A Call for Arguments against Mysticism/Spirituality

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

Look up Paul Ekman.

Try this for an appetizer. It's very interesting.

Here is some of Ekman's book online at Google books: Emotions Revealed

No images, but the video gives plenty.

I intend to study this stuff in depth. It is on my "to do" list.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Mystical perceptions: Repeatable phenomenal observations that arise as a result of specific mental practices and are experienced as pertaining to the true nature of reality.

No, I don't think so, all the way, because more often than not the experiences occur even though the person is not in the business of doing mental practices. Far more often they come to people that have little or no knowledge of such techniques.

One reason I was asking.

[Christopher]

Mystical perceptions: Repeatable phenomenal observations that arise as a result of specific mental practices and are experienced as pertaining to the true nature of reality.

No, I don't think so, all the way, because more often than not the experiences occur even though the person is not in the business of doing mental practices. Far more often they come to people that have little or no knowledge of such techniques.

One reason I was asking.

Rich,

Hrmmm. We can have mystical revelations without repeatable observation or specific mental practices... but these things are required to validate the experience as mystical, so it's a conundrum. I suppose mystical really does mean something similar to the definitions posted by Barbara: "a phenomenal observation that is experienced as pertaining to the true nature of reality." But that alone is insufficient to determine whether it is an authentic mystical experience or an experience derived from imagination. There is still the process of validation, which I tried to incorporate into the definition...

How about this:

A phenomenal observation that is experienced as pertaining to the true nature of reality, that can be repeatedly observed through specific mental practices, and that can be cross-validated by long-term mystical practitioners as authentic and available to all who engage properly in mystical practice.

[Christopher]

I learned that when you widen your eyes and rivet that wide eyed stare to an animal, e.g., a dog, who is an alpha/beta - dominant/submissive animal, it is read as "anger" or "hostility" and the submissive pack animal will literally shrink, drop ears, tail and if you continue to move in behind that stare, the animal can wind up on it's back with flank displayed.

Now this "fear" face could be another explanation.

Just typing out loud - anyone have any input on this?

Adam

I'm going to practice on some pets. I'll let you know the results of my tests.

[Brant Gaede]

I learned that when you widen your eyes and rivet that wide eyed stare to an animal, e.g., a dog, who is an alpha/beta - dominant/submissive animal, it is read as "anger" or "hostility" and the submissive pack animal will literally shrink, drop ears, tail and if you continue to move in behind that stare, the animal can wind up on it's back with flank displayed.

Now this "fear" face could be another explanation.

Just typing out loud - anyone have any input on this?

Adam

I'm going to practice on some pets. I'll let you know the results of my tests.

People pets?

--Brant

[Selene]

Good one Brant!

I take my Dom hat off to you for that one.

lol

[Selene]

Michael - Thank you! We did so much of this micro facial analysis in 1968-1972 when I was teaching. The Department was "transforming" from Aristotelians to Behavioralist, e.g., serious BF Skinner left wing marxists. However, we learned a lot of these techniques and we used to run a lot of kinesic and micro-facial kinesics.

That video is excellent. [and another reason to get off the grid]. By the way, have you ever seen the movie "Off the Map'. Great individualist film, an IRS auditor comes out to some folks who literally are off the "map". Attempts to address the "real" mystical aspects of life.

"Try this for an appetizer. It's very interesting.

No images, but the video gives plenty.

I intend to study this stuff in depth. It is on my 'to do' list."

It's funny, my father was an arson investigator for 7 or 8 yrs and I learned to observe, retain and extrapolate from that type of data. So when it exploded in my department I took full advantage of it.

Thanks again.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

That's better, I think, Christopher. You might want to look (if you haven't) over William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience." 1900's, but still one of the definitive texts.

This is thick stuff, but worth it. A lot of case histories.

One thing that seems to come out of it (James pretty much mentions this and more) is that we simply know that the change happens to a person (he distinguishes between what he calls "once-born," and "twice-born"). The nature of the experiences are quite different, but he looks for commonalities. I think the most marked one is seen through an abrubt, pretty much permanent change in behavior and action.

Anyway, check it out it you want.

[Christopher]

Well, as interesting as these discussions have been, unfortunately this thread is not accomplishing its goal. There have been almost no posts against mysticism.

I'm really thinking most people who are antithesis to spirituality/mysticism read Rand's views, think about those views from her point of view, and accept them. But of course, with Rand so blatantly incorrect on matters of psychology and epistemology, her views were too restrictive to accurately consider and judge phenomenal events.

I am hoping some people will take the time to acknowledge other more updated points of view, to think about these other points of view and accept or reject them. Rejection is fine and also the goal of this thread. With so many people rejecting s/m, I'm just suprised there are very few (if any) arguments other than Rand's own view, and none which address today's considerations.

[Selene]

Can we not be just positive about rationality and chose not to be

"against" mysticism?

[Rich Engle]

Can we not be just positive about rationality and chose not to be

"against" mysticism?

Oh, now where would the fun be in that?

[Michelle]

There is no such thing as a "mystical experience." The only thing you're experiencing when deep in meditation or when you have a near-death experience is a change in consciousness produced by chemical secretions. You're not experiencing a 'truer reality.' You're usually experiencing the variety of hallucinogens your brain is secreting. There can be no knowledge discovered through this, moreover. A doped-up brain is no reliable judge of experience. You'll know what I mean if you've ever had a stoner friend. If in doubt, look at the track record of a method's application. Scientific reasoning has given us all the luxuries and necessities of our modern society. Mysticism has given us those remarkable asian people who think lighting themselves on fire is a proper form of protest, as well as the modern Western man who thinks his inability to coherently grasp the nature of reality gives him a claim over how other people should conduct their business. These don't 'prove' the validity of scientific reasoning or the invalidity of 'mysticism,' of course. That would be nothing more than a pragmatic approach. It helps to see the fruit born of the application of each approach, though.

I don't agree with Objectivists and Rand on some things. I think many students of Objectivism treat Objectivist circles as a way to escape the necessity of coming to one's own conclusions, garbing themselves in the language of rationality and individualism while simultaneously betraying their own rational capacity. I think Rand was wrong to trust Leonard Peikoff and that she had a very poor understanding of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. I don't consider myself an Objectivist or a student of Objectivism, frankly, because I hate group identities and consider my own rational judgment superior to many of the judgments of Ayn Rand. I admire and respect her artistic and philosophical legacy, but I won't make myself subservient to it. However, this is one area where I've always agreed with Rand, many years before I ever heard about her. Because she is correct. There is no God and no 'mystical' aspect of existence. For the same reason, any number of the mystical boogeymen of our time, from the concept of a seperate mind (as distinct from the brain, I mean: mind is the function of the brain, not some floating abstraction that resides in a world of ideas) to the phantom substance of qualia (for a good refutation of this absurd belief, refer to Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, where he demonstrates how the concept of qualia is not only unprovable, but incoherent) add nothing to the philosophical debate. The proper way to approach reality is found by sailing in-between (and past, into calm water) the Scylla and Charybdis of reductive materialism and idealism.

Rand, as flawed a figure as she was, continues to be influential and appealing precisely because, when you get down to it, she was so utterly right about so many things. This, I firmly believe, is one of those things.

[Selene]

:thumbsup:

[Rich Engle]

If it were only that simple...

[Dragonfly]

Michelle hits the nail on the head. The 'knowledge' gained by mystical experience hasn't any value if it cannot be confirmed independently by rational means. Millions of people claim that they have experienced God, Jesus, Maria, talked to them, listened to them. Is that a reason to suppose that God exists? Of course not, and the number of people making that claim isn't relevant either, facts are not derived by majority rule.

[Michelle]

If it were only that simple...

If only what were that simple?

[Christopher]

There is no such thing as a "mystical experience." The only thing you're experiencing when deep in meditation or when you have a near-death experience is a change in consciousness produced by chemical secretions. You're not experiencing a 'truer reality.' You're usually experiencing the variety of hallucinogens your brain is secreting. There can be no knowledge discovered through this, moreover. A doped-up brain is no reliable judge of experience. You'll know what I mean if you've ever had a stoner friend. If in doubt, look at the track record of a method's application. Scientific reasoning has given us all the luxuries and necessities of our modern society. Mysticism has given us those remarkable asian people who think lighting themselves on fire is a proper form of protest, as well as the modern Western man who thinks his inability to coherently grasp the nature of reality gives him a claim over how other people should conduct their business. These don't 'prove' the validity of scientific reasoning or the invalidity of 'mysticism,' of course. That would be nothing more than a pragmatic approach. It helps to see the fruit born of the application of each approach, though.

I don't agree with Objectivists and Rand on some things. I think many students of Objectivism treat Objectivist circles as a way to escape the necessity of coming to one's own conclusions, garbing themselves in the language of rationality and individualism while simultaneously betraying their own rational capacity. I think Rand was wrong to trust Leonard Peikoff and that she had a very poor understanding of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. I don't consider myself an Objectivist or a student of Objectivism, frankly, because I hate group identities and consider my own rational judgment superior to many of the judgments of Ayn Rand. I admire and respect her artistic and philosophical legacy, but I won't make myself subservient to it. However, this is one area where I've always agreed with Rand, many years before I ever heard about her. Because she is correct. There is no God and no 'mystical' aspect of existence. For the same reason, any number of the mystical boogeymen of our time, from the concept of a seperate mind (as distinct from the brain, I mean: mind is the function of the brain, not some floating abstraction that resides in a world of ideas) to the phantom substance of qualia (for a good refutation of this absurd belief, refer to Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, where he demonstrates how the concept of qualia is not only unprovable, but incoherent) add nothing to the philosophical debate. The proper way to approach reality is found by sailing in-between (and past, into calm water) the Scylla and Charybdis of reductive materialism and idealism.

Rand, as flawed a figure as she was, continues to be influential and appealing precisely because, when you get down to it, she was so utterly right about so many things. This, I firmly believe, is one of those things.

Michelle,

This is a good post. Let me now ask, from an evolutionary standpoint, how does a human determine his/her needs? Epicurus (300BC) was perhaps the first person to distinctly note the difference between logic and emotion. For the 100,000 years before that, how did man function to survive in the absence of education, etc?

Christopher

[BaalChatzaf]

Michelle,

This is a good post. Let me now ask, from an evolutionary standpoint, how does a human determine his/her needs? Epicurus (300BC) was perhaps the first person to distinctly note the difference between logic and emotion. For the 100,000 years before that, how did man function to survive in the absence of education, etc?

Christopher

Humans paid attention to their surroundings and from particular experiences they formed rules of thumb which helped them for find food, avoid danger and otherwise stay alive. These rules of thumb are the ancestors of scientific hypotheses.

You can see it in action today. Watch how a little kid learns stuff well before he is able to make great leaps of abstraction. Studying how toddlers and youngsters learn the world is an education. I watch my six year old twin grand-children navigate their way through websites and computer games and I am astounded at how far ground level induction and fiddling with the details can carry them.

If Ayn Rand had children are had participated in the upbringing of children she would have learned a great deal more about concept formation, idea creation, induction and problem solving. In that area, Jean Piaget was way ahead of Rand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Christopher]

Humans paid attention to their surroundings and from particular experiences they formed rules of thumb which helped them for find food, avoid danger and otherwise stay alive. These rules of thumb are the ancestors of scientific hypotheses.

You can see it in action today. Watch how a little kid learns stuff well before he is able to make great leaps of abstraction. Studying how toddlers and youngsters learn the world is an education. I watch my six year old twin grand-children navigate their way through websites and computer games and I am astounded at how far ground level induction and fiddling with the details can carry them.

If Ayn Rand had children are had participated in the upbringing of children she would have learned a great deal more about concept formation, idea creation, induction and problem solving. In that area, Jean Piaget was way ahead of Rand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Do you think the motivation for human attachment and related emotions are "learned?"

[BaalChatzaf]

Do you think the motivation for human attachment and related emotions are "learned?"

No. I think that is "wired in". Bonding between mother and child or caregiver and child is a survival characteristic. That would have been "wired in" by Natural Selection.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

"These rules of thumb are the ancestors of scientific hypotheses."

Yep. Trial and error always works for the observant survivor.

I was hoping we were going back to caning your wife(s) with a "stick" no wider than your thumb!

Damn.

It was such a nice D/s scene...lol

Adam

[Christopher]

Do you think the motivation for human attachment and related emotions are "learned?"

No. I think that is "wired in". Bonding between mother and child or caregiver and child is a survival characteristic. That would have been "wired in" by Natural Selection.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The reason I brought up needs, and the reason I asked Michelle about them, was to look at aspects of psychological phenomena and see whether a claim can be made for some "truth" implicit within such phenomena. In other words, how do we differentiate the learned phenomenal experiences (individually-subjective feelings) from those experiences that are "wired in" to all human brains? For example, man is wired to achieve, to be an agent of productivity that Rand based Objectivist ethics on. This "achievement motive" is necessary for evolutionary success and survival. Therefore, by the same token should we consider mystical phenomena as "wired in" and a basis for human ethics? What are the arguments against this?

Christopher

[Rich Engle]

Look, you either get this shit, or you don't.

Unfortunately, it is harder (but not impossible) to consider such possibilities when some change has not come over you.

That's one thing.

The other one (and this really hacks me off), is that argument about stoners, dopamine, and the general brushoff about how your brain is full of chemicals.

Uh, YEAH. But this is not on-point, it is a generalization. These things always come out the same. In fact, most of these topics, were people to be truly honest, are started to validate their own state, make sure everything is OK.

As a matter of fact, the main reason people posit this speaks for itself; they want to be sure, meaning, they are not.

Well, it doesn't work that way. It may work that way for you now, maybe forever, but, simply put, if you are seeking comfort from the idea that you know everything about everything, good luck on the mission.

How a person connects to the universe brings different things.

Jeez, Louise...now I remember why I tire of doing this one.

Now, go pick my words apart: it will be as good as anything to do while the clock ticks off.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... simply put, if you are seeking comfort from the idea that you know everything about everything, good luck on the mission.

How a person connects to the universe brings different things.

Rich,

This is my sentiment, except I have attained serenity with it, even in public.

There are insurmountable difficulties with trying to crawl into the head of another person to observe it from the inside, yet even without being able to corroborate, some people will tell you—as fact—what is going on inside your head...

When I encounter this, I have taken to looking on in slightly amused wonder, then moving on...

Michael

[Michelle]

Do you think the motivation for human attachment and related emotions are "learned?"

No. I think that is "wired in". Bonding between mother and child or caregiver and child is a survival characteristic. That would have been "wired in" by Natural Selection.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The reason I brought up needs, and the reason I asked Michelle about them, was to look at aspects of psychological phenomena and see whether a claim can be made for some "truth" implicit within such phenomena. In other words, how do we differentiate the learned phenomenal experiences (individually-subjective feelings) from those experiences that are "wired in" to all human brains? For example, man is wired to achieve, to be an agent of productivity that Rand based Objectivist ethics on. This "achievement motive" is necessary for evolutionary success and survival. Therefore, by the same token should we consider mystical phenomena as "wired in" and a basis for human ethics? What are the arguments against this?

Christopher

Humans are not 'wired' to achieve. Neither are they 'wired' to be rational. 'Wired' instincts are outside of the province of morality. Achievement and the application of reason are both choices we make in ensuring our own survival and flourishing.

As to your question on the relationship between emotions and reason in an earlier post, I'll only say this. The distinction between "emotionalism" and "rationality" exists only because we are taught from an early age that emotions and reason are two separate and equal enemies who vie for the domination of the human mind. The two choices, we are told, the two poles of human experience, is the deeply-feeling irrationalist and the cold, unfeeling rationalist. Like most other forms of dualism, however (mind/body, physical/spiritual, etc.), this is vicious nonsense meant to set a person on the path toward self-destruction. Emotion and reason are not meant to be torn apart on a rack and kept eternally at odds. Most psychologists will tell you that emotion is not the enemy of reason, but, indeed, being in touch with one's emotions is necessary for proper and balanced reasoning. Emotions are reactions to internalized values (which are different from adopted values: I can tell myself 'I value this' all I want, but it stands to reason that people who hold a certain value do not need to constantly remind themselves of it. Consider that a person's most basic internalized premises are found in what Rand called their 'sense of life'). A properly integrated individual is one who's emotional reactions follow from their internalized values and premises.

I'm not sure where you're going with this discussion on mysticism, but let me make myself clear. Humans do seem to have a predisposition to believe in God (not stating this authoritatively, but this is what I have heard many times). This is the only 'wired' mysticism I can see in humans. But this does not have any necessary bearing on the ontological construction of reality. Without the existence of independently verifiable evidence, it has no implications outside of the fact of its own existence. It isn't uncommon for our brains to lie to us, after all, in certain circumstances. Ever hear of 'phantom leg syndrome?' And a person can actually be made to feel pain in a part of their body that isn't actually physically stimulated if their other senses are fooled. Our nervous system tells our brain to produce a certain reaction to certain categories of physical stimuli in order to ensure a proper reaction. Pleasure is generally good, and our brain rewards such stimuli. Pain is generally bad and threatens the continued existence of the organism, and our brain punishes such stimuli. But it is our brain that creates pain and pleasure as a response to certain stimuli. Pain is not a result of kicking a rock with your bare foot, but your brain wants you to think it is. That is how it conditions us for survival.

And finally, I say this as a person who has made her own number of errors in this regard: do not hinge your understanding of reality too greatly on evolutionary psychology. It is not well-established enough to reference as if it were a given. Undoubtedly, many aspects of our instincts are inherited. We are not born tabula rasa. But that field is not yet established science.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Michelle R