Superseded by: — DrOlsnesLea

Don't you really mean "substituted by"? Which one provides the substitution sufficient for your needs?

music born of tortured souls. — Nuke

A most touching vocalization of simple words, from Gregg’s “These Days”.......written by Jackson Browne when he was only 16, which I would never have guessed:

“Please don’t confront me with my failures.
I’m aware of them.”

Remember Duane....eat a peach.

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

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

How can one have failures at 16 — Nuke

My thoughts exactly. Failed chemistry lab? Struck out with that blonde in Mrs. Sherman’s French class?

Oh. Wait.

Never mind.

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.

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?

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.

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

I haven't seen any principles to distinguish physical suffering from psychological suffering. All suffering seems to have physical and psychological aspects so I don't see how one might be divided from the other.

Yes, thought is very often directed at the attempt to end psychological suffering. — Nuke

It's obviously directed toward ending physical suffering too, but I don't see how you can separate one instance of suffering as exclusively physical, and another as exclusively psychological.

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. — Nuke

The will is what causes you to pick up the food and put it in your mouth.

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. — Nuke

Right, you must have the will to do it. And if you have the will to do something, there is a goal involved. That's why you cannot separate any practise like mysticism, from the goal which one has in taking up the practise.

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

The belief I objected to as unreasonable, and unsupported, is your claim that thought is the source of suffering (of any kind).

Can I ask, how do you distinguish the chitta chatta from the communion with the soul? The communion with the soul must consist of some sort of mental activity, how do you know that it's not just more chitta chatta?

Well I can easily distinguish between conversations I have with other people and those I have with myself, my inner narrative. Mystical practice can involve a number of different techniques in which one develops a space for communion, or for yogic practices. Practices which can develop aspects of the self not normally used. This can include developing the intuition through meditation and work with the chakras, so as to begin to open the crown chakra. The communion with the higher self, as I see it doesn't include thinking, a dialogue, or any kind of chitta chatta. It is more like an osmosis, an imbuing, a merging, through the aura. A growing together. The mental activity manifests more in the way one playfully and creatively contemplates ones own motives, desires and those of the higher self and looks to them becoming the same, in alignment ( there is a great deal that can be said about this, I am barely scratching the surface here).

Why do you think that communion with the higher self is a better goal than organizing the activities which you need to do?

They are complementary, indeed once you are in alignment, they literally are the same thing. It is a useful discipline to be able to make time, to attend to your exercises, as part of a balanced life.

I don't agree with this. I think it's somewhat egotistical to think that human beings have the capacity to control the ecosystem.

I don't disagree with the points you raise, but we have evidence of the control over the ecosystem exercised by humanity. For example we have instigated a mass extinction event, one which is entirely of our own making. I know that the ecosystem will outlive us and may destroy us through a pandemic for example. But the point I am making is that for a large population of humans to live sustainably on the planet, it will require a healthy functioning ecosystem. Something which we are putting in jepardy right now by our stupidity.

It shouldn't be to big a thing to ask should it, that humanity should put its house in order and live sustainably on the planet.

Or are we to stupid, to selfish, to blind to our own frailties to survive more than a few thousands of years before going extinct like the dodo.

Well I can easily distinguish between conversations I have with other people and those I have with myself, my inner narrative. Mystical practice can involve a number of different techniques in which one develops a space for communion, or for yogic practices. Practices which can develop aspects of the self not normally used. This can include developing the intuition through meditation and work with the chakras, so as to begin to open the crown chakra. — Punshhh

OK, I just wanted to get clear on what you meant by chitta chatta. I assume from this post, that it is conversations with others. But don't you distinguish between small talk and important talk? So for example, if you have an instructor for this practise, you might take some of the words of the instructor as important, and bear them in mind during the practise. You might not think of this as thinking, but it is a type of thinking, which is sourced from chitta chatta, remembering those words.

The communion with the higher self, as I see it doesn't include thinking, a dialogue, or any kind of chitta chatta. It is more like an osmosis, an imbuing, a merging, through the aura. A growing together. The mental activity manifests more in the way one playfully and creatively contemplates ones own motives, desires and those of the higher self and looks to them becoming the same, in alignment ( there is a great deal that can be said about this, I am barely scratching the surface here). — Punshhh

I'm trying to get a feel for what the higher self is like for you. If there is no proper communication between yourself and the higher self, then is there really any separation between these two at all? Would it be ok to say that these two are really one and the same being? And could I look at this as a transformation, in which the self is being transformed into a higher self? The lower self being the past self and the higher self being the future self.

I don't disagree with the points you raise, but we have evidence of the control over the ecosystem exercised by humanity. For example we have instigated a mass extinction event, one which is entirely of our own making. — Punshhh

But wanton destruction of certain aspects of the ecosystem cannot properly be called "control" over the ecosystem. The ecosystem as a whole is huge. Just because human beings have the capacity, the power, to destroy significant aspects of the ecosystem doesn't mean that they have control over it. Coming in and swinging a sledge hammer around does not give you control over the thing you are hitting. Nor does walking into a crowd shooting an automatic firearm give you control over that crowd.

A very similar principle to the one that I went through concerning teaching is applicable here. You cannot force another living bring into submission, to exercise control over it. You can kill another living being, but this is not the same as controlling it. The living being has to be treated in such a way that it has the will to serve you, then you may exercise control over it, just like the student must be encourage to develop the will to learn, as one cannot be forced to learn. We see this with domesticated animals, we often exercise control over them, but we must do this without abusing them or else we lose their trust.

Domesticated creatures, whom we might properly say we control, make up a relatively small part of the ecosystem. But I think you are correct in a sense, because the agriculture industry is huge, as it must be to support the massive human population. And we as human beings have wiped out massive parts of the natural ecosystem to replace it with the artificial, which we have some control over as domesticated plants and animals. I have some property which I landscape, and it looks aesthetically beautiful to my eyes. But the beauty I see is really just a stoking of my ego, to know that I have a certain degree of control over this part of the ecosystem. In agriculture we control the ecosystem out of necessity, to feed the people.

But the point I am making is that for a large population of humans to live sustainably on the planet, it will require a healthy functioning ecosystem. Something which we are putting in jepardy right now by our stupidity. — Punshhh

Yes I agree that there is stupidity involved, but it might be more like ignorance, or innocence. If a large population of human beings is going to live on the earth, we will need to control the ecosystem to a significant degree, in order to provide for them. This we have very little experience with, and little if any knowledge of how to do it safely. So, we proceed in our naïve and stupid ways, not knowing what we're doing. The population grows a lot faster than our knowledge of how to control the ecosystem, and Nuke is right to compare it to an algae bloom. I like to use the analogy of a culture in a Petri dish. When the conditions are right, the culture expands very rapidly. But the Petri dish has limited resources, just like the earth does, and the culture falls. As we see with the example of the virus, the ecosystem is stacked full of possible sources for the fall of the present human culture. And, we haven't the knowledge to control the ecosystem to the extent required to support the population. In other words, we control the ecosystem just enough to produce a huge population, but there are many layers of hazards within, which most likely will prevent us from sustaining a huge population. But that's part of the balancing system isn't it?

Perhaps this thread demonstrates not that one doesn't care about mysticism, but rather there is little interest in the philosophy of mysticism. I.e., one may care about mysticism, but have low tolerance for the philosophy. Except for a few posters. Just a thought.

Here, I'll share. The Hermetic sciences/school, taught through word of mouth in a mentor-apprentice manner throughout the millenniums. I identify as nobody and nothing. No body and no thing. I expect nothing or no thing. Not an insult to me. Nothing is boundless, limitless. I am not a credible source, I'm just a nobody and nothing. Real deal or nah? You ponder for yourself lolol. Not easy to teach these concepts to people who lack the foundational learning and are not even interested in exploring on their own. To begin the foundational learning is initiation into that knowledge. As you explore and discover the concepts inside of your mind, you begin to experience and understand those concepts. Living the concept so to speak. If you were to become nothing, you would actually reap the powers of all of creation and all of potential. That is how you will know how the very nature of things itself happens to be, nothing.

Radical thinking, believe it or not, means thinking beyond the box, not outside the box. Thinking beyond the limitations of thinking. To work with understanding things the way they are without the aspect of falling into belief pattern is very hard to do. Only hard when you’re thinking all the damn time. When you’re not thinking it’s not hard at all. Intelligence awakens but you don’t have to use it to think ALL THE TIME. Life is about doing what is needed. If you were to ask Thoth/Hermes Trismegistus a question, he would put his fingers to his lips and just go shh. Shh. Every time he was asked questions. Shh. But Thoth... Shh. I want to know... Shh. what the f*** Thoth... Shh. I don't think unless I need to, otherwise I am practicing stillness. Slowing down my mind through stillness, not stopping it. I'd be dead if my mind and body stopped, slowing it down by not thinking is different. My current record of sitting still without moving is in low double digit hours. Nothing compared to the ancient yogis and sages of the east, including the ones around today.

One guy had his brain activity measured by scientists, then he entered into stillness, and scientists said according to their instrument's readings, the guy was declared clinically brain dead from the lack of brain activity being measured. Then he just opened his eyes and started talking to the scientists. Same guy can drive 18-20 hours a day. The great thing about mysticism is that it is so simple yet complex at the same time. That is why it’s amazing. And a study throughout the ages. Why do people centuries after mystics died, still read, and study their ancient teachings or works? Understanding that will gain a person access to the wisdom of The All. That is why The All cannot be understood by limited minds, it’s amazing and fascinating and frustrating all at once.

People think of control when they think of these teachings. That is why people are so naïve. They are not adept at it so why control it? You are a part of it, why not learning how to be part of it? It is like learning how to walk for the first time. You needed to learn the nature of your goal and began to refine the process while you are focus on staying upright. It is the same idea when you begin to achieve things. You must understand the concept. Then you refine the process. Before things get into a certain mode. Then you refine more as you gain more understanding. And then you get more skillful. Then you refine the process more and turn skill into wisdom. Then mix skill to the wisdom and refine further. And so, on and so forth.

Let's say you start reading a technical book or textbook like physics or science of your choice. To initiate yourself into that knowledge just means starting the foundational learning. Very few can initiate themselves. Even the Buddha and Jesus and others have teachers. Get the information, absorb it and then put it to practice. You are the one to decide your learnedness, through your own experience. And how you get initiated into the knowledge. You don’t need a church to connect to the very nature of things, be smart. That intelligence is already present inside of you, keeping you alive within your intelligent body. Already there, always listening, already knows what you need. When you believe you have been initiated it means you are being dumb like everyone else who needs to belong to something. These initiations are only due to people wanting to protect their ideas and therefore push you to official initiation BS, so think about it. You are part of nature, why would you need to be initiated? You just learn and awaken to the truth of natural law. Just so you know. Do you feel initiated after you read the Kybalion 1908 edition or Thoth's tablets? There is no initiation when it comes to learning the natural laws. You are already a part of the laws.

OK, I just wanted to get clear on what you meant by chitta chatta. I assume from this post, that it is conversations with others. But don't you distinguish between small talk and important talk?

What I mean by chitta chatta is all dialogue with other people, or with one's self and all conscious thinking. Also all unconscious thinking which emerges into the consciousness. Indeed all mental activity which is involved in and with the sense of self. Alternatively, If you practice meditation for a few hundred hours until you are able to still the mind, what you have stilled is the chitta chatta. The mental activity involved in communion with the higher self does involve some of this*, but is largely that which supports a growing together as an organism. Rather like the grafting of a plant, or a joining together of two plants at the graft. So that after the graft, the two plants merge and become, after some time, indistinguishable.

I'm trying to get a feel for what the higher self is like for you. If there is no proper communication between yourself and the higher self, then is there really any separation between these two at all?

There is a separation between them as a consequence of incarnation. So a human being is a complex organism in which there are membranes, regions, organs, divisions between parts performing different functions. Naturally such division into parts occurs in the mind and being. So parts of the being which are subject to/immersed during, incarnation are separated by natural divisions, or membranes.

Would it be ok to say that these two are really one and the same being?

Yes, where there is a part, or aspect of the being which is enthralled, or captured in, incarnated into a world. A world different in some way from the world where the other part is.

And could I look at this as a transformation, in which the self is being transformed into a higher self?

Yes, the word I would use rather than transformation, is transfigured. The lower self seeks to develop a relation, connection, communion with the higher self and via natural processes, including intuition, grow to be a reflection, expression of the higher self.

The lower self being the past self and the higher self being the future self.

Both are present in the past and will be in the future, I see it more an issue of the present. The higher self could be viewed as eternal, or to have a higher higher self itself which is eternal. Or overshadowed by an eternal aspect of the being, such as the atman. So in a sense a being can be viewed as having layers like an onion with the lowest layers on the surface and the divine/eternal in the innermost layers.

You do appear to be agreeing with me in regards to the ecosystem. The point about farming is interesting, technology exploits the ecosystem, reshaping parts of it, often in unsustainable ways. An example I an dealing with is polytunnel whitefly. There is an arms race going on between crop pests and pesticides. With pests adapting to our efforts to eradicate them and becoming super bugs, which can only be kept in check by using more powerful interventions with chemicals, or biological controls. Another is flea Beatle, which is controlled by neonicotinoids (which is now banned in the EU).

Anyway, my whole point about the ecosystem is that a reasonable medium length purpose for humanity going forward is to develop sustainable ways to live in the ecosystem and therefore secure our long term future.


*The mystic develops ways of distinguishing between thoughts relating to the higher self and those inherent in the lower self.

You are already a part of the laws.

Sounds good. To start with one puts one's house in order.

chitta chatta — Punshhh

:ok:

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.

Perhaps this thread demonstrates not that one doesn't care about mysticism, but rather there is little interest in the philosophy of mysticism. I.e., one may care about mysticism, but have low tolerance for the philosophy. Except for a few posters. Just a thought. — jgill

What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow

What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow

I have tried to find the significance of this quote for the philosophy of mysticism. All I can come up with is that people who discuss the philosophy of mysticism while not themselves a mystic fall foul of it. But when a mystic discusses the philosophy of mysticism with another mystic, or non mystic, the quote doesn't apply.

Is there an implication that the mystic would not discuss the philosophy of mysticism, but instead do mysticism?

Punshhh!

Thanks. Well, the quote applies in both circumstances, which is one reason why Maslow posited same. It's existential. Meaning, even if one mystic tries to explain the feeling to another mystic, that mystic may not be able to relate to seemingly the exact same experience of mysticism.

As an example, if a musician experiences the feeling of music, that same feeling may not be the same for another musician. One musician may not get the same feeling from performing music itself, that say another musician may get, even though they both performed the same piece of music. So the point is relative to the phenomenon of the subjective experience.

Is there an implication that the mystic would not discuss the philosophy of mysticism, but instead do mysticism? — Punshhh

That's a great question Punshh. I go back to the music theory analogy. Music lives in the experience of it. You have two different kinds of information; the experience of music and the domain of music theory. The philosophy of mysticism can be likened to music theory. That Philosophy lives is words and symbols. But the truth of the mystical experience would be beyond or transcend the philosophy of words itself, or beyond ordinary language-ineffable.

That is not to say a scientist could not have a mystical experience for instance. Theoretical physicist Davies has reported on some of his contemporaries having such experiences that have revealed novel information in the understanding of the cosmos. To the layperson, it would be like having a revelation through your ordinary stream of consciousness. Also kind of like writing music; thoughts just appear out of nowhere.

To quote William James from the Varieties of Religious experiences (I use that phrase loosely):

"Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation."

I don't know if I answered the question but in a way, some of this reminds me of the Nike commercial; just do it.

Nice, but one must remain aware of the mystique employed by false prophets and religious leaders who seek to control the populous, generate wealth, or recruit followers.

The idea being that by claiming that the divine, or wisdom is only for the initiated to know, then the un-initiated should follow, or give praise to the initiated.

In my experience some of the most accomplished Mystics don't even know they are one, or would deny it. They just naturally follow that course. Also some creative people follow a similar course, unwittingly, or self effacing.

Nice, but one must remain aware of the mystique employed by false prophets and religious leaders who seek to control the populous, generate wealth, or recruit followers. — Punshhh

Punshhh!

Indeed! To further the music analogy, it could be likened to a musician selling death metal to a child. That is to say that one must be sophisticated enough to achieve discernment. Or at least be able to make such distinctions (of subjective experiences) through experience itself and/or intuition.

So yes, I agree wholeheartedly, things like occultism is dangerous for the unsophisticated, niave or unwieldy... .

And great point about those having an affinity for the mystical . That humility of sorts speaks to another irony in life...

Or at least be able to make such distinctions (of subjective experiences) through experience itself and/or intuition.

And traditionally those who had an affinity would gravitate to the monastery.

And great point about those having an affinity for the mystical . That humility of sorts speaks to another irony in life...

Yes, the most mystical person I have met, was, at the right moment, the most humble person I have met.

What I mean by chitta chatta is all dialogue with other people, or with one's self and all conscious thinking. Also all unconscious thinking which emerges into the consciousness. Indeed all mental activity which is involved in and with the sense of self. Alternatively, If you practice meditation for a few hundred hours until you are able to still the mind, what you have stilled is the chitta chatta. The mental activity involved in communion with the higher self does involve some of this*, but is largely that which supports a growing together as an organism. Rather like the grafting of a plant, or a joining together of two plants at the graft. So that after the graft, the two plants merge and become, after some time, indistinguishable. — Punshhh

Thanks Punshhh, I think I'm starting to better understand now. I think this chitta chatta is what I called mental habits, whether they are consciously initiated or unconsciously. According to Aquinas' interpretation of Aristotle, habits are properties of the potential for action. So in the case of mental activity, the potential for thought would be actualized in a particular way, a habitual way, and this would be chitta chatta. The Aristotelian metaphysical structure assigns potential to matter, so the attempt to still the chitta chatta would be an attempt to limit the material influence over the mind. This would allow communion with the soul itself, which is the proper source of activity.

I believe that metaphysics derives its principles from mysticism, through a sort of logical analysis of mystical practises and myths. We can see a lot of this in Plato and Aristotle. Plato brought the mysticism forward presenting it in a way which exposed it to analysis, and Aristotle applied logic to deduce some fundamental metaphysical principles. I'm going to cross reference your post here to the Lazerowitz thread, to support a disagreement I have about how the op characterizes metaphysics. Most of your post makes a lot of sense to me.

With pests adapting to our efforts to eradicate them and becoming super bugs, which can only be kept in check by using more powerful interventions with chemicals, or biological controls. Another is flea Beatle, which is controlled by neonicotinoids (which is now banned in the EU). — Punshhh

I've heard of efforts to restrict neonicotinoids, they're on some of the seeds I plant. But I hate flea beatles, they eat the Kale as fast as it germinates. The use of pesticides is a good example of how we do many things, when we really do not know what we are doing, and we only find out much later, when the effects become apparent, what we have done. Another good example is the use of CFCs and depletion of the atmospheric ozone.

The philosophy of mysticism can be likened to music theory. — 3017amen

I think music theory can be of value in creating music. Can the same be said of the philosophy of mysticism? :chin:

think music theory can be of value in creating music. Can the same be said of the philosophy of mysticism? :chin:

Sure! For instance, knowing 'tension' chords in composition is a good tool to provide for 'tension and release'. It's used all the time (it's called the Dominant Fifth). A savvy musician/composer who understands this can make life easier for themselves :grin:

However, I'm still thinking it's apple and oranges. Kind of like a priori v. a posteriori. Know what I mean vern?

Maybe this paradox could help: which came first, music or theory? (Mysticism or the experience of it.)

I think this chitta chatta is what I called mental habits.

Yes, that sounds good for me. As I said, I am happy to accommodate a recognised metaphysics as I don't want to get into the mysticism of physical material.

I believe that metaphysics derives its principles from mysticism, through a sort of logical analysis of mystical practises and myths.

Yes I would agree with this, but that it came about due to the nature of the manifestion we find ourselves in. This nature inevitably being a reflection of divinity. So metaphysics in attempting to apply its logic to the natural world is inevitably going to mirror in some way a mystical understanding.

Although I would also point out that there seems to be a variation in understanding in metaphysics from philosopher to philosopher. A kind of sectarianism, this also happens within mysticism, although for the mystic these differences in teaching don't matter much because the primary focus of mysticism is not a philosophy, but a practice and relation to the natural world via the body (as opposed to the mind) and being. Whereas in metaphysics the only means of refining the ideas is via the application of logic, reason. There is no direction from the natural world, although it is to some degree an expression of the divine, it is only a presentation of parts and complex systems of material, which is probably beyond our capacity to understand at this time. Also there are gapping holes and paradox in our understanding of material as understood through science and incarnation and being are areas unknown to science.

So metaphysics in attempting to apply its logic to the natural world is inevitably going to mirror in some way a mystical understanding. — Punshhh

This is not quite what I was saying. I was saying that metaphysicians apply logic to the mystical revelations. This is why metaphysics is so different from the natural sciences which have little if any regard for mysticism, only applying logic to observations of the natural world, metaphysics will apply logic to the observations of mysticism.

Although I would also point out that there seems to be a variation in understanding in metaphysics from philosopher to philosopher. A kind of sectarianism, this also happens within mysticism, although for the mystic these differences in teaching don't matter much because the primary focus of mysticism is not a philosophy, but a practice and relation to the natural world via the body (as opposed to the mind) and being — Punshhh

This is where we approach Plato's dilemma. The differences in mystical teachings manifest as cultural differences, such as differences in moral principles. But to apply logic, the philosopher requires consistency. So Plato delves into these differences by examining the different interpretations people have for the same words, "beauty", "virtue", "just", "knowledge", for example. The attempt to reconcile the differences is called Platonic dialectics.

Whereas in metaphysics the only means of refining the ideas is via the application of logic, reason. — Punshhh

Right, and this is why consistency is so important. If, for example, there is an Idea of "just", then there is reason to believe that there ought to be consistency between the interpretations of that word by different people. If people are free to interpret the word as they please, then there is really no such thing as the Idea of "just", and the application of logic is impossible. The dilemma results from recognition that the latter is reality, people are free to interpret as they please. So this subjugates logic to a lower level, i.e. a level which is lower than the inspiration to act, which is the free will, and this explains why a person can knowingly do what is wrong. Logic can tell me to do something one way, but I might still do it in a different way, contrary to the logic. Consistency is produced by conforming habituation to logic. But in the essence of human nature there is no necessity to conform, conformity must be willed.

There is no direction from the natural world, although it is to some degree an expression of the divine, it is only a presentation of parts and complex systems of material, which is probably beyond our capacity to understand at this time. — Punshhh

I think I disagree with this statement. The metaphysician has to derive principles from somewhere. and as mentioned above, I think that the principles are derived from mysticism, and mysticism takes direction from the natural world. This is a completely different type of direction from the direction that natural sciences get from the natural world.

Because the human will is free, and the issue described above, metaphysics cannot begin with logic. Human beings do not necessarily agree on logical principles, especially when it seems like we are incapable of getting to the bottom of material reality through the application of logical principles. Because of the problems involved in understanding the nature of matter, Aristotle introduced exceptions to the law of excluded middle, one of the fundamental laws of logic, but he insisted that the law of non-contradiction ought to be upheld. Now, dialectical materialists, following Hegelian principles say that matter violates the law of non-contradiction.

This is why the metaphysician must go deeper than logic for metaphysical principles. And when I say metaphysicians apply logic to mystical understanding, it's really the inverse of this which is true. Metaphysicians really apply mystical principles to logic, such that the laws and rules of logic are formulated to be applicable to the natural world as understood through mystic practises. Epistemology follows from metaphysics, and it applies logic. But the rules of logic are derived from metaphysics so we cannot call this an act of applying logic.

I was saying that metaphysicians apply logic to the mystical revelations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Were I to have an ineffable mystical revelation, how would a metaphysician go about applying logic? A psychologist or neuroscientist might be better equipped to do the job. Or a fellow mystic.

Metaphysicians really apply mystical principles to logic — Metaphysician Undercover

You might flesh this out a bit with examples.

This is not quite what I was saying. I was saying that metaphysicians apply logic to the mystical revelations. This is why metaphysics is so different from the natural sciences which have little if any regard for mysticism, only applying logic to observations of the natural world, metaphysics will apply logic to the observations of mysticism.

Ok, that's of interest, you realise now don't you that I will provide a revelation for discussion.

Consistency is produced by conforming habituation to logic. But in the essence of human nature there is no necessity to conform, conformity must be willed.

Yes this correlates to mystical contemplation, but surely the metaphysician is building an ivory tower from which to survey the world. The tower stands if the foundations are inviolable. I see how it is a good discipline, or exercise. The mystic also realises that any of these towers are an impediment to putting one foot in front of the other on the path, so always leaves the door open in humility.

I think I disagree with this statement. The metaphysician has to derive principles from somewhere. and as mentioned above, I think that the principles are derived from mysticism, and mysticism takes direction from the natural world. This is a completely different type of direction from the direction that natural sciences get from the natural world.

Yes, but inevitably every pointer, every hint derived from the natural world, be it for a mystic, a metaphysician, a scientist, a flat earther even, is a reflection of the divine, of eternity. The mystic works with such axioms of thought, along with revelation and stills the chitta chatta some more. Continually dwelling in the pure experience of nature. Imbibes the liquid of the gifts provided by incarnation. From where is a metaphysician drawing her sustenance?

Metaphysicians really apply mystical principles to logic, such that the laws and rules of logic are formulated to be applicable to the natural world as understood through mystic practises.

I would be interested in an example here. My first thoughts are that when one delves into an analysis of mystical experiences (revelations), the external world evaporates as the nature of being becomes the focus. That nature being what is referenced in spiritual cosmology. One is transcending the spheres and learning ones way around, guided on a need to know basis through the unfurling of ones being. The alignment of the chackras.

So if I were to imagine myself as a metaphysician considering this cosmogony. I would find myself documenting an organism, like a plant, and the particular geometrical relation between the petals. Like a naturalist in exploring in the jungle. Perhaps when I return to my study I might try and apply some rational thought to this, but I would have to realise eventually that all I am doing is documenting the natural shape of a flower which I have come across (by incarnating into it). Nowhere am I advancing knowledge of the origins, or principles of existence.

All we can glean of the divine realms is a faint memory of a grain of dust on the floor of the divine realm. To know more than this requires personal experience via revelation, in particular that kind of revelation in which one is lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being, that temporarily one is transfigured by experiencing through their eyes, their mind, what life is like for them. And when one comes back down to earth how does one apply logic?

I will give the example I have cited before, of a dream I had in which I was taken up by the Christ and as I looked back down to where I was sleeping I saw time layer out like a series of rooms with no roofs, so I could see my past and future laid out before me. It reminded me of the experience of my life flashing before me when I was on the point of drowning (someone pulled me out thankfully). A sequence of experiences in which I travelled through time at a different rate and was transcending time, free to move either way, in a sense.

Now what can a metaphysician say about this?

Were I to have an ineffable mystical revelation, how would a metaphysician go about applying logic? — jgill

In the way I've been describing in this thread, as interpretation. What I've said is that an individual person, as a mystic, cannot properly interpret one's own mystical experience. This is something along the same principle as Wittgenstein's private language argument.

Or a fellow mystic. — jgill

I began participation in this thread with the intent of arguing that metaphysics is a form of mysticism. From this perspective, fellow mystics would be doing the interpretation. However, other participants have steadfastly insisted on a division between mysticism and metaphysics, claiming that mystics ought not be involved in logical analysis of mystical experience. Adhering to this principle, we cannot say that a fellow mystic would apply logic toward understanding the mystical revelation.

However, Punshhh has alluded to some higher levels of mysticism, and it could be that higher level mystics might qualify as metaphysicians. We haven't really developed this possibility yet, but a few days back I was working on defining the distinction between teacher and student.

The tower stands if the foundations are inviolable. — Punshhh

I call this the test of time. Ancient philosophy which has had its existence maintained until the present day is the most reliable. And within that ancient philosophy we find principles extending far back into time, prior to writing, when they were maintained by mystical practises.

Yes, but inevitably every pointer, every hint derived from the natural world, be it for a mystic, a metaphysician, a scientist, a flat earther even, is a reflection of the divine, of eternity. — Punshhh

I told you, when we first started this discussion, that time was an inescapable subject of paramount importance. Now, this is not the first time you've referenced "the divine", and "eternity", so we really need to broach this subject "eternity", to validate claims such as this. We've really avoided what constitutes "divinity" up to this point. but it seems to have become a sort of crutch for your perspective.

From where is a metaphysician drawing her sustenance? — Punshhh

From the mystics, as described already.

I would be interested in an example here. My first thoughts are that when one delves into an analysis of mystical experiences (revelations), the external world evaporates as the nature of being becomes the focus. That nature being what is referenced in spiritual cosmology. One is transcending the spheres and learning ones way around, guided on a need to know basis through the unfurling of ones being. The alignment of the chackras.

So if I were to imagine myself as a metaphysician considering this cosmogony. I would find myself documenting an organism, like a plant, and the particular geometrical relation between the petals. Like a naturalist in exploring in the jungle. Perhaps when I return to my study I might try and apply some rational thought to this, but I would have to realise eventually that all I am doing is documenting the natural shape of a flower which I have come across (by incarnating into it). Nowhere am I advancing knowledge of the origins, or principles of existence. — Punshhh

You are portraying the metaphysician as a scientist, observing an analyzing physical patterns of the material world. Are you familiar with Plato's cave allegory? The sensible world is a reflection, a representation of the intelligible world which is responsible for creating that reflection. The metaphysician's interest in the sensible world is for the sake of understanding the underlying intelligible realm.

So the external world does not evaporate for the metaphysician, as it might for the mystic, like you describe. The external world is the medium between the metaphysician and the minds of others. We can only delve so far into our internal experience, before we reach a dead end. You might claim that you reach divinity, eternity, but I cannot quite get to that point. There is a temporality of my being, associated with my material existence which prevents me from getting there. This materiality acts as a medium or division between you, and I, and also prevents myself from being divine, eternal. This is the reality which the material world forces upon me, being the basis of that division between possible and impossible which I described earlier.

This is why egotism is not an issue. The individual self cannot obtain to the level of divinity because of its temporal existence. Thomas Aquinas introduce a term, "aeviternal" which refers to a medium between the divine, eternal, and the temporal. The angels are of the aeviternal realm, which means that they were created at some point in time (by God), but they may exist forever into the future.

All we can glean of the divine realms is a faint memory of a grain of dust on the floor of the divine realm. To know more than this requires personal experience via revelation, in particular that kind of revelation in which one is lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being, that temporarily one is transfigured by experiencing through their eyes, their mind, what life is like for them. And when one comes back down to earth how does one apply logic? — Punshhh

What we do is apply logic to the other person's described revelation, remembering that there is a material medium between us. So your description is only as accurate as the medium allows. The medium is very inclusive, involving yours and my brain, nervous system, sense organs, memory, words, etc.. The material medium is what is responsible for human deficiencies.

So when someone says something like "lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being", I realize that it is impossible for a divine being to have a body, and so you are speaking metaphorically. What I can imagine is you taking a place in another human body, or even a body which is very much superior to the human body. But since it is a body, it doesn't get me to the point of absolute divinity, like God, who has no proper body. It doesn't even get me to the point of angelic existence, which is to exercise providence over a material body freely, without being influenced in one's actions by material bodies. Therefore I assume you use "divine being" in a metaphoric way, or a way which does not have the same discipline as theology.

I will give the example I have cited before, of a dream I had in which I was taken up by the Christ and as I looked back down to where I was sleeping I saw time layer out like a series of rooms with no roofs, so I could see my past and future laid out before me. It reminded me of the experience of my life flashing before me when I was on the point of drowning (someone pulled me out thankfully). A sequence of experiences in which I travelled through time at a different rate and was transcending time, free to move either way, in a sense.

Now what can a metaphysician say about this? — Punshhh

I would say that you've had a glimpse into eternity. It is experiences like this which open our eyes to the extremely befuddling nature of time and existence. I've had a similar experience I call my soma experience, in reference to R. Wasson's interpretation of soma. Experiences like this can have a profound effect on a person, in my case, inspiring me to continually enquire into the true nature of time as a lifelong ambition. Have you read any Carlos Castenada? Following from that first completely disorganized representation of time, which I had in that experience like you describe, I directed my attention more and more toward an organized understanding. Direction is very important in understanding the relationship between organization and time, the foundation of "order".