Whatever floats your boat, I would say. — Punshhh

Many boats to float. One sea.

Say praxis obtained some insight into himself (obtained knowledge about himself) using mysticism as a means (whatever that really means we'll ignore for the moment). Could you, Tzeentch, or I use the same means to obtain the same insight into praxis? What method would we use to gain the same insight into praxis? It seems to me that, logically, we'd have to use the same method to obtain the same knowledge, but will we? Why, or why not? — Harry Hindu

I believe that mystical experiences correlate to a deactivation of the neural default mode network. A couple of the basic characteristics of that brain state are a loss of a sense of self and a depatterning effect on the mind. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine the sort of insight that could be gained from this kind of experience. In any case, one benefit is existential anxiety relief.

Any method to deactivate the network could work, like meditation, psychedelics, electrical fields, whatever.

The video is hilarious, btw, and looks like real reactions.

my experience with mysticism, which doesn't amount to much — TheMadFool

mysticism doesn't offer anything new — TheMadFool

I see a contradiction in the above. Do you?

Not much experience, yet happy to rest on a bold conclusion.

I just finished two books by Habermas on communicative action which provide an extremely robust account of the evolution and reification of reason as a social construct. — Pantagruel

I wonder if you would mind mentioning the names of these two books.

the only tangible results have been soft-spoken, half-asleep, long-bearded individuals with a cult following. — TheMadFool

This is what's known as a stereotype. Best avoided if you'd like to have an accurate picture of the world.

neural default mode network — praxis

Thanks for this reference. It's illuminating. :smile:

This is what's known as a stereotype. Best avoided if you'd like to have an accurate picture of the world. — ZzzoneiroCosm

What else has mysticism achieved?

I see a contradiction in the above. Do you?

Not much experience, yet happy to rest on a bold conclusion. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I was being honest. What about you? Are you a mystic yourself? Not to be offensive but you too are making some very bold assertions.

That's an odd use for "credible" you've got there. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah but you get the picture.

Assuming these individuals and their 'cults' are genuinely happy, why does this bother you? — Tzeentch

It doesn't bother me at all.

For a chap who is not bothered about all those Mystics, you are banging your drum quite hard there.
Stick around and listen to what some of them say and you might find there is a bit more to it than people staring at their navels.

This is more focused on ‘religion and science,’ but I think there is something like a similar disjoint between ‘philosophy and mysticism’

Brain Greene on Joe Rogan (20 mins): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpStPNAB7Cw

For a chap who is not bothered about all those Mystics, you are banging your drum quite hard there.
Stick around and listen to what some of them say and you might find there is a bit more to it than people staring at their navels. — Punshhh

I just "realized" something. I've always wondered about the difference between "understanding" and "realization". My opinion on the matter is that the latter involves some kind of feeling and the former doesn't. I guess people would prefer realizing to understanding because of the added positive emotional experience to it (or maybe not).

Given the above, mysticism is, to my reckoning, just the emotional aspect of realization which is, unfortunately, not accompanied by any real understanding of anything at all. Mysticism, my interpretation of it, is like masturbation - you experience the ecstacy of ejaculation but you actually didn't have sex :chin:

A structured mystical practice changes the person and has an effect on the people around them. This is real and documented. Religion which is a kind of mysticism and changes the adherents and has an effect on the people around them, indeed on the course of human history.

Say praxis obtained some insight into himself (obtained knowledge about himself) using mysticism as a means (whatever that really means we'll ignore for the moment). Could you, Tzeentch, or I use the same means to obtain the same insight into praxis? What method would we use to gain the same insight into praxis? It seems to me that, logically, we'd have to use the same method to obtain the same knowledge, but will we? Why, or why not? — Harry Hindu

In some cases yes, in other cases perhaps not.

First, lets talk about insight. Not every person is capable of understanding quantum physics, and to do so one cannot just read a single book about quantum physics and expect to be an expert. Truly understanding physics is a long process, perhaps even a lifelong quest. It is insight stacked upon insight. Mysticism works somewhat similar, yet people who dismiss mystical philosophies as nonsense will scarcely read more than a single Wikipedia page, if they bother to read anything about it at all.
Additionally, mindset is important. Someone who is either consciously or subconsciously convinced that mysticism is nonsense, will probably never gain any insight into it. This is due to the intangible nature of many things mysticism deals with, and the lack of 'hard' evidence. One must a least be willing to consider the plausibility of the things they read. I guess it is comparable to psychology in this sense.

Secondly, mystical experiences. Even though methods have been conceived to produce mystical experiences through practice or, for example, drugs, this has proven problematic for a few reasons. Some persons will not experience anything despite a lifetime of dedication. Others may want to experience something so badly that they may start to deceive themselves. Drug-induced experiences will, in my mind, always remain a question mark in regards to their genuineness.

This is not to deny anything about religion, or God, but rather they are not of importance within the practice. Others may disagree.

— Punshhh

As I understand it most recorded mystical experiences are given within a religious or cultural framework. Absent any framework there is nothing to say about an experience except via poetry or allusive language. But then poetry has its inevitable cultural moorings, even in the absence of an explicit frame.

I need to tease out what I am saying, during my practice I am not adhering to a religion, or seeking a contact, or communion with God. As opposed to other practices in which one carefully follows a prescribed religious practice, or is praying, seeking a communion with God, as an integral part of their practice.

For me the integral parts of the practice are between myself and some aspect of nature (including aspects of myself) there is no prescribed practice and there is no effort to interact with a God, or God like being (although I have done these things in the past).

An important thing to realise, which is often not grasped by people enquiring into mysticism is that there is a subjugation of the ego and in a sense the personality to some other power which then directs one's development. As such an enquiry into the other power, or ones relation to it is, or its purposes, are not important. What is important is in allowing the channel between yourself and the power to flow freely.

I realise that this might sound weird, but when one looks into prayer, or religious based mystical practice this is also going on between the self and God. Such interaction is an important aspect of mysticism. This is not to say that it is necessary.

Many boats to float. One sea.

One sea, many waves.

I also did not see my own body (like derealization describes), but I lost awareness of it. I always saw some blue visual, which I can only describe as 'cosmic', like a star. The visuals only played a minor role, though. The sensations of inner peace and omniscience were much more profound and made a bigger impression on me.

This correlates to my experience. There was what seemed like an extremely bright( but not bright in the sense that it lit up the room), but when you looked into it it was to bright to make anything out. Also there was the sense that it was spatially concentrated, like the tardis in Dr Who. There could have been whole worlds of beings in there. There was the feeling of peace and omniscience and I could sense someone talking inside it, that I was aware of. They were discussing whether I was ready to be taken, or it wasn't my time. After giving it their careful consideration they concluded it wasn't my time and it moved and faded away. But the feeling of awe and wonderment, the deep feeling that everything was going to be alright (in the sense of after death), the deep sense of peace and benevolence and omniscience remained with me for quite while and the whole experience is still vivid to me now 30 years later.

So it seems to me that you would already have some assumptions that you are basing your interpretation of the experience on. If you already believe in spirituality, mysticism, supernatural, etc. (name your favorite anthropomorophic buzz-word that makes humans special), then you are likely to interpret some ineffable experience as such. — Harry Hindu

While this is certainly true, mystical experiences also happen to individuals who are not primed in any way.

I wonder if you would mind mentioning the names of these two books. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society
The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 2: Lifeworld & System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason

Tough reads. Das Kapital is candy compared to those.

That sounds very familiar. I've often used the exact words of 'everything will be alright' to describe my experience to myself. Though, I cannot say I ever experienced any type of communication.

What else has mysticism achieved? — TheMadFool

Only a mystic would know.

In my case, two words sum it up: peace and glory.

Thanks. I have Legitimation Crisis around here somewhere.

Not to be offensive but you too are making some very bold assertions. — TheMadFool

I make bold assertions because I have twenty years' experience with mystical illumination.

You could start solving it by backing off the statement that all we ever talk about is our own opinions — Harry Hindu

I didn't say that. I said our own opinion about whatever it is we are talking about. You have missed the nuance of the statement.

I make bold assertions because I have twenty years' experience with mystical illumination. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Then I must defer to your better judgement.

Just curious. What have your discoveries been so far?

Then I must defer to your better judgement.

Just curious. What have your discoveries been so far? — TheMadFool

Humble discoveries. In short: Certain forms of meditative practice give us access to a self-induceable energy and tranquility. Exorbitant creative energy; exorbitant self-creative energy; and a self-reliant tranquility.

Given the above, mysticism is, to my reckoning, just the emotional aspect of realization which is, unfortunately, not accompanied by any real understanding of anything at all. Mysticism, my interpretation of it, is like masturbation - you experience the ecstacy of ejaculation but you actually didn't have sex :chin: — TheMadFool

I once had a mystical experience
The likes of which were few
With practice makes perfect they say
In secret they only knew

So celebrate your secrete with earnest
Realize words are few
Maybe one day you'll reveal
That others like you too

I didn't say that. I said our own opinion about whatever it is we are talking about. You have missed the nuance of the statement. — Pantagruel

So your argument is, we can only talk about our opinions and our opinions are about whatever it is we are talking about? Whoah, that one made me dizzy. :vomit:

If our opinions differ, then how do we know our opinions are about the same thing?

What do you mean for your talk to be of your opinion that you wouldn't mean for your opinion to be of the thing it is about? If you already assumed that your talk is of your opinion, then what prevents the infinite regress of assumptions to then assume that the opinion is also of something?

It just seems to me that not everything we talk of is only our opinions. Is "I have written this post in English" an opinion or fact? If there are some statements that are of opinions and some that are of facts, maybe trying to figure out the pattern of which statements are facts and which are opinions would be a good place to start.

I believe that mystical experiences correlate to a deactivation of the neural default mode network. A couple of the basic characteristics of that brain state are a loss of a sense of self and a depatterning effect on the mind. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine the sort of insight that could be gained from this kind of experience. In any case, one benefit is existential anxiety relief.

Any method to deactivate the network could work, like meditation, psychedelics, electrical fields, whatever. — praxis

So when you explain your experience as a deactivation of your neural default mode network, is that the insight/knowledge about you that you are talking about obtaining?

Are you saying the insight the experience gives about you is that it correlates to some neural state of yours?

If mystical experiences are by definition ineffable, and you just explained your "mystical" experience as such, then doesn't that make the experience natural, rather than mystical?

Is that explanation unappealing? Is that why people seek something more - something that separates them from the natural world and natural explanations and makes them something more than a natural part of the natural world?

1. It is a fact that we are communicating now.
2. Because I have presented this fact, it is (trivially) my opinion that this is a fact.
3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating).
4. Nevertheless, you can't dispute my opinion that 1 is a fact (that's what makes it an opinion).

It isn't a regress or a circularity, it is simply that the fact does not exist in some kind of perfect, objective vacuum, it is situated in a specific context, which is permeated by subjectivity. It isn't one thing, or the other, it is both. You can attempt to abstractly isolate one or the other. That may even be a legitimate exercise, depending on the reason. It doesn't alter the fact (that facts qua statements of beliefs) are likewise opinions).