Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10577414 -

RationalEgo said:
Rahz said:
Question for you RationalEgo: Is life mystical?


No. Life and reality is knowable, definable, this worldly, concrete and anyone with a capacity for reason can pursue and gain happiness in the real world by achieving rational values.



:rofl2::monkeydance::rofl2::monkeydance:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10577540 -

Quote:
A feeling or an emotion is not an appropriate tool for understanding reality. Emotions are reactions to values, but reason is the means to ascertain and choose what is of value.


I'm sorry, but this it utter bullshit. The simple fact that there is so much disagreement about reality on this forum is evidence that "reality" means different things to different people, and can thusly be understood in a multitude of ways. Emotions, though they are not quantifiable in a laboratory, nevertheless affect the way we perceive our reality. I have a rudimentary understanding of the neurological nature of emotions. Does this understanding negate the way I feel? Absolutely not. To think it is impossible to utilize one's emotions as a foundation to make appropriate decisions and understand one's place in the world is complete nonsense.

You value reason higher than emotions in making your decisions. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is asinine and childish to assume that your schema of understanding is th only viable one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: tittysnacks74]
    #10577556 -

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Emotions are reasonable, otherwise we wouldn't have them.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: Silversoul]
    #10577752 -

Silversoul said:
RationalEgo said:
Quote:
That's pretty low coming someone who listens to Ayn Rand all the time.


Are you going to ad homenin all day or are you going to actually add anything of substance to a discussion?


You know, on second thought, it was a stupid thing of me to say.  For one thing, the pope presumably knows people who have sex.  Ayn Rand lacked even this second-hand knowledge of mysticism.  I doubt she had much third-hand knowledge of it either.

Now, if the pope wanted to know more about sex, he could consult Ayn Rand, who knew enough about it to fuck one of her students who was married to another one of her students.  Then she demonstrated the rational self-control over her emotions that she'd always advocated by spending years trying to destroy him after he fell in love with someone else.


This is the last refuge of someone without a rational argument. Attacking, smearing instead of addressing the content of the ideas. Again you fail to add anything of substance to the discussion.

Edited by RationalEgo (06/27/09 04:28 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: tittysnacks74]
    #10577790 -

tittysnacks74 said:
Quote:
A feeling or an emotion is not an appropriate tool for understanding reality. Emotions are reactions to values, but reason is the means to ascertain and choose what is of value.


I'm sorry, but this it utter bullshit. The simple fact that there is so much disagreement about reality on this forum is evidence that "reality" means different things to different people, and can thusly be understood in a multitude of ways. Emotions, though they are not quantifiable in a laboratory, nevertheless affect the way we perceive our reality. I have a rudimentary understanding of the neurological nature of emotions. Does this understanding negate the way I feel? Absolutely not. To think it is impossible to utilize one's emotions as a foundation to make appropriate decisions and understand one's place in the world is complete nonsense.

You value reason higher than emotions in making your decisions. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is asinine and childish to assume that your schema of understanding is th only viable one.


Just because there are different opinions of reality does not mean that reality itself changes at the whim of whoever is attempting to know it. Emotions as I have granted can within reason play a role in ones decision making, but if one accepts emotion over reason there is no reason why someone would not kill when one felt rage, why one would not steal when one felt desire for an object, and so on. If emotions are to be put ahead of reason in the heirachy there would be no 'reason' for not acting out any emotion one felt on a whim.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10577792 -

RationalEgo said:
Silversoul said:
RationalEgo said:
Quote:
That's pretty low coming someone who listens to Ayn Rand all the time.


Are you going to ad homenin all day or are you going to actually add anything of substance to a discussion?


You know, on second thought, it was a stupid thing of me to say.  For one thing, the pope presumably knows people who have sex.  Ayn Rand lacked even this second-hand knowledge of mysticism.  I doubt she had much third-hand knowledge of it either.

Now, if the pope wanted to know more about sex, he could consult Ayn Rand, who knew enough about it to fuck one of her students who was married to another one of her students.  Then she demonstrated the rational self-control over her emotions that she'd always advocated by spending years trying to destroy him after he fell in love with someone else.


This is the last refuge of someone without a rational argument. Attacking and blowing up out of all proportion a persons personal failings instead of addressing the content of the ideas. Again you fail to add anything of substance to the discussion.


Well, I suppose I could put up a more rational argument like:
RationalEgo said:
That's the most idiot [sic] statement I've read in a long time.


Or perhaps I could simply point out that mysticism has nothing to do with believing what other people tell you, but rather about direct, first-person experience, and is in fact more empirical than Rand's skewed notion of "reason."


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: Silversoul]
    #10577825 -

You are correct attacking your 'statement' by calling it idiotic and refusing to go further off topic by explaining myself is not a rational argument. Why should I waste a rational argument on  someone who has nothing better to do than ad homenin all day and not contribute anything at all to the topic at hand.

My advice, find something better to do with your time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10577848 -

My argument was simply that Ayn Rand is no authority on mysticism.  How can one possibly object to that?  If you have any evidence that she's taken up a meditation practice, read the works of Meister Eckhart and St. John of the Cross, or even knew someone who did these things, please correct me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: Silversoul]
    #10577885 -

Silversoul said:
Or perhaps I could simply point out that mysticism has nothing to do with believing what other people tell you, but rather about direct, first-person experience, and is in fact more empirical than Rand's skewed notion of "reason."


What 'proof' can you provide that these so called 'personal experiences' are anything but delusions? What proof do you have that some other reality other than this one which we can perceive via our senses and understand with our reason exists?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: Silversoul]
    #10577928 -

Silversoul said:
My argument was simply that Ayn Rand is no authority on mysticism.  How can one possibly object to that?  If you have any evidence that she's taken up a meditation practice, read the works of Meister Eckhart and St. John of the Cross, or even knew someone who did these things, please correct me.



That is the 'Appeal from authority' logical fallacy. It implies that one has to be a mystic or a student of a mystic in order to know about mysticism.

Ayn Rand is an authority on a philosophy that is completely opposed to mysticism. She studied history and philosophy extensively and makes well reasoned arguments why all mysticism is invalid at its very conception.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10577952 -

RationalEgo said:
Silversoul said:
Or perhaps I could simply point out that mysticism has nothing to do with believing what other people tell you, but rather about direct, first-person experience, and is in fact more empirical than Rand's skewed notion of "reason."


What 'proof' can you provide that these so called 'personal experiences' are anything but delusions? What proof do you have that some other reality other than this one which we can perceive via our senses and understand with our reason exists?


What proof can you provide that our "normal" experiences are anything but delusions?  All we know is that such experiences are experienced more frequently.  How do you know that your dreams are not more real than waking reality?  They certainly seem real to us while we experience them.  All we can say is that we are naturally inclined to sub-rate our dream state to our waking state.  And those who have had mystical experiences similarly sub-rate our normal waking state to these transcendent states.  I you want to bring up neurology, you will still have no leg to stand on, for neurology cannot tell us which brain states are more "real" than others.  A neurologist cannot look at the brain scan of one person seeing a tree and another person seeing God, and determine from those scans that one is a delusion and other is real.  So I can't "prove" that these transcendent realities are real any more than you can "prove" that the computer in front of you is real.  From an evolutionary perspective, all we can say is that "normal" consciousness is a useful adaptation, not that it is "real."


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: Silversoul]
    #10578916 -

The very existence of the concept of proof presupposes existence. Existence is an irreducible primary and the burden of proof rests solely on you to prove that this reality does not exist against the self-evident. It is an insult to the minds that work with reality, reason, logic and evidence to suggest that a computer may not exist. You insult yourself and all others to suggest that you and everyone may not exist. In short, it is absurd to question what is axiomatic. If your conciousness did not exist you would not be able to respond to this post.

The burden of proof is on you to prove if you make an absurd claim that flies in the face of the obvious.

Edited by RationalEgo (06/26/09 08:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10578973 -

RationalEgo said:
The very existence of the concept of proof presupposes existence. Existence is an irreducible primary and the burden of proof rests solely on you to prove that this reality does not exist against the self-evident that it does.


Stating that there is existence only tells us that there is something rather than nothing.  It does not tell us anything about what it consists of. 

Quote:
It is a disservice to the minds that work with reality, reason, logic and evidence to suggest that a computer does not exist.


The computer's existence is obvious to anyone who has the consciousness to perceive it, just as transcendent realities are obvious to anyone who has the consciousness to perceive them, which you obviously do not.  You are as unqualified to deny such realities as someone who has never looked in a telescope is unqualified to deny the existence of Jupiter's moons.

Quote:
You do a disservice to yourself and all others to suggest that you and everyone do not exist. In short, it is absurd to question what is axiomatic. If your conciousness did not exist you would not be able to respond to this post.


And you do a disservice to yourself and others with this strawman.  I never claimed that I do not exist.

Quote:
The burden of proof is on you to prove your absurd claim that flies in the face of the obvious.


What is not obvious to someone of your level of consciousness is abundantly obvious to someone who has attained higher states of consciousness.  If you are unwilling to follow the injunctions which spiritual practices throughout the centuries have laid out for attaining this level of consciousness, then you are qualified to comment on it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: Silversoul]
    #10579039 -

Stating that things exist is stating that they are real and valid phenomena. I am not unqualified to deny your claims because the burden of proof lies upon you. In a dream I can go to a fantasyland. This does not mean it exists. There is no proof of its existence without evidence and without that the claim of it being real means nothing. The concept of conciousness relies upon objects to perceive. If your perceptions are warped one can have delusions of many things that 'are not really there'.

Your 'personal experiences' grant no validity to your claims.

Also, you did suggest you may not exist by suggesting that conciousness may not be be real.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10579111 -

RationalEgo said:
I am not unqualified to deny them because the burden of proof lies upon you. In a dream I can go to a fantasyland. This does not mean it exists. There is no proof of its existence without evidence, and without that the claim to it being real means nothing. The concept of conciousness relies upon objects to perceive. If your perceptions are warped one can have delusions of many things that 'are not really there'.

Your 'personal experiences' grant no validity to your claims.


How do you know your computer is there?  You perceive it through sensory information, as does a mystic having a transcendent experience.

But, you might object, someone else could go into your room and verify that your computer is there.  Certainly this verifiability gives it greater weight.  Ah, but so too have transcendent realities been independently verified throughout history by mystics of every culture, many of which had little or no contact with one another.

But wait, you might say:  I have not had such a transcendent experience.  You ask me to partake of years of mystical training in order to verify such claims.  Surely that is unreasonable!  But if you apply such standards, you would have to throw out most scientific discoveries.  The average person is not qualified to verify the results most experiments found in scientific journals.  It takes years of post-graduate work to gain the level of expertise needed to be able to test and verify quantum experiments.  Such scientists are at least as elite a group as mystics.

Quote:
Also, you did suggest you may not exist by suggesting that conciousness may not be be real.


Why must you twist my words?  I said no such thing.

Now excuse me while I go ask my mechanic to prove the validity of Schrödinger's equation.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10579658 -

As someone who was diametrically opposed to the notion of selflessness, Rand's definition is less than useless. It simply elaborates her utter lack of comprehension of mystical experience. Egoic mind completely prevents the experience of the mystical in which selflessness prevails. The mystical is deemed irrational by those who cling to that one aspect of mind which serves sensation and cause-effect in the physical world. The mystical is transrational, for lack of a better term. Read at least one of Ken Wilber's books. Strict rationalism is a fearful addiction to a practical but constrictive world-view. Your world-view obviously has neither immediate experience of the mystical, nor a vicarious understanding through the reading of and understanding of Yoga, Neoplatonism, Sufism, Taoism, or any other well known and ancient systems. I can remain quite logical when dealing with the mundane world, but I have also had my life changed utterly by the supramundane world. There is no explaining color to a blind man.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #10580420 -

Markos, you are polite, mature and concise in your delivery. Silversoul's debate 'tactics' have been nothing but rude, evasive, irrational and antagonistic throughout this entire thread, as such I will no longer debate with him. I will not sanction that kind of rude behaviour any longer.

When I come back from my shopping trip I will be happy to continue this debate with you, Markos. I will reply to your assertions in full and I also hope to show categorically how the reign of the mystics throughout history have resulted nothing but savage self-sacrificial societies as per the mystic philosophy of altruism, and how this philosophy, whatever the nice sounding bromide, is anti-man and anti-human in conception.

Stay tuned.

Edited by RationalEgo (06/29/09 12:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10580744 -

RationalEgo said:
Zanthius said:
Ayn Rand was also perhaps more than anyone dominated by instincts and intuition.


Ughh No! She was an extreme advocate of reason. Nice try though.


And an advocate of rape fantasies who thought a woman should never want to be president.

What Zanthius is trying to say is that she says one thing and does another.  However, instincts and intuition can have an underlying base of logic and reason.  So the point is really moot.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10581128 -

RationalEgo said:
Markos, at least you were polite, mature and concise in your delivery. Silversoul's debate 'tactics' have been nothing but rude, evasive, irrational and antagonistic throughout this entire thread, as such I will no longer debate with him. I will not sanction that kind of rude behaviour any longer.


I had a long reply typed out about how my attacks were directed at Ayn Rand, not you(just as your attacks were directed at mysticism), and how you began the rudeness towards me, but it doesn't matter.  I should've been more professional and composed about it, and I apologize.  If we can both agree to be more civil, I'd very much like to continue this debate.


--------------------

Edited by Silversoul (06/27/09 12:01 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The mystical nature of the mystical [Re: RationalEgo]
    #10581184 -

Thank you for your response and I'll be happy to dialogue with you, so long as we can agree to leave Nietzsche out of the equation.
Altruism as a secularization of more spiritually colored Compassion, has never, and can never lead to anything but ahimsa - non-violence. I believe that you are confounding other motives such as profound masochism which, when projected, becomes sadism. There is a masochist in every sadist, but the obverse is not as clear. Saint Teresa might have had the compulsion to put her lips to a disgusting wad of somebody's spat out  mucous, but 'Saint' Bernard implemented rigorous monastic rules, and he dispatched crusaders to attack and kill Muslims. It was the sadism, not the altruism that does harm.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Inducing mystical experiences
( 1 2 all )		 Metasyn 4,533 29 03/14/17 10:00 PM
by beforethedawn
* Mystical Experience?
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 3,471 25 07/15/03 05:25 PM
by Grav
* Reality vs. the mushroom
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 AbstractSoul 11,125 64 02/18/02 03:36 PM
by AbstractSoul
* If you think you will find enlightenment in a drug...
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Scarfmeister 8,801 65 06/19/03 03:14 PM
by Grav
* ESSAY:Psychedelic induced mystical experiences by Alan Watts tekramrepus 3,070 6 03/21/03 11:43 AM
by pattern
* Contact Experiment
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 ShroomismM 14,314 106 09/15/02 09:08 PM
by Swami
* Is mysticism as flawed as religion? mirror_saw 1,716 17 08/21/02 06:11 PM
by Sclorch
* Mysticism exsane 577 1 07/01/02 04:25 AM
by MarkostheGnostic

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,018 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.