Quote:

---

Mysticism, (mueo, 'to conceal'), is the pursuit of achieving communion with, or conscious awareness of ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct, personal experience (intuition or insight) rather than rational thought; the belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible through personal experience; or the belief that such experience is a genuine and important source of knowledge. In the Hellenistic world, ?mystical? referred to 'secret' religious rituals.

Mystics experience intuitive knowledge of transcendent dimensions, beyond the phenomenal or material concrete objects of ordinary perception. The mystic sees things that are not part of ordinary experience. William James used the words 'ineffable' (which means that something cannot or should not be spoken) and 'noetic' (from the Greek νοῦς nous: 'relating to consciousness or intuition'), to describe the mystical experience.

A more general definition sees mysticism as an attempt to derive some wider meaning from personal experience, surpassing everyday human understanding and tapping insights normally hidden from our mundane selves. While usually understood in a religious context, a mystical experience may happen to anyone, does not require religious training, can occur unbidden and without preparation, and may not be understood as religious at all. (James, 1902) In various circumstances, such experiences may be interpreted non-exclusively as scientific or artistic inspiration, or even dismissed as a psychological disorder.

---

Quote:

---

Rationalism, also known as the rationalist movement, is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that the truth can best be discovered by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching. Rationalism has some similarities in ideology and intent to humanism and atheism, in that it aims to provide a framework for social and philosophical discourse outside of religious or supernatural beliefs; however, rationalism differs from both of these, in that:

* As its name suggests, humanism is centered around human society and achievements. Rationalism makes no claims that humans are more important than animals or any other part of nature. There are some rationalists who strongly oppose the anthropocentric philosophy.

* Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs and alternatively the lack of belief in deities; rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the actual existence of deities although it rejects any belief based on faith alone. Although there is a strong atheistic influence in modern rationalism, with all prominent rationalists, including scientists such as Richard Dawkins and activists such as Sanal Edamaruku holding atheistic views, not all historical rationalists were atheists.

Outside of religious discussion, the discipline of rationalism may be applied more generally, for example to political or social issues. In these cases it is the rejection of emotion, tradition or fashionable belief which is the defining feature of the rationalist perspective.

During the middle of the twentieth century there was a strong tradition of organised rationalism, which was particularly influenced by free thinkers and intellectuals. In the United Kingdom, rationalism is represented by the Rationalist Press Association, founded in 1899.

Modern rationalism has little in common with the historical philosophy of continental rationalism expounded by Ren? Descartes. Indeed, a reliance on empirical science is often considered a hallmark of modern rationalism, whereas continental rationalism rejected empiricism entirely.

---

Quote:

---

In philosophy, transcendental/transcendence, has three different but related primary meanings, all of them derived from the word's literal meaning (from Latin), of climbing or going beyond: one that originated in Ancient philosophy, one in Medieval philosophy and one in modern philosophy.
.........
In modern philosophy, Kant gave transcendental a new, third meaning in his theory of knowledge. For him it meant knowledge about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the mind 'constitutes' objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects; transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience those objects as objects. This is based on Kant's acceptance of David Hume's argument that certain general features of objects (e.g. persistence, causal relationships) cannot derive from the sense impressions we have of them. Kant argues that the mind must contribute those features and make it possible for us to experience objects as objects. In the central part of his Critique of Pure Reason, the 'Transcendental Deduction of the Categories', Kant argues for a deep interconnection between the ability to have self-consciousness and the ability to experience a world of objects. Through a process of synthesis, the mind generates both the structure of objects and its own unity. For Kant, the 'transcendent', as opposed to the 'transcendental', is that which lies beyond what our faculty of knowledge can legitimately know.

In phenomenology, the 'transcendent' is that which transcends our own consciousness - that which is objective rather than only a phenomenon of consciousness.

In everyday language, 'transcendence' means 'going beyond', and 'self-transcendence' means going beyond a prior form or state of oneself. Mystical experience is thought of as a particularly advanced state of self-transcendence, in which the sense of a separate self is abandoned.

---

Quote:

---

Wiccan_Seeker said:
Yes, Split S&P into "Spirituality & Mysticism" and "Philosophy & Rationalism".


I'm all for trying the split and looking what will be the net result of this. 90 days may be a bit short for the two forums to develop their own vibe, but we'll cross that bridge when we find it.

MAIN FORUM -- The Transcendent Experience
SUBFORUM -- Spirituality & Mysticism
SUBFORUM -- Philosophy & Rationalism

I see a potential for a moderator/poster void forming by introducing TWO new forums but I think The Transcendent Experience will be a good addition to The Psychedelic Experience and hopefully fill the void the current S&P cannot.

I'm all for it

---

Quote:

---

Another issue is why the UFO guys post here instead of science and technology...how about a separate forum for that shit?

---

The main debaters fail to connect it to either S or P.

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
If open debate is allowed in the main forum, then why do we need a rationalist subforum? Is not open debate itself simply the logical conclusion for rationalism and skepticism?

---

Quote:

---

Paradigm said:

Quote:

---

Ravus said:
If open debate is allowed in the main forum, then why do we need a rationalist subforum? Is not open debate itself simply the logical conclusion for rationalism and skepticism?

---

I agree.  Either make two separate forums or a non-debate subforum, but don't make two subforums under a main forum.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

daimyo said:
Yesterday or today there was 20 members viewing at the same time.

---

Yes, that would probably be the peak-time, which probably lasts, at most, a couple of hours?

I think that the result of a little over a day's worth of time here will have stirred up all of the first page and a little spillage into the second page (but I guess this also will depend on how many threads you list per page, I think I list 20 per page). I think one could realistically assume that, if roughly the same amount of people are posting in either one or both new forums, one whole day of participation would bring 3/4ths of a page of stirred up posts.

Of course, more people might start posting in just one or the other, as more become active, but I don't think that the difference between what will be split in this forum is quite as notable as the difference between that of OTD and The Pub.

But hey, who knows, it might "work", more people will become active in each new forum, and thus will be considered more productive.


Peace.

Quote:

---

Shroomism said:
evolution is inevitable
change is good

---

"Good" is a subjective term. Change is simply change, and the fact that it is change does not mean that it is beneficial or good.

Indeed, evolution is inevitable, but the ever-evolving environment might change in a manner that will no longer support a certain species or a certain state of being or existance.

Does the fact that this forum might be changed, in itself, mean that the change will be "good"?  That isn't a very logical line of thought, which would be perfect for one proposed forum and would get picked apart and revealed for what it is in the other one.


Peace.

Quote:

---

gettinjiggywithit said:
The change itself will offer a growth opportunity even if it turns bad and a lesson is learned. So really, it'll be good either way at the end of the trial- we either get good for all or most or get good by learning a lesson.

---

Considering this, then, should we then massively change the structure of our government in the United States and the foundation upon which it is based into that of a Communist regime, complete with an absolute dictator? I mean, yes, all is great experience and provides an oppurtunity to learn, but I don't think that validates any wild experiment or change we wish to implement.

Personally, yes, splitting the forums might be more beneficial to the concept of the whole forum that we are now. I, however, do not see any real signs that it is time to split them. I do not see any traffic concerns (you know, too many posts and too many users making it hard to effectively communicate and discuss with one another). Also, I feel that this concept of two polarities clashing and disrupting discussion is theoretical and does not actually reflect the reality of the situation. Its almost as if people want to believe that such a concept is present and that every time that one person gets upset or one person bends a vauge rule, they wildly claim that it is true and effectively stir such a concept into being.


Peace.

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:
The clash isn't in the community, it is in the Staff.

---

So, then, you set out to change the community to fit your needs, instead of changing your needs to fit the community?

Maybe appeasing every 1/100th person who gets emotionally upset and complains shouldn't be so much of a pressing concern for ya'll..... although I'm sure you all have a lot of grease.

Quote:

---

The S&P staff, historically, gets more than its fair share of heat. With two forums, it is far less likely the Staff will be accused of playing favorites.

---

Just as anyone involved in a leadership role will receive. I think it would be better if these in such a position would effectively assume the role as leader and deal with it. So a couple of people complain that the moderators are playing favorites when they do not make decisions that give such people exactly what they want. Big fucking deal! A lot of people are cry-babies, and, being in a leadership position, one has to deal with such people.


Peace.

Quote:

---

Shroomism said:
Why not give it a try? The shroomery is famous for "crazy" forum experiments that turn out successful i.e - Cheers, Gathering and Travel, Security and Safety, The Psychedelic Experience, The Mushroom Cultivation Archive, Trip Tips.. to name a few.

---

Quote:

---

It's not about crybabies. It's about refining and redefining our super sleek underground psychedelic community culture.

---

It isn't about our government establishing new laws so that they can monitor and control us. It's about taking steps for freedom so that we can be secure and free. See, same thing.

Regardless of what imagery you conjure up to convince us its great and for the community, I think that Cervantes has already expressed the true reasoning behind it. I personally prefer honesty and truth than misdirection and misrepresentation straight out of Politics 101.


Peace.

Quote:

---

gettinjiggywithit said:
How can one lead a group that has conflicting interests and goals?

Some want to thrive and flourish and some want to annihilate life and existence.

---

Yes, and it is the viewpoint of some of the staff that are responsible for this forum that the diversity that you describe is beneficial for spiritual growth.

Quote:

---

How does a leader (admin) serve the conflicting goals of the group except for to give each its own space and sub leaders (mods)?

---

Yes, the best thing that a leader can do when various people in his group disagree and hold conflicting viewpoints is to seperate the group. Wow, that was great for growth, and an evolutionay advantage too - those two cavemen were squabbling about who owned that rabbit skin, so we split apart! We don't have the numbers to take down that mastodon now, so we probably won't live much longer, but hey, we have effective leadership!

Quote:

---

What is that all about? It's juvenile behavior and we are suppose to be over 18 to post here.

---

Yes, Jiggy, people that post here are out to trample your beautiful garden of creative ideas, and they are juveniles.

Quote:

---

I'm starting to wonder if you feed on conflict FW.

---

Yes, it gets me sexually excited, I'm rubbing myself all over as we speak.

I really don't care what you are starting to wonder, honestly. I wonder if such free expression would be allowed in both forums?


Peace.

Quote:

---

Does the fact that this forum might be changed, in itself, mean that the change will be "good"? That isn't a very logical line of thought, which would be perfect for one proposed forum and would get picked apart and revealed for what it is in the other one.

---

It hasn't to be logical. In fact this kind of attitude, that everything must be logical, validated and proved is what made spirituality loose it's essence on this board. There's nothing logical about spirituality, there's no need to be logical at all and at last.

To those that think that spirituality is forcibly linked to philosophy, let me tell you that, it is linked as any other current of thought. Spirituality is a current of thought, currents of thought are the scope of philosophy but that doesn't mean that spirituality has only a philosophical view. I can argue about political facts or events under the name of philosophy, i can do the same with social issues or even scientific issues.

The bond some people defend between philosophy and spirituality can be reasonable but it's also arguable because there are other options, and the other options is what we are considering right now. IMHO it makes perfect sense.

MAIA

Quote:

---

Swami:
What if I left forever to 'save' the community and prevent the split?

---

Quote:

---

f_g:
Definitely. I think we also should experiment with Terrorist Activities forums, so that we can collaborate such efforts, The Communist Party Activism forum, etc. etc. etc.

---

Cynicism ...

Can't you guys do better than this ?

MAIA

Quote:

---

Theology and the philosophy of religion

Theology generally assumes the truth of at least some religious beliefs and is therefore often distinguished from the philosophy of religion, which does not presume the truth of any religious beliefs.

Drawing on the work of the American theologian Hans Frei, we may describe the relationship between theology and the philosophy of religion in the following way. At one end of the spectrum we find discussions of religious phenomena and religious claims which seek to explain those phenomena and claims entirely within the terms of some secular discipline (such as psychology or social anthropology), without regard to the view which the practitioners of the religion in question would have of those phenomena or claims (except insofar as those views are symptoms which the investigator is seeking to explain). At the other end of the spectrum we have discussions of these phenomena and claims which seek to work entirely within the religious practitioners' own terms, investigating the internal structures of a particular religious worldview. Between these two extremes are any number of forms of theological inquiry which look for some kind of correlation between these two forms of description - and this is as true of conservative theological approaches as it is of liberal approaches. (For instance, a conservative theologian will tend to correlate the claims they find in their religious scriptures about particular events in the past with the kind of description of the past allowed by historical criticism, arguing at least for compatibility between the two descriptions and possibly for some stronger relationship. A liberal theologian might be more interested in, say, exploring the correlation between the religion's ethical claims and the ideas of some secular philosophy like existentialism.) Forms of correlational discussion will differ, however, according to whether they give priority to the secular discourse or to the internal religious description: which is allowed to set the agenda, which is allowed to over-rule the other, and so on. The term theology can be used to denote any of these forms of correlational discourse, as well as the extreme which restricts itself to religious self-description; the term philosophy of religion will be used both for the opposite extreme and for many of the correlational forms of discourse; it is, however, more likely to be restricted to forms of correlation which give some form of priority to the secular discourse.

To the extent that theology relies upon the religious practitioners' own terms, it is likely to be explored by those who have some kind of commitment to those terms: i.e., by those who are either practitioners of the religion, or sympathisers. This is not, however, to say that one must have religious belief in order to be a theologian: some undertake it simply in order better to understand a religion's structure and implications, or as a form of thought experiment - though the further one moves from the philosophy of religion end of the spectrum to the theology end, the rarer non-practitioners become.

---

Quote:

---

Swami said:
This is the BIGGEST myth (and is v-e-r-y dishonest) that is constantly perpetrated here time and time gain. Myself and Dip (nor any decent skeptic) have NEVER (find just one in any of my 14,000+ posts) dissected a totally subjective experience. However, when someone says, "I can remote view, or read minds or perform TK," or a myriad of other claims, those things are valid to be examined because the poster is claiming a physical world interaction that CAN be tested.

If someone says, "I see a purple light tunnel when I meditate," there is nothing to examine.

---

Quote:

---

Swami said:
Myself and Dip (nor any decent skeptic) have NEVER (find just one in any of my 14,000+ posts) dissected a totally subjective experience. However, when someone says, "I can remote view, or read minds or perform TK," or a myriad of other claims, those things are valid to be examined because the poster is claiming a physical world interaction that CAN be tested.

If someone says, "I see a purple light tunnel when I meditate," there is nothing to examine.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
The song was at its peak and I began to feel as if I was leaving my body and I kept in my meditation

Since those who claim to astral project see other places and not the room they're physically in, it follows that they should also hear other places and not the music in the room they're in.

Why do astral travelers continue to hear the music in the room they started out in but see the other places they claim to travel to? Do only eyes project and ears stay put, or is astral projection just an invention of your imagination and doesn't really exist?

---

Here we have an example of a rationalist putting in their two cents on a topic. He isn't out of line in any way. He makes a good point in fact. But the poster wanted the thread to be about his and other peoples personal OBEs. Even though the thread died after only about 7 posts, there was a huge potential for the thread to be drailed into a debate over whether OBEs are real or imagined. And THAT is why we need this split.

Quote:

---

dr0mni said:
no way dude. For a long time I left S&P. Mainly because I started growing and spent a lot of time in the cultivation forum, but also because the threads in S&P never got anywhere. There was too much bickering and debating. There was no developement, and i wasn't able to get anything constructive out of that crap.

Even still, I steer clear of threads that are obviously going to get derailed by skeptics. There's just no point. If I want to debate, I'll debate, but sometimes I just want to discuss...

---

Quote:

---

dr0mni said:
There was too much bickering and debating. There was no developement, and i wasn't able to get anything constructive out of that crap.

---

Quote:

---

Thor said:
I wanted to say dr0mni your points are excellent and I think that if more people just saw things like you do this wouldnt be such a big issue.

---

Quote:

---

freddurgan said:

Quote:

---

dr0mni said:
There was too much bickering and debating. There was no developement, and i wasn't able to get anything constructive out of that crap.

---

What the FUCK are you talking about man? Do you really think if there was a thread that had nobody coming in with dissenting opinions that it would just be magic? And everyone would come out enlightened? What is this "Development"? Why do dissenting opinions STOP that "Development"?

WHAT are you talking about. Why do people think that dissent means "no spiritual growth". Is spiritual growth just a big orgy of "OH YEAH I HEAR YOU" and "YES, YES". Are you all just yes men? Jesus christ. "Discussion" is going to go nowhere JUST as fast as debate is. You can't solve infinity or the meaning of life or any of the things that come up in here. You CANT just solve them by talking about them.

"Development" is not a concept that needs to come into play here. Honestly..

---

Quote:

---

Swami said:
Myself and Dip (nor any decent skeptic) have NEVER (find just one in any of my 14,000+ posts) dissected a totally subjective experience. However, when someone says, "I can remote view, or read minds or perform TK," or a myriad of other claims, those things are valid to be examined because the poster is claiming a physical world interaction that CAN be tested.

If someone says, "I see a purple light tunnel when I meditate," there is nothing to examine.

---