ha. Well, from the age of 68 I can report that those are the kind of failures which tend to stick with us over time. So perhaps Jackson had a point after all?

Yes, although, as I was saying, I don't think it's unique it might have happened a few times before on earth and many times in the cosmos. Quite predictable I think. — Punshhh

Good point. And we don't really need speculation, given how many civilizations have already come and gone here on Earth.

I know, I am thinking more about humanity living in harmony with the ecosystem (and themselves) long term. — Punshhh

From the perspective of His Flatulence Baba Nuke, this would require a fundamental re-engineering or radical evolution of human beings. That is, if one feels that it is thought itself which is the source of the disharmony, then it's hard to imagine how we become harmonious without being changed beyond current recognition. To tack back towards UFOs for a moment, one of the many theories is that aliens are already engaged in genetically re-engineering us.

What I was thinking of though is divinity subtly changing the course of events through happenstance. Rather than any grand intervention. — Punshhh

Well, that suggests a thread on divinity, or perhaps a further derailing of this thread, either of which are agreeable here.

"How can one have failures at 16???", Professor Quibble Monster rudely blurts out. :-)

Ah yes, Jackson Browne, one of the gems of my generation...

I decided to change strategies. Instead of focusing on examining the faces of particular witnesses of UFO sightings, it seems better to focus on sightings with multiple unrelated witnesses. Perhaps the best example of a mass sighting could be the Phoenix Lights incident, given that it involves hundreds of reports of the same phenomena.

Story begins about 10 seconds in to the video:

The way I understand the fall and the story depicted in the bible is just that. That the development of thinking in early humanity was the beginning of the problems which lead to the nuclear weapons down our throats. — Punshhh

Yes, although I'm not at all a Bible person, I find it pretty remarkable how well the first book of the Bible predicts where we find ourselves today. A knowledge explosion, threatening to evict us from the garden of eden. The Adam and Eve story was written some 3,000 years ago for an audience of uneducated peasants, and according to some interpretations at least, it still works today.

So I think it is a good thing and it is progress, but we now have to step up to the plate before someone presses the button and collectively take responsibility for our own actions. Not least for our own survival, but for the fate of the other members (species) of the ecosystem, to show respect for them, to care for them in their vulnerability. — Punshhh

Regrettably, there isn't much evidence this will happen any time soon. After studying the subject in earnest for about 6 months I've come to the conclusion that nothing meaningful will happen on nukes until after the next detonation. And then.... who knows? Not me.

If someone were about to press the button like they were about to do during the Cuban missile crisis. I suspect there would have been some covert divine intervention to prevent it. — Punshhh

If that interests you, you might investigate the work of Robert Hastings who has extensively researched reports of UFOs interfering with nuclear weapons systems. https://www.ufohastings.com/ He's more about aliens than divine intervention, but the idea is the same, higher forms of intelligence trying to save us from ourselves. Here's a YouTube video that summarizes his work.

I'm portraying it as a bad thing, part of the fall of man. — Punshhh

We could explore in that direction if you wish to.

Fall Of Man: As thought evolved in human beings and became an increasingly prominent part of our experience, we lost the primal bond with nature which wildlife and earlier more primitive humans enjoyed. Well, we didn't lose the primal bond so much as we were distracted from a focus on reality by the chitta chatta, as you would put it.

Is this movement from the real to the symbolic a "fall"? Is it a bad thing? I dunno, I guess to answer that we'd have to establish some value which we are measuring against. It would seem obvious that the emergence of thought had survival value, but as nuclear weapons would seem to illustrate that may depend on what time scale one is using. Advantage in the short term, fatal over the longer term?

I agree, but in the case of humanity we have developed something called a thinking mind. This has given us a strategic advantage above all the other organisms in the ecosystem. — Punshhh

Um, just a reminder, we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat, an ever present hair trigger existential threat which we typically find too boring to discuss. Thinking mind? Strategic advantage? As example, just 50 nukes would be more than enough to destroy all of America's largest cities, leading to a collapse of the food distribution system, mass starvation, and unprecedented and unimaginable social and political chaos. If North Korea doesn't already have that many nukes, they likely will soon.

Imagine if you will that you invite me to the philosophy club meeting at your house. I show up with a loaded gun in my mouth. You are alarmed and try to talk about the gun with me, but I keep waving you off in a rather impatient and annoyed manner because I want to talk about Hegel's theory of something or another instead. That's who we are folks, that guy.

The thinking mind strategic advantage stuff is all on the surface. Just below that thin veneer lies madness. Humanity is perhaps best compared to an out of control algae bloom. We will explode all over the planet in an impressive manner until we run out of the fuel which sustains us, and then the bloom will collapse.

To learn more about this, buy my new book, "HOW TO NEVER GET INVITED TO PARTIES". :-)

I think what is at issue is the subject matter of the thought. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree this is a crucial issue upon which much depends.

If one feels that human suffering (psychologically) arises from the subject matter of thought, then philosophy seems an appropriate remedy. Perhaps this describes your understanding and approach?

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.

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.

You might ask yourself, why has this conversation been going on for thousands of years, and yet we're still as nutty as ever? My answer would be that, as you suggest, we have to think to survive, and the price tag for this powerful tool is suffering. To have one is to have the other.

Here's how that works....

Thought operates by dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual objects. This allows us to re-arrange these conceptual objects in our heads to create new visions of reality. That is, the divisive nature of thought allows us to be creative, our genius.

The very same process of conceptual division is what makes us insane. We experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very very small, and "everything else" being very very big. This perspective gives rise to fear, which in turn is the source of most human problems.

My screen name is Nuke because, in my view, nuclear weapons almost perfectly represent this marriage of genius and insanity. We are smart enough to know how to build nukes, and insane enough to actually do so.

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.

If you stick with the philosophical process, as you say you wish to do, eventually you will realize that human suffering can not be healed in thought, because it is thought itself which is the source of human suffering. That understanding will transform your relationship with philosophy.

Another implication of this understanding is that there is no way to permanently fix the problem of suffering. The great promise of mystical philosophies is a false hope. Instead mysticism is best looked at as a form of management.

With every other process of the human body we take it to be an obvious given that regular management is necessary. We are never so foolish as to think that if just eat the right food that will solve the problem of hunger once and for all. It's the same with the bio-electrical cabbage machine between our ears.

This is not a glamorous story, and so it tends to be rather unpopular. Apologies, I can't do anything about that.

It was sad to hear the story of Eric Clapton's life, he was for many years a tortured soul. — Punshhh

Same for Gregg Allman. These guys worshipped at the alter of the blues, music born of tortured souls. Be careful what you ask for I guess.

Of possible interest is the career of Derek Trucks, son of Allman Brothers drummer Butch Trucks. If I understand correctly Derek Trucks embraced the musical style pioneered by the Allman Brothers, but turned his back on the drugs and hard living etc. Keep the good stuff and say goodbye to the bad, seems sensible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Trucks

I have on occasion camped out in the woods — Punshhh

I am blessed to live on the edge of town and have a big largely empty state park just 4 miles down the road. What I've learned there is that it's not the place that matters, but one's relationship with the place. Which is good news, as the relationship happens inside of one's head. Seems true of very many things in life. It's not so much what is happening that is determinative, but rather one's relationship with what's happening.

As for the future of humanity and so on....

It's debatable how much such topics can transform an individual. Many grand claims have been made, some of them may be true, I don't claim to know. It seems most accurate to say that some number of people have been helped to a modest degree.

What's not debatable is that these techniques, insights, experiences etc are not scalable to the degree that would required to transform humanity as a whole. These topics have been discussed in earnest for thousands of years, and the human condition remains largely unchanged. It wouldn't be very philosophical to ignore such a large pile of real world evidence.

It is perhaps possible that the insights arising from such investigations might be helpful in assisting science in developing some technology which is scalable to large populations. A happiness pill or some such. Logically it would make sense that the majority of science be aimed at such a target given that most of our problems arise from internal psychological issues. But, we are not a logical species by and large, and science seems more interested in almost everything else.

I suspect the future of humanity might be compared to the weather. You can buy an umbrella, but you can't stop it from raining.

Nuke attempts to avoid this reality by claiming that mysticism is not a goal directed activity, but that is nonsense.

Does this help clarify? 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.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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? — Metaphysician Undercover

These are good questions. My vote would be that we discard most of the fancy philosophy talk and focus on practical questions like this. How to produce a blank mind? Well, as a place to start, that's a quite ambitious agenda so let's be more realistic and replace that question with, how to have a quieter mind.

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.

You seem to be missing the point. Any sort of practise is goal oriented, that's what a practise is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, point taken, reaching for a quieter mind, establishing balance with the lost in thought mind, is a goal. Agreed. But it can be a simple goal and a simple practice, much as when one is hungry one eats something. No big deal.

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. 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.

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?

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.

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.

Ultimately the good promotes life and being. Evil is ultimately non being. — EnPassant

The vast majority of reality at every scale is space, that which we typically call nothing, or non-being. Reality is overwhelmingly evil? If life is good and death is bad isn't that equation in itself bad, given that we will be presumably spending only a few decades in life and billions of years in death?

Try this? Every act of creation is an act of destruction, and every act of destruction is an act of creation. Ok so far? If yes, then we can see that creation and destruction are not polar opposites, but rather 2 sides of the came coin, or perhaps two different words for the same process. That is, they are not two, but one.

You guys are so wordy! — Becky

Ha, ha! Guys=Wordy. True that! :-)

Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived — JacobPhilosophy

How do you know this?

From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. — JacobPhilosophy

Why can't both be good?

Yes, it seems they had quite the musical connection. That album is a blues rock classic for sure. My favorite Clapton album by far. Duane did a good bit of work as a session musician and played behind other great acts like Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett and others. If you'd like to learn more about Duane Allman there is a great documentary on streaming (Amazon Prime?) called Song of the South. Here's a preview on YouTube.



Although the Brothers probably did too much coke to be called great mystics :-) legend has it that they used to often smoke pot in a cemetery near their house in Macon, where 3 of them are now buried. Getting high in a cemetery, that could be an open door to some kinds of mystical experience?

Ok, interesting post, thanks.

Wouldn't good have to be in reference to something? You know, good for who or what?

The lion eating the lamb is good for the lion. Not so good for the lamb. How do we deal with this within your perspective?

Good point, Nuke, but I don't think these guys are going that far. They simply want philosophers to provide "guidance" by interpreting mystical journeys. — jgill

No problem, I'm attempting to do just that. I don't object if a reader prefers another interpretation.

I agree racism is a complex problem but changing your own language use is a step in the right direction — dazed

Ok, but language use seems too easy a way out.

How about we provide totally free education (room and board, books, tuition, everything) to all Black and Indian Americans to use on any kind of education from truck driving school to Phd. This system continues until such time as the wealth gap between whites, blacks and indians is erased. It's paid for primarily by the super rich, those who have benefited most from the rigged system, and those who have the vast majority of the money.

So, erase the wealth gap, at no charge to almost anybody. But we can't do it. We can't even really talk about it. And that's because the reality is...

We don't really give a shit.

Political correctness is a pose. We'll know it's real when the money starts to roll.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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?

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?

Mysticism is an experience of the real which provides a balance to our typically compulsive immersion in the symbolic realm. To try to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or a religion or any other thought based goal oriented project, is to kill it.

If one wishes to focus on a religion or philosophy, ok, no problem. So call it a religion or philosophy. Don't get it confused with mysticism. Trying to turn mysticism in to a philosophy or religion is like going on a diet which involves eating butter all day. Eating butter all day is not a diet. It's pigging out. If one wishes to eat butter all day, ok, but call it pigging out. Don't get it confused with a diet.

A similar problem exists in Christianity, probably all the major religions. Jesus suggested we "die to be reborn" a radical psychological process involving the surrender of "me" (ie. symbolic) and a rebirth in to the real. But his audience said, "Well, we don't really want to surrender the "me", so let's create a religion about dying to be reborn", which they then used to reinforce the "me".

Self help might start with simple obvious things. It might end there too. Get a lot of exercise. Eat a healthy diet. Get a good night's sleep. A bit of meditation, yoga and massage can go a long way. Invest time in your friends and family. Make some charitable contribution to society.

The vast majority of self help book readers will ignore such obvious suggestions. And that's useful because then they know what the problem is. They aren't serious.

Of course to follow this path, one has to accept that race is an unscientific useless concept. — dazed

While it's true that genetically there is very little difference between the races, a cultural divide built over many centuries is a very real thing. So words like white, black, asian etc do have a useful meaning. Your post is well intended, but suffers from an overdose of political correctness dogma.

As for the second sentence, what about us? — TheMadFool

My highly speculative crackpot theory for which I have no proof whatsoever :-) is that the "aliens" are future human archaeologists. Time travel seems no more speculative to me than inter-stellar travel, so hey, why not? Well, because I have no proof whatsoever, that's why not. :-)

The whole UFO-alien theory is undermined by the simple observation that a UFO doesn't necessarily imply aliens. — TheMadFool

Yes, agree completely. The evidence for UFOs seems quite strong. The evidence of aliens seems quite weak. This is why I suggested dividing the topic in to UFO vs. aliens.

A suggested methodology: This is just how I go about watching UFO documentaries. You may have your own methods, to each their own.

I'll pick out a particularly interesting story and watch it a number of times studying the faces of those making the reports. While this is hardly a foolproof method of determining truth, most of us (especially the older one gets) tend to be reasonably skilled at scanning faces for BS. In real time real life this can be challenging because conversations only happen once and can go by pretty fast. But in video you can watch the claims being made over and over again and take your time studying the faces.

There are typically a limited number of choices.

1) They are telling the truth as they understand it, but are mistaken.
2) They are lying.
3) They are insane.
4) The report is generally accurate.

As example, I'll be sharing a report from a military officer who claims he examined, walked around, and touched a landed UFO in the woods. No one could be mistaken about such a thing, so he's either telling the truth, is lying, or is seriously delusional. Examine his face, and decide for yourself.

And of course there are the credentials and credibility of the observers. A military officer in charge of a nuclear weapons launch facility is reasonably considered more credible than a group of half drunk hunters wandering around in the woods at night.

It seems likely to me that most reports of UFOs are a case of mistaken identity or hoaxes. So skepticism is clearly warranted. It's indisputable that the UFO subject is highly polluted with all kinds of nonsense.

However, please keep in mind that it only takes ONE report to be true to qualify as one of the biggest stories in human history. I'm defining "true" as 1) the object that was observed really was there, 2) it was under intelligent control, and 3) was not made by us.

There have been thousands of UFO reports. If one of them is true, we have a big story to chew on.

You mean ignore Trump in so far as listening to him will only make it harder to try and relate to his base/followers? Is that right? — DingoJones

How would we respond to a chronic troll on the forum? Ok, first we would yell at him for awhile. Then we would see the pointlessness of the yelling and would proceed to the next step, denying the troll that which he most craves, attention.

Trump wants us to yell at him, based on a philosophy that all publicity is good publicity, a strategy that may have (not entirely sure here) been crafted by Roger Stone the long time Republican dirty trickster.

So when we yell about and at Trump, we're doing exactly what he wants us to do. We're keeping the spotlight on Trump, and feeding the polarization machine he needs to keep his base fired up. Trump needs his base to be fired up because they are a minority of the population. But if they vote more than we do because they're fired up, they can be a majority of the voters.

In any case, Trump voters are the real power we should be addressing. After Trump is gone they will still be there. And if we keep ignoring their concerns and calling them idiots they will find somebody else to vote for other than us.

But the real attraction for this population is an escape from the self, — Monitor

Hey, good post Monitor. I'm all for heading in this direction. Perhaps this is a semantic quibble, but I would phrase it enlargement of the self. That is, by attaching our identity to some ideology, club, sports team, nation, ethnicity etc we transcend the smallness of the individual and then think of ourselves as something larger.

In my often stated view, this phenomena arises directly out of the nature of what we're all made of psychologically, thought. The evidence for that is that this tribal phenomena is seemingly universal, appearing in all times and places.

I think this is the primary reason that Trump voters ignore so many faults of the man. They have a power now that they never had before and they want to keep it. — Monitor

Well yes, that's called politics I think. :-) Trump is addressing, or at least pretending to address, issues that others largely ignore, and so he has won a following.

As example, what is the Democratic policy on immigration? Have any idea? Do we want the population of the US to grow? To shrink? To stay the same? Do we want to allow immigration based on need, or on ability to contribute? What is our game plan for controlling the border? Do we even want to have borders?

If a citizen doesn't wish for the US to become as populated as India or China, why would they choose Democrats? Have we expressed any concern at all, or even any interest, in the the fact the US population has doubled in my lifetime? Did you even know that? And if a citizen DOES want the US to become very populated, again why would they choose Democrats? In either case, in any case, what is our credible plan?

We have no plan. At least none that has been clearly articulated. And so by abandoning the field we leave it wide open for some hyper confident con man to win the day, because at least he has something to say on the issue.

What Im wondering about Is if Trump is being ignored by his opposition, than how do you prevent his empowerment among the people who are not ignoring him? Wouldnt the cult of personality only get stronger? — DingoJones

One of the things feeding the cult of personality is our demonization of Trump's base. If we insist on calling them things like a "basket of deplorables" then we reap what we sow. I'm not saying we are the entire problem, only that our part of the problem is a factor we can do something about.

If we want to understand Trump voters, we could start by trying to understand ourselves. Why are we clinging to polarization? Why do we so enjoy having an enemy? Why are we so drawn to the endless repetition of superiority poses? These are things we can work on which don't depend on anybody else.

How do you deal with prejudice? Firstly, the prejudiced need to want to overcome their prejudice. — praxis

Yea man, that's what I'm trying to discuss. Do we lefties wish to overcome our prejudices?

Or do you mean that prejudices are an affliction that only those other people over there suffer from?

Again, this is not Father Nuke giving a moral sermon about being nice. This is a rational tactical political calculation. Which is more important to us? The joy of superior finger pointing? Or reaching policy objectives?

Again, what triggered all this for me was watching serious nuclear weapons experts and activists choose the joy of superior finger pointing. These highly educated and very well informed folks are so distracted by Trump bashing that it never seems to dawn on them that few to none of their objectives can be reached without lots of Trump voters on board. Seeing that was a pretty sobering experience. That really brought home to me how truly dangerous prioritizing emotional agendas can be.

Being annoyed by other people is not misanthropia; it is a sign of complete normality. — Bitter Crank

I can't speak for the original poster, but my sense is that he is speaking to something which is particularly relevant to we philosopher-type folks. It certainly is to me.

We tend to want the world to be orderly and logical, because that's the kind of environment we feel naturally comfortable in. You know, what is a philosophy forum but an attempt to create a state of abstraction order? And so we are often disturbed when people do irrational disorderly things like tailgate.

Not everyone is so disturbed. In fact, most people just accept humanity as it is, because they don't have a built in bias for an experience of nerdy order. I envy them, but am not them, so like the original poster I dream of a home far from the crowd.

But ten acres isn't enough. The thing is, people move to the country so they can do whatever the F they want to do. I have a friend who gets up every other night, in the middle of the night, to shoot the varmits digging up his yard. His neighbors complain. He shrugs it off and keeps on shooting the varmits at 3am. That's the country for ya.

If ten acres was enough I'd already be there. But ten acres ain't enough. My current dream is to move to the Yukon, bigger than California, and only 35,000 people live there. Yep, as a life long Florida boy I'm a gonna just put on my flip flops and swimming trunks and hike right on up there. Wait, they said I might need a jacket, ok, that too, just in case.

So far in this thread, there have been no principles established which would distinguish a mystic from a philosopher. — Metaphysician Undercover

Such principles have been suggested above. You apparently don't agree with those principles, which is ok of course, but the distinction has been made.

The sign needs to be interpreted for the mystic to proceed — Metaphysician Undercover

It can be argued that mystics neither interpret nor proceed.

It may be helpful here to revisit the concepts of being and becoming. For the sake of brevity the following simple formulas may help.

Mystic = being
Philosopher = becoming
Mystic ≠ philosopher

The philosopher is trying to travel down some road towards some desired destination, a process of becoming. The mystic sits down on the side of the road and enjoys spending the day there, an act of being. The philosopher is on the move, the mystic is still.

Being is often a difficult topic for we Westerners given that our entire culture is so thoroughly based in becoming.

When talking about US politics in particular, though, a big problem remains that the republican power base is a small, highly mobilised voting block. — Echarmion

That is, they care about their issues enough to actually vote.

But because of the electoral college, voter suppression, and highly polarizing rhetoric, the Republicans have so far managed to stave off their demise. — Echarmion

That is, too many lefties don't care enough about their issues to actually vote. We can't blame that on anybody but ourselves. There's nothing about the electoral college, voter suppression, and highly polarizing rhetoric that can stop us from winning, if we will get off our ass and vote, and drop the pathetic victim claims which so often infect the left.

But I don't know how one would translate that into a nationwide reconciliation. — Echarmion

Stop demonizing the opposition in public conversations. Be intellectually honest enough to publicly admit that the opposition has some reasonable concerns, even if we can't fully agree on how those concerns should be addressed. Look for win/win solutions. To the greatest degree possible, ignore those on the left and right who want to stoke the partisan divide. All the same kind of things we have to do if we wish to have productive debates here on the forum.

What I wanted to point out was that there must be limits to what is considered a reasonable position — Echarmion

There are a minority of extremists on all sides who don't merit our respect, agreed. And there are many on all sides who care more about the emotional stimulation provided by polarization than they do the successful future of the country. So there is no perfect solution, I agree.

I think you are making a good point here, but how do you ignore Trump? His effect on discourse and divisiveness is very real, and has very real effect on trying to fo what your suggesting and make peace with his base. — DingoJones

When Trump says something ridiculous so as to stay in the headlines, we don't have to feed the beast by playing his game and getting all excited. Example: If I was making a bunch of wild angry claims on the forum you guys would yell at me for a bit, and then you'd get bored and ignore me. Like that.

We all know who Trump is now. There is no educational value in describing him any further.

Studies of voter movement don't support that conclusion. The republican / democrat split doesn't run along income or occupation lines, but along education lines. — Echarmion

Aren't income/occupation and education very related??

I think your intentions are good here, it's just hard not to conclude that people who still support Trump really must be in favor of tyranny, so long as they get to be part of the ruling class (or race). — Echarmion

There are such folks on all sides. You know, some lefties want the government to control pretty much every aspect of our lives. If you need to fart, you must first file a 17 page application with the EPA. :-)

But I am very sceptical about calls to "understand" such reasons. Shouldn't we instead figure out how to make people be better at being reasonable? — Echarmion

Is it reasonable to be concerned about abortion? Yes. Is it reasonable to be concerned about immigration? Yes. Is it reasonable to want to own a gun? Yes. Is it reasonable to be religious? Yes. Is it reasonable to be worried that we are over spending ourselves in to a disaster? Yes. Is it reasonable to stop voting for people who think you are a "basket of deplorables"? Yes. Is it reasonable to stop voting for those who have ignored your concerns for years? Yes.

There will always be policy debates of course. My point is just that those debates will be more productive if we stop thinking of those on the other side as deplorable idiots etc.

The condescending class were so out of touch with the country that they believed their chosen candidate had it in the bag right up until the night of the election. — NOS4A2

Yes, that's it. It's not just that we lost, it's that we had no idea we were going to lose. Me too!