by frankiespeakin 77 Replies latest jw friends
Perhaps startreck attempted to use some of these ideas. In one of the movies, spock attempts to merge (mind meld?) w 'vyger' (voyager hyped up by the machine people). It was his way of experiencing what vyger was. It's been a while since i saw it, so my wording may not be exact.
S
Terry,
What is mysticism?
Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason and then asserting that this is superior to evidence or the senses.
I think the mystic and the "naive realist" are the same in some ways. The basic naive realist beleives his 5 senses are telling him the truth about reality,, just as the mystic beleives his experience is telling him the truth about reality. While I know the 5 sense are not telling us the truth (ie the color red for one example), but just mental interpretations from sensations experienced in the 5 senses, I do not have much too say about mysticism because of my very limited experience (having not experienced total enlightenment).
But I don't think mysticism is the: "acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason" many have had a direct experience, beyound the 5 senses,, as too whether or not these experience are absolutley true or of "true reality" is another matter.
To me mysticism and supranaturalism (cf. Terry's post) are entirely different things. Supernaturalism posits two worlds or two levels of reality, mysticism doesn't need to do so. A monistic mysticism (e.g. pantheism) would claim a different access (e.g. irrational, intuitive, wordless and conceptless) to the very same reality.
as too whether or not these experience are absolutley of the "true reality" is another matter.
This is a question that i have often thought. Some things that i have been able to verify have proven true, even though they did not tell me what i wanted to hear. Others are impossible to verify. Buddhists teach to ignore all phenomana, aiming for, i don't remember exactly what. Void? Help me out buddhists.
Maybe the mystical look at things is merely another view which can used in addition to those from the 5 senses. That would make mysticism a 6th or 7th sense, not superior to the others, merely an addition to them.
S
Satan,
I heard from Zen teachers that by just looking at a blank wall can bring on all kinds of expereinces, even full blown Kundalini expereinces,,and that the object is not to get all caught up in these expereinces and try to keep having them but to keep progressing beyound the expereinces no matter how "true" they may feel.
I think the mystic and the "naive realist" are the same in some ways. The basic naive realist beleives his 5 senses are telling him the truth about reality,, just as the mystic beleives his experience is telling him the truth about reality. While I know the 5 sense are not telling us the truth (ie the color red for one example), but just mental interpretations from sensations experienced in the 5 senses, I do not have much too say about mysticism because of my very limited experience (having not experienced total enlightenment).
Your daily life and continued well-being are informed by the 5 senses. As you experience the loss of one or more your quality of living grows astoundingly more limited.
But, eschewing mystical "information" won't hurt you a bit. I leave it to you to work out which of the two is practical and survival oriented and which is pure imagination and wishful thinking.
When you say the 5 senses are not telling us the truth you use the color red (I assume ultra-red) as the example. But, seeing the ENTIRE spectrum of red is not pro-survival. Mankind (science) has used his rational mind (informed by those 5 senses) to create equipment which enables him to detect the missing parts of red.
What does mysticism enable us to see that is REALLY there? Nothing verifiable. While ultra-red is verifiable.
You see, on the one had man's mind devises how to gain information on what the 5 senses tell him by abstracting and rationally modifying the sensory data. He fills in the missing pieces and verifies the data using science. While on the other hand, you have some guru spouting off non-sensory assertions from unknown sources which you cannot verify but can only choose to agree with or disagree with. NON-testable data is not data.
Tery
To me mysticism and supranaturalism (cf. Terry's post) are entirely different things. Supernaturalism posits two worlds or two levels of reality, mysticism doesn't need to do so. A monistic mysticism (e.g. pantheism) would claim a different access (e.g. irrational, intuitive, wordless and conceptless) to the very same reality.
How do we determine they are the SAME? A source of information vs a source of information both leading to the SAME conclusion leaves us with what is verifiable vs what is not.
The Universe is outside us and we are inside it. That is why we have identity.
With Mysticism or the supernatural it is all just the same thing and nullifies identity.
The first law of Metaphysics is that A is A and not something else entirely. That is Identity.
To assert non-identity leaves you without anything to assert except nonsense.
Terry
I heard from Zen teachers that by just looking at a blank wall can bring on all kinds of expereinces, even full blown Kundalini expereinces,,and that the object is not to get all caught up in these expereinces and try to keep having them but to keep progressing beyound the expereinces no matter how "true" they may feel.
If you substitute the word HALLUCINATION for the word experiences.....how does your paragraph change meaning at all?
This is only a confusion of subjective with objective.
I may "experience" the assurance I'm Napoleon but, that doesn't make me the little Corporal.
T.
Mark:
Good to have you back. I'd missed your posts
Terry:
What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason and then asserting that this is superior to evidence or the senses.
On the contrary, and this may be the source of your mistaken contention with "believers". Mysticism posits that there are more than five senses...
Terry,
Thanks for showing up on the thread,,we can bounce ideas off of one another. It would be terrible if we had everybody agreeing on everything. And everybody else that gives ideas on this subject no matter what your experience is,,no matter how little or how much.
When you say the 5 senses are not telling us the truth you use the color red (I assume ultra-red) as the example. But, seeing the ENTIRE spectrum of red is not pro-survival. Mankind (science) has used his rational mind (informed by those 5 senses) to create equipment which enables him to detect the missing parts of red.
Please read what I wrote to you on another thread about egos on the color of red I will copy it here:
Take colors for example,,is there such a thing in reality as red?,, or is red in reality just the way we see it in our thought pictures? Is not our thought picture of red just a sensation in our mind and not really "out there" where we sense it to be with our mind?
Does the color red exist for a person that never had a sense of sight? Does the way we see red look the same to a ant, or dog?
And what about ultra violet? We can't see it or sense it we have machines and clever thinking that tell us it is there but we can't sense it with our eyes? Would the world look vastly different if we could see ultra violet?
What if we had more senses than our 5,, what if we had 12 senses how would the world appear in our minds then?
What does mysticism enable us to see that is REALLY there? Nothing verifiable. While ultra-red is verifiable.
Yeah,, but not with your sense of sight you can not see it. And by verifiable what do you mean by verifiable,,verifyable to what? Not to the mind if one is a "naive realist" who trust only the senses for telling him what is reality.
Let me ask you: In your mind can you imagine accuratley what ultra violet looks like?
You see, on the one had man's mind devises how to gain information on what the 5 senses tell him by abstracting and rationally modifying the sensory data. He fills in the missing pieces and verifies the data using science.
So you acknowledge the mind abstracts and modifies sensory data. Then that should tell you right there that the mental picture is not the true picture if it is abstracted and modified. And if we use science to fill in missing pieces then you also then admit to pieces we can not see or detect with the 5 senses.
While on the other hand, you have some guru spouting off non-sensory assertions from unknown sources which you cannot verify but can only choose to agree with or disagree with. NON-testable data is not data.
I don't really agree with a guru i think they have some very interesting observations that they have made by means of introspection, but I don't agree 100% because it is unverifiable to me so far,,maybe there is some way we can experience enlightenment but I'm not saying it is total enlightenment,,they say everything comes out of a "nothingness type of void" that sound like enlightenment but it doesn't sound like total enlightenment to me. I like some of the physist David Bohms ideas about "implicate order" that what he called it I think but no sure. He had spent some time with guru Krisnamurti they had some kind of falling out i think Krisnajee got on his nerves,,you should read some of his stuff it's pretty deep but the guy was a genius when it can to physics.
