A Call for Arguments against Mysticism/Spirituality

[Rich Engle]

I do not believe mysticism is a default human need.

The simple reason is because people exist who have no need for it.

It is an option to explore, for some. For others, it just happens to them.

But no, you can live without it. That's a true need, isn't it?

[Christopher]

I do not believe mysticism is a default human need.

The simple reason is because people exist who have no need for it.

It is an option to explore, for some. For others, it just happens to them.

But no, you can live without it. That's a true need, isn't it?

NBranden once said that people can live just fine never experiencing a passion for their work, but these people would be missing a very valuable experience in life if they never had such passion.

I'm not saying that passion is a need, but I think it's important to note that lack of need fulfillment results in some less fulfilling experience in life, even if that experience seems "normal." Not meeting a need is not death. We have physical needs for certain vitamins, for sex, exercise, etc. We live just fine not having these, but maybe we feel less energetic, maybe we feel emotions that are not so vivid. When a psychological need is not met, it doesn't mean that we die... it just means that we are not having as depthful an experience of health, life, and functioning as we otherwise could have.

Here was a more particular set of need characteristics that I rather like from a recent post:

1. motivates an organism towards its fulfillment through innate positive/negative phenomena

--> meeting a need leads to a greater psychological sense of fulfillment

2. fulfillment induces greater functioning of the organism within the environment from which the organism evolved

--> meeting a need increases our ability to survive

3. elicits awareness that faciliates the fulfillment of that need

Edited May 30, 2009 by Christopher

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The need standard does not really work, especially if it is found that the mind has a manner of experiencing a part of reality not processed by the other sense organs.

The following often lead long healthy lives:

Deaf people...

Blind people...

Need I go on?

Life rarely depends on only one sense organ.

Michael

[Christopher]

The need standard does not really work, especially if it is found that the mind has a manner of experiencing a part of reality not processed by the other sense organs.

The following often lead long healthy lives:

Deaf people...

Blind people...

Need I go on?

Life rarely depends on only one sense organ.

Michael

In talking about needs, what I'm positing is that needs influence the formation of perceptions. Our senses sense the world, but our needs influence the manner in which those senses form into distinct perceptual experiences.

I've asserted on other threads that perhaps mysticism is a "sixth sense," but I'm moving away from that position now. You're right, senses do not represent needs.

[Rich Engle]

"Mysticism," the "mystical experience" does exist. It is a definite condition that manifests itself in a variety of ways, and in that sense it is a fairly broad term.

Just like when you say "God." This word, by no means, means the same thing to every human, and it never will. Usually, when the existence of "God" is argued in places like this, it means the theistic, creator guy.

What puzzles me is why, so often, those who are utterly convinced in the non-existence of spiritual topics feel so driven to proof them out of the world. I suggest it is because somehow, they often think doing that will make them feel better inside, somehow--more secure. Assuming they are truly always acting in their best self-interest, that is. This will not happen. Certain organized religions, general backwards superstitions have done a great deal of damage in this world. Just like atheist fascists and corrupt politics. Often, they work together in truly unholy alliances. That is the general argument for the why.

But these bad things I talk about are the acts of men. And, from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, stamping out all religion is simply not going to happen.

Better work is being done, I think. Meaning, intelligent, respectful dialogs/explorations are being done, and encouraged from leaders in both various spiritual communities, and scientific ones. One goal there is to agree on common purposes, commonalities in general. That is more purposeful work.

I believe it is more fruitful, if one truly desires to explore it at all, to confine the work to the state or states themselves that fall into the plane of what one would call spiritual, or mystical, or meditative, or transcendental, whatever floats your boat.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michelle]

"Mysticism," the "mystical experience" does exist. It is a definite condition that manifests itself in a variety of ways, and in that sense it is a fairly broad term.

Just like when you say "God." This word, by no means, means the same thing to every human, and it never will. Usually, when the existence of "God" is argued in places like this, it means the theistic, creator guy.

What puzzles me is why, so often, those who are utterly convinced in the non-existence of spiritual topics feel so driven to proof them out of the world. I suggest it is because somehow, they often think doing that will make them feel better inside, somehow--more secure. Assuming they are truly always acting in their best self-interest, that is. This will not happen. Certain organized religions, general backwards superstitions have done a great deal of damage in this world. Just like atheist fascists and corrupt politics. Often, they work together in truly unholy alliances. That is the general argument for the why.

But these bad things I talk about are the acts of men. And, from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, stamping out all religion is simply not going to happen.

Better work is being done, I think. Meaning, intelligent, respectful dialogs/explorations are being done, and encouraged from leaders in both various spiritual communities, and scientific ones. One goal there is to agree on common purposes, commonalities in general. That is more purposeful work.

I believe it is more fruitful, if one truly desires to explore it at all, to confine the work to the state or states themselves that fall into the plane of what one would call spiritual, or mystical, or meditative, or transcendental, whatever floats your boat.

I don't know that I've ever been obsessed with disproving the existence of God or Demons or Unicorns. I just don't understand how people can possibly believe in them. The only 'mystical' thing I could see people even being slightly drawn toward is Buddhistic mysticism, with its emphasis of the nothingness of the present and maintaining a kind of preconceptual awareness (the goal of the Zen Buddhists, who wish to disappear completely into the great Present, the one reality, God, Brahman and Atman both). Or perhaps the eternally elusive Tao, which can never be understood because the moment you attempt to apprehend it you lose it. But God? Creator of Worlds, the big guy who plays cruel tricks on people like Job and Abraham? The God who magically impregnated Mary with Jesus Christ, who's destiny was to become a telepathic Jewish zombie? The guy who sent an angel to the Prophet Muhammad? The fellah who turned a woman into salt and flooded the world?

[Christopher]

Just sharing my relationship to spirituality:

I found that building solid values, practicing those values completely (even in the face or horrendous emotions and cognitions against such values) results in a sort-of awakening to a set of raw emotions that are very fulfilling. I call these emotions "spiritual," but that's only because the wisdom such emotions possess is often mirrored in many religious texts when reading through the symbolism.

Take compassion. Practicing compassion feels unerringly correct to these raw emotions I experience today. I see a similar view reflected in Buddhism. The emotions are the drivers for compassionate behavior, and the conceptual mind is only a vehicle for understanding how to practice compassion effectively and authentically. I don't need to decide that compassion is the right way to act, it just feels right at the deepest levels of my awareness. I gained this clarity through rationality, through dedication to my values, but the clarity itself awoke from my emotions. I merely created myself into a person who could allow such feelings to arise and be recognized (rather than shoved away with the desire to be "right" or whatever). Thus, "spiritual practice" to me really emphasizes practicing the right values so that when those deepest levels of hard-wired emotions arise up, they rise into an environment that is ready to receive them... namely, me.

[Rich Engle]

Christopher:

What you says makes you a very good person, and a real thinker, I would say, for what that is worth.

I just know that sometimes you have to ask yourself why you are asking the question in the first place.

That requires a lot of probing, inside.

And, that you opened this dialogue, which is traditionally, er...testy, means you are brave and inquisitive.

To explore this area requires that one disclose, if any, instances that lead one to the inquiry itself.

If you wanna talk about it, that is. It's either that, or talk about stuff like getting stuck in bible camp, or whatever...

Let's confine. James states that he believes the mystical experience is normally experienced for, say a half-hour, tops. I believe that true; actually shorter states are more frequent.

Is that just dopamine, and stuff? I don't think so, because, for one, the effects are far longer sustained.

The next argument from this quarter will be, if any, a psychological one. If tolerated, we will have to go through qualifying rounds about what neurosis and psychosis are, and a bunch of other fun.

I have no time for that.

Read case histories. Hell, if you get bored, read stuff about Edgar Cayce--that's always fun.

Best!

rde

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Christopher:

What you says makes you a very good person, and a real thinker, I would say, for what that is worth.

I just know that sometimes you have to ask yourself why you are asking the question in the first place.

That requires a lot of probing, inside.

And, that you opened this dialogue, which is traditionally, er...testy, means you are brave and inquisitive.

To explore this area requires that one disclose, if any, instances that lead one to the inquiry itself.

If you wanna talk about it, that is. It's either that, or talk about stuff like getting stuck in bible camp, or whatever...

Let's confine. James states that he believes the mystical experience is normally experienced for, say a half-hour, tops. I believe that true; actually shorter states are more frequent.

Is that just dopamine, and stuff? I don't think so, because, for one, the effects are far longer sustained.

The next argument from this quarter will be, if any, a psychological one. If tolerated, we will have to go through qualifying rounds about what neurosis and psychosis are, and a bunch of other fun.

I have no time for that.

Read case histories. Hell, if you get bored, read stuff about Edgar Cayce--that's always fun.

Best!

rde

Rich,

You can't isolate any one neurotransmitter like dopamine when talking about spirituality. If you want to get a scientific window on what happens in spiritual experience, put people under SPECT imaging and see which areas of the brain light up for greater blood flow besides just the right temporal area. Meditative practices have enormous beneficial effects on the deep limbic system and basal ganglia.

Of course having the experience is not the same thing as the phenomena it elicits. Through a human being's lifetime we have an organically grown extended consciousness and a rich autobiographical self that no one else shares. How the particular manifestation of dopamine or any other physiological pathway is experienced in content is unique to the individual. It depends on our specific stored memories and how they interact with the our deep brain structures during the experience.

Jim