A Call for Arguments against Mysticism/Spirituality

[Selene]

Chris/Michelle:

"8) How exactly do children 'have a sense of mysticism?'" << that one needed modification

- a sense of awe or wonder which may not be understood - here at this point in the child's development, I believe an individual makes an internal choice

when an outside force, usually parents/grandparents/caretakers respond to a question with a reasonable statement or a mystical statement or shut up and don't ask questions or some other response.

And that internal decision determines whether you are going to rely on yourself or on others for epistemological processes.

Adam

[Judith]

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.

Yikes. No air conditioning?

Remind me not to vacation there...

Judith

[Judith]

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.

This fits with Wilber's point that some people regress rather than progress when they attempt to have mystical experiences, but doesn't account for his "progressive" experiences.

It also pretty much ignores the existence of the "third eye" that Wilber describes, sort of like ignoring the existence of a third dimension that one personally hasn't seen by trying to explain it in terms of the two dimensions that one HAS seen.

Judith

[Judith]

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

Don't those who practice it do it for the purpose of experiencing it? Is there a big difference between the two? Wherein lie those differences?

Judith

[Rich Engle]

Judith...

I'm just going to say what I have to say about this, because I have put in enough time (and I don't mean just reading articles and books) that I know I am entitled to do so. I guess you just had to be there.. Let's just say an enormous amount of Work was done, and it included more than casual study. Anyway...

Giving a thorough, attentive reading to James is something I consider nearly-mandatory. For instance, if you asked Wilber, he would have no problem discussing it because he knows it. It's a big, archaic tome...what a beast! But, many treasures lie therein. That online link is useful. The book is so heavy that it can be successfully cherry-picked. For purposes of this discussion I recommend Lecture 2, "Circumspection of the Topic," specifically this section

("No One Religious Sentiment"): http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/james/james3.htm#27

There are many available jump points. I'm just saying I've been crawling over this book for years and this might be a good point-of-entry.

More to Christopher's point, it would be "Mysticism Defined:" http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/james/james12.htm#379

So that is a good start on James homework if you haven't, or it made you amok before, upon attempt.

Then, to look at not only Wilber's work in terms of integration dialogues between science and religion (the marriage of science and spirituality, you know this stuff) (realize how the word "religion" is being used), but also many others, like The Dalai Lama's "The Universe in a Single Atom."

I say this because my pressing interest does not lie in invalidating neither pure scientific thought, nor spiritual thought. On both sides of the fence, there is work being done. For instance, the Dalai Lama is actively encouraging Tibetan Buddhists to study, embrace empirical science. There are, oddly, amazing agreements and intersects.

Why known leaders and thinkers are attempting this integration is because it is completely critical. On this, they fully agree. Call that humility.

So, I think that has to go for Objectivists, too. The greater promise (and the greater threat) is about first resolving differences that have existed pretty much since science came to rise, as it did later. Does it matter who was the first one in the pool?

There are many recognized people from both camps who are opening up the kimono and getting this on the table.

But it will be, it always has been, a most delicate negotiation. Storming and norming.

rde

[Rich Engle]

This is a specific place in James' work where he attempts criteria for the mystical experience:

________

OVER and over again in these lectures I have raised points and left them open and unfinished until we should have come to the subject of Mysticism. Some of you, I fear, may have smiled as you noted my reiterated postponements. But now the hour has come when mysticism must be faced in good earnest, and those broken threads wound up together. One may say truly, I think, that personal religious experience has its root and centre in mystical states of consciousness; so for us, who in these lectures are treating personal experience as the exclusive subject of our study, such states of consciousness ought to form the vital chapter from which the other chapters get their light. Whether my treatment of mystical states will shed more light or darkness, I do not know, for my own constitution shuts me out from their enjoyment almost entirely, and I can speak of them only at second hand. But though forced to look upon the subject so externally, I will be as objective and receptive as I can; and I think I shall at least succeed in convincing you of the reality of the states in question, and of the paramount importance of their function.

First of all, then, I ask, What does the expression 'mystical states of consciousness' mean? How do we part off mystical states from other states?

The words 'mysticism' and 'mystical' are often used as terms of mere reproach, to throw at any opinion which we regard as vague and vast and sentimental, and without a base in either facts or logic. For some writers a 'mystic' is any person who believes in thought-transference, or spirit-return. Employed in this way the word has little value: there are too many less ambiguous synonyms. So, to keep it useful by restricting it, I will do what I did in the case of the word 'religion,' and simply propose to you four marks which, when an experience has them, may justify us in calling it mystical for the purpose of the present lectures. In this way we shall save verbal disputation, and the recriminations that generally go therewith.

1. Ineffability.- The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. In this peculiarity mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists. One must have musical ears to know the value of a symphony; one must have been in love one's self to understand a lover's state of mind. Lacking the heart or ear, we cannot interpret the musician or the lover justly, and are even likely to consider him weak-minded or absurd. The mystic finds that most of us accord to his experiences an equally incompetent treatment.

2. Noetic quality.- Although so similar to states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge. They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority for after-time.

These two characters will entitle any state to be called mystical, in the sense in which I use the word. Two other qualities are less sharply marked, but are usually found. These are:

3. Transiency.- Mystical states cannot be sustained for long. Except in rare instances, half an hour, or at most an hour or two, seems to be the limit beyond which they fade into the light of common day. Often, when faded, their quality can but imperfectly be reproduced in memory; but when they recur it is recognized; and from one recurrence to another it is susceptible of continuous development in what is felt as inner richness and importance.

4. Passivity.- Although the oncoming of mystical states may be facilitated by preliminary voluntary operations, as by fixing the attention, or going through certain bodily performances, or in other ways which manuals of mysticism prescribe; yet when the characteristic sort of consciousness once has set in, the mystic feels as if his own will were in abeyance, and indeed sometimes as if he were grasped and held by a superior power. This latter peculiarity connects mystical states with certain definite phenomena of secondary or alternative personality, such as prophetic speech, automatic writing, or the mediumistic trance. When these latter conditions are well pronounced, however, there may be no recollection whatever of the phenomenon and it may have no significance for the subject's usual inner life, to which, as it were, it makes a mere interruption. Mystical states, strictly so called, are never merely interruptive. Some memory of their content always remains, and a profound sense of their importance. They modify the inner life of the subject between the times of their recurrence. Sharp divisions in this region are, however, difficult to make, and we find all sorts of gradations and mixtures.

These four characteristics are sufficient to mark out a group of states of consciousness peculiar enough to deserve a special name and to call for careful study. Let it then be called the mystical group.

[Christopher]

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)

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.

You've left me many points to address here.

First, I went through some books and notes on walking, and here's what Piagetian developmental psychologists have to say on the subject:

Infants are born with a set of reflexes that eventually become controlled and directed reflex behaviors. These reflexes include sucking, grasping, and moving the legs in a walk-like way. For example, a baby laying down will move the legs in such a manner as to mimic the basic movements of walking. Put a baby in water or hold a baby by the hands and let his/her feet touch the ground, and the baby's legs will proceed to move like walking. The reason babies cannot walk a few months after birth, it is hypothesized, is because their legs are not yet strong enough to support their bodies... So in this regard, we are both wrong. Walking is an innatly-driven behavior, but I can't say it qualifies as a psychological need. Anyway, I don't think it's necessary to discuss the legitimacy of an achievement motive any further since our discussion no longer requires it. It is interesting though.

#5 - I recommend the first chapter of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Rand.

Although, chronologically, man's consciousness develops in three stages: the stage of sensations, the perceptual, the conceptual - epistemologically, the base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage. (here Rand defines percepts as "a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism")

... In the process of forming concepts of entities, a child's mind has to focus on a distinguishing characteristic - i.e., on an attribute- in order to isolate one group of entities from all others. He is, therfore, aware of attributes while forming his first concepts, but he is aware of them perceptually, not conceptually. (italics are Rands)

Rand's basic argument is that concepts cannot form in a vacuum. Even concepts derived from memories or imagination are founded on previous percepts. Hence, even conceptual thinking is ultimately Objective. Assertion #6 follows logically from #4 and #5. The force that organizes senses into percepts is influenced by the organism's needs, and these percepts are used in turn to create concepts.

I think I previously defined mysticism on this thread (or you could read Rich's post by W. James):

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.

Switching gears to psychosis, here's how Ken Wilber (intellectual authority on mysticism) puts it: psychosis, etc. are caused from chemical imbalances in the brain via neuropeptides.. These problems are rooted in biology. The experience of psychosis can feel very ecstatic, etc. However, the prime difference here (Judith was addressing this with regressive vs. progressive spirituality) is that a psychotic person doesn't have self-boundaries in the experience. Such a person can enter la-la land, but it's more like a sea of ungrounded, unreal experience rather than an experience of being in the world. Psychotic experiences don't necessarily relate only to mystical experiences. A psychotic can imagine a tree exists where in fact there is no tree. The psychotic might not be experiencing anything near a "mystical experience" when tripping out, so-to-speak. Therefore, all perceptions can be discussed from the view of a psychotic's perception, not just mysticism.

Assertions #8-10.. Well these are the real kickers, aren't they? #8 argues that "mysticism" links to a need, #9 follows from earlier logic that needs influence perceptions (#4), and #10 follows from #8 & #9. #8 is the important (and most arguable) point. Since I'm arguing both sides of #8, I'm having a difficult time thinking about it.

To everyone reading this thread:

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 don't know that I buy Judith's assertion against my attack on #8 that my attack ignores a third dimension of knowing. Judith, maybe you can elaborate on your post yesterday why my argument against #8 ignores this 3rd dimension "eye of spirit." Concerning Rich's latest post, James asserted that mystical perceptions are transient. Therefore, either mystical perceptions don't relate to a need, or that other needs are wired to be more dominant in human awareness such that mystical perceptions are always buried and only surface occasionally. Actually, I don't buy James' statement that mystical perceptions are transient. I know of a number of "mystics" who speak in the moment of what they experience and know from that experience. Perhaps James referred to the smaller subset of mystical peak experiences. Adam has made some comments on #8, but I'm not sure I entirely understand his position yet. What is my position in the positive?... claims of "wholeness" and being more full when practicing mysticism (meeting the need that underlies mysticism) are very similar to claims made by people who integrate other parts of themselves (meet other needs) that are more accepted by society, such as valuing family, valuing other people, and pride in accomplishment - similarity - . Mysticism appears to be rooted in all people given the right training - biological - . Children have a sense of magic, awe, and description of events and the universe that seems to border very closely to mysticism (one example is my previous post of Piaget interviewing a child) - inherent -. Michelle, can you be more specific in why you think #8 might not be true?

Best,

Christopher

[Michelle]

Children have a sense of magic, awe, and description of events and the universe that seems to border very closely to mysticism (one example is my previous post of Piaget interviewing a child) - inherent -. Michelle, can you be more specific in why you think #8 might not be true?

Best,

Christopher

It's too broad a statement. I would agree that 'some children have a sense of mysticism' (although as far as I know it is unknown just how much of this is due to social suggestiveness, being that children are very impressionable creatures and most parents will tell them fantastic stories from early life on), but how exactly can you justify turning this into a general statement?

[Selene]

Chris:

Excellent thread you started.

"Children have a sense of magic, awe, and description of events and the universe that seems to border very closely to mysticism..." <<<this is what I was poking at because children have described detailed mystical experiences and many of those children did not have formal education and some have had formal education.

I have had people offer testimony as to their mystical experience. However, I am not aware, nor have I inquired, as to whether anyone has attempted a study of attempting to measure a person who can repeat the mystical experience. I would believe that a personally intimate experience of that magnitude would kick a whole bunch of measuring scales.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

I have a great idea, so run.

How about not talking in terms of "attacks?"

See, I have a certain background which I found to be, er, physically reinforcing to other things in life.

Attack means attack. Call it semantics, debate, whatever, but I have surely seen it resemble real attacks, there's just no junk laying around on the floor.

Then, next thing you get is more bad prose, like "his attack on my attack of his attack of attacking made me attack his attack."

I have no time for that crap. This is not war, and surely it is not even good wrestling.

Just talk, respectful. You know: as if you really had pause for thought about what that guy said to you.

rde

You want attacks, I'll show you attacks. Crap...no, I can't do that anymore.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Christopher]

I have a great idea, so run.

How about not talking in terms of "attacks?"

See, I have a certain background which I found to be, er, physically reinforcing to other things in life.

Attack means attack. Call it semantics, debate, whatever, but I have surely seen it resemble real attacks, there's just no junk laying around on the floor.

Then, next thing you get is more bad prose, like "his attack on my attack of his attack of attacking made me attack his attack."

I have no time for that crap. This is not war, and surely it is not even good wrestling.

Just talk, respectful. You know: as if you really had pause for thought about what that guy said to you.

rde

You want attacks, I'll show you attacks. Crap...no, I can't do that anymore.

I agree that "attack" is not a great word to use, and generally I replace it when I think to do so. In the last post, I only used attack in the context of my position against another one of my positions. I didn't claim anyone else was attacking me or being attacked by me, so I would hope my post is not a basis for disrespect towards anyone.

Anyway, I agree with what you're getting at.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Christopher

[Christopher]

Is it necessary to demonstrate that children have an innate sense of mysticism in order to evaluate mystical perceptions as human needs?

I am thinking of Maslow's hierarchy:

If mysticism is in fact need-driven and is considered a "higher" need, then it should not appear consistently until one walks the path of lesser needs first. Mysticism can still be reached earlier at the expense of suppressing lesser needs, and mysticism will still show up even without suppression just based on chance moments, albeit with lower probability than lesser needs. But then there is also another position: is mysticism really a higher need? Seems to me that historically mysticism existed in all cultures side by side with safety, with love, with self-esteem and self-actualization.

Below is a table Wilber printed that aligns all the psychological developmental paths with each other. The second stage of psychological development across all spectrums of identity, morality, need-fulfillment, etc. is labeled "Magical." Magical might follow closely with the experience of mystical. I have listed terms that align with this developmental stage below, although by no means do I understand them all:

General: impulse/emotion, image, symbolism, structure-building, selfobject fusion, preconventional, egocentric.

Plotinus: pleasure/pain + images

Maslow: beginning of safety needs

Buddhist Vijnanas: five senses

John Battista: emotion

Aurobindo: vital-emotional

Piaget: preconceptual, preoperational

Kurt Fisher: sensorimotor mapping, sensorinotor systems, single representational set

Loevinger (ego stages): symbiotic, impulsive

Sullivan, Grant (self integration): differentiation of self & nonself

Erik Erikson: autonomy vs. shame and doubt

Neumann: wish-fulfillment, magic, Oedipus

Kegan: impulsive

Kohlberg (moral): magic wish

Howe (moral character): physical

I don't think we should reduce a child's sense of mysticism to merely their abilities during this "magic" stage. I think we should look at the architecture that is evolving when magical thinking (perhaps similar to mysticism) begins. These include emotions, autonomy (self and world separation), and preoperational thinking (formation of basic concepts). So intrinsic within the development of concepts and unrestricted arising of emotions exists this magical state? If part of reaching mystical perception is the slowing of cognitive thought to allow for mystical perceptions to arise, then what we can conclude in the very least is that there is some human architecture that is subconceptual and supports the primordial existence of mysticism in humans. Does this qualify towards the possibility of it being a need?

Christopher

[Rich Engle]

Oh crap, here we go with the powerpoint presentations, again... ;0

I agree that "attack" is not a great word to use, and generally I replace it when I think to do so. In the last post, I only used attack in the context of my position against another one of my positions.

Try an allegory of that for an excuse when you go do a gig somewhere. Good, agree.

I think you are making a few mistakes here, moving on. First is complicating the issue by whipping out the Maslow's. Is that absolute truth, that model? What about if you've already ripped through it a few times in life? Does it remain inviolate? I don't believe this is a requirement, because after practice, you can skip steps. The denial one, you watch for, but other than that...

I think you have a little eff-up here, too, just saying:

If mysticism is in fact need-driven and is considered a "higher" need, then it should not appear consistently until one walks the path of lesser needs first. Mysticism can still be reached earlier at the expense of suppressing lesser needs, and mysticism will still show up even without suppression just based on chance moments, albeit with lower probability than lesser needs. But then there is also another position: is mysticism really a higher need? Seems to me that historically mysticism existed in all cultures side by side with safety, with love, with self-esteem and self-actualization.

This is a little circular, for one thing. You are talking to yourself, and, that isn't a bad thing, figuring stuff out in public. Shit, I do it all the time and I know I'm not the only one.

See, it is supposition-laden, and built under Maslow, to boot. That dog won't hunt, at least for long.

Is mysticism a higher "need?" Sometimes. Other times it just happens. It is a dirty little secret: spend too long with it and next thing you know you can't rely on nearly anything linear. A=A works, but outside that you are pretty much fucked because you are lacking your usual toolkit.

Everybody's doing it. It's just that some people will blow up if they think there is only the horse driver, not a carriage or horses involved.

So. You're up.

[Michelle]

Is it necessary to demonstrate that children have an innate sense of mysticism in order to evaluate mystical perceptions as human needs?

I'm assuming this is in response to me?

In which case, no, it isn't necessary.

But you did make the statement, so I was curious how you were going to go about qualifying it.

[Judith]

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 don't know that I buy Judith's assertion against my attack on #8 that my attack ignores a third dimension of knowing. Judith, maybe you can elaborate on your post yesterday why my argument against #8 ignores this 3rd dimension "eye of spirit." Concerning Rich's latest post, James asserted that mystical perceptions are transient. Therefore, either mystical perceptions don't relate to a need, or that other needs are wired to be more dominant in human awareness such that mystical perceptions are always buried and only surface occasionally. Actually, I don't buy James' statement that mystical perceptions are transient. I know of a number of "mystics" who speak in the moment of what they experience and know from that experience. Perhaps James referred to the smaller subset of mystical peak experiences. Adam has made some comments on #8, but I'm not sure I entirely understand his position yet. What is my position in the positive?... claims of "wholeness" and being more full when practicing mysticism (meeting the need that underlies mysticism) are very similar to claims made by people who integrate other parts of themselves (meet other needs) that are more accepted by society, such as valuing family, valuing other people, and pride in accomplishment - similarity - . Mysticism appears to be rooted in all people given the right training - biological - . Children have a sense of magic, awe, and description of events and the universe that seems to border very closely to mysticism (one example is my previous post of Piaget interviewing a child) - inherent -.

It strikes me as reductionistic. Are the five physical senses "based on a need"? Yes, of course: perception. Is the intellect "based on a need"? Duh. And I'm not sure that it makes sense to compare children's experiences of awe to the experiences of an advanced monk or nun in the Buddhist tradition or that of Roman Catholicism or Hinduism. One is primitive and pre-rational, while the other is in the context of a fully developed adult mind. The hierarchial pyramid you mention in later posts is part of what I was thinking about as well: most people may never develop the third form of mentation ("third eye") and may get through life perfectly well without it because it is a more advanced and less necessary form of processing. Or they may not be hard-wired for it.

There have been MANY studies on reproducing mystical states. Look up "temporal lobe transients" at www.dogpile.com. (I don't recommend Google anymore because its results tend to be politically skewed.) There have also been studies in labs in which Roman Catholic nuns were subjected to various fields and they experienced things very similar to what they experienced during ecstatic meditation. There's a guy somewhere (Canada, maybe?) who built a helmet in a lab that is something like 80 to 90 percent likely to give you the experience that God is in the room with you. What does it all mean? The religious tend to say that it means people are hardwired for God. Atheists tend to say that it means all religious experiences are physical artifacts. I just find it all fascinating.

Judith

[Christopher]

Well, I'm happy with the logic as-is for the present (leaving out Maslow).

Is spirituality/mysticism a psychological human need? How does one define a psychological need?

Here are some characteristics of psychological needs: motivates an organism towards its fulfillment through innate positive/negative phenomena; fulfillment induces greater functioning of the organism within the environment from which the organism evolved; elicits awareness that faciliates the fulfillment of the need.

If mysticism originates from a psychological need, then the contents of mystical percepts and related concepts must be rationally considered. I've proposed that mysticism has its roots in human needs. I'd argue that it meets the qualifications above.

Michelle, does the logic so-far provided on this thread seem plausible to you? If not, what are your thoughts?

Christopher

[Michelle]

How is Google politically skewed, Judith?

[Rich Engle]

Christopher:

You are leading with a question...the spiritual need thing?

Forgive me, no offense meant at all...

But it is a loaded argument. I don't think you are insincere, so I don't think you'd work a riff. OK...(reflects...). The nature of children, of whom I raised 5.

Tabula rasa shit, dammit. OK, then maybe go here, try this on for a second, brace for impact. I've shown this many times here, whatever:

http://www.quartavia.org/inglese/neuroscenze1.htm

Read "with comprehension," as I've been told I don't. Just grok it in.

Regards,

Professor Gurgles

Hates When It Gets Jiggy.

[Judith]

How is Google politically skewed, Judith?

Tends to favor links with a "liberal" slant.

[Michelle]

How is Google politically skewed, Judith?

Tends to favor links with a "liberal" slant.

How's that? Something written into the algorithm?

[Judith]

How is Google politically skewed, Judith?

Tends to favor links with a "liberal" slant.

How's that? Something written into the algorithm?

??? Damned if I know. I've read a number of articles about it over the past few years. A quick search just now turned up a few examples:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...m-your-computer

http://www.nyctv.com/google_manipulates_to...rch_results.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=44125

http://newsbusters.org/node/5477

Judith

[Rich Engle]

OK, can we all just say for now that Google is a bunch of rich commies running a server farm and get back on point?

Something...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

I study Google and Google-related material all day every day for hours (from an Internet marketing perspective). I do know that their algorithms sometimes go quirky and there is sometimes manual review. Also, it is normal for a new website that suddenly gets to the top of the search results for a highly disputed keyword (or keyword phrase) to suddenly drop off for a while. In almost all cases I have read about, if the SEO work continues and the site continues to be used for actual information (even if promoting an ideology or selling does occur), it eventually returns.

You wouldn't believe the resources spammers have. That's Google's real concern. There are some very sophisticated programmers out there. When they sell their bot programs, often they even use the word spam as a selling point.

Google's main concern is to make sure search users have a good search experience. If all a users get when they type in a search term is spam and skewed results, they will soon turn to another search engine to find the information they seek. So even if it were true that Google leaned one way or another ideologically, the influence it would bring to bear on that leaning in its search results would be minimal.

As to ideology, I have the impression that there are some people within the organization who lean left, but it is not a company policy. Where there are monkeyshines, I suspect a big fat honking government contract is at the end of the rainbow.

For instance, there was a problem recently with Blogger (which is owned by Google) flagging certain conservative-libertarian leaning blogs as spam. When I looked this up, this same problem had happened during the presidential primaries against Hillary. I also read during Obama's campaign that he was interested in totally overhauling the USA government's web resources with the advice of Google.

I see money, not ideology...

Michael

[Michelle]

I never noticed it. When you google 'Jew,' though, Jew Watch is still third from the top.

And googling the full name of MLK Jr. results in that big white supremacist site about him appearing fifth from the top on the first page.

Those pesky racists!

Still, I enjoy Google.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Folks:

Interesting. I never use Google as far as I am aware. I use dog pile and yahoo search.

Michelle Jew came up number 7 on Yahoo.

Comes up 9th on dogpile and under Jew Watch News where in the description anti-Zionism is not mention as in the Yahoo.

Interesting.

Adam