For PixyMista – The Problem With Metaphysics

[Bishadi]

There is no system to the metaphysical claim that supernatural being exist. They are BS claims with no substantial evidence. And, yes, I do believe they are crazy ideas, because most people don't just leave it at "I had a weird experience, what could it have been?", but rather go into definitions of what they think they experienced which mostly involves making crap up. An example of this would be assuming that an unidentified object in the sky is a spaceship full of aliens from another planet.

Furthermore, I think they are crazy idea just as I think solipsism is a crazy idea. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that any of them are true (even though they of course are possible) and until the people making these claims provide some substantial evidence, I will continue to file them under "crazy ideas".

i rather like that post.


One of the ideas that bugs me, is the isolation from nature that many are led to believe. For example; to believe a god is in some other place and demons are spirits from hell to corrupt men/women are just 'crazy'.

Nature is who/what feeds us and to return to 'the garden' when trying to address or even assess our own needs and wants, then a grounding to reality begins to unfold. For example; god doesnt take the sun across the sky then thru the underworld for it to arise in the east. Just like an asteroid didnt bring life here from some utter place. The answers to both are found in the evidence left by our previous generations from their written and conveyed knowledge; words.

Science unveiled how the earth turns and science shares how life evolves from atoms and energy (em) versus adam and eve having beeen 'created'.

When removing our lineage to nature or 'leaving the garden' has sent makind on many tangents but within the knowledge left by the previous generations, there is enough to awaken mankind to actually comprehend what they are.

To comprehend the metaphyical renditions often the metaphors do actually share applicability.

Then to be capable of witnessing within your own self, de ja vu then any can shares the experience of how prophecies could actually exist. (energy (em) entangled between points in time (EPR paradox))

 

[Limbo]

If you disagree that electrical and/or chemical stimulation of the brain can produce experiences, then I have some peyote to sell you.

You seem to think you have a trump card there. Well, you don't. A mystic can use willpower to initiate a mystical experience, or a mystic can use ayahuasca. Or peyote. Or LSD, Salvia divinorum, or any other 'sacred substance'. It doesn't matter how the altered state of consciousness is achieved. What matters is what the mystic does when the 'doors of perception' are cleansed. Sink or swim?

 

[D'rok]

You seem to think you have a trump card there. Well, you don't. A mystic can use willpower to initiate a mystical experience, or a mystic can use ayahuasca. Or peyote. Or LSD, Salvia divinorum, or any other 'sacred substance'. It doesn't matter how the altered state of consciousness is achieved. What matters is what the mystic does when the 'doors of perception' are cleansed. Sink or swim?

It's a trump card to Bishadi's rejection of the electrochemical nature of the brain.

It's strong evidence that mystical experiences, however initially triggered, are the products of physical brain events and are therefore quite prosaic. No need to accrete mythological explanations onto those prosaic experiences so that they become built up into elaborate metaphysical constructs. It just muddies the waters and does not contribute to humanity's knowledge base in any meaningful way.

 

[Limbo]

It's a trump card to Bishadi's rejection of the electrochemical nature of the brain.

It's strong evidence that mystical experiences, however initially triggered, are the products of physical brain events and are therefore quite prosaic. No need to accrete mythological explanations onto those prosaic experiences so that they become built up into elaborate metaphysical constructs. It just muddies the waters and does not contribute to humanity's knowledge base in any meaningful way.

Mystics don't accrete mythological explanations onto prosaic experiences. They experience archetypes of the unconscious in symbolic, mythological forms. They interact with the archetypes, and the archetypes with each other.

They don't wake up and say, "today I'm going to sit down at my desk and overcome my writers block so that I can cook up a new metaphysical construct. That will really impress my boss! Promotion, here I come!"

 

[Bishadi]

It's a trump card to Bishadi's rejection of the electrochemical nature of the brain.

do you know the chemical of peyote (the crystaline structure) of the molecules?

You did not 'trump' anything.

An MRI with a 1.2-2 tesla magnetic field, trumps any idea that the brain operates on electricity.

It's strong evidence that mystical experiences, however initially triggered, are the products of physical brain events and are therefore quite prosaic. No need to accrete mythological explanations onto those prosaic experiences so that they become built up into elaborate metaphysical constructs. It just muddies the waters and does not contribute to humanity's knowledge base in any meaningful way.

a dream is not much different that an induced experience

think of your mind as a bank of mirrrors and each pane of glial is a memory. To put in a shaded filter and tweak a lense, the images distort. (your chemical peyote)

 

[D'rok]

Mystics don't accrete mythological explanations onto prosaic experiences. They experience archetypes of the unconscious in symbolic, mythological forms. They interact with the archetypes, and the archetypes with each other.

Those are precisley the subjective experiences of physical brain events that I'm talking about, and they are prosiac. Those subjective experiences then attract all of the mythological accretions. Like the term "archetype".

They don't wake up and say, "today I'm going to sit down at my desk and overcome my writers block so that I can cook up a new metaphysical construct. That will really impress my boss! Promotion, here I come!"

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's darn close to the thought process of the Jungs of the world. It's the only way to make your reputation in the soft sciences.

 

[D'rok]

do you know the chemical of peyote (the crystaline structure) of the molecules?

You did not 'trump' anything.

An MRI with a 1.2-2 tesla magnetic field, trumps any idea that the brain operates on electricity.






a dream is not much different that an induced experience

think of your mind as a bank of mirrrors and each pane of glial is a memory. To put in a shaded filter and tweak a lense, the images distort. (your chemical peyote)

Incomprehensible and incoherent.

 

[Limbo]

Those are precisley the subjective experiences of physical brain events that I'm talking about, and they are prosiac. Those subjective experiences then attract all of the mythological accretions. Like the term "archetype".

I understand where you are coming from, but the subjective experience incorporates the 'mythological accretions'. The mystic(s) is confronted by a living, interactive, autonomous myth. The mystic does not need to consciously add flowery elaboration to a mystical experience of a metaphysical entity, the way you might add flowery language when describing your first kiss, when it could be described in terms of pressure on the fleshy folds which surround the opening of the human mouth.

Would you mind describing the extent of your mystical experiences?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's darn close to the thought process of the Jungs of the world. It's the only way to make your reputation in the soft sciences.

I get the impression that you are trying to provoke me again. Or maybe it's just my imagination.

 

[Bishadi]

Incomprehensible and incoherent.

sorry..... i forgot.... some dont do the research themselves.

the alkaloid of peyote is ... wiki

Hordenine (N,N-dimethyl-4-hydroxyphenylethylamine) is a phenylethylamine alkaloid with antibacterial and antibiotic properties


mescaline and even crank and THC...... crystaline structures!


As well glial... wiki... The chemical compound acetylcholine (often abbreviated ACh) is a neurotransmitter in both the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and central nervous system (CNS) in many organisms including humans.




AS for an MRI, and the magnetic fields.................. that may be too advanced for you!

 

[Nonpareil]

Incomprehensible and incoherent.

He's saying that the chemical is irrelevant, since it doesn't refute his idea that a "one-point-two-dash-two Tesla" electrical field would destroy an electrical brain. The bit about mirrors, though, has me mystified.

 

[D'rok]

sorry..... i forgot.... some dont do the research themselves.

the alkaloid of peyote is ... wiki

Hordenine (N,N-dimethyl-4-hydroxyphenylethylamine) is a phenylethylamine alkaloid with antibacterial and antibiotic properties


mescaline and even crank and THC...... crystaline structures!


As well glial... wiki... The chemical compound acetylcholine (often abbreviated ACh) is a neurotransmitter in both the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and central nervous system (CNS) in many organisms including humans.




AS for an MRI, and the magnetic fields.................. that may be too advanced for you!

I must admit, I am mystified as to why you're banging on about chemicals and electromagnetism and their effects on brains in an attempt to prove that brains don't function electrochemically.

 

[marplots]

Would you mind describing the extent of your mystical experiences?

This is the nut of the problem. Since I do not have mystical experiences, I am not qualified to judge the validity. This is fine from my point of view... until someone tries to say that these experiences they have had should impact and inform my worldview.

This is where it fails for me. If I cannot be a mystic, I should at least be able to see the effects of these principles and properties which I cannot access directly.

If you touch me, I am touching you -- there is a ground where we meet. But I do not find this. I do not find this place where the effects ever cross over into my experience base. How could I be honest and not dismiss the whole enterprise?

If the whole world were blind save for one sighted person, that person, having an ability unknown to the rest of humanity, could still demonstrate it. They would be able to do things because of this ability that would, if not show the property directly, at least show that there are meaningful consequences. The experience of sight would still be beyond me. But the results, that common ground where I share the world with this person, would have me acknowledge there is 'something there'. I find this property missing in mysticism generally.

 

[D'rok]

This is the nut of the problem. Since I do not have mystical experiences, I am not qualified to judge the validity. This is fine from my point of view... until someone tries to say that these experiences they have had should impact and inform my worldview.

This is where it fails for me. If I cannot be a mystic, I should at least be able to see the effects of these principles and properties which I cannot access directly.

If you touch me, I am touching you -- there is a ground where we meet. But I do not find this. I do not find this place where the effects ever cross over into my experience base. How could I be honest and not dismiss the whole enterprise?

If the whole world were blind save for one sighted person, that person, having an ability unknown to the rest of humanity, could still demonstrate it. They would be able to do things because of this ability that would, if not show the property directly, at least show that there are meaningful consequences. The experience of sight would still be beyond me. But the results, that common ground where I share the world with this person, would have me acknowledge there is 'something there'. I find this property missing in mysticism generally.

Very well said.

 

[D'rok]

I understand where you are coming from, but the subjective experience incorporates the 'mythological accretions'. The mystic(s) is confronted by a living, interactive, autonomous myth. The mystic does not need to consciously add flowery elaboration to a mystical experience of a metaphysical entity, the way you might add flowery language when describing your first kiss, when it could be described in terms of pressure on the fleshy folds which surround the opening of the human mouth.

Would you mind describing the extent of your mystical experiences?




I get the impression that you are trying to provoke me again. Or maybe it's just my imagination.

Argh. I typed up a response to this post and then lost it. Stupid forum.

It was fabulously brilliant though. Honest.

 

[Limbo]

This is the nut of the problem. Since I do not have mystical experiences, I am not qualified to judge the validity. This is fine from my point of view...

In my opinion, an expert in the fields of comparative mysticism and comparative religion is somewhat qualified to judge even without any firsthand experience. Are you an expert in comparative mysticism?

until someone tries to say that these experiences they have had should impact and inform my worldview.

What does it mean for someone to impact and inform your worldview? Does this conversation qualify? I mean, does information inform it? Or only what gets through the filter?

This is where it fails for me. If I cannot be a mystic, I should at least be able to see the effects of these principles and properties which I cannot access directly.

You'd think, but no. That's not the way it works. Your own unconscious mind will filter out what you don't want to see, by using your own psychic ability against you under the radar of your conscious awareness. This effect is typically mythologized as a trickster type figure. Neat, huh? The mind really is an amazing thing.

 

[marplots]

In my opinion, an expert in the fields of comparative mysticism and comparative religion is somewhat qualified to judge even without any firsthand experience. Are you an expert in comparative mysticism?

No, I have no expertise save introspection.

What does it mean for someone to impact and inform your worldview? Does this conversation qualify? I mean, does information inform it? Or only what gets through the filter?

Yes to the last two. For the first, the hallmark is change. And to the extend the conversation qualifies it is predicated on both of us understanding the terms and making good guesses about meanings. As far as filtering goes, this is also in effect. But rather than 'filter' I'd go with 'net'. The emphasis should be on what sticks in the mesh instead of what passes through and disappears.

That's not the way it works. Your own unconscious mind will filter out what you don't want to see, by using your own psychic ability against you under the radar of your conscious awareness. This effect is typically mythologized as a trickster type figure. Neat, huh? The mind really is an amazing thing.

How would one go about overcoming this process? I assume that qualified mystics do overcome it, although I am not sure if you are saying it is innate or amenable to training. In either case, since I am not trained, I am susceptible to this blocking you describe and stuck in my fortress of materialism.

Given all that, what would you say would be the value to me of having more of a mystical view? Do you feel the subject worthwhile or an affectation? I'll assume worthwhile, but then I'd like to know why.

 

[Nonpareil]

In my opinion, an expert in the fields of comparative mysticism and comparative religion is somewhat qualified to judge even without any firsthand experience.

The problem here is that these "experts" can't prove that there's even a field for them to be experts in, let alone that they actually are experts.

 

[catsmate]

Hallucinations are not metaphysics. They can be triggered with electrical or chemical stimulation of the brain. Hallucinations are physics.

Meh, more neurophysiology. But in the end it's pretty much all physics.

 

[catsmate]

I'm not even sure that he is trying to communicate.

I'm beginning to think "he" is a poorly designed AI experiment.

 

[tsig]

If you disagree that electrical and/or chemical stimulation of the brain can produce experiences, then I have some peyote to sell you.

Do you always carry coal to Newcastle?