The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

[George-ananda]

What "new views"? This nonsense has been peddled for thousands of years. Do you think this is the first time we have heard this nonsense? Are you that ill-informed or just that naive?

What's new is the recent efforts to bridge spirituality, consciousness and extra-dimensional realities to serious modern academic science.

 

[ecco]

In fact, it is not just mystics like me trying to reach them because many scientists often consult us. The Dalai Lama has hosted many summits with Western scientists.

And Ronald Reagan consulted with a psychic. There are weirdos in all societies.

 

[ecco]

. Then this will take these benefits to another level - to omniscience, to fundamental reality behind all matter, etc.

I guess this hasn't worked out for you at all. If you had achieved any level of omniscience, you would have known the posting here would convince no one to invest time into your Eastern Thought belief system.

 

[ecco]

What's new is the recent efforts to bridge spirituality, consciousness and extra-dimensional realities to serious modern academic science.

Nonsense. The peddlers of mysticism have been trying to tie it in with actual reality for as long as they have been around. They feel it would give them credibility. This very thread is evidence of that.

 

[George-ananda]

Nonsense. The peddlers of mysticism have been trying to tie it in with actual reality for as long as they have been around. They feel it would give them credibility. This very thread is evidence of that.

Gee, inadvertently you are a textbook example of my quote you earlier responded to.

 

[ecco]

Gee, inadvertently you are a textbook example of my quote you earlier responded to.

I suppose you want me to look back over all your posts to see what you are talking about.

I don't think so.

 

[joelr]

In another discussion, I tried to introduce my idea that scientists need to accept Eastern thought. The consequence of not doing this would leave science without answers to the big questions, the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness. A lot of misunderstanding of my view seems to be centered around how the Eastern approach leads to "knowledge". I will explain further by reference to a good article on Mysticism vs. Reason.

This is taken from Bertrand Russel's essay, Mysticism and Logic.
"The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis, which are regarded as blind guides leading to the morass of illusion. Closely connected with this belief is the conception of a Reality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it. This Reality is regarded with an admiration often amounting to worship; it is [10]felt to be always and everywhere close at hand, thinly veiled by the shows of sense, ready, for the receptive mind, to shine in its glory even through the apparent folly and wickedness of Man. The poet, the artist, and the lover are seekers after that glory: the haunting beauty that they pursue is the faint reflection of its sun. But the mystic lives in the full light of the vision: what others dimly seek he knows, with a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is ignorance.

[…These more or less trite maxims may be illustrated by application to Bergson's advocacy of "intuition" as against "intellect." There are, he says, "two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first [(intellect)] implies that we move round the object: the second [(intuition)] that we enter into it. The first depends on the point of view at which we are placed and on the symbols by which we express ourselves. The second neither depends on a point of view nor relies on any symbol. The first kind of knowledge may be said to stop at the relative; the second, in those cases where it is possible, to attain the absolute."[4] The second of these, which is intuition, is, he says, "the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and therefore inexpressible" (p. 6). In illustration, he mentions self-knowledge: "there is one reality, at least, which we all seize from within, by intuition and not by simple analysis. It is our own personality in its flowing through time—our self which endures" (p. 8)."
----------------------------------------------------
Bertrand Russel is very intelligent. He "read" about the way of the mystic but he did not experience it for himself. Under the yogic system, becoming one with an object is called "samadhi". Using this approach, you can become one with the Universe, life, and consciousness which will reveal their true nature.

That's all great but you have to be able to show the intuition is correct. Has anyone ever used intuition to believe something that isn't true?
Of course, people use intuition to believe all sorts of supernatural entities and abilities. So it isn't reliable until it can be shown to be reliable.
If intuition is "inexpressible" than it's not knowledge, its just a possibility. You are comparing intuition to intellect without realizing that intellect is generally also WRONG? Our intelligence doesn't give us much knowledge, theories and repeat tests and emperical evidence often show our ideas about reality are wrong or not at all what we expected. So why would intuition be so special that it can't be tested AND is always correct? Doubt it.

You are likely misusing the word "skeptic". You are probably meaning to say "people who are skeptical of intuition/supernatural" but that's not the case. So called "skeptics" are equally skeptical of intellect, scientific theories and anything else. Why, because the majority of things we think of are NOT TRUE. Why would people accept unverified ideas when they don't accept scientific ideas until proven?
Would you want to go to a hospital if all the surgical knowledge was untested theories or intuitive knowledge?
How about flying on an airplane of a new design that techs never tested, they just felt it was correct?
Or they meditated on it and received intuitive wisdom that it would fly without error.
Would you want to fly on that plane?

You don't think ancient people used intuition to realize Zeus was the one true divine being?
There are many papers on academia.edu explaining that he was worshiped in a very similar way to modern concepts of god.



"....he views the divine as a force of goodness watching over humanity, a spiritual being and creator, much like the Judeo-Christian God; 'He that constructed it constructed Becoming and the All. He was good (...) and being devoid of envy He desired that all should be, so far as possible, like unto Himself.'

Plato's description of the godly force resembles language used for..."

 

[George-ananda]

I suppose you want me to look back over all your posts to see what you are talking about.

I don't think so.

If it matters, it was my quote that YOU QUOTED TODAY that started today's conversation between us!!

What develops with the so-called ardent skeptics is a desire to put down new views because they don't immediately fit in with traditional science and the traditional scientific method. After a time this desire even exceeds their desire to know the truth.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I am a skeptic and I *have* had 'mystical or extraordinary' experiences. Some of my experiences would even qualify as 'religious' experiences, even though I am an atheist.

These experiences are something people can have. That is something I don't doubt. What I doubt is whether these experiences say anything about reality (other than the simple fact that humans can have them).

it is a universal human experience to see faces in clouds, but nobody thinks there are *really* faces in clouds. The experience and the reality are different things.

Religious/mystical experiences are, almost by definition, powerful and are perceived at the time as being meaningful. But the perception of meaning and the reality of meaning are different things. Unlike your claims, it *is* possible to question the validity of these experiences and to ask whether or not they correspond to anything real.

I have yet to see any evidence that they do.

So, as a skeptic, how do you explain your experiences? Were you high at the time, or what?

 

[Audie]

I'm now reading a book by Dr. Sy Garte, PhD biochemistry who has had over 200 scientific papers published in areas such as genetics, molecular epidemiology and cancer research.

His research and study of areas such as quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology , chaos theory and other areas gradually turned him from a dedicated and committed atheist to a believer in God, and in his case a Christian.

https://smile.amazon.com/Works-His-...r_1_1?keywords=sy+garte&qid=1574318658&sr=8-1 for any that are interested.

There is no demand for books about people who figured
out that the bible is full of bs and quit being "believers".

 

[Audie]

If it matters, it was my quote that YOU QUOTED TODAY that started today's conversation between us!!

What develops with the so-called ardent skeptics is a desire to put down new views because they don't immediately fit in with traditional science and the traditional scientific method. After a time this desire even exceeds their desire to know the truth.

Regardless of who made this claim, on what basis is it
made? There is no evident way to know this,
it looks made up and is blstantly derogatoty.

 

[Audie]

In another discussion, I tried to introduce my idea that scientists need to accept Eastern thought. The consequence of not doing this would leave science without answers to the big questions, the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness. A lot of misunderstanding of my view seems to be centered around how the Eastern approach leads to "knowledge". I will explain further by reference to a good article on Mysticism vs. Reason.

This is taken from Bertrand Russel's essay, Mysticism and Logic.
"The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis, which are regarded as blind guides leading to the morass of illusion. Closely connected with this belief is the conception of a Reality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it. This Reality is regarded with an admiration often amounting to worship; it is [10]felt to be always and everywhere close at hand, thinly veiled by the shows of sense, ready, for the receptive mind, to shine in its glory even through the apparent folly and wickedness of Man. The poet, the artist, and the lover are seekers after that glory: the haunting beauty that they pursue is the faint reflection of its sun. But the mystic lives in the full light of the vision: what others dimly seek he knows, with a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is ignorance.

[…These more or less trite maxims may be illustrated by application to Bergson's advocacy of "intuition" as against "intellect." There are, he says, "two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first [(intellect)] implies that we move round the object: the second [(intuition)] that we enter into it. The first depends on the point of view at which we are placed and on the symbols by which we express ourselves. The second neither depends on a point of view nor relies on any symbol. The first kind of knowledge may be said to stop at the relative; the second, in those cases where it is possible, to attain the absolute."[4] The second of these, which is intuition, is, he says, "the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and therefore inexpressible" (p. 6). In illustration, he mentions self-knowledge: "there is one reality, at least, which we all seize from within, by intuition and not by simple analysis. It is our own personality in its flowing through time—our self which endures" (p. 8)."
----------------------------------------------------
Bertrand Russel is very intelligent. He "read" about the way of the mystic but he did not experience it for himself. Under the yogic system, becoming one with an object is called "samadhi". Using this approach, you can become one with the Universe, life, and consciousness which will reveal their true nature.

All this knowldge sounds terrif. Tell us something you know
and we dont.

 

[Howard Is]

All this knowldge sounds terrif. Tell us something you know
and we dont.

 

[George-ananda]

Regardless of who made this claim, on what basis is it
made?

My decades of personal observation, analysis and consideration.

There is no evident way to know this,

That is right and my point. The important stuff can't be known through the 'scientific method'.

it looks made up and is blstantly derogatoty.

It was my determination and yes honestly critical of the one-way-street type skeptics.

 

[ecco]

It was my determination and yes honestly critical of the one-way-street type skeptics.

What do you mean by "one-way-street type skeptics"?

 

[George-ananda]

What do you mean by "one-way-street type skeptics"?

Those whose intent is to support the negative appraisal of mysticism and all such things right from the start without thinking in both directions.

 

[ecco]

What do you mean by "one-way-street type skeptics"?

Those whose intent is to support the negative appraisal of mysticism and all such things right from the start without thinking in both directions.

One problem you have is that wish to believe that those of us with a "negative appraisal of mysticism and all such things" have come to this knowledge "without thinking in both directions".

Since you do not know me and since you have no way of knowing what I have or have not done in the past, your assertion is based on nothing more than male bovine feces and your own exaggerated ego.

Since you do not know everyone with a "negative appraisal of mysticism and all such things" and since you have no way of knowing what they have or have not done in the past, your assertion is based on nothing more than male bovine feces and your own exaggerated ego.

 

[George-ananda]

One problem you have is that wish to believe that those of us with a "negative appraisal of mysticism and all such things" have come to this knowledge "without thinking in both directions".

Since you do not know me and since you have no way of knowing what I have or have not done in the past, your assertion is based on nothing more than male bovine feces and your own exaggerated ego.

I do not see where I said anything here about YOU personally. Persecution complex?

I have certainly seen in my decades of interest in this type stuff the type of pseudo-skeptic that to me has only shown the inclination to think in one direction. These are typically of the hard-core materialist-atheist type schools and are only interested in attacking anything that smacks of mysticism without showing any evidence of two-sided consideration.

 

[Audie]

My decades of personal observation, analysis and consideration.

That is right and my point. The important stuff can't be known through the 'scientific method'.

It was my determination and yes honestly critical of the one-way-street type skeptics.

My decades of personal observation, analysis and consideration.

That is right and my point. The important stuff can't be known through the 'scientific method'.

It was my determination and yes honestly critical of the one-way-street type skeptics.

"Scientific" as in figuring out why the car wont start.

As for what is important, take your misty magicy
way of meeting reality back to the stone age and see
if your line ever even maintains a grip on the paleolithic.

You have a lot of opinions but no concrete examples
of any of these so called "one way street" skeptics.
An actual skeptic doubts himself first.

Savaging people not even present and quite
posdibly non existent, too dumb to bother with
if they do exist doesnt seem real enlightened.

You ever actually take stock, play what-if, and
doubt yourself?

 

[Audie]

I do not see where I said anything here about YOU personally. Persecution complex?

I have certainly seen in my decades of interest in this type stuff the type of pseudo-skeptic that to me has only shown the inclination to think in one direction. These are typically of the hard-core materialist-atheist type schools and are only interested in attacking anything that smacks of mysticism without showing any evidence of two-sided consideration.

As elsewhere asked, where is your two-side, more-than-one-direction?

Oh, and your crude cheap shot about "persecution complex".
Nothing in that post remotely hints at it.

Nice demo of how your way of knowing works.
Nice catch, foot in it wise.

Fantasy, made up, not even clever.