A Call for Arguments against Mysticism/Spirituality

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rich,

btw - I have experienced several drug-induced emotions like paranoia. Crack cocaine does that, for instance.

(It gets embarrassing because you start to think cops will come booming through the slit underneath the door and stuff like that. The fear is real, intense and it lasts for hours.)

There is an enormous difference between drug-induced mental experience like that, which is temporary, and normal mental experience like thought and regular emotional flow (even when intense), which is constantly repeating.

I have found that feelings like profound gratitude to the universe at large and the feeling of total integration with the universe (oneness for lack of a better word) to be more similar to my normal experience than exceptional as in drug-induced experience.

Trying to explain it to a person who allegedly knows that what is in my head is delusion and chemicals is like seeing red and trying to tell someone color-blind what red looks like. They are right in that they cannot relate to it, but I am right in that I will not bear false witness to my own mind.

It's a dilemma and my solution is to seek serenity.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A properly integrated individual is one who's emotional reactions follow from their internalized values and premises.

Michelle,

I have trouble with statements like this since there is much in emotions that is beyond conceptual manipulation. I do agree that, in what can be operated as you state, a properly integrated individual will function partly that way, with some emotional reactions flowing from internalized values and premises.

Other emotions just don't. I have come across way to much evidence to accept Rand's oversimplification on this point.

I recently posted a video of Paul Ekman's work (see here). The universal nature of his findings the world over in all levels of social structures speaks more to inherent human nature than integration of chosen conceptual values and emotional responses.

Sylvan Tomkins did similar research with really young children. See here for an appetizer: The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion.

I believe integrating conceptual volition with emotions should be added to these things in order to be correct, not substitute them.

Michael

[Christopher]

Rich,

Don't let it get to you so much. I think these discussions often touch on core values between those who believe and those who don't. Perhaps because it's so emotionally-loaded, both sides don't want to discuss it in too much depth together. It's easy to discuss with someone you agree with, but...

I am quite happy Michelle posted. I welcome thoughtful arguments against mysticism because at least people are now moving together in discussion. In the very least, we can understand detailed opinions and perhaps seek a bridge. But more to the point, she's motivated me to think about this from a different angle.

Michelle,

Again, good post. I disagree with your statement that achievement is not an innate motive. As you said, humans are not born tabula-rasa. Nor did humans evolve with an education about what it takes to survive. Man needed a means to understand his needs before he ever learned to speak or teach, and that means of understanding was emotion. We can say that there are at least two bases for values. First, there is the basis of learned values as you put it. By learned, I do not mean consciously selected, I mean learned subconsciously in relation and reaction to the environment. But beyond that, man needs some initial motivation to do anything, to survive in the absence of conscious knowledge. That motivation I call innate needs. Man has an innate need to attach to other humans. We see this in all babies and all parents, in romantic couples and in friendships. Humans are biologically wired to attach to other humans, to form bonds of family and affiliations.

Second, man is wired to achieve, to be an agent of action. If man were not hard-wired to take action, why would he act? If man has a mind that, when taking self-responsibility and self-instigating behavior, achieves a sense of self-efficacy, a sense of pride, then man is wired to accomplish. Similarly, failure sucks, failure hurts, low self-efficacy is not a pleasant state. That there are experiental phenomena with a positive/negative valence related to achievement suggests that achievement is innate with human nature. This fits with Rand's definition, this fits with Darwin.

Now here's a killer: Phenomenal experiences, behaviors related to human life and attachment, behaviors related to achievement and agency - these are moral and ethical indicators. They are not metaphysical truths of reality except in the context of being metaphysical human needs. These needs affect our epistemology. When we see through the eyes of attachment, we perceive relationships and create concepts through the looking glass of this need. Similarly, humans evaluate objects as tools, evaluate the environment for what can be taken from it to survive. In other words, man's need for achievement changes his epistemology such that percepts are geared towards survival/achievement-related activities, and concepts are formed around tools, around items that further achievement and agency.

Now, perhaps because mysticism is a phenomenon, it should be considered not in the realm of metaphysical truths but rather should be considered in relation to morals and ethics as pertains to man's inner nature and needs. If this is the case, then mysticism should equally have an impact on epistemology such that man perceives and conceptualizes in tune with mystical phenomenal arousal. But now, does that mean mysticism is not showing man a metaphysical truth? After all, the labeling of relationships, the labeling of tools, these concepts and percepts that we take for granted as metaphysical... they are really epistemologically based on the underlying needs of achievement and attachment. In other words, the way we see the universe is intimately tied to the requirements for survival (our needs). We see the universe in a way that supports our ability to meet our needs and survive. Therefore, if metaphysical perceptions and conceptions stand on equal ground with other human needs, then these perceptions and conceptions should be equally relevant metaphysical truths just as are the "metaphysical truths" we perceive and conceive through other needs.

General Semanticist would love this approach, because it again comes back to proposing that metaphysics deeply implicates the epistemology of the observer.

Anyway, the reason I mention all of this is because your earlier comment against mysticism started me thinking. I really appreciate that you gave it, and I'd like to hear more. However, again I'm going to mention that man must be able to understand his (psychological) needs through emotion, otherwise as an uneducated brute 100,000 years ago, he would never have understood how to survive.

Christopher

[Michelle]

A properly integrated individual is one who's emotional reactions follow from their internalized values and premises.

Michelle,

I have trouble with statements like this since there is much in emotions that is beyond conceptual manipulation. I do agree that, in what can be operated as you state, a properly integrated individual will function partly that way, with some emotional reactions flowing from internalized values and premises.

Other emotions just don't. I have come across way to much evidence to accept Rand's oversimplification on this point.

I recently posted a video of Paul Ekman's work (see here). The universal nature of his findings the world over in all levels of social structures speaks more to inherent human nature than integration of chosen conceptual values and emotional responses.

Sylvan Tomkins did similar research with really young children. See here for an appetizer: The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion.

I believe integrating conceptual volition with emotions should be added to these things in order to be correct, not substitute them.

Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the links. Although I don't see how the facts presented in the videos contradict what I said.

I was not speaking of the experience of certain emotions, but of the stimuli which evoke such responses. I disagree with Rand to the degree that any person has ever existed without pain or fear, or that such a person would be an 'ideal' of any kind. Even if only in childhood, a person is most likely going to encounter something that will cause him pain and/or fear. In early childhood, a human has no immediate values save an instinctual drive to preserve its own existence. Which is why a baby cries when it is hungry or stays away from its mother/father for too long.

I was speaking to the popular notion that we 'can't help' what we feel, that love and fear and hatred are all blind. All of which are false propositions. We can very much take charge of our own emotions by internalizing new, rational values. Consider fear. Many people are afraid of spiders. They've internalized the notion that spiders are scary, dangerous creatures to be feared. With proper training, however, a person can learn to overcome this fear, to internalize a new notion about spiders. The result is that the emotional response from then on is not one of fear and disgust, but of indifference or even affection.

Humans cannot avoid being emotional creatures (as I said, emotion is necessary to proper and balanced reasoning), but they can control, over time, how they react to things. Thus why I assert that the fully integrated individual is one who's emotional responses are in harmony with rational internalized values. This does not mean that emotion no longer exists, but that what we actually think is not running head-on into what we profess to think. In many ways, it is a striving toward authenticity.

[Michelle]

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.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. I don't mean this as an insult. I mean that your post confuses me. I would very much like to be enlightened as to what vexes you about my opinions, but I'll need your help to accomplish this.

1. 'You either get it or you don't' isn't an argument. I'm not saying you don't experience things which you would describe as 'mystical.' I can have no clue as to your experience, and have no intention to tell you what you do or do not feel. I am saying that the fact that you feel something is not the best way of determining the nature of metaphysics. And the question of mysticism is always, fundamentally, a question of metaphysics. The human mind is easily tricked. If you've ever hallucinated before, you know just how utterly real it feels at the moment when it is happening. But if nothing of a mystical encounter seems to exist outside the confines of my experience, if there is nothing about it that can be independently verified, and knowing the ways in which our brains can fool us, is it not better to consider such things to have no objective existence outside of our minds?

2. Yes, saying the brain is full of chemicals which affect your experience is a generalization. It is also fully and completely accurate. What is controversial about that claim?

3. I have no way of convincing you of this (and, to be frank, I don't really care if you're convinced or not), but I do not enter into discussions merely to verify to myself my own viewpoints. I enter a discussion because I believe my view to be fully rational and justifiable, and wish to share it with others. I have been proved wrong before, and my beliefs have altered accordingly. I'm delighted when a person is able to cause me to doubt my own beliefs, because it means that I'm on the path to adopting a more correct viewpoint. There is no sense in talking about rationality if one is not open to reason. As I said, it doesn't matter to me if you believe this or not, but since you chose to make it a part of the discussion, I'm responding to it.

4. I don't know everything about everything. I likely know very little. But the fact that I am human and am ignorant of many things does not justify me in abdicating the responsibility I have to myself of constructing a worldview which might guide me through life.

[galtgulch]

I don't know everything about everything. I likely know very little. But the fact that I am human and am ignorant of many things does not justify me in abdicating the responsibility I have to myself of constructing a worldview which might guide me through life.

Michelle R,

You sound rather rational to me. It is hard to believe that you are still busily "constructing a world view." I wonder what you find is the hard part in that? If you are unwilling to accept other's beliefs that is a good thing. I have always found it hard to believe that other people believe the things they profess to believe.

What I am worried about these days which should be evident from my post on the chances of a repeat of the Weimar hyperinflation is just that.

If all of a sudden whatever funds you have in your possession will not buy anything and there is nothing on the shelves to buy anyway that is quite a nightmare to find yourself in while wide awake. How do you even get to work if the gas stations are empty or the gas costs more than you have?

I gather one does have to become a survivalist by hoarding food in advance and staying home with plenty of ammunition to defend yourself and your stuff. Small comfort if Bernanke confesses that he was wrong to believe no harm would come from his printing however much paper currency was necessary to get us out of the recession.

What good would hard currency be if you run out of tuna fish and cereal and the whole economy has ground to a halt for months with no end in sight. Sorry if this is scary to contemplate but I do fear it is coming any day now within the next year or two when the hyperinflation does manifest itself.

It is embarrassing to post this as I feel I have bared my intimidated soul. Nothing mystical about it. Sheer terror!

gulch

[Michelle]

Rich,

Don't let it get to you so much. I think these discussions often touch on core values between those who believe and those who don't. Perhaps because it's so emotionally-loaded, both sides don't want to discuss it in too much depth together. It's easy to discuss with someone you agree with, but...

I am quite happy Michelle posted. I welcome thoughtful arguments against mysticism because at least people are now moving together in discussion. In the very least, we can understand detailed opinions and perhaps seek a bridge. But more to the point, she's motivated me to think about this from a different angle.

Michelle,

Again, good post. I disagree with your statement that achievement is not an innate motive. As you said, humans are not born tabula-rasa. Nor did humans evolve with an education about what it takes to survive. Man needed a means to understand his needs before he ever learned to speak or teach, and that means of understanding was emotion. We can say that there are at least two bases for values. First, there is the basis of learned values as you put it. By learned, I do not mean consciously selected, I mean learned subconsciously in relation and reaction to the environment. But beyond that, man needs some initial motivation to do anything, to survive in the absence of conscious knowledge. That motivation I call innate needs. Man has an innate need to attach to other humans. We see this in all babies and all parents, in romantic couples and in friendships. Humans are biologically wired to attach to other humans, to form bonds of family and affiliations.

Second, man is wired to achieve, to be an agent of action. If man were not hard-wired to take action, why would he act? If man has a mind that, when taking self-responsibility and self-instigating behavior, achieves a sense of self-efficacy, a sense of pride, then man is wired to accomplish. Similarly, failure sucks, failure hurts, low self-efficacy is not a pleasant state. That there are experiental phenomena with a positive/negative valence related to achievement suggests that achievement is innate with human nature. This fits with Rand's definition, this fits with Darwin.

Now here's a killer: Phenomenal experiences, behaviors related to human life and attachment, behaviors related to achievement and agency - these are moral and ethical indicators. They are not metaphysical truths of reality except in the context of being metaphysical human needs. These needs affect our epistemology. When we see through the eyes of attachment, we perceive relationships and create concepts through the looking glass of this need. Similarly, humans evaluate objects as tools, evaluate the environment for what can be taken from it to survive. In other words, man's need for achievement changes his epistemology such that percepts are geared towards survival/achievement-related activities, and concepts are formed around tools, around items that further achievement and agency.

Now, perhaps because mysticism is a phenomenon, it should be considered not in the realm of metaphysical truths but rather should be considered in relation to morals and ethics as pertains to man's inner nature and needs. If this is the case, then mysticism should equally have an impact on epistemology such that man perceives and conceptualizes in tune with mystical phenomenal arousal. But now, does that mean mysticism is not showing man a metaphysical truth? After all, the labeling of relationships, the labeling of tools, these concepts and percepts that we take for granted as metaphysical... they are really epistemologically based on the underlying needs of achievement and attachment. In other words, the way we see the universe is intimately tied to the requirements for survival (our needs). We see the universe in a way that supports our ability to meet our needs and survive. Therefore, if metaphysical perceptions and conceptions stand on equal ground with other human needs, then these perceptions and conceptions should be equally relevant metaphysical truths just as are the "metaphysical truths" we perceive and conceive through other needs.

General Semanticist would love this approach, because it again comes back to proposing that metaphysics deeply implicates the epistemology of the observer.

Anyway, the reason I mention all of this is because your earlier comment against mysticism started me thinking. I really appreciate that you gave it, and I'd like to hear more. However, again I'm going to mention that man must be able to understand his (psychological) needs through emotion, otherwise as an uneducated brute 100,000 years ago, he would never have understood how to survive.

Christopher

It is easy (and understandable) to attribute a drive for achievement as an innate motive, but is it really that simple? For one thing, shouldn't one draw a distinction between a telos and adaptations made in response to one's environment? Consider a baby. It's mind is presumably unable to understand concepts, and thus would have no means of understanding goal-oriented behavior. And yet healthy babies show an incredible drive to first crawl and then learn to balance on two legs. Isn't this really just an inherited adaptation toward its environment? On the other hand, clearly goal-oriented behavior such as constructing an essay or cleaning a room aren't merely adaptations to the demands posed by a certain environment. People can write stories in any kind of setting that allows for one to put pen to paper (or finger to key). Of course, people must will themselves toward such actions. One does not just tend toward writing stories and cleaning rooms. It requires a clear exercise of one's will.

As to your second major point, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that because we experience something which we call mysticism, it implies that it points to inner needs which need to be addressed, akin to dreams? This seems like a fairly broad statement. You must distinguish between experiences which are part of our normal cognitive operations (such as "oneness with the universe") and experiences brought about by trauma or unnatural chemical fluctuations within the brain (general hallucinations, near-death-experiences, speaking with God, etc.). You would not say of a person afflicted with schizophrenia, "her hallucinations point to inner needs that need to be resolved," for example. Of course, traditionally religious feelings such as exaltation and reverence DO point to inner needs humans develop.

[Alfonso Jones]

Rich,

Don't let it get to you so much. I think these discussions often touch on core values between those who believe and those who don't. Perhaps because it's so emotionally-loaded, both sides don't want to discuss it in too much depth together. It's easy to discuss with someone you agree with, but...

I am quite happy Michelle posted. I welcome thoughtful arguments against mysticism because at least people are now moving together in discussion. In the very least, we can understand detailed opinions and perhaps seek a bridge. But more to the point, she's motivated me to think about this from a different angle.

Michelle,

Again, good post. I disagree with your statement that achievement is not an innate motive. As you said, humans are not born tabula-rasa. Nor did humans evolve with an education about what it takes to survive. Man needed a means to understand his needs before he ever learned to speak or teach, and that means of understanding was emotion. We can say that there are at least two bases for values. First, there is the basis of learned values as you put it. By learned, I do not mean consciously selected, I mean learned subconsciously in relation and reaction to the environment. But beyond that, man needs some initial motivation to do anything, to survive in the absence of conscious knowledge. That motivation I call innate needs. Man has an innate need to attach to other humans. We see this in all babies and all parents, in romantic couples and in friendships. Humans are biologically wired to attach to other humans, to form bonds of family and affiliations.

Second, man is wired to achieve, to be an agent of action. If man were not hard-wired to take action, why would he act? If man has a mind that, when taking self-responsibility and self-instigating behavior, achieves a sense of self-efficacy, a sense of pride, then man is wired to accomplish. Similarly, failure sucks, failure hurts, low self-efficacy is not a pleasant state. That there are experiental phenomena with a positive/negative valence related to achievement suggests that achievement is innate with human nature. This fits with Rand's definition, this fits with Darwin.

Now here's a killer: Phenomenal experiences, behaviors related to human life and attachment, behaviors related to achievement and agency - these are moral and ethical indicators. They are not metaphysical truths of reality except in the context of being metaphysical human needs. These needs affect our epistemology. When we see through the eyes of attachment, we perceive relationships and create concepts through the looking glass of this need. Similarly, humans evaluate objects as tools, evaluate the environment for what can be taken from it to survive. In other words, man's need for achievement changes his epistemology such that percepts are geared towards survival/achievement-related activities, and concepts are formed around tools, around items that further achievement and agency.

Now, perhaps because mysticism is a phenomenon, it should be considered not in the realm of metaphysical truths but rather should be considered in relation to morals and ethics as pertains to man's inner nature and needs. If this is the case, then mysticism should equally have an impact on epistemology such that man perceives and conceptualizes in tune with mystical phenomenal arousal. But now, does that mean mysticism is not showing man a metaphysical truth? After all, the labeling of relationships, the labeling of tools, these concepts and percepts that we take for granted as metaphysical... they are really epistemologically based on the underlying needs of achievement and attachment. In other words, the way we see the universe is intimately tied to the requirements for survival (our needs). We see the universe in a way that supports our ability to meet our needs and survive. Therefore, if metaphysical perceptions and conceptions stand on equal ground with other human needs, then these perceptions and conceptions should be equally relevant metaphysical truths just as are the "metaphysical truths" we perceive and conceive through other needs.

General Semanticist would love this approach, because it again comes back to proposing that metaphysics deeply implicates the epistemology of the observer.

Anyway, the reason I mention all of this is because your earlier comment against mysticism started me thinking. I really appreciate that you gave it, and I'd like to hear more. However, again I'm going to mention that man must be able to understand his (psychological) needs through emotion, otherwise as an uneducated brute 100,000 years ago, he would never have understood how to survive.

Christopher

It is easy (and understandable) to attribute a drive for achievement as an innate motive, but is it really that simple? For one thing, shouldn't one draw a distinction between a telos and adaptations made in response to one's environment? Consider a baby. It's mind is presumably unable to understand concepts, and thus would have no means of understanding goal-oriented behavior. And yet healthy babies show an incredible drive to first crawl and then learn to balance on two legs. Isn't this really just an inherited adaptation toward its environment? On the other hand, clearly goal-oriented behavior such as constructing an essay or cleaning a room aren't merely adaptations to the demands posed by a certain environment. People can write stories in any kind of setting that allows for one to put pen to paper (or finger to key). Of course, people must will themselves toward such actions. One does not just tend toward writing stories and cleaning rooms. It requires a clear exercise of one's will.

As to your second major point, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that because we experience something which we call mysticism, it implies that it points to inner needs which need to be addressed, akin to dreams? This seems like a fairly broad statement. You must distinguish between experiences which are part of our normal cognitive operations (such as "oneness with the universe") and experiences brought about by trauma or unnatural chemical fluctuations within the brain (general hallucinations, near-death-experiences, speaking with God, etc.). You would not say of a person afflicted with schizophrenia, "her hallucinations point to inner needs that need to be resolved," for example. Of course, traditionally religious feelings such as exaltation and reverence DO point to inner needs humans develop.

Hey! Who let this smart and coherent person in the room!

Seriously - - - I'm glad you're here, Michelle. These matters deserve careful and calm thought and discussion.

Bill P

Edited May 25, 2009 by Bill P

[Michelle]

I don't know everything about everything. I likely know very little. But the fact that I am human and am ignorant of many things does not justify me in abdicating the responsibility I have to myself of constructing a worldview which might guide me through life.

Michelle R,

You sound rather rational to me. It is hard to believe that you are still busily "constructing a world view." I wonder what you find is the hard part in that? If you are unwilling to accept other's beliefs that is a good thing. I have always found it hard to believe that other people believe the things they profess to believe.

What I am worried about these days which should be evident from my post on the chances of a repeat of the Weimar hyperinflation is just that.

If all of a sudden whatever funds you have in your possession will not buy anything and there is nothing on the shelves to buy anyway that is quite a nightmare to find yourself in while wide awake. How do you even get to work if the gas stations are empty or the gas costs more than you have?

I gather one does have to become a survivalist by hoarding food in advance and staying home with plenty of ammunition to defend yourself and your stuff. Small comfort if Bernanke confesses that he was wrong to believe no harm would come from his printing however much paper currency was necessary to get us out of the recession.

What good would hard currency be if you run out of tuna fish and cereal and the whole economy has ground to a halt for months with no end in sight. Sorry if this is scary to contemplate but I do fear it is coming any day now within the next year or two when the hyperinflation does manifest itself.

It is embarrassing to post this as I feel I have bared my intimidated soul. Nothing mystical about it. Sheer terror!

gulch

Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was still in the process of creating major portions of my worldview. But my worldview does grow every day as I learn more. On occasion, I discover that I am mistaken, and I correct this mistake. Not often, but on occasion. My point was that ignorance is no excuse for not taking responsibility for the direction of one's existence. And, as far as I know, in order to direct one's life, one needs a worldview and a set of values.

[galtgulch]

I don't know everything about everything. I likely know very little. But the fact that I am human and am ignorant of many things does not justify me in abdicating the responsibility I have to myself of constructing a worldview which might guide me through life.

Michelle R,

You sound rather rational to me. It is hard to believe that you are still busily "constructing a world view." I wonder what you find is the hard part in that? If you are unwilling to accept other's beliefs that is a good thing. I have always found it hard to believe that other people believe the things they profess to believe.

What I am worried about these days which should be evident from my post on the chances of a repeat of the Weimar hyperinflation is just that.

If all of a sudden whatever funds you have in your possession will not buy anything and there is nothing on the shelves to buy anyway that is quite a nightmare to find yourself in while wide awake. How do you even get to work if the gas stations are empty or the gas costs more than you have?

I gather one does have to become a survivalist by hoarding food in advance and staying home with plenty of ammunition to defend yourself and your stuff. Small comfort if Bernanke confesses that he was wrong to believe no harm would come from his printing however much paper currency was necessary to get us out of the recession.

What good would hard currency be if you run out of tuna fish and cereal and the whole economy has ground to a halt for months with no end in sight. Sorry if this is scary to contemplate but I do fear it is coming any day now within the next year or two when the hyperinflation does manifest itself.

It is embarrassing to post this as I feel I have bared my intimidated soul. Nothing mystical about it. Sheer terror!

gulch

Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was still in the process of creating major portions of my worldview. But my worldview does grow every day as I learn more. On occasion, I discover that I am mistaken, and I correct this mistake. Not often, but on occasion. My point was that ignorance is no excuse for not taking responsibility for the direction of one's existence. And, as far as I know, in order to direct one's life, one needs a worldview and a set of values.

Michelle R,

Curious that you have nothing to say about my comments about the possible coming of a catastrophic hyperinflation. I agree with you that "ignorance is no excuse" so here is a link to the article which got me worried as it discusses the real risk of the dreaded hyperinflation which you cannot afford to be unaware of: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13673

I know it is off topic. Perhaps Bernanke is deluding himself with some Keynesian mystical belief that he can print all the paper currency he wants and that it will mystically not result in a hyperinflation.

www.campaignforliberty.com 25May 4AM 154,238, 8AM 154,248

gulch

Edited May 25, 2009 by galtgulch

[Rich Engle]

It's a dilemma and my solution is to seek serenity.

Michael is on to it.

I will think on some of the questions posed here and try to comment. I'm not backsliding, it's just I've gone through this many times and I want to measure twice and cut once.

Wait, is that it? Cut twice and...oh Hell.

rde

Tripping his mind out on pineapple juice this a.m. Or is it just the sheer joy of smelling morning fragrance, watching the sun come up, feeling fresh Gulf air? Now that's "God."

Edited May 25, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Alfonso Jones]

It's a dilemma and my solution is to seek serenity.

Michael is on to it.

I will think on some of the questions posed here and try to comment. I'm not backsliding, it's just I've gone through this many times and I want to measure twice and cut once.

Wait, is that it? Cut twice and...oh Hell.

rde

Tripping his mind out on pineapple juice this a.m. Or is it just the sheer joy of smelling morning fragrance, watching the sun come up, feeling fresh Gulf air? Now that's "God."

Looking forward to your comments, Rich. These areas are, for reasons obvious to most of us I think, relatively unexplored in the Objectivist community.

Looking forward to your insights.

Bill P

[BaalChatzaf]

Shakespeare said it. There is more in heaven and earth than is drem't of in your philosophy.

Rationality is good, it is true and it is incomplete. There is always something that the purely rational mindset misses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Rich Engle]

Shakespeare said it. There is more in heaven and earth than is drem't of in your philosophy.

Rationality is good, it is true and it is incomplete. There is always something that the purely rational mindset misses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Nice! ;) Good place to start. That is the absolute fact of it, and you're definitely in for it if you don't have this part of things straight. Frightening proposition, isn't it? Makes one feel either insecure, or very excited about such a possibility.

It may or may not happen to a person. It may happen in small ways and go unnoticed. It happened to me, and it had nothing to do with meditation, drugs, anything.

I went to bed one way, and I woke up another, my wiring completely redone. It stuck, too...an amplified, enhanced connection to things. It never left, it never will.

Oh, there were leadups to it, in that I was seeking more heavily than usual: studying a lot. I recall the week before doing a lot of intense work in the Joseph Campbell, Jung, symbology departments, other things. Just reading.

But then that happened, and I was forever changed. It didn't go unnoticed. I didn't talk about it at all (other than to my wife); no need. There were new actions, there were actions I would no longer take again. There was a lot of action, and the reviews were much better... ;). I could talk a little bit more about the actual experience, but I don't think it would get much anywhere, at least nowhere productive to the conversation. The first few days were amazingly intense...getting used to feeling things, experiencing life very differently.

You can go on about physiological explanations, but I think that is only after the fact. What happened, happened. Ask anyone that knows me well. And it was definitely not by my own hand--there is no way I could have brought this about directly.

There, that should cause some problems. Truth and honesty are always best, but that doesn't mean you are exempt from a stoning. Actually, it usually goes the other way, and I'm down with that.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michelle]

I don't know everything about everything. I likely know very little. But the fact that I am human and am ignorant of many things does not justify me in abdicating the responsibility I have to myself of constructing a worldview which might guide me through life.

Michelle R,

You sound rather rational to me. It is hard to believe that you are still busily "constructing a world view." I wonder what you find is the hard part in that? If you are unwilling to accept other's beliefs that is a good thing. I have always found it hard to believe that other people believe the things they profess to believe.

What I am worried about these days which should be evident from my post on the chances of a repeat of the Weimar hyperinflation is just that.

If all of a sudden whatever funds you have in your possession will not buy anything and there is nothing on the shelves to buy anyway that is quite a nightmare to find yourself in while wide awake. How do you even get to work if the gas stations are empty or the gas costs more than you have?

I gather one does have to become a survivalist by hoarding food in advance and staying home with plenty of ammunition to defend yourself and your stuff. Small comfort if Bernanke confesses that he was wrong to believe no harm would come from his printing however much paper currency was necessary to get us out of the recession.

What good would hard currency be if you run out of tuna fish and cereal and the whole economy has ground to a halt for months with no end in sight. Sorry if this is scary to contemplate but I do fear it is coming any day now within the next year or two when the hyperinflation does manifest itself.

It is embarrassing to post this as I feel I have bared my intimidated soul. Nothing mystical about it. Sheer terror!

gulch

Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was still in the process of creating major portions of my worldview. But my worldview does grow every day as I learn more. On occasion, I discover that I am mistaken, and I correct this mistake. Not often, but on occasion. My point was that ignorance is no excuse for not taking responsibility for the direction of one's existence. And, as far as I know, in order to direct one's life, one needs a worldview and a set of values.

Michelle R,

Curious that you have nothing to say about my comments about the possible coming of a catastrophic hyperinflation. I agree with you that "ignorance is no excuse" so here is a link to the article which got me worried as it discusses the real risk of the dreaded hyperinflation which you cannot afford to be unaware of: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13673

I know it is off topic. Perhaps Bernanke is deluding himself with some Keynesian mystical belief that he can print all the paper currency he wants and that it will mystically not result in a hyperinflation.

www.campaignforliberty.com 25May 4AM 154,238, 8AM 154,248

gulch

Thanks for the link. I've read a bit about it, but I never speak on something unless I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. I'll need to do a bit more digging on this.

[Christopher]

It is easy (and understandable) to attribute a drive for achievement as an innate motive, but is it really that simple? For one thing, shouldn't one draw a distinction between a telos and adaptations made in response to one's environment? Consider a baby. It's mind is presumably unable to understand concepts, and thus would have no means of understanding goal-oriented behavior. And yet healthy babies show an incredible drive to first crawl and then learn to balance on two legs. Isn't this really just an inherited adaptation toward its environment? On the other hand, clearly goal-oriented behavior such as constructing an essay or cleaning a room aren't merely adaptations to the demands posed by a certain environment. People can write stories in any kind of setting that allows for one to put pen to paper (or finger to key). Of course, people must will themselves toward such actions. One does not just tend toward writing stories and cleaning rooms. It requires a clear exercise of one's will.

As to your second major point, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that because we experience something which we call mysticism, it implies that it points to inner needs which need to be addressed, akin to dreams? This seems like a fairly broad statement. You must distinguish between experiences which are part of our normal cognitive operations (such as "oneness with the universe") and experiences brought about by trauma or unnatural chemical fluctuations within the brain (general hallucinations, near-death-experiences, speaking with God, etc.). You would not say of a person afflicted with schizophrenia, "her hallucinations point to inner needs that need to be resolved," for example. Of course, traditionally religious feelings such as exaltation and reverence DO point to inner needs humans develop.

This is a good discussion. I think we're still in the realm of setting definitions. Specifically, I define innate achievement as the act of doing for the sake of doing (not for the end-goal). A baby that learns to crawl, then walk, isn't necessarily adapting to the environment. All babies do this naturally. It just happens, the desire to do, the desire to learn, curiosity, the desire to make noise (as NBranden discussed about babies hitting spoons against things, making noise, and laughing at their newfound ability). These actions are innate, this is the innate motivation to "achieve."

So, here's my logic:

1. Man has a brain in order to further his evolutionary advantage (survive).

2. Man's brain has needs in order to operate successfully in supporting his survival.

3. Man is aware of and motivated to fulfill these "psychological needs" through positive/negative phenomenal experiences (just like man is motivated physically to satisfy hunger, etc.)

4. Man's perceptions are automated to be aware of environmental signals relevant to his needs, both physical and psychological (as one psychologist put it, a snake sees a human baby very differently -as food- than the mother of the baby sees it)

5. Man's conceptions are partially a function of his perceptions.

6. Man's awareness and conceptualization of the universe (metaphysics) is therefore founded on man's needs, on his organismic motivations to survive.

7. Man is not always aware of all his needs simultaneously. In fact, some needs often dominate over others. For example, some men are motivated to achieve, forsaking (being disintegrated from) experiences of attachment. NBranden discusses dis-integration quite frequently, asserting that a disintegrated man cannot fulfill all his needs/values. Certain practices are required to become fully aware of one's needs if one has disintegrated any part of oneself. People who integrate further often claim to feel more whole and satisfied.

8. Children have a sense of mysticism. Adults who practice meditation, have an awakening, etc. also claim to feel more whole, more integrated and being more satisfied. Therefore, "mysticism" as we so name it might be based on phenomenal experiences that are rooted in a human need (whatever that need might be).

9. "Mysticism" elicits certain perceptions that lead to reconceptualizations of certain aspects of reality.

10. Therefore, "mystical perceptions" and related conceptualization of the metaphysical universe might be on equal footing of consideration with metaphysical conceptualizations founded in other needs. (Note: all metaphysical conceptualizations of the universe necessarily implicate man's needs within those conceptualizations as per #6)

This is my logic. I didn't bring in morals or ethics since we're talking about metaphysics, but I'm sure there are grounds to do so if/when we establish between ourselves the possibility that "mysticism" relates to man's needs. You do talk a lot about schizophrenia/drugs/etc., but this is overgeneralization as Rich stated. These arguments could be used equivalently for all (including very very normal) phenomena such as seeing a tree in a forest. To discuss internal phenomena, it is necessary not to be overly-dismissive... otherwise, everybody becomes crazy.

Christopher

[Selene]

Yes, excellent thread.

These three work for me as a basis of discussion and argument.

"8. Children have a sense of mysticism****. Adults who practice meditation, have an awakening, etc. also claim to feel more whole, more integrated and being more satisfied. Therefore, "mysticism" as we so name it might be based on phenomenal experiences that are rooted in a human need (whatever that need might be).

9. "Mysticism" elicits certain perceptions that lead to reconceptualizations of certain aspects of reality.

10. Therefore, "mystical perceptions" and related conceptualization of the metaphysical universe might be on equal footing of consideration with metaphysical conceptualizations founded in other needs. (Note: all metaphysical conceptualizations of the universe necessarily implicate man's needs within those conceptualizations as per #6)"

Adam

**** a child's awe or wonder

Edited May 25, 2009 by Selene

[Rich Engle]

Wowie zowie we're actually getting traction... NICE!!

[Judith]

Or is it just the sheer joy of smelling morning fragrance, watching the sun come up, feeling fresh Gulf air? Now that's "God."

I've always thought that Florida is what Hell would be like. Heat, humidity, lots of bugs so big that they don't die when you step on them...

Look! A religious argument!

Judith

[Rich Engle]

Some parts are like that but not here, at all. The heat, you learn to savor it (esp. when you froze rotten for years up North like I did). The environment here (including the people...even the homeless and the beggars are nicer) has made me more whole-r and healthier in three months than anywhere I have ever been (and I'm not doing things all that differently, except not having to fight so hard to exist, having fresher food, water, even).

Judith, I know I'm backed up on this and the other thread. I'll try to get some licks in that will be helpful, if I can. I've been a little busy fixing guitars, teaching, and gnashing over my own, er "oracular semi-fiction" thing I'm trying to write down here. I have changed my pen name to Professor Gurgler, just to remind myself that its serious business (sort of).

I have a few things in mind, I have to go find them and I will do so as soon as time permits. Meanwhile, there's a lot to read over here already...I find this a very productive round, much better than any other I've been around.

best,

rde, er, Professor Gurgler, I mean...

[Ross Barlow]

Great thread. I am enjoying it immensely.

On one point:

I've always thought that Florida is what Hell would be like. Heat, humidity, lots of bugs so big that they don't die when you step on them...

Judith, reserve your imagining of Hell until you have lived in Thailand for a stretch. I lounge around home in nothing but swim trunks and flip-flops all year long and yet I swelter in the steamy tropical heat and humidity. Without an electric fan blowing on me constantly, I would die. When I go out, decorum demands that I dress more modestly in long trousers and a shirt, but I am stubborn enough to wear sports sandals. I haven’t worn shoes in 3 years.

In relation to this thread’s subject matter, Thai Buddhism has a strange mix of down-to-earth common sense morality and goodwill as well as a lot of pre-Buddhist native animism and belief systems that Rand would call “mysticism.” I am still trying to figure it all out. If I come to any interesting conclusions, I will let you all know.

-Ross Barlow.

[Christopher]

I think I should attempt an attack on spirituality, given the theme of this thread. I also hope Michelle keeps up her keen thinking on this subject, and I want to support her.

8. Children have a sense of mysticism. Adults who practice meditation, have an awakening, etc. also claim to feel more whole, more integrated and being more satisfied. Therefore, "mysticism" as we so name it might be based on phenomenal experiences that are rooted in a human need (whatever that need might be).

I think the real hole here comes from Piaget's claims about children's sense of magic and semilogical thinking. Here's what Piaget had to say on the subject:

As a young psychologist, Piaget questioned children about their beliefs concerning the world. The interviews revealed various fascinating characteristics of preoperational reasoning [roughly 2-7 years of age]. The conversations provide many examples of egocentricism and rigidity of thought, described above. They also demonstrate some surprising properties of semilogical reasoning. The following protocol illustrates several facets of semilogical reasoning in a 6-year-old child:

How did the sun begin? -- It was when life began. -- Has there always been a sun? -- No. -- How did it begin? -- Because it knew that life had begun. -- What is it made of? -- Of fire. -- But how? -- Because there was fire up there. -- Where did the fire come from? -- From the sky. -- How was the fire made in the sky? -- It was lighted with a match. -- Where did it come from, this match? -- God threw it away. . . . How did the moon begin? -- Because we began to live. -- What did that do? -- It made the moon get bigger. -- Is the moon alive? -- No . . . Yes. -- Why? -- Because we are alive. [Piaget, 1926]

The child tries to explain the mysterious natural events of everyday life. One solution is to explain natural events in terms of human behavior [egocentrism]...

So the child is using perhaps an emotional experience that may or may not be equivalent with mystical experience to explain holes in logic. The reason the child does this is most likely because emotions still dominate the mental system of understanding the world. Therefore, mysticism might really only be a combination of two things:

1. A way of understanding the world that is satisfying to one's experience

2. A reconnection with the raw emotions we experience as children before our thoughts dominate our consciousness

The second is particularly important. For example, many religions stress the importance of community, of compassion, and of kindness. Compassion, etc. may be standard human motivations that are merely being "rediscovered" through spiritual practice (the practice of removing thoughts that normally repress such motivations). At the same time that individuals discover compassion through spiritual practice, emotions also arise that explain the universe in a satisfying way. Thus, mystical/spiritual practice creates two-fold satisfaction: (1) satisfactory existential understanding of our place in the universe; (2) awareness to emotional motivations such as compassion that, when practiced, results in further emotional fulfillment.

Given this logic, practicing mysticism fills basic psychological needs but is in fact relatively subjective to being human and is demonstratably false (as seen in children's use of this thinking)... our way of using this "magical thinking" is probably childlike to beings with even greater cognitive awareness.

Chris

[Rich Engle]

Just a quick one, Christopher, I'm caught in some other crossfire right now involving a recalcitrant guitar neck.

It's a good idea, when looking at "mystics," to separate those who "practice" it, vs. those who just experience(d) "it."

I'll drop in with some more pretty soon. Meanwhile, here's a pretty decently organized place that has James' "Varieties of Religious Experience."

http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/james/toc.htm

I'm going to have to use that because my books are still up in Cleveland, for the moment.

best,

r

[Selene]

James works.

Also, Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness - kinda the back round subtext of Apocalypse Now.

The going native theme is strong in human experience.

Also, Lord of the Flies seems to address the distinction that Chris raises which also makes sense to me.

This thread has some real positive points being made.

Adam

[Michelle]

It is easy (and understandable) to attribute a drive for achievement as an innate motive, but is it really that simple? For one thing, shouldn't one draw a distinction between a telos and adaptations made in response to one's environment? Consider a baby. It's mind is presumably unable to understand concepts, and thus would have no means of understanding goal-oriented behavior. And yet healthy babies show an incredible drive to first crawl and then learn to balance on two legs. Isn't this really just an inherited adaptation toward its environment? On the other hand, clearly goal-oriented behavior such as constructing an essay or cleaning a room aren't merely adaptations to the demands posed by a certain environment. People can write stories in any kind of setting that allows for one to put pen to paper (or finger to key). Of course, people must will themselves toward such actions. One does not just tend toward writing stories and cleaning rooms. It requires a clear exercise of one's will.

As to your second major point, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that because we experience something which we call mysticism, it implies that it points to inner needs which need to be addressed, akin to dreams? This seems like a fairly broad statement. You must distinguish between experiences which are part of our normal cognitive operations (such as "oneness with the universe") and experiences brought about by trauma or unnatural chemical fluctuations within the brain (general hallucinations, near-death-experiences, speaking with God, etc.). You would not say of a person afflicted with schizophrenia, "her hallucinations point to inner needs that need to be resolved," for example. Of course, traditionally religious feelings such as exaltation and reverence DO point to inner needs humans develop.

This is a good discussion. I think we're still in the realm of setting definitions. Specifically, I define innate achievement as the act of doing for the sake of doing (not for the end-goal). A baby that learns to crawl, then walk, isn't necessarily adapting to the environment. All babies do this naturally. It just happens, the desire to do, the desire to learn, curiosity, the desire to make noise (as NBranden discussed about babies hitting spoons against things, making noise, and laughing at their newfound ability). These actions are innate, this is the innate motivation to "achieve."

So, here's my logic:

1. Man has a brain in order to further his evolutionary advantage (survive).

2. Man's brain has needs in order to operate successfully in supporting his survival.

3. Man is aware of and motivated to fulfill these "psychological needs" through positive/negative phenomenal experiences (just like man is motivated physically to satisfy hunger, etc.)

4. Man's perceptions are automated to be aware of environmental signals relevant to his needs, both physical and psychological (as one psychologist put it, a snake sees a human baby very differently -as food- than the mother of the baby sees it)

5. Man's conceptions are partially a function of his perceptions.

6. Man's awareness and conceptualization of the universe (metaphysics) is therefore founded on man's needs, on his organismic motivations to survive.

7. Man is not always aware of all his needs simultaneously. In fact, some needs often dominate over others. For example, some men are motivated to achieve, forsaking (being disintegrated from) experiences of attachment. NBranden discusses dis-integration quite frequently, asserting that a disintegrated man cannot fulfill all his needs/values. Certain practices are required to become fully aware of one's needs if one has disintegrated any part of oneself. People who integrate further often claim to feel more whole and satisfied.

8. Children have a sense of mysticism. Adults who practice meditation, have an awakening, etc. also claim to feel more whole, more integrated and being more satisfied. Therefore, "mysticism" as we so name it might be based on phenomenal experiences that are rooted in a human need (whatever that need might be).

9. "Mysticism" elicits certain perceptions that lead to reconceptualizations of certain aspects of reality.

10. Therefore, "mystical perceptions" and related conceptualization of the metaphysical universe might be on equal footing of consideration with metaphysical conceptualizations founded in other needs. (Note: all metaphysical conceptualizations of the universe necessarily implicate man's needs within those conceptualizations as per #6)

This is my logic. I didn't bring in morals or ethics since we're talking about metaphysics, but I'm sure there are grounds to do so if/when we establish between ourselves the possibility that "mysticism" relates to man's needs. You do talk a lot about schizophrenia/drugs/etc., but this is overgeneralization as Rich stated. These arguments could be used equivalently for all (including very very normal) phenomena such as seeing a tree in a forest. To discuss internal phenomena, it is necessary not to be overly-dismissive... otherwise, everybody becomes crazy.

Christopher

I reject this argument that babies learn to walk for the simple fact that they have some inner compulsion to do so. The real thing to put this idea to the test is: left on its own devices, would it try to crawl and then to walk? Or put into some non-human environment? The answer to this can be seen in the behavior of 'feral' children. Consider that, when found, these children usually adapt to many of the behaviors found in most animals, such as walking on all fours and showing a general fear/indifference to humans. Where was the 'innate achievement' drive which should have caused these children to start walking upright? These children adapted to their environment, just as human children adapt to their own. It is outrageous to think that a child who has never set foot on land would not know how to crawl or walk once given the opportunity, at first, because they would have adapted to their aquatic environment? There is no empirical evidence to support that, of course, and it is pure conjecture, so take that with a grain of salt. I would say you are correct only insofar that children will naturally adapt to their environments. In primarily land-based human environments, the child will either first crawl and then walk or transition from scooting to walking. And even this tendency to adaptation I've eyed with skepticism.

1) Agreed

2) Agreed

3) Agreed

4) Agreed

5) Explain that

6) Explain that.

7) Agreed.

8) How exactly do children 'have a sense of mysticism?'

9) Elaborate.

10) I would agree that some experiences which have been called 'mystical' represent certain human needs. But the problem is that you're both lumping 'mystical' experiences together without distinction and presupposing the 'mystical' nature of these needs. Reverence, worshipfulness, awe, and other feelings commonly associated with religion also have more proper earthly expressions.

How exactly does any of this, moreover, add up to a consideration of the metaphysical nature of mystical ideas?

And also, define "mysticism" for me in your own words.

You've ignored the distinction I made. There are very clear distinctions between mystical experiences which operate under normal cognitive conditions and mystical experiences which only seem to appear when the brain is off-balance or damaged. My only point of speaking of schizophrenia/drugs/etc. was to show that the brain can easily be tricked. This is not overgeneralization. This is a fully accurate statement.