Can anybody help me find a logical explanation for this stuff?

[Akhenaten]

It's more of the debukner attitude.

As biomorph has pointed out, lots of people, with more than enough credibilty for my humble purposes, have looked at this nonsense and declared it to be nonsense.

Since I only have an hour to strut and fret my way across the stage, I'll take their word for it and try to find something more useful to do.

When you go in to something assuming that it is garbage and refuse to give it a chance, it causes you zero in on any one little thing you can find to dismiss the whole thing as fast as you can, making it very easy to miss the bigger picture or implications.

Sounds like an accusation you might level against those nasty "skeptics" that you seem to have it in for. When I hear about stuff like 'comparative spiritual hermeneutics' or 'transcendent unity' I don't generally even bother "going in". If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, etcetera.

As for "the bigger picture or implications", well, if they really existed I figure they would have caught up with me by now and I would have been forced to mend my cynical ways.

Fact is, it's gone pretty much the other way, and I've spent a fair bit of my life unlearning the garbage that a previous generation believed was "the bigger picture", but that's another story.

Maybe something isn't perfect but it could contain clues and pieces of a bigger picture that needs consideration and looking in to. Such as the similarities and consistencies in these experiences and writings.

Very little of what I was first taught about science, mathematics, the arts, or history made a great deal of sense as discrete subjects. But a lifetime of filling in gaps, expanding on the basics and trying to keep abreast of new discoveries has left me with as comprehensive view of "the big picture" as I think I could have hoped for.

If you want me to believe that my view would be much better if I'd taken the time and effort to look further into claims of psychic abilities and the similarities between the visions of those afflicted with them - claims that have never been backed up with any kind of decent evidence - then you're going to need to provide some pretty compelling reasons for doing so.

As it is, I'd remain unimpressed even if all of the psychic abilities claimed for this Swedenborg bloke, and others, turned out to be true. At best, they'd only be elevated from "non-existent" to "completely useless".

 

[Akhenaten]

I think you may misperceive what this forum is all about. This is the JREF.

No, it isn't. This is a public forum, made up of all kinds of people with all kinds of backgrounds, agendas, aspirations - a marvellously chaotic hodge-podge in fact.

Your belief that it's some sort of monolithic entity is probably the reason you have so much trouble getting your points of view across.

Cool, calm and collected: just present the evidence - and keep doing it.

Of course the big problem here, both for yourself and the one you would presume to be advising, is a lack of evidence.

A cool, calm and collected presentation of drivel is, unfortunately for you, still just drivel.

 

[steenkh]

They had a past in which they were immersed in the exoteric level of a mythology that is not fully-functional. That is a far, far cry from the perspective of a mythologist.

How can you presume to know what other people have been thinking? You cannot, and your argument is a disgrace.

 

[Limbo]

How can you presume to know what other people have been thinking? You cannot, and your argument is a disgrace.

I've noticed that most skeptics with a religious background were Christian. And most of them were not Christian mystics and therefore they were exoteric Christians without the support of a functional esoteric layer. Christianity is a mythology and not a fully-functional one anymore, from the perspective of a mythologist.

Or, if not Christianity, then some New-Age cocktail. Thats easy enough. I know where it all leads.

I've got you guys pegged pretty well. You guys are easy compared to ancient mythology and esoterica. You think you're like un-herdable cats. Pfft.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wasn't saying that all skeptics do that or that everyone here does. I actually made a thread here to demonstrate how many people have actually had a background in or have researched this stuff.

We know as well as you do (maybe better), how many people have researched "this stuff". And we know how much hard evidence they've collectively produced.

Apparently that little exercise in dividing zero by a really, really big number means something different to us than it does to you.

I was just talking abut the debunker mentality of shrugging something off, or trying to find one flaw so they can brush off the whole subject in question or just not even look in to it at all because they assume everything in the field is automatically completely false.

I think I might have to add 'debunker' to your list of misunderstood words.

People who undertake to debunk things are the ones who actually do dig deeper to investigate them, so that cynics are conveniently able to shrug them off. Skeptics do something else again, but you'll need to ask one of them about that yourself.

A genuine debunker needs, in fact, at least the same level of knowledge about a subject as one of its proponents, and once those hard yards are done there's no need for others, be they cynics, skeptics or innocent bystanders, to even "trying to find one flaw so they can brush off the whole subject".

You seem to be implying that every single person needs to personally verify or falsify every single claim they encounter, but I'm sure if you really think about it you'll see how ridiculously impractical such an approach would be.

 

[steenkh]

I've noticed that most skeptics with a religious background were Christian. And most of them were not Christian mystics and therefore they were exoteric Christians without the support of a functional esoteric layer. Christianity is a mythology and not a fully-functional one anymore, from the perspective of a mythologist.

You certainly have your prejudices at as high a level as your generalisations. But that is all they are.

I've got you guys pegged pretty well. You guys are easy compared to ancient mythology and esoterica. You think you're like un-herdable cats. Pfft.

You also seem to be clueless.

 

[Zanders]

I've noticed that most skeptics with a religious background were Christian. And most of them were not Christian mystics and therefore they were exoteric Christians. Christianity is a mythology and not a fully-functional one anymore, from the perspective of a mythologist.

Or, if not Christianity, then some New-Age cocktail. Thats easy enough. I know where it all leads.

I've got you guys pegged pretty well. You guys are easy compared to ancient mythology and esoterica. You think you're like un-herdable cats. Pfft.

In my thread for ex occultists there were plenty of people that were actually in to the esoteric. The name Carlos Castaneda came up in multiple posts, one of them was involved in a ritual magick lodge for 25 years and I also saw Theosophy mentioned. That was only from me skimming very quickly over the first page.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've noticed that most skeptics with a religious background were Christian. And most of them were not Christian mystics and therefore they were exoteric Christians without the support of a functional esoteric layer. Christianity is a mythology and not a fully-functional one anymore, from the perspective of a mythologist.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, and guess that you're something like tens, and more likely hundreds, of millions short of having encountered "most skeptics with a religious background".

I'll treat your generalised mumbo-jumbo about their backgrounds accordingly.

Or, if not Christianity, then some New-Age cocktail. Thats easy enough. I know where it all leads.

You make a lot of claims and bare assertions, don't you?

I've got you guys pegged pretty well. You guys are easy compared to ancient mythology and esoterica. You think you're like un-herdable cats. Pfft.

If you were as good as you think you are at this mind reading business you'd be able to do a much better job of convincing the skeptical.

Sadly . . .

 

[Limbo]

You certainly have your prejudices at as high a level as your generalisations. But that is all they are.

My prejudice is that most JREFers don't have a mythologists temperament, and so they lack a mythologists perspective. Without that temperament they won't like the fields of study and therefore can't stick with it long enough to gain that panoramic perspective. If I am wrong, then its a simple matter of enough JREFers stepping forward to demonstrate a mythologists perspective to prove me wrong. I've been waiting...for years.

But they don't, they repeatedly demonstrate a different perspective, one which I am familiar with. And it sure as **** ain't no mythologists perspective.

 

[Zanders]

My prejudice is that most JREFers don't have a mythologists temperament, and so they lack a mythologists perspective. Without that temperament they won't like the fields of study and therefore can't stick with it long enough to gain that perspective. If I am wrong, then its a simple matter of enough JREFers stepping forward to demonstrate a mythologists perspective to prove me wrong.

But they don't, they repeatedly demonstrate a different perspective, one which I am familiar with. And it sure as **** ain't no mythologists perspective.

If there is anyone out there that uses a mythologists perspective to debunk this stuff, I would like to know who he is.

Contrary to what a lot of people here are accusing me of, I do not accept the "paranormal" as a reality yet. I am still looking at the evidence, and at the moment there isn't much "hard" evidence for the other side. I'm still looking, though.

I hope to eventually be able to debunk mythologists from a mythologists perspective. But who knows, maybe my way of thinking will end up changing. It all depends on what I find.

 

[Limbo]

I hope to eventually be able to debunk mythologists from a mythologists perspective. But who knows, maybe my way of thinking will end up changing. It all depends on what I find.

You can debunk religious fundamentalism with a mythologists perspective. But you can't debunk mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal with it.

(you can also debunk non-religious fundamentalism with it, shh cause most JREFers won't like that)

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You can debunk religious fundamentalism with a mythologists perspective. But you can't debunk mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal with it.

Doesn't that set off alarm bells? If you can't debunk mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal with it, then that leaves you with two options:

1) it's not a good model for determining the true nature of reality
2) absolutely every single claim of mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal is true, including those which have been thoroughly debunked by non-mythologists means

Neither of those speak particularly highly of the mythologists' perspective.

 

[Akhenaten]

If there is anyone out there that uses a mythologists perspective to debunk this stuff, I would like to know who he is.

Google "mythologists perspective" and see if the single match you get (this thread) gives you a clue.

Contrary to what a lot of people here are accusing me of, I do not accept the "paranormal" as a reality yet. I am still looking at the evidence, and at the moment there isn't much "hard" evidence for the other side. I'm still looking, though.

It's a bit hard to answer this, because it's not clear what you mean by "the other side". I'm also a bit curious about why "paranormal" has suddenly acquired a set of scare quotes.

What I can say though is that you appear to be looking at an inordinate amount of pro-paranormal literature at the expense of taking any notice of the reality that is all around you.

Becoming one of the world's leading experts in utter nonsense is no way to go through life, son.

I hope to eventually be able to debunk mythologists from a mythologists perspective. But who knows, maybe my way of thinking will end up changing. It all depends on what I find.

As near as I can make out, a mythologist is just someone who studies mythology. Why do you think they need debunking?

In any case, you seem to be the sort of person who will only ever find confirmation of whatever you already believe (or want to believe), regardless of where the truth lies.

Everything you've said here, starting with the thread title, seems to indicate that your default position is that there's something in all this psychic/paranormal stuff and it's up to the skeptics to demonstrate otherwise.

It won't end well.

 

[Akhenaten]

Doesn't that set off alarm bells? If you can't debunk mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal with it, then that leaves you with two options:

1) it's not a good model for determining the true nature of reality
2) absolutely every single claim of mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal is true, including those which have been thoroughly debunked by non-mythologists means

Neither of those speak particularly highly of the mythologists' perspective.

I still want to have:

3) WTF is the mythologists' perspective?

but since we've reached the same conclusion, I won't quibble.

 

[Limbo]

Doesn't that set off alarm bells? If you can't debunk mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal with it, then that leaves you with two options:

1) it's not a good model for determining the true nature of reality

Thats why you become a mystic so you can verify it. Yourself. With your own eyes.

2) absolutely every single claim of mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal is true, including those which have been thoroughly debunked by non-mythologists means

Neither of those speak particularly highly of the mythologists' perspective.

You say that because you think you know what mysticism is, but you don't. See, there is a little known, underdeveloped field called comparative mysticism. Once you grok that field for yourself, and have maybe even had a minor mystical experience or two, then come back and talk to me about what mysticism is.

 

[dlorde]

On top of the being of light and the feeling they get, I think there are a lot of consistencies to what they say about the "Astral realm" and how it works.

Well that's pretty much what you'd expect. People are very similar in their neuro-biological make-up. You stimulate different people's brains in the same area and they'll report broadly similar experiences.

Before aliens were trendy, people saw/were abducted by goblins, elves, witches, etc. They were pretty consistent then, and they're pretty consistent now. Very similar underlying experiences interpreted through a contemporary cultural lens.

 

[dlorde]

... I'm not inclined to accept your explanation.

Suggestion, not explanation.

 

[Akhenaten]

Doesn't that set off alarm bells? If you can't debunk mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal with it, then that leaves you with two options:

1) it's not a good model for determining the true nature of reality

Thats why you become a mystic so you can verify it. Yourself. With your own eyes.

It's hard to tell whether you're trying to say that one must become a mystic in order to verify mysticism or that one must become a mystic in order to verify reality, but on the upside, both statements would be patently ridiculous and equally worthy of instant dismissal from consideration.

2) absolutely every single claim of mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal is true, including those which have been thoroughly debunked by non-mythologists means

Neither of those speak particularly highly of the mythologists' perspective.

You say that because you think you know what mysticism is, but you don't. See, there is a little known, underdeveloped field called comparative mysticism. Once you grok that field for yourself, and have maybe even had a minor mystical experience or two, then come back and talk to me about what mysticism is.

You say that because you think you know what skepticism is, but you don't. See, there is a widely known, well developed field called critical thinking. Once you grok that field for yourself, and have maybe even had a minor skeptical experience or two, then come back and talk to us about what skepticism is.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thats why you become a mystic so you can verify it. Yourself. With your own eyes.

You say that because you think you know what mysticism is, but you don't. See, there is a little known, underdeveloped field called comparative mysticism. Once you grok that field for yourself, and have maybe even had a minor mystical experience or two, then come back and talk to me about what mysticism is.

Sorry, none of this seems to follow on from what I posted.

You said that you can't debunk mysticism, spirituality or the paranormal with the mythologists' perspective. It cannot be done. That means that either the mythologists' perspective is useless for determining the truth or otherwise of such claims, or that it is useful for determining the truth or otherwise of all such claims and all such claims are true - even those which are demonstrably untrue.

I don't need to experience anything for myself (and you're making a very, very large assumption by assuming that I haven't), because your own words very clearly set out the limits of the mythologists' perspective. Unless the statement you made is false, of course. Is that the case?

 

[dlorde]

Once you grok that field for yourself, and have maybe even had a minor mystical experience or two, then come back and talk to me about what mysticism is.

As it happens I've had several mystical experiences (minor? not sure, they seemed pretty major at the time), and I don't have temporal lobe epilepsy, but it's pretty clear to me that they were all inside my head. As for talking to you about mysticism - why on Earth should I wish to do that? especially given the tone of your posts here.