|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Clarifications on my part.
#5510455 - 04/12/06 11:03 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I've noticed the recent insurgence of variants in definitions of what many see me arguing & debating against here in this forum: Mysticism. In light of such, I feel compelled to step forth and rectify any possible confusion or misinterpretation in my philosophical stances.
First and foremost, I will address the definition of mysticism that I do not have any conflicts with: [From Dictionary.com]
Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. If by "God", one means the archetypal template of higher cognition whereby enlightened behavior is sustained, then I've not a single quarrel with this definition.
I've noticed this is more or less somewhat in a similar vein to what Fireworks discussed in his thread, "Experience, Awareness is Mystical".
In this context, IMO, the word mystical is interchangeable with spiritual or even transcendental. On a side tangent, when I once went scuba-diving in the ocean in Florida, that was one of the most spiritual experiences I've ever had.
Now I will address the meaning of mysticism that I do oppose and argue against here in this forum. But rather than quote a trite, brief quote from the dictionary, I will simply point out the ultimate consequences or final characteristics of the mysticism/mystics with which I engage in philosophical war in pursuit and illustration of Truth.
1)Those who believe that consciousness has primacy over existence; that existence is manipulatable by the power of their whims and desires, i.e., prayers.
2)Those who hold humility as a virtue, and pride as a vice.
3)Those who hold self-sacrifice as a virtue, and selfishness as a vice.
4)Those who think Capitalism as a political-economic system is inherently evil and detrimental to society.
5)Those who subordinate reason to faith.
6)Those who hold emotions as tools of cognition.
7)Those who believe the mind is a tool of distortion.
8)Those who hold altruism is the higher-good, and collectivism as a moral political-economical system.
9)Those who promote the blind acceptance of premises that are against [or apart] from the evidence provided by our senses.
10)Those who behave as if it is a virtue to live with one's eyes half-closed, in a dimly lit cerebral focus, but a sin to live with one's eyes wide opened, in clear intellectual focus.
11)Those who unknowingly promote the hindrance, destruction and torture of what is mankind's greatest asset: The mind.
If you feel I've addressed you in the above list, then you are that mystic.
Now, going back to the other variants of the contextually differing word in question: spiritual & transcendental; It is unfortunate that the mystics have burdened these two words -transcendence & spirituality- with negative stigma as a result of a great many evils of ignorance abound in contradictory philosophy, faulty cognition and malevolent premises. Due to such blunders that tore asunder a rational, secular, this-worldly, earthly and practical definition of what is a very natural aspect of human nature, people have been led to believe such aspects of human existence must be super-natural, mystical in nature or other-worldly.
As such, the mystics have perpetrated a great injustice on all of mankind. Many are not even privvy to it, because not many people excercise their natural capacity to think through the consequences of their actions, of their premises, of their mind. In short, they are conceptually short-sighted. What is this great evil that these blind, ignorant deviates of rationality and reason have committed against humanity? I will answer that question by addressing the ultimate consequence of such injustice: the hindrance, destruction and torture against man's mind.
Ergo, if we are to emancipitate ourselfs from such arbitrary slavery, we must abolish these mystics by annihilating mysticism, pertinently defined. What is accomplished to carry out such a feat? One need not excercise force - such would only backfire, not to mention it would be hypocritical and outright defiant of Rationality. All one needs to do is Think; doing the right thing is natural leadership, doing things right is natural management.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Post deleted by ParadigmReason for deletion: Better safe than sorry
--------------------
|
Temptress
Butterfly


Registered: 01/31/06
Posts: 143
Loc: Texas - where else?
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Silversoul]
#5510499 - 04/12/06 11:14 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- i have less ego than you do!
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Temptress]
#5510503 - 04/12/06 11:15 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
why?
--------------------
|
Temptress
Butterfly


Registered: 01/31/06
Posts: 143
Loc: Texas - where else?
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Silversoul]
#5510511 - 04/12/06 11:17 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
your post is personal and off-topic, is it not?
-------------------- i have less ego than you do!
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Silversoul]
#5510512 - 04/12/06 11:17 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
If you don't have anything nice to say...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Temptress]
#5510516 - 04/12/06 11:17 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Temptress said: deviate's post is personal and off-topic, is it not?
What does Deviate have to do with this?
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: If you don't have anything nice to say...
Make a thread about it and claim to be objective.
--------------------
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
4)Those who think Capitalism as a political-economic system is inherently evil and detrimental to society.
Marxists can be considered mystics?
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
1)Those who believe that consciousness has primacy over existence; that existence is manipulatable by the power of their whims and desires, i.e., prayers.
This is really a two-parter, and I only care to address the first part. It is not that consciousness precedes existence. Rather, it is inherent in existence.
Quote:
2)Those who hold humility as a virtue, and pride as a vice.
Virtue and vice are concepts defined subjectively. Those societies that hold such values as described above have traditionally been more humane than those that believe the opposite.
Quote:
3)Those who hold self-sacrifice as a virtue, and selfishness as a vice.
See above
Quote:
4)Those who think Capitalism as a political-economic system is inherently evil and detrimental to society.
Capitalism is not inherently evil, but it has historically caused much suffering and injustice. It may be a better system than socialism, mercantilism, or feudalism, but that doesn't mean it's the best possible system.
Quote:
5)Those who subordinate reason to faith.
Hardly better than those who have blind faith in reason.
Quote:
6)Those who hold emotions as tools of cognition.
Without emotion, there can be no morality.
Quote:
7)Those who believe the mind is a tool of distortion.
So you mean that when I saw Christ on acid, my mind wasn't distorting anything?
Quote:
8)Those who hold altruism is the higher-good, and collectivism as a moral political-economical system.
I had this debate with you before, and you conveniently redefined altruism so as to be utterly meaningless as a concept.
Quote:
9)Those who promote the blind acceptance of premises that are against [or apart] from the evidence provided by our senses.
My senses tell me things that your senses don't. What you're really saying is that I should trust your senses over mine.
Quote:
10)Those who behave as if it is a virtue to live with one's eyes half-closed, in a dimly lit cerebral focus, but a sin to live with one's eyes wide opened, in clear intellectual focus.
This statement is really nothing other than ridicule. I frankly see you and other "rationalist" as being guilty of this much more than many so-called "mystics" here.
Quote:
11)Those who unknowingly promote the hindrance, destruction and torture of what is mankind's greatest asset: The mind.
It's ok. I forgive you.
--------------------
|
Basilides
Servent ofWisdom


Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
|
Then you're basically engaging yourself in an endurance match you cannot win. You cannot destroy awakening and enlightenment(how you define it too is a little strange, with your socio-economic and political references) because for every awakened being who passes on, another will have the same underlaying Reality exposed to them. Likewise, there will always be those who will be consumed (and ultimately lost forever) in matter. It is sad, for only in the last moments of consciousness will they fully realize that they did not recall the pearl of their being, and that it is about to vanish in nothingness. There might even be a glimpse of the Mystery, but there will be too much individualism for it to be penetrated by then. Non-existence forever, after that. I hope you fare the voyage into the abyss smoothly, because in such a position I know I would be terrified of the mystery instead of embracing it like a warm bath.
Peace
--------------------
    "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Silversoul]
#5510782 - 04/13/06 12:23 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: If you don't have anything nice to say...
Make a thread about it and claim to be objective.
Touche!
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Silversoul]
#5510816 - 04/13/06 12:37 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: If you don't have anything nice to say...
Make a thread about it and claim to be objective.
Funniest one liner of the week! 
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
If I had a "funniest one liner of the week award", I'd give it to Paradigm. Unfortunately, all I have is lint collected in my navel.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Silversoul]
#5510830 - 04/13/06 12:44 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
This is really a two-parter, and I only care to address the first part. It is not that consciousness precedes existence. Rather, it is inherent in existence.
Arbitrary. Consciousness is an attribute of various existents with a brain and/or nervous system. To claim that a rock has consciousness is absurd and without merit - and an egregious commitment of the fallacy of context-dropping.
Those societies that hold such values as described above have traditionally been more humane than those that believe the opposite.
Examples of both, please.
Hardly better than those who have blind faith in reason.
Non-sequitur. Reason, by its very nature, requires no blind faith. Of course, feel free to engage in irrational skepticism.
Without emotion, there can be no morality.
And volition. This doesn't change the fact that emotions are not tools of cognition. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong. Note that I do not claim we should ignore or repress them. Simply, one should only know their place.
So you mean that when I saw Christ on acid, my mind wasn't distorting anything?
You are aware that you digested hallucinogenics, yet ask this question? Hello?
I had this debate with you before, and you conveniently redefined altruism so as to be utterly meaningless as a concept.
To you. Regardless, I further elaborated thereafter - from a different approach, as obviously my previous one wasn't getting through to you. Later on, Phred provided a quote that captured the essence of what I was precisely trying to say.
My senses tell me things that your senses don't. What you're really saying is that I should trust your senses over mine.
Incorrect. There are things that exist which other people have percieved through their senses, yet which I've not. Despite this, the fact remains that such existents which these other people have percieved are -in principle- clear and open for me [and every other ordinary human being with a working set of perceptual organs] to percieve. Furthermore -and this is important- these people can provide solid, rational proof of such an existence that goes beyond the mere fact that they have experienced/percieved such things. Case in point: hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash. The same cannot be said for those who believe in things for which there is no sensory evidence or rational proof - only one's "creative" imagination.
This statement is really nothing other than ridicule. I frankly see you and other "rationalist" as being guilty of this much more than many so-called "mystics" here.
Says the Christian mystic, of course.
It's ok. I forgive you.
Nice try. I do not need forgiveness for thinking, but I appreciate the gesture.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Arbitrary.
As is the notion that reality exists independently of the observer.
Quote:
Examples of both, please.
Humility is a pretty high priority in Buddhist societies, which tend to care for their citizens and live peacefully, seeing as how humility and compassion go hand in hand. Meanwhile, pride has always been a defining aspect of barbarian war-like peoples, such as the Vikings or the Mongols.
The second one is a bit trickier, as it depends on what the self-sacrifice is directed at. Obviously, self-sacrifice to the state was a big part of fascism. But self-sacrifice for one's fellow man, as practiced by people such as Mother Theresa, has enriched the world incalculably. Meanwhile, a society based on selfishness is the very laissez-faire capitalist society which you so naively glorify. Read Dickens sometime.
Quote:
Non-sequitur. Reason, by its very nature, requires no blind faith. Of course, feel free to engage in irrational skepticism.
Similarly, feel free to go on blindly believing in naive realism.
Quote:
And volition. This doesn't change the fact that emotions are not tools of cognition. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong. Note that I do not claim we should ignore or repress them. Simply, one should only know their place.
You're putting reason up on a pedestal. The history of philosophy is filled with extremely rational men, all bitterly disagreeing with one another. Reason is not a straight line from a to b, no matter how much you pretend it is. It's as much a product of your basic premises as emotions are.
Quote:
You are aware that you digested hallucinogenics, yet ask this question? Hello?
You're the one who denies that the mind distorts things. Not I.
Quote:
To you. Regardless, I further elaborated thereafter - from a different approach, as obviously my previous one wasn't getting through to you. Later on, Phred provided a quote that captured the essence of what I was precisely trying to say.
And yet, Phred's quote said nothing about whether or not altruism is bad. Thus, it was off-topic.
Quote:
Incorrect. There are things that exist which other people have percieved through their senses, yet which I've not. Despite this, the fact remains that such existents which these other people have percieved are -in principle- clear and open for me [and every other ordinary human being with a working set of perceptual organs] to percieve. Furthermore -and this is important- these people can provide solid, rational proof of such an existence that goes beyond the mere fact that they have experienced/percieved such things. Case in point: hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash. The same cannot be said for those who believe in things for which there is no sensory evidence or rational proof - only one's "creative" imagination.
So in other words, I shouldn' trust my senses. Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote:
Says the Christian mystic, of course.
At least I have no illusions about what I am.
Quote:
Nice try. I do not need forgiveness for thinking, but I appreciate the gesture.
You're forgiven for your tunnel vision, sir.
--------------------
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
Once again, ignorance about what is not perceivable by default
|
JacquesCousteau
Being.


Registered: 06/10/03
Posts: 7,825
Loc: Everywhere, Everytime.
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Silversoul]
#5511300 - 04/13/06 07:15 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: If you don't have anything nice to say...
Make a thread about it and claim to be objective.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
Reason, by its very nature, requires no blind faith.
Reason ? la carte can be considered blind faith. Coherence does not determine truth nor can it be considered evidence. Get a Jesuit in here and have him explain Transubstantiation. He'll provide you with more 'reason' than you can stomach.
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: For example, its logically possible for me to be bald. With rationalism, we can rule out the possibility that I am bald and not-bald, but whether I am actually bald or not, logic cannot decide. And thus, we admire the real hero of verification and understanding, empiricism.
|
blaze2
The Witness


Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
|
Wow you say you want to argue with these mystics(I am one of them by the way) but you obviously dont. Oh well your loss. peace
blaze2
-------------------- "Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein "peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein "Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Thomas Jefferson "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
|
Reasons plus observation and analyzation, reasonably applied? 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Fospher
Crime FightingMaster Criminal


Registered: 02/09/05
Posts: 2,033
Loc: The Netherlands
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
SkorpivoMusterion said:1)Those who believe that consciousness has primacy over existence; that existence is manipulatable by the power of their whims and desires, i.e., prayers.
There's no such thing as objective reality. Your reality is your world, that is affected by your mind, being part of the infinite spectrum of consciousness. You choose your reality, because you make it. Therefore, just because you can't experience it by your disbelief, doesn't mean someone cannot experience a phenomenon due to their faith.
Quote:
3)Those who hold self-sacrifice as a virtue, and selfishness as a vice.
That's a mystic?! I guess I shouldn't have listened to my Elementary school teacher who told me to share due to her delusional ignorant beliefs. 
Quote:
4)Those who think Capitalism as a political-economic system is inherently evil and detrimental to society.
A joke has already been made on this point, so I abstain.
Quote:
5)Those who subordinate reason to faith.
Reason nor faith decide reality. Just because you can be rational to something doesn't mean you understand it, and likewise, just because you believe in something it doesn't mean it exists.
Quote:
10)Those who behave as if it is a virtue to live with one's eyes half-closed, in a dimly lit cerebral focus, but a sin to live with one's eyes wide opened, in clear intellectual focus.
Mystics claim that they use all that the world has to offer, and that Skeptics are just regarded as missing out on a chunk just because they don't get it. That chunk exists, and it's real, as real as you or me and as anything else. Just because you cannot perceive it in your ordinary physical state of reality, doesn't mean it's not there.
Quote:
11)Those who unknowingly promote the hindrance, destruction and torture of what is mankind's greatest asset: The mind.
I've seen this several times on this board now. A skeptic assuming knowledge of the mystic's ideology, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
To quote from some of my own Mystic theology, The warrior's way is to balance terror and wonder", to accept that there are things that can't be explained through rational thought to be understood. It is the purpose of man to dive into the unknown, to find light where there is none, to find truth, to know thyself.
|
RedNucleus
Causal Observer


Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: Fospher]
#5512999 - 04/13/06 05:04 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"Those who subordinate reason to faith."
This means "Those who say faith is better than reason." Your argument equated faith and reason. You did not defend the idea of subordinating reason to faith
--------------------
Namaste
Edited by RedNukleus (04/13/06 05:06 PM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: RedNucleus]
#5513009 - 04/13/06 05:07 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: As is the notion that reality exists independently of the observer.
Note-comparsion amongst observers can determine that reality exists independantly of some observers. One dies, and yet, the observers who continued on afterwards still observe reality. Why is it not possible for a complete absence of observers and yet the continuance of reality? 
Quote:
Examples of both, please. eanwhile, pride has always been a defining aspect of barbarian war-like peoples, such as the Vikings or the Mongols.
The Vikings were also very civilized. They were certainly achievers.
Quote:
But self-sacrifice for one's fellow man, as practiced by people such as Mother Theresa, has enriched the world incalculably.
It is entirely possible to not sacrifice oneself for one's fellow man, and, at the same time, accomplish more that benefits one's fellow man than someone who walks around and prays a lot.
Quote:
Meanwhile, a society based on selfishness is the very laissez-faire capitalist society which you so naively glorify.
Thank god! I'd hate to exist within a society in which oppurtunity was not provided and one's goals were not achievable.
Quote:
Similarly, feel free to go on blindly believing in naive realism.
It isn't blind belief when the belief can be substantiated and demonstrated. 
Quote:
You're putting reason up on a pedestal. The history of philosophy is filled with extremely rational men, all bitterly disagreeing with one another.
As if that speaks agansit reason?
Quote:
You're the one who denies that the mind distorts things. Not I.
An obstructed mind distorts its direct perceptions of reality. There is your problem.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Fospher
Crime FightingMaster Criminal


Registered: 02/09/05
Posts: 2,033
Loc: The Netherlands
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Clarifications on my part. [Re: RedNucleus]
#5513019 - 04/13/06 05:11 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
My argument did not equate faith and reason. It said that there's appropriate times for appropriate measures.
|
|