« QAnon is the religion of right-wing crazies | Main | If mystics claim to find a new reality, they need to prove it »

April 04, 2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian, since my name is invoked in your commentary, I hope you'll include my
response to this off-point screed about my remarks. I certainly didn't generalize
any attack on cognitive structures and narratives at all. Gosh, I didn't build up
or advance any "narrative" except that it's entirely dubious to opine that
an inner transcendent experience can be "proven" hallucinatory or bonafide
through cognitive means either by skeptic or believer.

Here' my full response:

@ But to generalize that argument, as you are doing, and to think of cognitive structures and narratives
@ as “traps” is, …I’m sorry, that makes no sense at all.

Wow, that's quite an indictment AR. I was responding to your targeted question
of whether a transcendent inner experience was a "hallucination or bona fide". I
only asserted that the cognitive trap was trying to make sense of a transcendent
experience in an attempt to validate it as "hallucination or bona fide". Language and
logic as we know them fall short in that Solomon-esque endeavor to validate an
transcendent experience. I only suggested a different lens and a mystic's discipline
were needed. Perhaps in lieu of "needed", "helpful" would be a more acceptably
non-denominational term.

I never "generalized" this to "cognitive structures and narratives". That's overreach.
By the way, I explicitly lauded scientific rigor and never suggested we abandon it
either. At a practical level, the clarity, heightened awareness, and health benefits
of a mindfulness discipline only enhance science and its path of discovery.

@ Faced with any and every thing, the closed-minded God-believer will say, “…because God!”, without
@ thinking through what that means. What you are doing the exact equivalent of that, except instead of
@ “…because God!”, you’re using the more sophisticated but essentially similar “…because mysticism!”.

To equate mysticism with magical thinking and close-mindedness is dismissive and
misses the mark also. Ironically, mysticism, in contrast to the blind faith of religion,
insists that you confirm premises experientially within via a disciplined practice of
mindfulness. Mysticism acts collaboratively and complementarily with science.
There's no place for magical thinking.

"We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive
where we started And know the place for the first time." --T.S. Eliot

Dungeness, I'm copying, below, my response to your comment in that other thread, seeing that Brian's made a fresh post around our exchange there:

-------


"Wow, that's quite an indictment AR. I was responding to your targeted question
of whether a transcendent inner experience was a "hallucination or bona fide". I
only asserted that the cognitive trap was trying to make sense of a transcendent
experience in an attempt to validate it as "hallucination or bona fide". Language and
logic as we know them fall short in that Solomon-esque endeavor to validate an
transcendent experience. I only suggested a different lens and a mystic's discipline
were needed. Perhaps in lieu of "needed", "helpful" would be a more acceptably
non-denominational term.

I never "generalized" this to "cognitive structures and narratives". That's overreach.
By the way, I explicitly lauded scientific rigor and never suggested we abandon it
either. At a practical level, the clarity, heightened awareness, and health benefits
of a mindfulness discipline only enhance science and its path of discovery."


-------


Hello, Dungeness.

First of all, let's follow um's example and start, and end, and intersperse our discussion with occasional "hahahaha"s. Keep it light, as he does. :--)

As far as indictment, that's kind of a strong description, but when you get down to it, yes, I am criticizing the idea you expressed in your comment. With the clear understanding that we're examining each other's ideas, you mine and I yours, and I at any rate am entirely open to changing my mind should our discussion so warrant. That's kind of (much of) the point of my commenting here.

With that understood, here we go:

No, you weren't dismissing all narratives and all cognitive structures, but you most certainly did say, and are still saying, that cognitive structures are somehow intrinsically unable to capture mystical realities (should such exist).

Here's what you'd said previously : "What kind of touchstone would prove its validity? You're caught in a cognitive trap trying to make sense of transcendent experience. The proof can't be shoehorned into some kind of intellectually compelling answer no matter how elaborate or rigorous the lab setting."

And here's what you say now: "I only asserted that the cognitive trap was trying to make sense of a transcendent experience in an attempt to validate it as "hallucination or bona fide". Language and logic as we know them fall short in that Solomon-esque endeavor to validate an transcendent experience. I only suggested a different lens and a mystic's discipline were needed."

You're essentially saying that the scientific method is fine for "this" world. But for an allegedly transcendent reality, it is of no use.

My point is, should a "transcendent" reality exist -- and I'm by no means dismissing that possibility out of hand, as you know I'm a meditator myself, albeit I steer clear of the hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo that invariably get mixed up with the meditative core of all traditions -- there is no reason at all why that higher reality should be beyond the reach of the scientific method and clear understanding. At least in theory, even if, in practice, and like QM, clarity of understanding eludes us at this point. (Always assuming, for the sake of argument, that mystical realities are a thing.)

In fact, I object to the term "supernatural" or "transcendent". Say you can actually hear celestial music and see higher planes and whatnot. Well, all of that, then, is what reality would be. It might transcendent, as far as this world -- again, assuming for the sake of argument that such do exist -- but it wouldn't be transcendent of understanding. Nothing, nothing at all, if at all it exists, can possibly be that, not in principle.

That is what I was taking issue with, your idea that mystical realities are beyond the reach of cognitive understanding. I know you weren't dismissing all cognitive structures; but you were saying and do say that mysticism is beyond the reach of cognitive understanding, and that is what I was disagreeing with.


-------


"To equate mysticism with magical thinking and close-mindedness is dismissive and misses the mark also."


Hang on, hang on, you misunderstand me. That isn't what I was saying. I wasn't saying mysticism is like magic. Here's what I was actually saying:

Saying that something is beyond understanding, even in principle, is what I was referring to as "magical thinking". People do that with God. You were doing that, and are still doing that, with mysticism.

Well, what I was saying is that this kind of magical thinking is fallacious.

I was using "magic" merely as an example, to show how magical thinking is wanting. Even in a literally magical world, of the kind we see in J K Rowling, people don't simple say "Uh no, magic, can't use cognitive structures". If magic were a part of our world, then the scientific method, and cognitive structures and narratives, would apply to that as well. Likewise, if mystic realities are bona fide part of our actual reality, then there is no reason why, in principle, they should elude investigation via the scientific method.

So that, I don't see why we shouldn't devise and follow rules to differentiate vanilla hallucinations from genuine mystical visions (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the latter do exist). If I'm a mystic that sees stuff inside, that doesn't mean I should believe every random dream I might have. So, how do I differentiate the wheat from the chaff? That seems like a valid question to me, and a very important one for a genuine mystic. I was asking manjit what his own de facto rule/guideline/heuristic is, for ascertaining which of his visions and experiences are bona fide mystical, and which not.

@ Saying that something is beyond understanding, even in principle, is what I was referring to as "magical
@ thinking". People do that with God. You were doing that, and are still doing that, with mysticism.

I agree mystical experience is not beyond understanding but a different
lens and the mystic's discipline is needed. Certainly, neither you nor I nor
anyone could meaningfully opine about the validity of mystical experience
without having followed their rigorous path. Often for years or even a
lifetime. I certainly would refrain from any attempt to characterize their
efforts as definitively hallucinatory or bonafide. Clearly more rigor is
needed to assess potentially genuine mystic accounts than whipping
up rules to pigeonhole random dream content.

Of course, in the end, we are all prone to making snap judgments. I
would certainly be skeptical of a Q-Anon shaman and his visions on
purely gut instinct if not facts alone. The same diligence should apply
equally to RSSB or other mystic paths though. Brian does a wonderful
job of directing attention to unproven claims. The difference however
is facts tip the balance against the Q-Anon shaman; whereas, for many,
mysticism warrants a more serious look and requires actual practice
of its discipline to examine its claims and authenticity of visions. Other
wise snap or dubious judgments rule the day.

Genuine mystics insist on it in my opinion. They challenge blind faith,
knee-jerk judgments, and, I'd strongly suspect, a taxonomy of what is
hallucinatory vs bona fide too. "How do you know I'm not a fraud?"
said GSD, current RSSB mystic master. There's no room for magical
thinking either.

"I certainly would refrain from any attempt to characterize their
efforts as definitively hallucinatory or bonafide. Clearly more rigor is
needed to assess potentially genuine mystic accounts than whipping
up rules to pigeonhole random dream content."


I'm struggling to understand your POV here.

Why would you "refrain from any attempt to characterize" mystic visions as "definitively hallucinatory or bona fide"?

Sure, "clearly more rigor is needed" than "whipping up rules to pigeonhole" these peremptorily, but what stops us (generic "us") from applying that rigor and coming up with actual rules, real rules?

Sure, the rules may not be perfect, they may need to be tweaked and improved on as time goes by and our (collective) breadth of knowledge increases, but that does not mean there should be no rules.

(By the way, all of this assumes that mystic visions, and distinct from hallucinations, are real -- only for the sake of argument, without actually claiming that as fact, because without that premise any discussion of this kind is moot, pointless.)

Why on earth would you not want to distinguish between your bona fide mystic visions (should you have any) and your random dreams? I totally fail to grasp your reasons for saying this.


-------


"Genuine mystics insist on it in my opinion. They challenge blind faith,
knee-jerk judgments, and, I'd strongly suspect, a taxonomy of what is
hallucinatory vs bona fide too."


Again, why on earth would you "suspect" that "genuine mystics" "challenge" "a taxonomy of what is hallucinatory vs bona fide"? I totally struggle to understand this ... pardon me, this bizarre POV.

Okay, let's take an example. Let's just take you. (Or we could take me, but let's just take you.) Say in five years time you've progressed enough in your path, and do start seeing visions inside. Presumably you take some kind of guidance and instruction from such visions, as well as draw solace.

Now say you go to sleep at night, or get drunk, or get high, and then when under the influence of drink or pot or sleep, you now see visions. Will you not want to know which of these is the real item? Not just casually want that, won't that understanding be absolutely crucial for you?


-------


Now my knowledge of things RSSB is very modest, limited as it is to stuff picked up mostly here at Brian's blog, and Julian Johnson's book. Other here, and you too probably, would know a great deal more of this. So do correct me if I'm mistaken in what I'm saying, but I do distinctly recall reading that RSSB does have concrete heuristics for ascertaining which visions are real desirable, and which are illusory (that is, either outright hallucination, or else emanating from Kal). And those heuristics have to do with which direction those visions come in from, and also whether they stand up to the Simran test.

I referred to RSSB heuristics, perhaps not entirely correctly, only because that is what people here, and you too, are familiiar with. Other systems, Tantra for instance, also has similar rules.

So there you are: I've just now actually produced concrete examples of two systems, two actual mystical traditions, that do have rules, taxonomies if you will, of separating out real and desirable visions from unreal/illusory and/or undesirable visions. What say you to that, then?


-------


It stands to reason. If you're working out, you'll need heuristics to tell you what kind of pain/stretch/extended-effort is good, and what not. When you're playing music, you need rules that tell you whether the notes you're producing are off-key or not.

Why on earth would mysticism be the one arena that is outside that scope, of the practitioner having to evaluate his results as desirable and bona fide, or otherwise? Why should merely-whatever-feels-right-and-good-and-pleasurable-to-me be the only acceptable heuristic (as you've said in our recent exchanges)? I mean, sure, you're free to use that standard, and that alone, when it comes to yourself, but why on earth would any other more rigorous standards be seen as "traps"?

I'm curious where you're coming from here, Dungeness. Perhaps you could explain, in some detail?

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"That is what I was taking issue with, your idea that mystical realities are beyond the reach of cognitive understanding."

Any experience, Iike color to a blind person, or the taste of white truffles to a person who has never eaten them, cannot adequately be communicated. However, it is entirely appropriate to try, if only by metaphor and simile. That gives you an idea. It does not adequately communicate the experience. But that communication may help when one begins to experience new things, to put them into context. A context you are familiar with. It is every mystic's duty to their fellow human beings to try, however limited the result will be. And it is also so for every scientist.

The mystic and the scientist know this is not entirely possible. Nothing can replace actually witnessing atomic events. But good explanations can help us imagine, and in our imagination, understand better. As was the case for Einstein, imaging what it was like to ride on a beam of light. It brought him closer to understanding the actual experience. He didn't say "I can't do that so it's foolish to use my imagination like that." He knew intuitively that the brain is visual and symbolic, and if he fed into it facts, focused upon scientific facts, he would experience intuitively something even closer to the truth. He used his imagination, like every good scientist. It was bonafide.

A scientific breakdown of the chemical composition of either truffles or the color red may help too, but will be hopeless to convey the experience. One must add their own imagination to get closer to it.

A chemical description of the basis of a hallucination doesn't make it less real. In fact it helps us understand the reality of that experience for the person going through it.

In that sense a hallucination is also bona-fide. It is a real event, with real causes and should not be dismissed. It should be understood, and the actual images of that hallucination examined. They came from somewhere.

Describe parenting to a young childless couple. This can help prepare them. Perhaps they may recall their own experience as elder brother or sister to a new addition to the family.

But it cannot transfer the feelings of complete joy, absolute fear for their child's safety and well being, and the complete exhaustion that is the common experience of being new parents. To approach that, they must try to imagine what will happen, and imagining that, prepare for it.


The problem is trying to use scientific language to dismiss anyone's experience and the legitimacy of that experience for that person. Science doesn't support doing that. Hallucination vs bonafide is the wrong narrative, a dichotomy that can't be found in nature. All events are real. Their explanations can be flawed.

What science does is provide another perspective to an actual, Bona fide experience. It doesn't dismiss it.

Fair points all, Spence, and nor do I disagree: but I'm afraid something of a non sequitur, all of that. Because what we're discussing now isn't how or whether or to what extent the essence of an experience can be conveyed to someone who hasn't had those experiences. Nor are we, at this time, discussing whether science dismisses mystical experience. And nor do I dispute that hallucinations too might subjectively be considered entirely bona fide, in as much as the person hallucinating does experience them; but nor were we discussing that either.

What Dungeness and I were speaking of now, in our last series of comments addressed to each other, is the bona fide mystic -- the hypothetical bona fide mystic, who we assume for the sake of argument, who we assume for the present, does have bona fide mystical experiences -- and of whether and how he can differentiate his genuine mystic visions from general mundane un-mystical hallucinations and dreams and imaginings.

When I asked manjit what personal de facfo heuristics he makes use of to distinguish between (what he considers are) his genuine mystical visions from (what he might consider are) mundane hallucinations and/or dreams and/or imagination, that's when Dungeness said that looking for such heuristics is a trap, and that mysticism does not yield to this kind of taxonomy. And that POV of his is something I don't agree with. In fact it isn't even fully clear to me why he would think that. That is what I was wondering if he could explain.

@ Why on earth would mysticism be the one arena that is outside that scope, of the practitioner having to
@ evaluate his results as desirable and bona fide, or otherwise? Why should merely-whatever-feels-right-and
@ good-and-pleasurable-to-me be the only acceptable heuristic (as you've said in our recent exchanges)? I
@ mean, sure, you're free to use that standard, and that alone, when it comes to yourself, but why on earth
@ would any other more rigorous standards be seen as "traps"?

In my opinion, we're inundated with our fragmented, imperfect thinking enough already
and mysticism's aim is to enhance our awareness and focus to a quantum level where
we "know" intuitively. We slip out of the "surly grasp" of thought burdened as it is by our
mental ruts, flaws, and seemingly limitless distractability. Don't some authors call this
kind of super knowing capacity "direct perception"? I seem to recall Aldous Huxley's
mention of it in the 'Perennial Philosophy'.

But if we strive to measure and size and evaluate endlessly to develop heuristics, we
miss the opportunity for a directer path to greater awareness. That's the only "trap".
Obviously our thinking doesn't cease ever and enables us to survive. If nothing else,
the mystic's mindfulness can supercharge our mental acuity though, blunt the effects
of confused thinking, improve BP, etc. The end goal is increased awareness in every
realm of life.

I have no experience with supernatural sights/experience so can't speak about them
at all. It's very much a slow, incremental process for most I suspect. That's why I
surmise, even after seeing "things" within, there's a test for hallucinatory figures that
may appear. Until a more advanced state of awareness is attained, the test is needed.


Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"Why on earth would mysticism be the one arena that is outside that scope, of the practitioner having to evaluate his results as desirable and bona fide, or otherwise?"

No scientist makes that evaluation. Every result is a bona-fide Truth. Every "failure" is the successful execution of the laws of biology and physics. It is the scientist's challenge to try to figure out what truths were actually at work in her experiment.

"but it didn't go the way I wanted." Not very scientific. It worked perfectly and in exact accord to science. Whether we understand or not is the issue.

But fiddling with the experiment we can certainly learn a little more about the mystery.

What you call undesirable results is really a narrative, a value judgment. What you call "nothing happened" was really a lot happening.

But are we open minded enough, is our instrumentation sensitive enough, to reveal it? If not, let's refine our instrumentation, and get better control over the variables, and continue.

When my meditation calms down flashes of lightning and thunder appear, and then the whole visual field becomes flooded with light.

The result of experimentation under controlled conditions. But what is the cause? Why would I perceive more light, not less, as sensory input is dampened? Obviously light is what's in the background, and my sensory equipment, to make sense of it, is dampening and attenuating it. So when we turn that input down, we are turning off the filters, and all that's left is light.

What other explanations do you need? That turning down the filters was the result of love and devotion? That concentration and control were the results of worship?

We are all part of a machine and we are machinery. So? Our brain uses symbols to help focus, so? Love is a natural way to focus. Ok.

The experience is the adventure, the unfolding mystery, the experiment, Appreciative.

And if we appreciate it, we can't overlay it with too many explanations. We don't know enough to do that. We just enjoy having a little adventure, learning a tiny bit more from direct experience, that is all. And we would rather enjoy the fireworks at that moment than interrupt with critical thinking. They disappear when we focus on our own notions.

Hi Appreciative
I think your question for Dungeness may have been answered in my comments.

You summarized Dungeness with
"looking for such heuristics is a trap, and that mysticism does not yield to this kind of taxonomy"

My point about legitimacy of all experiences speaks directly to this point. The criteria you use to evaluate may be too limited for much use.

What appears to you as a dream may have a reality to it .

And what doesn't appear to you today but which is quite real and active may become visible tomorrow.

My example of my own experiences in meditation was an effort to explain where the scientific method, or the natural method of learning by trial and error, helps they meditator, as well as any child or scientist, do their reality testing and learning. But to try to infer much beyond the experience is problematic. In the same way when science is used to make sweeping statements about soul and God this is invariably a false use of scientific findings.

I think this is what Dungeness was getting at. There are spheres where attempting to deduct from availed facts is flawed because the source of data is limited. But that doesn't change the transcendant reality of any new experience. Nor the utility of a scientific approach in all endeavors.

It's just not amenable to tabulation at that point.

An athlete knows by trial and error how to perform best. And their ability to control and maximize their own body is remarkabke. But if you ask them to report their exact speed they will be hopelessly unable.

Maybe this is of help:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ascent_of_Mount_Carmel/Book_2/Chapter_XI

Quote Dungeness:

"In my opinion, we're inundated with our fragmented, imperfect thinking enough already and mysticism's aim is to enhance our awareness and focus to a quantum level where we "know" intuitively. We slip out of the "surly grasp" of thought burdened as it is by our mental ruts, flaws, and seemingly limitless distractability. Don't some authors call this kind of super knowing capacity "direct perception"? I seem to recall Aldous Huxley's mention of it in the 'Perennial Philosophy'.

But if we strive to measure and size and evaluate endlessly to develop heuristics, we miss the opportunity for a directer path to greater awareness. That's the only "trap".

Obviously our thinking doesn't cease ever and enables us to survive. If nothing else, the mystic's mindfulness can supercharge our mental acuity though, blunt the effects of confused thinking, improve BP, etc. The end goal is increased awareness in every realm of life.

I have no experience with supernatural sights/experience so can't speak about them at all. It's very much a slow, incremental process for most I suspect. That's why I surmise, even after seeing "things" within, there's a test for hallucinatory figures that may appear. Until a more advanced state of awareness is attained, the test is needed."


-------


Ah, okay. I think I see your POV in its entirety now, Dungeness. And I think what you're thinking, and saying, stems not so much from any fundamental disagreement with me about mysticism or about narratives or about the scientific method, but simply from an elementary confusion about means and ends.

Look, not to beat this to death. You and I have often interacted before here, to our mutual pleasure and benefit (at least it has been to mine, and I hope it has been to yours as well), and it is not my intention to keep grilling you about a mistaken opinion made off the cuff as it were. I only wanted to clearly understand what you were saying, and to show where I disagree with that. I think I've done that, and with this last comment addressed to you am happy to put it to rest. Unless of course you continue to disagree with what I'm saying, and would like to clarify further, in which case I'm happy to continue.


-------


I think I can best show you why what you're saying sounds amiss to me by resorting to an analogy, imperfect though all analogies ultimately are.

Let's say your aim is to become a serious professional power lifter, and you are starting with baby steps, lifting up baby weights. You ask your gym instructor how you should be curling your baby dumbells and how exactly you should judge the effects of your lifts using your as-yet unweighted barbell bars.

And you gym instructor, himself muscled all over, tells you the serious accomplished powerlifter deals in weights one or two maginitudes higher than those baby weights you're dealing with. That to the serious powerlifter those baby weights mean nothing, and there is no technique involved per se with how he deals with such piffles. To get caught up in techniques with weights he can lift up with one single hand without the slightest risk of injury, is to simply waste time.

See what I mean? All analogies are ultimately wanting, in some respect or other, so I'll further break up my objection to your POV in terms directly related to our discussion:

You're saying, mysticism leads you to a place where the end result is enhanced awareness and direct intuitive knowledge. Fair enough, and we don't disagree as far as that. That is, until presented with incontrovertible evidence, objective or at least first-hand subjective, that mysticism is a thing, I'm not prepared to claim that, at all, unlike you; however, like you I am an enthusiast and practitioner, and grant that that is how alleged mystics have described the end result of the process. To that extent we don't disagree, at all.

But because the end result of mysticism is, or might be, direct intuitive perception that bypasses the though process, does not mean the practitioner who has not attained to that state yet can pretend that his perception already incorporates that all-knowingness. See my powerlifting analogy.

And what is more, I think your fear that if you spend your time with heuristics while on the mystic path, you'll miss out on that direct perception, is patently nonsensical. To go back to my powerlifting analogy, that's like saying that because the serious powerlifting does not bother with baby weights, therefore for the powerlifting aspirant to waste time and effort with techniques on how to deal with baby weights is to miss out on the entirely effortless handling of those baby weights that the accomplished powerlifter is capable of.

You are not "wasting" time and energy on those heuristics. Those heuristics are not things you while away an idle moment formulating and playing around with. If you are serious about your practices and your efforts at (attaining to) mysticism, then technique, whether you're doing it right, that is a crucial thing for your to evaluate. Those heuristics are the milestones, the intermediate tests, that guide your effort and help you stay the course. Far from being a waste of time, they are the supports that help you perfect your technique.

Sure, when you've reached a stage where you no longer need those supports, then you're free to -- in fact, strongly advised to -- not waste any more time on them. When you're capable of lifting up baby weights without nary a thought of injuries from those piffles, you are correct then not to waste time on those baby weights. When you've actually attained to direct perception, then you're correct in stating that you no longer need bother with these heuristics.

Until then, though? Until then you ignore them to your own peril.

It is not that these heuristics don't exist. I have already presented concrete evidence, from two separate traditions, of fairly detailed heuristics on what kinds of experiences might be pointers that you're on the right track, and what kinds of experiences you are to stay away from (either because they're vanilla hallucinations or because they are in other ways not considered beneficial, going by the terms of these respective traditions).

And, no matter, what kind of tradition you follow, or even what kind of idiosyncratic personal approach, you necessarily must and do use heuristics. The question is whether you recognize that fact, and clearly formulate those steps, or leave all of that a gray confusion.

To take another analogy, involving our own Spence -- and I will presently address him directly, and respond to his comment as well -- his "inner Gurinder" often guides him to do such and such. Should his inner Gurinder appear to him in a dream tonight, and advise him to seek out Appreciative Reader and hand over to that elevated soul a large sum of money, should he do that? I mean, that's an unquestionably noble and righteous thing to do, no argument there, and he should definitely do it; but should he or shouldn't he have -- and would he or wouldn't he in fact already have, de facto -- some process, some rules, some heuristics, to separate the wheat from the chaff, the hallucinations and dreams from (what he considers) actual mystical visions?

It is only a question of clearly recognizing this fact, and clearly laying out what one might already be doing instinctively, so that one can keep away from unnecessary confusion and from unnecessarily being misled.

Nor is all of this just words. As you will no doubt agree when you think over this, to the serious student of mysticism -- which we all are, you and I and Spence and, dare I say it, Brian as well, our native robust skepticism notwithstanding -- the sussing out of this kind of detail is a very important part of what we do, and need to do.

Spence, I've read, and enjoyed -- and, yes, "appreciated"! -- both your comments. I'm not quoting them or engaging with every bit of them, as I would have liked to and enjoyed doing, in the interests of brevity,

I don't disagree with what you've said, but I think we're kind of talking at cross purposes here.

I'm not saying we reject such and such observations in the course of our experiments, and cherry-pick such and such observations in order to force-fit our experiments along some pre-planned route.

Thing is, along with being an experiment, mysticism -- and again, I'm only provisionally speaking of mysticism here, and not actually accepting that it might be a thing until I've myself seen solid evidence, whether objective or first-hand subjective, but accepting this and saying this only provisionally till such time -- mysticism, I was saying, along with being an experiment, is also a process, a training. And in the course of that training, there are heuristics you do need to follow, to help you keep to the path. See my comment addressed to Dungeness above, and the analogies I've presented there (imperfect thought all analogies are, at some point or other, but still). See also my analogy about, well, about you, in that comment.


-------


And perhaps that personal analogy, repeated one more time, will bring home to you what I mean.

I know you have inner visions of Gurinder, and he guides you to do stuff. I remember once, long ago, we were discussing something, and disagreeing pretty much spiritedly over something, and you came back after a while and said to me -- and I'm quoting not verbatim, that was long ago, but equivalent words from memory -- you said, "I was away at work, and while there, my inner Gurinder appeared to me and told me that in this instance you were right and I was wrong, and I've come back here to accept that and say that I was wrong".

Wouldn't you, and shouldn't you, de facto, of necessity, have some kind of heuristic, some kind of de facto rule, that tells you what manner of visions are (what you think of as) bona fide mystical, so that those nudges you take seriously and follow, and which kinds of thoughts and impulses and visions and dreams are simply random hallucinations, and therefore can and should be left aside? No sane person can possibly go around acting on every dream instruction and acting as if every random drunken vision were bona fide instruction from above.


-------


Like I was saying to Dungness, not to beat this thing to death, but as far as part of what you'd said, and I quote you here:

"And if we appreciate it, we can't overlay it with too many explanations. We don't know enough to do that. We just enjoy having a little adventure, learning a tiny bit more from direct experience, that is all. And we would rather enjoy the fireworks at that moment than interrupt with critical thinking. They disappear when we focus on our own notions."


I appreciate that. There's a time and place. That you're wedded to critical thought does not mean you sleep with it all day long and all light long. There is no reason not to enjoy hallucinations. But to know which is hallucination and which not, seems absolutely crucial to me. Unless you're putting up your hands and saying that mysticism is simply hallucination, all of it? Skeptic that I am, even I wouldn't go that far, as yet, even I would keep alive the provisional possibility, and the hope, that that is not the case.


-------


"I think this is what Dungeness was getting at. There are spheres where attempting to deduct from availed facts is flawed because the source of data is limited. "


Hence the necessity of a tradition. Hence the necessity of a coach. Hence the necessity, or at least the utility, of piggy-backing on others who have walked the path before us. Hence the utility of guidance.


"An athlete knows by trial and error how to perform best. And their ability to control and maximize their own body is remarkabke. But if you ask them to report their exact speed they will be hopelessly unable."


On the contrary. Absolutely, every serious athlete will use trial and error to suss out the details of their own personal quirks and their own personal system as it applies to them personally; but equally, no serious athlete goes entirely trial-and-error. On the contrary, a great deal of what they do is based on established tradition, closely laid down rules on what to do and what not, as far as diet, as far as practice, as far as actual participation in their sport.

And even if you separate out the part of their system that they've personalized, even there there are de facto rules and precedents they follow, that they've themselves assiduously built up over the years. Without that they cannot possibly ever become serious athletes.

It is a question of recognizing that one does have those rules, regardless of whether one is aware of them or not. To the extent one does recognize them, and to the extent one is aware of one's de facto rules, to that extent one can examine those rules and refine them further if warranted. To that extent one's effort, one's endeavor, one's practice, is more ...streamlined, more directed, more focused.

(Which is not to rule out unfocused free-flow exploration. But even free-flow exploration, provided you admit, if only provisionally, of the possibility of a "higher" end to mysticism than merely entertainment and merely mental & physical well-being -- not that those two are unimportant aspects of the process, but providing you don't think those are the only two aspects of it possible -- must necessarily admit of post-facto examination, and sorting, and analysis, and conclusions reached.)

Incidentally, Spence, an interesting sidebar to this discussion. I've just now reread my comment addressed to you, after posting it, and this is a thought that, while at one level obvious enough and commonplace enough, is nevertheless something that is kind of ...interesting.

Mysticism is two separate things. On one hand it is an experiment, an exploration of what there might be. On the other hand it is a discipline, a training.

That is, there are two separate aspects to it.

That seemed like an interesting thought, which may nor may not have anything to do directly to do with what we were discussing (*), but which kind of came to mind when I went through my comment addressed to you.

-------


(*) Actually it is not unrelated, on second thought. A more nuanced discussion on this, than I have been able to present so far, might explicitly recognize both those aspects of the mystical process, and address this as it applies to each aspect separately.

But that is a task I will not attempt now. I'm too lazy for that additional effort, and besides, what we've already discussed will possibly already have covered that. But if that thought were to have occurred to me at the start of this discussion, rather than now at the very end, then that is how I would have tried to think this through.

Anyhoo. Just a sidebar, this last comment of mine, that appeared interesting to me, and that I thought you might find interesting too.

Hi Appreciative!
Great comments, carefully thought through.

You wrote
"That you're wedded to critical thought does not mean you sleep with it all day long and all light long. There is no reason not to enjoy hallucinations. But to know which is hallucination and which not, seems absolutely crucial to me."

Whether it is hallucination or fact is a conclusion. Why draw it prematurely?

Anything that can help us understand better is a good practice. The tradition of meditation has a foundation of spirituality, whether believing in an absolute power, or in the case of Buddhism, an absolute truth. But those are culture-based.

One culture's hallucination is another scientist's fact. And vice versa.

What we can't witness for ourselves, we create an explanation for. Science works that way too, though the point isn't just to theorize but to find a way to test. Testing helps us determine a more accurate explanation. But the explanation of hallucination or Bonafide must be testable to draw any such conclusion.

Meditation is a science from that perspective. You still can't test for God. But I can experience a reality I could not before. A reality others don't see.

As for hallucinations, we have them all the time. Most of what people call reality is their social construct. It's their psychological bitcoin. It has no intrinsic value or even substance, just the value agreed by those who invest in it and others they influence to buy it. They create a social reality out of an imaginary construct. That imaginary creation runs their lives.

Nueroscientists who try to use findings to make claims about God and consciousness are creating their own hallucination, and even without testing others choose to believe it.

The more conservative members of the neuroscience community have objected on the grounds that this is an abuse of science to fulfill an agenda, a construct of reality that is just a shared hallucination.

A shared hallucination.

Ideas can be hallucinations also.

What isn't a hallucination? Perhaps stepping outside of our constructed rules is the first step to finding better, more accurate heuristics.

Arthur Miller: “An era can be said to end when its basic illusions are exhausted”

What are the current common illusions of this age?

And if a person doesn't share in them are they hallucinating, or seeing something closer to reality?

A man comes and tells you , the sidewalk you walk on is mined and that mine is false education system created by British Hegemony.

Spence, we've kind of explored each other's views on this, and I didn't really want to keep beating this thing, didn't want to keep on having to disagree with Dungeness and you. But I'm afraid there are things in your post that I totally entirely and wholly disagree with, and couldn't let pass without articulating my objections.


-------


"Whether it is hallucination or fact is a conclusion. Why draw it prematurely?"

.

False dichotomy, Spence.

That you shouldn't draw that conclusion prematurely, is NOT to say you mustn't draw that conclusion at all.

Tradition -- I've explicitly evidenced two actual traditions in this thread -- clearly lays out heuristics to ascertain which kinds of mystical visions are the genuine item. If you trust those traditions, then to follow their heuristics right off the bat wouldn't be "premature".

If you're skeptical about your traditions rules and heuristics, as well you might, even then you'll end up devising your own rules as you go along.

Sure, to do this prematurely might be ill advised, absolutely. But that's no argument against doing it all!

Another analogy to emphasize the point: Should you be taking the vaccine, generally speaking? What you've said here, quoted above, is like saying, taking the vaccine prematurely isn't advisable. That is, if you break it down, taking it for a disease that hasn't afflicted your community, and isn't likely to infect your community, isn't advisable. Duh, sure, obviously, you mustn't take it "prematurely", providing we're agreed about what might rightfully be described as "premature" in this context. But that is no argument at all, and says nothing about whether you should take it or no. It is just a general meaningless bromide, that really says nothing at all.


-------


"One culture's hallucination is another scientist's fact. And vice versa."

.

Absolutely NOT! This sentiment, this opinion, I disagree with with all the emphasis at my command!

Sure, one culture's hallucination is another scientist's fact. But NOT vice versa, absolutely not!

What is hallucination and what not, that is something that can, at least in principle, be clearly and unambiguously defined and understood. This is not a cultural thing, at all.


-------


"What isn't a hallucination?"

.

You meant that as rhetoric, but I'm going to take that question literally. Perhaps we should clearly define here what exactly we mean by the term "hallucination", else we'll continue to talk past one another.

I'll go first. Something that you experience, that isn't reflected in (or isn't a reflection of) the world outside, that would be a subjective experience. And a subjective experience that you aren't able to distinguish from objective reality, that would be what I'd call a hallucination.

A dream would be a classic example of a subjective experience. And a dream that you take, without external corroboration, to be somehow directly reflective of the outer, external, objective reality, is what I'd describe as a hallucination.

Ditto mystical visions, obviously.


-------


A concrete and somewhat detailed (but hypothetical) example might help clarify my meaning further, as to that last.

Say, like you, I started having some inner spirit guide pop up within, to offer me advice and guidance. Now such of this spirit guide's guidance that I found reflected in the world outside, I'd take as bona fide vision, providing such "bona fide guidance" were way more frequent, statistically speaking, to admit mere regular commonplace happenstance as explanation. And such of its guidance that I did not find reflected outside, I'd take as hallucination.

To break this up further: If my spirit guide told me something that turned out to be patently wrong, then I'd take my spirit guide (or at least that specific instance of my specific guide's emanation) as hallucination. If what my spirit guide told me that turned out to be veridically and objectively true, then to begin with I'd take that as coincidence, happenstance: but if this happened very often, and far too often to be explained away, statistically speaking, as mere happenstance, then, yes, then I might start to think of it as bona fide mystical vision.


-------


Nah, "hallucination" isnt' this wishy-washy anything-goes thing. What is hallucination, and what not, is something we can pretty much definitely understand. (Or at least, as "definitely" as we can do anything at all -- after all science does not deal in 100% certainties, but that's a tangential observation that's neither here nor there,)

I think it's time we presented here our definition of the word "hallucination". I've already presented mine. Would you, Spence, and you, Dungeness, like to present yours, so that we know clearly where we're coming from?


@ And what is more, I think your fear that if you spend your time with heuristics while on the mystic path,
@ you'll miss out on that direct perception, is patently nonsensical.

Dearest AR, I take your point. We need analysis, heuristics, benchmarks in every
endeavor. It's a matter of degree though. Far too often intuition has to hack its
way through our mental din and whisper a warning: "Time is getting short. We're
getting old, frail ,and exhausted with research. None of it has revealed who we
really are. To be fair, these efforts serve us well otherwise and we haven't
abandoned them. None of the Queen's 'off with their bleeding heads' nonsense.
They've earned a place in the Servant's Quarters... just not at the head of the
table."

So maybe a compromise. We'll continue to treat the servants fairly but take a
firm hand when it's needed. They're servants after all. They must know their
place. We, as masters of the house, must steadily increase our mindfulness
to carry on with our proper responsibilities. We must listen for that faint voice of
intuition that will arise from our disciplined effort and not the cacophony drifting
in from the Servant's Quarters. Then there can be harmony in the house.

Even satsangis should know that all experiences in the mystic realm are hallucinations. They aren’t Real. Only the One is Real.

Why do you waste so much time exploring the unreal hallucinations of so called Saints?

We might need a new open thread for this, but do you think Shivi is still a believer?? Do you think he’s sitting in his cell hallucinating his way to Sach Khand or wherever?

Hi Appreciative
Good comments again!
You wrote about hallucinations...
"I'll go first. Something that you experience, that isn't reflected in (or isn't a reflection of) the world outside, that would be a subjective experience. And a subjective experience that you aren't able to distinguish from objective reality, that would be what I'd call a hallucination."

When Elon Musk sees a colony living and functioning on Mars, or Walt Disney sees the ideal community, our Plato envisions the ideal society, or Einstein sees the world from an imaginary beam of light, they know this is their imagination at work. But this is where they choose to live and work. It is a reality they are constructing that no one else can see. And like the story the great novelist creates, it is largely within them. They live there a good deal of the time. And many people at some point may join them in that imaginary place, through a vehicle of communication. But it will always be there own imagination. Perhaps one day it will become part of this physical world. Perhaps it will never be.

The mathematical equation will only have reflections in this world. But the world of pure math doesn't exist here, and there are places there only single individuals have traversed. Yet all science has proven the reality of that imaginary place.

These are accepted as real because we all agree they are imaginary. Even when that imaginary place is where we learn about how this world actually functions, and where all our creations in this world begin. How odd is that?

And like the example of bitcoin, there are ideas people accept that don't actually exist, except by a social agreement among a group of influential people. They promote their idea as if it is real, and that has a real influence on our lives. But bitcoin is only a concept. It may prove yet to be a false one. We accept it is real only to the extent people believe it.

People accept so many ideas as real which are not. Truth is one such concept.

A hallucination can be what many people accept as real which is not real. Their claims don't make it real. When people believe claims and not their own experience, that is also hallucination. They may begin to see what others have claimed and mistake it for reality. The stock market is such a place, as is politics.

And a hallucination can also be the label some people place on what others claim to be real because some people have no experience of it and do not understand the evidence that exists before them.

A hallucination may certainly be what I know to be real. But it may be what you do not know to be real.

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"To break this up further: If my spirit guide told me something that turned out to be patently wrong, then I'd take my spirit guide (or at least that specific instance of my specific guide's emanation) as hallucination."

Are you hallucinating when you follow your own imperfect advice?
Was your mind hallucinating when it thought you should buy that coat? Or that car? And now you realize it was a mistake?

Yet you believed it enough to follow it blindly. Every day that's how people behave. They follow unerringly their own erring judgment. They just resign themselves to the fact that they are imperfect, but believe they are perfect enough to do or say whatever pops into their minds to do or say. They resign themselves to the fact they don't know, and rather than search deeper within, they submit to the tyranny of their own opinions without question, and cling to their opinions as unerring truth, even knowing that they are imperfect. I say that's living in a hallucination.

But if you find a method to see more objectively and it includes an inner guide whom you see only when you are perfectly calm and your thoughts perfectly still and at peace, and their advice turns out to be correct over and over again, then I would say that mental construct is helping you see reality better. I would suggest that the mind works exactly like this, and the more real and clearly you see its symbols, the more clearly you are seeing what is inside you. Those symbols aren't hallucinations at all. And should that guide gently suggest you may have been wrong, I would suggest listening.

But that is for you to test.when you see that inner guide, really see him or her, let us know what they say and how you confirmed their statements for yourself.

We already know from science that we are part of this physical existence. We are connected to it and each other. But we are blind to those connections. Perhaps by looking and listening more, and opining less, we may learn to awaken those connections. Let's not ignore the symbols our minds may create in our deepest introspection, for this is the language of the brain, symbolic, metaphoric, a natural language. Nothing less than the language of how one party of ourself may communicate with another. And without that dialogue, dismissing that dialogue, belittling that dialogue, we forever deny, ignore and suppress much of who and what we really are.

Quote Dungeness:

"Dearest AR, I take your point. We need analysis, heuristics, benchmarks in every
endeavor. It's a matter of degree though. Far too often intuition has to hack its
way through our mental din and whisper a warning: "Time is getting short. We're
getting old, frail ,and exhausted with research. None of it has revealed who we
really are. To be fair, these efforts serve us well otherwise and we haven't
abandoned them. None of the Queen's 'off with their bleeding heads' nonsense.
They've earned a place in the Servant's Quarters... just not at the head of the
table."

So maybe a compromise. We'll continue to treat the servants fairly but take a
firm hand when it's needed. They're servants after all. They must know their
place. We, as masters of the house, must steadily increase our mindfulness
to carry on with our proper responsibilities. We must listen for that faint voice of
intuition that will arise from our disciplined effort and not the cacophony drifting
in from the Servant's Quarters. Then there can be harmony in the house."


-------


We are in agreement, as far as that, Dungeness. And nor would that agreement be any kind of "compromise", any kind of halfway-house. We are in full, complete agreement, as far as the above.

Absolutely, analysis, and coming to conclusions, narratives, cognitive structures, and, yes, heuristics, no matter how important, how crucial even, they may be, for any endeavor, nevertheless when it comes to actual performance, we do need to leave them behind. Certainly when it comes to meditation and mysticism, but not just in that arena; this would apply to each and every arena.

The athlete, when he finally gets down to perform, or for that matter even to practice, must necessarily, at that time, leave behind his mental cogitations, and focus entirely on his actual craft. In any and every arena (including such a very mundane arena as research, which happens to be what I have first-hand familiarity with, professionally that is) to arrive at superlative performance one must necessarily, at the time of actually performing, leave the yardsticks and measuring rules behind, if only for the space of that performance.

We are in complete agreement now, Dungeness.

Although, I have to point out, this is rather different from what you'd said originally. Perhaps this is what you'd meant all along? If so, then our apparent disagreement had been no more than your expressing yourself somewhat inaccurately, and/or my reading into your words something other than you'd intended. No matter, our exchange did give me a chance to explore and examine my own views as far as this, which was ...instructive, and kind of fun. So thank you, Dungeness, for that! :---)

Spence, your last two comments, somewhat disconcertingly, keep clear of the actual meat of my comments, to which you were presumably responding.

Nevertheless, what you do say about what your visions mean to you, is something I have no disagreement with. However, the milquetoast version of mysticism that you're speaking of here, that is not what mysticism would generally be considered to be. Elon Musk's visions of a Martian colony, or my thoughts around purchase of a suit of clothes, those are just thoughts, maybe imagination, at best inspiration. If that is all your visions are to you, then I don't see any difficulty with accepting that. But that kind of definition waters down the whole mysticism deal to near meaninglessness. It averts disagreement, but only by shifting goalposts away and watering meanings down.


-------


That said, you speak from a position of actual mystical experience. While I, to put it plainly, don't.

Seen from that prism, your words carry greater weight than mine.

Absolutely, to have found a wellspring of solace, and bliss even, in the midst of our everyday life with all its imperfections, as you have, is something anyone would be thankful for, regardless of any "higher" aspect to these experiences. And in that very immersion into that bliss, I can see a possible reason for reluctance to engage with a more detailed analysis. If it's already working for your personally, why look to fixing it? That doesn't sound unreasonable to me, from your perspective, even if that kind of thing isn't what I would necessarily be entirely comfortable doing.

Great exchange. Thanks for your views, and for sharing your experiences, and for this chance for me to think through my own views on this! :--)

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"However, the milquetoast version of mysticism that you're speaking of here, that is not what mysticism would generally be considered to be."...
And.
"And in that very immersion into that bliss, I can see a possible reason for reluctance to engage with a more detailed analysis."

Thank you mystic policewoman for putting me in my place 😊

Eh what?

Hey, Spence, you're clearly taking this personally, that emoji notwithstanding. I wish you wouldn't.

Put you in your place? Nothing could be further from my intentions!

I was only engaging directly and literally with your views, as indeed I have always done. That chance to examine others' views, as far as things mystical -- and that goes for Brian himself, and you too, and everyone here, and most of all me -- that's what draws me here, and that's what's always drawn me here.

It's literally true, what I said in my last comment. Your last two posts, while presumably a response to my comment (posted April 06, 2021 at 02:25 PM), nevertheless do not engage, at all, with any of the specific, concrete points I've raised.

And absolutely, the version of mysticism you're speaking of here, which is simply a drawing of inspiration (which you yourself liken to how Elon Musk visualises his futuristic projects, or Einstein his theories, and humble me my wardrobe!), that's actually so watered down a description of mysticism that it cannot possibly elicit disagreement, other than from a bigot, precisely because it is such a watered-down version.

And my appreciation of your being able to access the inner solace of your experiences, I assure you, I solemnly assure you that was cent per cent genuine, and not in the last sarcastic. I'd be happy to trade places with you, and have access to that kind of a wellspring of solace, because the world is, I suspect for all of us, one that does present ...difficulties.

-----

As for "mystic policewoman"? :---) What was that, a would-be put-down?

Spence, you and I go back long enough, and I've enjoyed our past interactions and learned from them sufficiently, and more, that coming from you I don't mind that, at all. Seriously, I mean that. But I do regret that the takeaway, for you, of our recent exchanges, should be the need for a put-down, even if delivered with an emoji. I do wish that hadn't been the case.

Hi Appreciative
Let's just agree to disagree.

I don't think anyone's inner experience is milqtoast. In fact, even those who say they don't have inner experience are having an experience equal to anyone else's.

The better one is able to see what is really happening the better their discrimination. Pradoxically, that doesn't result in a system of finer levels of development at all. The levels disappear.

I wish I could explain it better. It can't be taught, it must be caught.

As my young nephew says "comparisons are odious."

"Let's just agree to disagree."

-------

Easily done, Spence.

I'm not sure, though, what it is we're agreeing to disagree on here. I take it that we're agreeing not to examine your experiences any further? Absolutely, done!

The only reason I'd done that in the first place, is because you'd shared those experiences freely here, and I'd assumed that in so doing you were presenting them up for examination and discussion. If that is "odious" to you, then my deepest apologies for intruding on what is after all a private experience.

We can wrap that up on that note then, I think, with a (heartfelt!) smile and shake.

Cheers, Spence.

Hi Appreciative
It's been a nice exchange, yes.
We are not in any disagreement about my experiences nor yours. These are our separate realities.

We may be in disagreement about the evaluation of them.

How to judge it? How to parse it correctly?

To do that from a distance isn't impossible but at distance our ability to see and understand someone else's experience is less accurate. Less data going in, after having passed through the filters of cognitive thinking based on different experiences, the greater probability of error in the conclusion.

So we can explain but never prove until you can duplicate what I am experiencing.

I only suggest, as a scientist, that we do not prematurely judge an event as non existent that we have not been able to replicate in our own laboratory.

First is the issue of value. How important is learning to downhill ski?

Not important? Of no value? Than no point in judging what skiers are doing. It's their thing. You could say no one is really skiing, it's all motion picture green screen and CGI. That is what a non - skier might say if they had an axe to grind about skiing or skiers. Most wouldn't care to comment.

Some folks think the world is flat. They have an explanation for every piece of evidence presented to them.

But a simple plane flight reveals the gentle curvature of the earth.

For most people it doesn't matter enough to worry about.

Now, if like Socrates and Pythagoras, you saw the earth from space as a ball, during your internal journey, you could say "the earth is round, I've seen it many times from space in my meditation."

Or you could say "I've seen a round earth in meditation, but it's just what I've seen. I can't say I know it in any provable way. It's just always that way when I witness it."

But to anyone else it doesn't mean anything. It can't be proven except to another scientist trying to conduct the same experiment.

Even then it's not proof. The other scientist has to replicate it in her own lab. Even then, sje might have created something out of her own subconscious wish to see that result. Happens all the time in research. Scientists subconsciously guide the experiment to their own preconceived notion. It's called an internal validity error.

That's where some dialogue and verification with others in the same field helps refine the approach.

From different backgrounds and experiences, they will want to be very careful in their evaluation, careful not to draw conclusions prematurely, careful of their own biases, which they are still discovering.

Appreciative, generally speaking the best scientist to evaluate the report of another scientist is a scientist practicing in that field who can, in fact, generate something.

When you close your eyes in meditation, stuff is going on in your brain. Your thoughts are only one layer. Neurons are firing electrical lightning bolts, a billion dendritic trees are igniting each other in amazing patterns and rhythms, chemicals are mixing and boiling and all of this is connected to memories, thoughts, emotions and your own body's various functions. It is an active and huge factory.

To not see anything can only be the report of a very impatient and distracted mind. A mind more interested in its train of thought than in sitting quietly and becoming an observer. An observer to the degree of an Anthropologist.

When your brain calms down, the filters it uses to dampen all this activity so you never see it, turn off, one by one. And the amplifiers that ramp up your senses and thoughts so you pat attention to them, turn off one by one.

Then flashes of light, roaring thunderous noises, floating and rising, so many things that are entirely physiological.

For anyone to claim "nothing is there" in their sitting and closing their eyes, was disproven decades ago by neuroscientists. But thousands of years before that meditative scientists also discovered it. They labeled it differently.

So I can conclude that when anyone says they closed their eyes and saw nothing and heard nothing that they haven't even done the work of building their lab and beginning their research.

That much I know is true and it's a matter of hard science.



"I only suggest, as a scientist, that we do not prematurely judge an event as non existent that we have not been able to replicate in our own laboratory."


Agreed.

But then I've never done that, have I, at least not as far as you are concerned.


.


"We may be in disagreement about the evaluation of them."


When I'd referred to your experiences as "milquetoast", I wasn't, at all, "evaluating" them.

On the contrary, it was you who'd likened your mystical visions to no more than the sort of thing that might inspire Elon Musk in his futuristic projects, or me in selecting my wardrobe: and it was your own description of what your mysticism amounted to in terms of guidance, that was milquetoast (as well as rather different from how this is commonly understood, hence my reference to goalpost-shifting), and that is what I'd observed in my comment.

It is not as if I'd myself evaluated your experiences and found them lackluster.


.


"So we can explain but never prove until you can duplicate what I am experiencing."


Prove what? That you'd had them at all? At least in your case, I've already granted that, if only provisionally.

Or do you mean prove what those experiences mean? That would tantamount to evaluating them, examining them. If we did that, then my views on it might end up differing from yours. You couldn't possibly expect me to engage with your experiences and necessarily come to the same conclusion about them as you yourself do; that kind of condition cannot possibly be the starting point of any engagement of this nature.

On the other hand, you seem not to take kindly to my coming to any conclusion about those experiences other than your own. You'd even used the word "odious" in that context.

Now I'm entirely willing to leave your experiences be, if that's what you want me to do. Or I could engage with them, if you would invite me to: but in that case we might well go back to the sort of thing we'd arrived at -- or, of course not, but we well might, and if we did then that's that. I don't see any third option here. Like I said, I'm sure you won't ask that I engage with your experiences, while insisting that I must necessarily concur with your evaluation of them.


.


"How important is learning to downhill ski?"


I get what you're alluding to, but, to use the skiing analogy, it's you who'd likened your own skiing to clomping around, simply walking around, on your skis, rather than actually going forth downhill gracefully. If you do that kind of thing, then, while that takes away any disagreement about whether you are able to do this at all (because clomping around on skis is so commonplace that anyone could do it), but then that would be an uncommonly milquetoast version of skiing.

After all, it was you who'd insisted that the guidance you derive from your inner master is no different than my thoughts around my new suit of clothes.

What I'm getting at is, I get your skiing analogy, but I'd never ever questioned the importance of learning to ski downhill. That is, I recognize that the evaluation of such importance is a personal, subjective matter; and in any case, in this case (the equivalent of) the skiing is something I personally, speaking for myself, do find important.


.


"Or you could say "I've seen a round earth in meditation, but it's just what I've seen. I can't say I know it in any provable way. It's just always that way when I witness it."

...Even then it's not proof."


It would be proof, actually, or at least evidence, of a sort.

That's one of the things I was speaking of, when discussing possible "heuristics".

If you can see in your meditation something that you couldn't possibly have seen or known otherwise, then there you are: you do have evidence right there that that's bona fide mystical vision.

If a spheroid earth that keeps rotating while at the same time going round the sun, is something you yourself do not have reason to be aware of, and yet this pops up as some vision in your meditation; and what is more if this isn't a one-off thing, a coincidence as it were, one correct vision amongst twenty other random incorrect visions, that is if this kind of vision were statistically found to be a correct reflection of the objective world, then absolutely, that's as good a heuristic as you'd want of genuine mystical vision.

Of course, your having that specific vision won't count, because you already know about the heliocentric cosmology.


... But, I realize, we're back now to talking about, and examining, and, yes, evaluating, your experiences again. I thought we'd agreed that we'd refrain, or at least that I'd refrain, from that kind of odious thing? :---)

So what would you have me do, then?


Hi Appreciative

You wrote
"Prove what? That you'd had them at all? At least in your case, I've already granted that, if only provisionally."

How can that prove anything? Nothing is proven until you do it. Then you've got whatever results from your work. I only suggest there is no end to it once that door opens.

You wrote
"If you can see in your meditation something that you couldn't possibly have seen or known otherwise, then there you are: you do have evidence right there that that's bona fide mystical vision."

Yes that's every day. Whatever happens in my meditation, whatever is there is that. Never as expected. The simple parts of withdrawing are identical. But the view can change dramatically. As Is mentioned earlier, now when my mind is completely still, I see other people I have never met and probably never will, going about their lives. There is zero rhyme or reason to it. Trying to guess why I'm looking at a man and woman having a conversation about a relative and then see another woman on her cell phone speaking to a friend... It makes zero sense to me. I can understand their feelings, I feel deeply for these people, but so what? In a few moments they will be gone never to be seen again.

Even I can't explain it. The physiological things, the symbolic things, I can at least try to make sense of them. But these slices of life among what appears to be ordinary people, I have no idea. I don't know what the value or purpose is. That's why there's no end to the exploration.

Mostly the inner world is entirely disconnected from the outer one. But I know they must be connected. And then there is this more recent thing where I have to watch people in the middle of a conversation, with no idea who what when or why. Why not stay in the higher regions? But no.

What you get as your reward for meditation is more of the mystery, not less. More confusing, not less. I am reduced to being nothing but a compassionate observer. Every anchor to make judgment has been removed. So why, after working so hard to withdraw, having seen such sights, why do I now have to watch all these people going about their mundane lives? And to share their hopes, frustrations and pain, invisible, unable to speak, and then on to the next.

Yes I feel for all of them. But I'm just imprisoned in a very limited role to observe.

So the mystery never ends. And yes, you will see things you could never otherwise see, but that may just be a more compassionate montage of ordinary people.

Could it be that God is simply saying, "this is the crowning jewel of all that."? Is the end of my journey after the eighth region ordinary people?

They are living in pain and false hopes, sincere efforts doomed to a flawed result. But they are beautiful.

And yes I know you may ask "why not ask your Master?"
But the thing itself is the answer. This is it. These people are the reality.

What you’ve just said there, Spence, is extremely moving, your description of your visions.

Me, replicating them? I wish!


.


But, I have to say, all of this takes us well away from what we’d been discussing.

I seem to have made no headway, thus far, conceptually with sussing this out with manjit either.

You mystic types, you start these discussions around your experiences. Then, after going some way, when focused questions are asked, you seem to throw out random non sequiturs that had nothing to do what went before, and go back to rambling on about your experiences.


.


Of course, all of these are non sequiturs if and only if we insist on a focused, directed discussion, only if we insist on clearly understanding each other in detail.

If we don’t want to do that, random non sequiturs are just fine.

I’m not being sarcastic, Spence.

I put my hands up. You can do only so much to direct a discussion. It takes two to play ball. I can’t keep lobbing for the both of us.

So what I do is, I put my hands up. A detailed reasoned discussion, that goes right out the window. With you, now, already; and unless manjit plays ball, with him as well.

Again, I’m not being in the least sarcastic here! Because in giving up in trying to understand you, I can simply, and without further comment, actually and sincerely and deeply appreciate the full depth of your description of your experiences, that you’ve so beautifully laid out here in that last comment of yours, which I do find extremely moving.

I’m content to stay with that, to appreciate that and enjoy that, for the present.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.