I will say though, as for the beauty and perfection of the natural world. When I was reading Kant again about aesthetic judgments, and the exemplar. He suggested two things, that it isn't about a particular quality in the object that you can identify, and everyone would agree, like a predicate, but yet, the judgment unlike a taste, brings with it the feeling that it is the way it ought to be judged. Taken together, one would think that theoretically, anything, and everything could be seen as beautiful... and if this were so, the judgment would demand that this is how things ought to be seen.

...the judgment unlike a taste, brings with it the feeling that it is the way it ought to be judged. Taken together, one would think that theoretically, anything, and everything could be seen as beautiful... — Wosret

So the objects of spiritual experience include the transcendentals (i.e., truth, beauty, goodness)? Anything else?

Pink elephants sometimes. Fun to chase.

I don't have spiritual super powers. My greatest strength is starting so close to the bottom. All that's happening is that the division of labor is nerfing the shit out of us. Letting people do stuff for you steals your power.

As strange as it sounds, I believe my experiences are supernatural, in the sense that they transcend physical reality into a "higher dimension of consciousness". A spiritual experience. I believe I'm connecting to another dimension of reality. Calling this presence "God", may not be the best choice of wording, considering how arbitrary that labels become, but I would best describe the experience as a connection to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient presence that perpetuates every part of my being, it doesn't "linger" over it, it completely transcends my physical body and connects me with a part of everything else. I think this is the 3rd dimension. I'm still trying to understand what this thing is, so that may not even be what it is, but that's my current understanding of this state of reality. If you were able to place every human being in one giant room and have them meditate at the same time, that's what this dimension feels like. I believe things like music or meditation or hypnosis or mental illness could be a person's current state of fluctuation within that "space-time" continuum. No idea how I would be able to prove this since it's subjectively experienced, but I believe everyone can harvest the same experience within themselves through the process of introspection and deep insights into the center of the psyche.

I would best describe the experience as a connection to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient presence that perpetuates every part of my being, it doesn't "linger" over it, it completely transcends my physical body and connects me with a part of everything else. — stonedthoughtsofnature

Thanks for providing more information.

Does it seem like a case of being visited by an external presence or of internal communion or possession? How long do these episodes last, when and how often do they occur? Is it a pleasant or unpleasant experience?

No idea how I would be able to prove this since it's subjectively experienced, but I believe everyone can harvest the same experience within themselves through the process of introspection and deep insights into the center of the psyche. — stonedthoughtsofnature

So you have harvested this experience through introspection and deep insights? Is it an empowering experience? What is the significance of your moniker?

I wonder if this effect could be psychologically described as imagination enhancement. In other words, could entheogens be considered to be a crutch for those who lack imagination? — Galuchat

It's more than that. There is a William Blake line which was famous in the counterculture, 'when the doors of perception are cleansed, then everything will appear as it is - infinite.' (Aldous Huxley's famous essay on his experience with psilocybin was called 'The Doors of Perception', and it was also reputedly the inspiration for the band name, The Doors.)

But the gist is, spiritual or mystical experiences revealed the true nature of reality, which 'straights' (nowadays, 'straight' means 'not gay', but in the 60's it meant 'not hip') couldn't see. Straights were caught up in a conditioned reality which was dictated to them by straight culture, the chief influence on which was the military-industrial complex and consumer-goods manufacturers (Marcuse). Acid removed the scales from your eyes, so you could basically get a window into what enlightened sages (normally, Eastern) could only see after a lifetime of tortuous spiritual discipline.

Among the prophets of this movement were Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert, both Professors at Harvard, both expelled for advocating drug use. Leary was a rascal, but Richard Alpert morphed into Ram Dass and became an enduring presence in the global New Age and alternative spirituality scene (and indeed lives and teaches to this day.)

In reality, of course, those who engaged in this quest discovered it wasn't nearly so easy, and it often ended in addiction, alienation and disillusionment. But not always. I continued to explore such ideas through the study of comparative religion, and later Buddhist Studies, as a way to actualise higher states in the quotidian reality of day to day life.

'stonedthoughtsofnature's posts are highly resonant with the 60's sensibility.

Some sources

Doors of Perception Aldous Huxley

The Paisley Gate Erik Davis

Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream Jay Stevens

Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in America in the 1960's Camille Paglia

'stonedthoughtsofnature's posts are highly resonant with the 60's sensibility. — Wayfarer

In other words, you suspect his experiences are chemically induced, hence; artificial as opposed to natural spiritual experiences.

I object to that term 'chemically induced'. It is derogatory and dismissive.

The point about certain classes of drugs -entheogens, they have been called - is that they really do provide an insight into the way cultural conditioning shapes experience. It is not something 'simply chemical', or at least, no more so than regular neurochemistry.

I object to that term 'chemically induced'. It is derogatory and dismissive. — Wayfarer

It also places the claim, "How I found God", in its proper context.

Yeah I suppose that's true. I didn't much like the name of the thread, actually, and tend not to use that name in such a casual manner myself. That's why it took a while to answer it.

It might be true that someone who is brain dead is simply gone from this world, and certainly will no longer be counted as a person if 'person' is defined as 'someone who acts in the world'. But again that defining person entirely in terms of function and you haven't given an argument for why that would be right. Also the crucial word "observable" is missing in what you quoted. You must have been responding as I was editing. — John

Function, quality, characteristic, attribute... whatever you call it, the burden is on you to show that these essential features of personhood are attributes of the world, or rather, before anything else, that it even makes sense to categorise the world as belonging to the same set which includes persons like you and I.

The point is that not everyone agrees that intentionality is real; we infer it and attribute it to others and ourselves on account of the illusion we have that we are in control, according to this argument. I'm not saying I agree with that, but there seems to be no directly observable phenomenon that can be identified as intentionality. We either rightly intuit it in ourselves and others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly intuit it in nature; or we rightly intuit it in ourselves and merely infer it of others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly infer it of nature; or we are completely deluded about it, and there is no real intentionality anywhere. — John

Is there anything at all that everyone agrees on? You don't need everyone to agree. Some people are simply wrong, regardless of whether or not they agree or disagree.

You seem to be unaware of the absurdity in what you're suggesting. There's a huge difference between inferring intentionality from a person and from nature. I think that if you're going to be intellectually honest, then you have to acknowledge that. You can try to blur the lines as much as you like, but the differences are obvious. If all you have is wild speculation, then that's simply not good enough.

Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence. — Galuchat

No, you don't know what belief is. Belief is not an attitude and it certainly doesn't require that bit you've made up about evidence. You seem to be confusing belief and blind faith.

No, you don't know what belief is. Belief is not an attitude ... — Sapientia

I think you'd have to argue for this, because it's very common in philosophy to characterize beliefs as attitudes, especially propositional attitudes.

God isn't a man in the sky, and if you think you've come close to intuiting the ground at the ripe old age of 11, then think again.

I don't think that "attitude" is the right word to use, or at least the best word to use, because of its connotations relating to emotion. I think that belief is cognitive. When you come to believe something, you've reached a particular state of mind in which you're convinced. It's not a feeling, although feelings can bring about this mental state.

I think "attitude" is perfect (as well as being standard in philosophy), and I don't buy your separation of cognition and affect.

Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence. — Galuchat

Then what would be an attitude that accepts a proposition as true with evidence? I don't see how that wouldn't be a belief too.

It's definitely not perfect. When I see the word "attitude", I think of things like stroppy teenagers. What goes on when I believe that I'm in my living room is nothing like what goes on when a stroppy teenager gets fed up and storms off, slamming the door behind themselves. I believe that I'm in my living room because of all the strong evidence around me which convinces me of this fact. The stroppy teenager just has a bad attitude, and is reacting emotionally to a situation.

"Propositional attitude" is a term of art. Are you really not familiar with it? (Relates to verbs like believe, know, think, doubt, say and so on, that can take a complete proposition as their object, verbs that can be followed by "that" clauses.)

No, I am familiar with it. But that term wasn't used in the original comment that I was responding to, nor in jamalrob's last reply to me, and I was talking about connotations of the word "attitude".

When I see the word "attitude", I think of things like stroppy teenagers. — Sapientia

That's just a colloquialism. One's attitude is one's position, or orientation, either physical or mental (or both).

3) Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence. — Galuchat

That's​ not right, beliefs can be based on evidence or not. Aside from fideists, most religious believers base their beliefs on various lines of evidence.

It's a connotation, and connotations are not about whether a word is used formally or informally, they're about what a word invokes in you - what meanings, ideas or feelings are associated with it.

But it's your problem. The colloquial sense is not the sense it is used with in philosophy, and speaking personally, the "attitude" of stroppy teenagers has never occurred to me in the context of philosophical discussions about belief. We can happily use "accident" in the Aristotelian sense without worrying about car crashes, "formal" without thinking about wearing suits, "begging the question" without getting confused with "raising the question", and so on. And they're not even colloquialisms, except maybe the last one.

It's not just my problem. If you say that belief is an attitude, that's going to be quite a common reaction. I think that there might be a better way to word it. As a state of mind, perhaps.

that it even makes sense to categorise the world as belonging to the same set which includes persons like you and I. — Sapientia

I haven't ever suggested that any such thing makes sense. On the other hand you have completely failed to cite any empirical evidence for the

huge difference between inferring intentionality from a person and from nature. — Sapientia

How about outlining it for us?

Specifically through different methods of introspection I've identified and deconstructed mental walls to begin to help "reveal myself to myself". Identifying these mental barriers to see me for who I really am, has created a sensation of spiritual transcendence, and brought me to a higher level of consciousness. Reality without psychological barriers. Our "egos" are our psychological defense mechanisms, but above that is the "collective consciousness", which we all identify equally with. That's what I call "God", the center of the psyche.

I haven't ever suggested that any such thing makes sense. — John

Yes, you have:

So, the question is really as to whether there is any intentionality operating 'behind' phenomena. And the answer to that question is not obvious at all, and is not even conceivably attainable by empirical enquiry or 'pure' reason. — John

We either rightly intuit it in ourselves and others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly intuit it in nature; or we rightly intuit it in ourselves and merely infer it of others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly infer it of nature; or we are completely deluded about it, and there is no real intentionality anywhere. — John

If it makes no sense with regards to the world or nature, then, contrary to what you said in the first quote above, the answer would be obvious, and, with regards to what you said in the second quote, although it could be argued, it wouldn't be worthy of serious consideration.

On the other hand you have completely failed to cite any empirical evidence for the [huge difference between inferring intentionality from a person and from nature]. How about outlining it for us? — John

You only have to look at the capabilities and behaviour of people: they express or make clear their thoughts, feelings and intentions through language and actions. They are able to communicate intentionality and even when they do not intend to communicate it, it is often on show, and can be observed or inferred correctly or accurately.

This is not true of the world or nature. It wouldn't even make sense to question the world or nature in this way, because it would be a category error.

Good for you. You call it "higher level of consciousness", I call it "delusions of grandeur".