God does not Exist: Therefore there is no self to pity, hate, defend, or feed.

[Dr. Zaus]

Into the Great Unknowable dive the questing mystics; when they return to tell the tale of their journey, the empiricists say, "prove it!"

Interesting you would say this,

I just had a dream and woke and thought:

"The empiricists live in another mystic's world.

For the ease of a puzzle they give up the opportunity of a mystery.

In demanding that how they see things be unquestionable, they gain unshakable faith."

I just had a dream of a man upset that plains were too small and he couldn't smoke.

They brought him to the tarmac and pointed him to 'smokers airline'.

On the airline smoking was allows (no chewing) and he flew.

Looking around at his fellow wretches he soon realized.

Everyone on that plain was himself, at another stage.

From being a 15 year old sneaking one from his dad.

To being a 45 year old, bald and dying from cancer.

The sun set on a desert filled with with people.

It was his funeral procession, and he knew:

There was so much more love he had

So much more he could have given

And the God that he always denied

Was his own spirit, his potential

He forgave himself at last

He accepted all of himself

 

[crashtech]

Mystics who would suss out the secrets of the universe and impart them to their fellows should best be polymaths of extraordinary ability. Minds free of preconceptions, intellects capable of interpreting the subtlest of perceptions and perturbations, the ability to connect such sensations with comprehensible human analogs, and finally, and perhaps most challenging, the ability to be understood in languages that prove unequal to the task. Even in the best of circumstances, the result might be like explaining four dimensional space using a flat paper representation of a hypercube.

It's no wonder such individuals are few and so far between, and as such, their wisdom becomes obscured by time, translations, and the obsolescence of their chosen analogies.

That said, I do have an appreciation for what DixyCrat and also Moonbeam are trying to say. Won't there always be truths that are just out of reach, immeasurable, virtually incomprehensible, yet by virtue of those very properties, irresistible?

 

[Moonbeam]

Into the Great Unknowable dive the questing mystics; when they return to tell the tale of their journey, the empiricists say, "prove it!"

No longing would anyone feel if there were no separation. But when the pain of separation is great and innocence endless, we close the door on the memory of our lost selves to survive. But unless we risk the terrors of remembering our psychic deaths by becoming little children again, we will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Suffer and you will not suffer.

 

[Moonbeam]

Mystics who would suss out the secrets of the universe and impart them to their fellows should best be polymaths of extraordinary ability. Minds free of preconceptions, intellects capable of interpreting the subtlest of perceptions and perturbations, the ability to connect such sensations with comprehensible human analogs, and finally, and perhaps most challenging, the ability to be understood in languages that prove unequal to the task. Even in the best of circumstances, the result might be like explaining four dimensional space using a flat paper representation of a hypercube.

It's no wonder such individuals are few and so far between, and as such, their wisdom becomes obscured by time, translations, and the obsolescence of their chosen analogies.

That said, I do have an appreciation for what DixyCrat and also Moonbeam are trying to say. Won't there always be truths that are just out of reach, immeasurable, virtually incomprehensible, yet by virtue of those very properties, irresistible?

I am a nobody. No gifts, no special abilities that I can see of any kind. I'm also pretty stupid. Somehow in a way I can't fathom I wandered out on the tracks and got hit by a train of grace. I am completely worthless and have no idea why.

 

[sandorski]

Into the Great Unknowable dive the questing mystics; when they return to tell the tale of their journey, the empiricists say, "prove it!"

Of course. There is no value in what can't be shown to be true.

 

[sandorski]

Mystics who would suss out the secrets of the universe and impart them to their fellows should best be polymaths of extraordinary ability. Minds free of preconceptions, intellects capable of interpreting the subtlest of perceptions and perturbations, the ability to connect such sensations with comprehensible human analogs, and finally, and perhaps most challenging, the ability to be understood in languages that prove unequal to the task. Even in the best of circumstances, the result might be like explaining four dimensional space using a flat paper representation of a hypercube.

It's no wonder such individuals are few and so far between, and as such, their wisdom becomes obscured by time, translations, and the obsolescence of their chosen analogies.

That said, I do have an appreciation for what DixyCrat and also Moonbeam are trying to say. Won't there always be truths that are just out of reach, immeasurable, virtually incomprehensible, yet by virtue of those very properties, irresistible?

What you call "Wisdom" is almost always just wordy gobbly beloved patriot.

 

[crashtech]

What you call "Wisdom" is almost always just wordy gobbly beloved patriot.

Perhaps what you call a meaningful post might otherwise be interpreted as trolling. Not to say I do, but one reading of your reply would imply that you consider me foolish. Language is imperfect though, and subject to interpretation. But would I be wrong to say your interest in the subject of the OP is limited to negating any claim you find not provable? If so, why participate, unless your aim is solely to cause grief for other posters? It's pretty clear to me that those involved have conceded that these discussions do not meet the empirical tests that your worldview demands.

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps what you call a meaningful post might otherwise be interpreted as trolling. Not to say I do, but one reading of your reply would imply that you consider me foolish. Language is imperfect though, and subject to interpretation. But would I be wrong to say your interest in the subject of the OP is limited to negating any claim you find not provable? If so, why participate, unless your aim is solely to cause grief for other posters? It's pretty clear to me that those involved have conceded that these discussions do not meet the empirical tests that your worldview demands.

Hot me with something profound or wise that only a Mystic could experience or understand from their experience.

 

[crashtech]

Hot me with something profound or wise that only a Mystic could experience or understand from their experience.

As an empiricist, I'm unqualified to do what it is you seem to be asking. But if someone did have claim to that kind of knowledge, it would by your own definition be lost on you, and therefore rather pointless to share.

 

[sandorski]

As an empiricist, I'm unqualified to do what it is you seem to be asking. But if someone did have claim to that kind of knowledge, it would by your own definition be lost on you, and therefore rather pointless to share.

That's rather convenient, don't you think? I won't understand so why even try. Hmm.

 

[Charmonium]

Most if not virtually all people who have had a religious experience would describe it as ineffable. Completely beyond the ability of language to describe. So in that sense, it's a lot like the concept of enlightenment. People who have attained Nirvana can't tell others how to get there and they can't describe what it's like. The most they can do is make a feeble attempt to point in the right direction.

So almost by definition, a religious experience transcends language, logic and any sort of conceptual representation.

 

[sandorski]

Most if not virtually all people who have had a religious experience would describe it as ineffable. Completely beyond the ability of language to describe. So in that sense, it's a lot like the concept of enlightenment. People who have attained Nirvana can't tell others how to get there and they can't describe what it's like. The most they can do is make a feeble attempt to point in the right direction.

So almost by definition, a religious experience transcends language, logic and any sort of conceptual representation.

When I was a Theist I had some of those experiences, so I know what you are saying. However, other than the Entertainment of it, because ultimately that's all it is, what does it accomplish?

I have spoken in tongues, experienced euphoria, and been "slain in the spirit", but none of those experiences were as profound as when I smoked Pot. The "spiritual" experiences were always devoid of thought other than a desire to know Jesus. The times I was high were always filled with a flood of thoughts contemplating ideas and imagined realities.

The problem with "Spiritual" experiences is that they are just self induced emotions. That can temporarily alter ones emotional perspective, but it accomplishes little more than that.

 

[Charmonium]

When I was a Theist I had some of those experiences, so I know what you are saying. However, other than the Entertainment of it, because ultimately that's all it is, what does it accomplish?

I have spoken in tongues, experienced euphoria, and been "slain in the spirit", but none of those experiences were as profound as when I smoked Pot. The "spiritual" experiences were always devoid of thought other than a desire to know Jesus. The times I was high were always filled with a flood of thoughts contemplating ideas and imagined realities.

The problem with "Spiritual" experiences is that they are just self induced emotions. That can temporarily alter ones emotional perspective, but it accomplishes little more than that.

In that case, I would argue that you have never had a religious experience. That's true for most people though. I've never had one. The closest I've ever come was one particular acid trip.

But I have studied the idea of enlightenment from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective. And from what I've read about mystics like Sufis and some Christian groups, a true religious experience is life changing.

Having said that, I've known people that have found Jesus in a tab of acid or a hit Ecstasy. Though those experiences were drug induced, they were nonetheless life changing. Of course many more people have had similar experiences but they didn't fundamentally alter who they were.

 

[sandorski]

In that case, I would argue that you have never had a religious experience. That's true for most people though. I've never had one. The closest I've ever come was one particular acid trip.

But I have studied the idea of enlightenment from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective. And from what I've read about mystics like Sufis and some Christian groups, a true religious experience is life changing.

Having said that, I've known people that have found Jesus in a tab of acid or a hit Ecstasy. Though those experiences were drug induced, they were nonetheless life changing. Of course many more people have had similar experiences but they didn't fundamentally alter who they were.

I beg to differ. What would you consider to be a Religious experience? Simply a change o f Life?

 

[Charmonium]

I beg to differ. What would you consider to be a Religious experience? Simply a change o f Life?

Well, this is part of the problem. The only person who really knows if they had such an experience is the person who experienced it.

I don't think it is an absolute sine qua non that it be life changing, just that if it is, that's a good indication that a religious experience is what you had.

Ultimately, all experience is subjective. If enough people experienced the same thing, then we would probably develop a vocabulary for it. But that doesn't seem to be how it works.

 

[sandorski]

Well, this is part of the problem. The only person who really knows if they had such an experience is the person who experienced it.

I don't think it is an absolute sine qua non that it be life changing, just that if it is, that's a good indication that a religious experience is what you had.

Ultimately, all experience is subjective. If enough people experienced the same thing, then we would probably develop a vocabulary for it. But that doesn't seem to be how it works.

So if someone claims to have had one, they have?

 

[Moonbeam]

I beg to differ. What would you consider to be a Religious experience? Simply a change o f Life?

I just suddenly knew why monkeys like bananas, had an urge to grow a tail and poke you with my knuckles.

 

[crashtech]

I am a nobody. No gifts, no special abilities that I can see of any kind. I'm also pretty stupid. Somehow in a way I can't fathom I wandered out on the tracks and got hit by a train of grace. I am completely worthless and have no idea why.

And I am stuck in my empirical way of viewing things. I just can't help trying to define what the definer of the undefinable should be like.

 

[Charmonium]

So if someone claims to have had one, they have?

No, of course not. You either take them at their word or you don't. There's no way you can ever really know.

What we're talking about is experiencing something that is so far beyond normal experience that you have no way of explaining it to someone else. But it's not just that. People who have had a religious experience walk away from it with a sense of absolute certainty, or more accurately, knowledge. That I think is the real hallmark of such an experience. But that's mostly my opinion.

Objectively, there is no way you can understand things from someone else's point of view. We're all alone in that sense. The only reason we can communicate at all is because most of what we perceive is close enough to what others perceive that we can use language to convey the basic idea. But the actual experience is something else entirely.

So when you're talking about something that is unique to every person, there's no way that you can ever have even an inkling of what they saw and felt nor the affect that it had on them.

 

[sandorski]

No, of course not. You either take them at their word or you don't. There's no way you can ever really know.

What we're talking about is experiencing something that is so far beyond normal experience that you have no way of explaining it to someone else. But it's not just that. People who have had a religious experience walk away from it with a sense of absolute certainty, or more accurately, knowledge. That I think is the real hallmark of such an experience. But that's mostly my opinion.

Objectively, there is no way you can understand things from someone else's point of view. We're all alone in that sense. The only reason we can communicate at all is because most of what we perceive is close enough to what others perceive that we can use language to convey the basic idea. But the actual experience is something else entirely.

So when you're talking about something that is unique to every person, there's no way that you can ever have even an inkling of what they saw and felt nor the affect that it had on them.

So, what good is it? People can be lead to believe all kinds of claims, Con Artists rely on it and deceive people all the time. Other people are incredulous to all sorts of things that can be shown to be true. Others can be absolutely certain of things that are completely false.

At best these experiences are placebos. At the worst they can be fatal. Mostly they are just nonsense used to maintain a religious belief.

 

[Charmonium]

So, what good is it? People can be lead to believe all kinds of claims, Con Artists rely on it and deceive people all the time. Other people are incredulous to all sorts of things that can be shown to be true. Others can be absolutely certain of things that are completely false.

At best these experiences are placebos. At the worst they can be fatal. Mostly they are just nonsense used to maintain a religious belief.

You're missing the point. It's not about belief but knowledge. If you believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow, that's not a belief that's knowledge. It's the same with religion. If you believe something to an absolute certainty, it's no long a belief but knowledge. Functionally, knowledge about the metaphysical is just as real as knowledge about the physical world.

Most people never reach that state of understanding. And even the people who claim they have probably haven't. The only person who really knows is . . . well, the person who knows.

 

[crashtech]

sandorski can't have a good faith discussion on this subject, witness one of his earlier replies to me:

Of course. There is no value in what can't be shown to be true.

So to him, there is no value here, other than to be a buzzkill, I suppose.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

At best these experiences are placebos.

What's your problem with placebos?

If they are effective: Then are they still placebos?

If we found out that a sugar pill cured heart disease would we ignore it?

"Results also indicate that among recovering individuals, higher levels of religious faith and spirituality were associated with a more optimistic life orientation, greater perceived social support, higher resilience to stress, and lower levels of anxiety."

Pardini, D. A., Plante, T. G., Sherman, A., & Stump, J. E. (2000). Religious faith and spirituality in substance abuse recovery: Determining the mental health benefits. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 19(4), 347-354.

 

[sandorski]

You're missing the point. It's not about belief but knowledge. If you believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow, that's not a belief that's knowledge. It's the same with religion. If you believe something to an absolute certainty, it's no long a belief but knowledge. Functionally, knowledge about the metaphysical is just as real as knowledge about the physical world.

Most people never reach that state of understanding. And even the people who claim they have probably haven't. The only person who really knows is . . . well, the person who knows.

Absolute Certainty is not Knowledge, even if the ones absolutely certain think it is. It is just Certainty.

 

[sandorski]

What's your problem with placebos?

If they are effective: Then are they still placebos?

If we found out that a sugar pill cured heart disease would we ignore it?

"Results also indicate that among recovering individuals, higher levels of religious faith and spirituality were associated with a more optimistic life orientation, greater perceived social support, higher resilience to stress, and lower levels of anxiety."

Pardini, D. A., Plante, T. G., Sherman, A., & Stump, J. E. (2000). Religious faith and spirituality in substance abuse recovery: Determining the mental health benefits. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 19(4), 347-354.

Ok, they feel good. It doesn't make their beliefs true however. If a sugar pill cured heart disease, it would have something to do with the chemical composition of sugar, not the placebo effect. The placebo effect only helps with some people and even then it only makes them believe they are getting better, not actually making them better.