Transpersonal Psychology: Invitation to Dialogue

[CraigD]

Anyway I invite all who are interested in the subject to join in, whether or not you have direct experience of the "transpersonal realm"... much less "enlightenment."

Thanks for the invitation to dialog on this subject, one that I, and I suspect many others, feel a nostalgic intimacy toward.

 

I’d like to skip the last few weeks subthread on “radical honesty”, and proceed/return to the original subject.

 

This post is a subjective, personal account of my experience with and past and present attitude toward transpersonal psychology.

 

I was born in 1960, and had my first substantial introductions to the works of psychologists nowadays termed “transpersonal”, such as Jung and Maslow, around 1980. The term was well established enough then that the undergraduate level college “survey” classes in which I studied it (eg: “Theories of Personality”) included it.

 

At that time in my life, I was deeply immersed in both SF/fantasy writing, role playing games, counterculture, psychopharmaceuticals and traditional and nontraditional magik, so my reaction to transpersonal psych was a combination of “ah-ha” and “so what?” correspondence to familiar ideas, with a few exceptions. One was Jungian dream interpretation, which differs from the more widely known Freudian in its rejection of preferring latent/symbolic/unconscious content to manifest/conscious content. Another was Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This idea was revolutionary for me, in that it overturned one of my most important private beliefs about “mind, life, and everything”, the “myth of the starving artist” – that is, that one can satisfy “higher order” needs, such as artistic creativity, when unable to satisfy lower order needs, such as food, physical safety, and social belonging.

 

I believe the confluence of these and other ideas resulted in me becoming the fairly strict materialist that I remain to today.

 

Shortly after reading about Jung’s “cathedral dream” (I’m unable to find a good online summary of this dream – it is one had and recounted by Jung in which he sees the huge, bare “*** of God” descend from the clouds and bury a magnificent Cathedral in ****, which he interpreted as advice that he should reject orthodox religion), I had my own such dream (similar in personal significance, not in detailed content) in which I died and underwent an “ascent to heaven” (in my actual dream, I was an otter, swimming into a deep underwater cave), discovering at its conclusion that there my faith and the faith of my fellows was false, and there was no afterlife (which, in my dream, was called “the sacred holy assurance”). Since having this dream, I have, on an emotional, intuitive, absolute level, believed and expected that neither I nor any other human has a soul that survives physical death.

 

Prior to this life-transforming experience, I has, like Jung, been skeptical to the point of outright rejection of orthodoxy religious accounts of souls and their afterlives, but affectionately sympathetic to speculative explorations of the subject, such Richard Bach’s Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Afterwards, my worldview clearly accounted souls, afterlives, and similarly transcendental ideas as entirely imaginative phenomena, very real in a subjective, but not in an objective, sense. As I was, at the time, essentially living in and, in the capacity of executive zine editor, informal most authoritative game master (DM), and boyfriend of she who rented the apartment where much of our lives occurred, a magikal lodge, this triggered a pretty dramatic series of changes in my life and those of many around me.

 

Eventually, I stopped seriously studying “classical” psychology, following and as much as I could participating in the then-emerging (and soon to largely vanish) discipline of synthetic psychology (follow trails such as starting at “Braitenberg vehicles” for more information on synthetic psychology), which involves itself with the behaviors and “personality like metaphenomena” of computer programs, though through marriage to a LCSW with an ongoing interest in the primarily practical, clinical aspects of psychology, wasn’t completely divorced from the psych mainstream.

 

In recent years, I’ve been heartened to learn about, an in recent months, begun to dedicate study time, to philosophical and psychological ideas concerning embodied realism, which in overall theme appears to agree well with my personal philosophical and psychological intuitions, and, at least on a high level, with the sort of scientific orthodoxy assumed as the ground rules at forums like hypography.

 

Embodied realism, however, seems a strong rejection of, and its proponents, such as George Lakoff, almost vehemently antagonistic toward, the philosophical foundations and assumptions of interpersonal psychology.

 

Michael and others, what is your familiarity with and take on the relationship between embodied realism and interpersonal psychology? Especially, can interpersonal psychology be subsumed into, informed by, and improved by the embodied realism? Can embodied realism be incorporated into and improved by more formal science?

[Michael Mooney]

CraigD:

Thanks for the invitation to dialog on this subject, one that I, and I suspect many others, feel a nostalgic intimacy toward.

 

Thanks for your interest and in-depth sharing

 

Michael and others, what is your familiarity with and take on the relationship between embodied realism and interpersonal psychology? Especially, can interpersonal psychology be subsumed into, informed by, and improved by the embodied realism? Can embodied realism be incorporated into and improved by more formal science?

 

The Journal of Consciousness Studies JCS, Journal of Consciousness Studies has been covering this subject in great detail for many years now.

My personal/transpersonal experience after forty years of meditating for an hour a day is that consciousness transcends the physical realm and ultimately is the creator of it, in the broadest sense, rather than vice-versa.

There is not much true dialogue between mystics like myself and those with a scientific materialism worldview, but I see hope for the future in that regard.

One such sign of hope is embodied in the excellent research on consciousness as creator in the most generic sense in The Intention Experiment The Intention Experiment - The Largest Mind-Over Matter Experiment in History compiled by Lynne McTaggart.

I am being called away on community business but will return for further response asap.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

CraigD:

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This idea was revolutionary for me, in that it overturned one of my most important private beliefs about “mind, life, and everything”, the “myth of the starving artist” – that is, that one can satisfy “higher order” needs, such as artistic creativity, when unable to satisfy lower order needs, such as food, physical safety, and social belonging.

Me too. And starving, dislocated populations... whatever the political tyranny or natural disaster... are not interested in 'enlightenment' or whether there is One Identity in all forms/individuals.

 

Shortly after reading about Jung’s “cathedral dream” (I’m unable to find a good online summary of this dream – it is one had and recounted by Jung in which he sees the huge, bare “*** of God” descend from the clouds and bury a magnificent Cathedral in ****, which he interpreted as advice that he should reject orthodox religion)

 

Jung was one of my fave's. I see the above as an archetype for the robotic programing of "believers" of all religions. Beliefs are bondage to the doctrines/dogmas of each religion... the antithesis of true freedom. See my comments on the latter above.

 

Tired out... long day. More later. Good night.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Is anyone here familiar with the Journal of Consciousness Studies or McTaggar6's book on consciousness as a creative force, The Intention Experiment? (See links above.)

Michael

[Boerseun]

I've just stumbled on to this thread, and a few glaring inconsistencies to your whole approach to the matter stands out:

 

We are humans. We have evolved, together with the rest of the animal kingdom, from common stock over millions of years. Different animals developed different strategies for survival, which might be more or less effective than others, but eventually serve to set the species apart.

 

An opposing thumb is a handy tool to have, but evolved for the very same purpose as an elephant's trunk, for instance. As an aid to survival. So, too, is intelligence not a radically different strategy and approach taken by a species - it's just a handy survival tool on par with a chameleon's chromatic abilities (much more usable, though, but the mechanism through which it developed is identical - the one who has it, has a better chance for survival).

 

And that brings me to the Ego. The Ego is the mechanism by which an individual experiences his "identity" in the group. The Ego is not an artificial construct, suddenly induced on humans in the last few hundred years. The Ego is part and parcel of who we, as a greedy, sex-obsessed, intelligent, loving, hating, vindictive, forgiving (and egocentric) species are.

 

Therefore, if you want to be "radically honest" regarding our condition as a species, you should accept the Ego not for being a negative thing, but for being real, and human.

 

For thousands of years, Bhuddists have been meditating to rid themselves of the Ego, repeating a mantra over and over again until it loses all meaning - not so mystical after all: try saying the word "brick" in your head a thousand times, and see if you can attach any meaning to that word afterwards. Or pick any other word of your choice. Same result. It's all BS.

 

Why meditate? Why try and deny your ego its place in the world, if you want to be "brutally honest" about things? You're human. Honestly, you do have an ego.

 

The hippies and a myriad other counter-culture proponents were merely kicking against the system because they didn't want to ante up and go t the effort of studying the system and understand it. If the entry fee to any particular system is high (for science, years and years of hard study, concentration and dedication) then the easy and cheap alternatives look pretty enticing. It does not make the alternatives true in any way, however.

[Jway]

I find this thread most interesting.

 

Obviously this conversation will be of a spiritual nature. But "theology' is usually more about religious doctrine, which is really not the same.

 

Anyway I invite all who are interested in the subject to join in, whether or not you have direct experience of the "transpersonal realm"... much less "enlightenment."

Welcome.

Michael

 

This threads strikes me as delving into theosophy. I hear OP referring to it as transpersonal psychology. Perhaps there are distinctions, but I see much overlap.

 

I am interested in this subject and have had direct experience with 'transpersonal realm.' Wait, did I say that out loud?

 

In this realm one realizes that ones cultural conditioning is like robotic programing, and ultimately, one can not be FREE until the illusion of personal identity (and all its program) is transcended.

All those "programs" are essentially specific versions of the following:

"This is who I am. This is what I want. To the extent I don't get what I want, I am unhappy, and I spread that unhappiness around as various forms of discontent."

 

True Freedom is freedom from all versions of the above program.

 

Mostly agreed. I find that True Freedom isn't (merely) the cancellation of a perceived negative, but is affirmation of "what is" (free). What you are describing is on path toward return to Freedom, but is really about loosening perceived chains.

 

The "programming" you bring up is inescapable at the base level. "This is who I am" is not something that can be overcome. I think you get this. I find that the programming starts with the word "should." This is who I should be (based on parents, teachers, peers perception of me). As such, this is (what I'm told) I should want. IMO, the key is lack or need. If I lack what I should be getting, then it is normal to be unhappy. And (based on the Law), I shall give this unhappiness for that is what I have received.

 

The part that is transcended starts with overcoming the perception of (self) lacking. Starts with overcoming the perceived order of need(s).

 

Freedom is remembrance that you have everything, because you literally are everything. Unless you're not (literally).

 

LOL.

 

Thanks for opportunity to participate in wonderful thread.

[Jway]

We are humans. We have evolved,

 

...or so the theory goes....

 

together with the rest of the animal kingdom, from common stock over millions of years. Different animals developed different strategies for survival, which might be more or less effective than others, but eventually serve to set the species apart.

 

Talk about tautology. LOL. It's their differences that set them apart. Now I get it.

 

An opposing thumb is a handy tool to have, but evolved for the very same purpose as an elephant's trunk, for instance. As an aid to survival. So, too, is intelligence not a radically different strategy and approach taken by a species - it's just a handy survival tool on par with a chameleon's chromatic abilities (much more usable, though, but the mechanism through which it developed is identical - the one who has it, has a better chance for survival).

 

It would almost seem by this argument, that nuclear arsenal is just a tool handy for (better chance of) survival.

 

And that brings me to the Ego. The Ego is the mechanism by which an individual experiences his "identity" in the group.

 

That appears tautological as well. How about, The Ego is that which induces experience(s) of individualism as separate identity apart from the group? One could be a-part of the group, maintaining interpersonal and interdependent individual experiences, that (co)create, or really manifest as, an unified identity.

 

The Ego is not an artificial construct, suddenly induced on humans in the last few hundred years.

 

How about artificial construct induced on creatures in the last few hundred million years?

 

The Ego is part and parcel of who we, as a greedy, sex-obsessed, intelligent, loving, hating, vindictive, forgiving (and egocentric) species are.

 

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Some of these traits are, what I believe many would call dysfunctional. That may be judgmental, but so are all the terms you are bringing up, most of which strike me as 'spot on' about what ego is. And it is like brother Michael says on page one of this thread:

 

Transpersonal psych assumes a healthy ego rather than a dysfunctional personality in need of personal therapy. It addresses the next phase of "human potential" development beyond egocentricity and ethnocentricity. Awakening into awareness as a "world citizen" in all respects including ecological, and socio-political is part of it.

 

Anyway, you were saying,

 

Therefore, if you want to be "radically honest" regarding our condition as a species, you should accept the Ego not for being a negative thing, but for being real, and human.

 

Uggh, there's that word!

LOL.

 

How about instead of "negative thing" we settle on dysfunctional thing? You can still have your cake and eat it too. You can still exercise: greedy, sex-obsessed, intelligent, loving, hating, vindictive, forgiving actions, while realizing some of this is dysfunctional. Not negative, just not, how you say, streamlined toward adaptive survival.

 

For thousands of years, Bhuddists have been meditating to rid themselves of the Ego, repeating a mantra over and over again until it loses all meaning - not so mystical after all: try saying the word "brick" in your head a thousand times, and see if you can attach any meaning to that word afterwards. Or pick any other word of your choice. Same result. It's all BS.

 

What's "BS" mean?

Oh wait, Bachelor of Science, right?

 

Why meditate? Why try and deny your ego its place in the world, if you want to be "brutally honest" about things? You're human. Honestly, you do have an ego.

 

Honestly, we do not. It is projection. Invented self. Now you see it, now you don't. It is what imagines survival (even of consciousness) is in doubt, while all available evidence demonstrates that Life goes on. Ego is what is left-over when I replace (attempt to overthrow) Self fulfilled with self in need. Replace Self appreciation with self deprivation. Functional Self with what self should be like if self doesn't get what self needs. You know, self that is scared to death, paranoid of attack and dis-ease, thinks pain is how gain occurs, and believes we are all victims waiting for yet another accident or mistake to happen. They always do. Just a matter of time.

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun,

On the subject of enlightenment and ego-transcendence, here is a link from one of my favorite sites on mysticism. It has quotes from enlightened ones from all major Traditions, showing that the essential "Awakening" is the same for all regardless of background.

Enjoy.

 

Mystical Traditions - Center for Sacred Sciences

 

PS: As regarding the similarity between mysticism (not religion!) and science, pay particular attention to section #9.

 

Michael

[Boerseun]

Michael, in reference to your last post, the following:

 

1. All mystics agree that Ultimate Reality—whether It is called Allah, Brahman, Buddha-nature, En-sof, God, or the Tao—cannot be grasped by thought or expressed in words. (In fact, the word mystic is related to the word mute, both of which derive from the Greek root mustes, meaning "close-mouthed.")

The Ultimate Reality can be said to be the information content of the entire universe. Now, given the fact that any sort of computer or brain, for that matter, capable of encompassing data for each and every fundamental particle or wave or whatever in this universe, has to be bigger than the universe itself, it's glaringly obvious that there's no way for anything or anybody in this universe to "know it all", or, to have insight into the Ultimate Reality. This does not require or even imply anything even remotely mystic. Introducing mysticism only serves to obfuscate matters.

2. The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

Naming something distinguishes it from something else. That's the whole point. It doesn't create "duality" in any sense, it sets stuff apart so that your dog doesn't get confused when you throw him a stick and call that by the same name as everything else. "Rover - fetch the stick!" is an aid to understanding, as opposed to "Mwaaah - mwaah mwaah mwaah!", which means nothing. The "duality" you refer to, is the information content of the universe. Your dog and the stick is a tiny part of it. Attempting to remove this "duality", is to deny the obvious, and serves as a tool 180 degrees opposed to understanding.

3. Although mystics cannot define Ultimate Reality in words, they still use words to point to That which is beyond words. For instance, all mystics agree that, while Ultimate Reality constitutes the true nature of everything, in itself It is nothing.

This sounds very Grand and Authoritive. But it means absolutely nothing. Whatever lies "beyond words" points not so much to anything "mystical", as merely to a shortcoming in our vocabulary. Anything fundamental is fundamental. If the "Ultimate Reality" is fundamental in any way, I just put it into words. Look - I'll do it again: "Ultimate Reality". Unless what I said to point 1 holds true - then the Ultimate Reality would be the information content of the universe, which is dualistic in that things are set apart and have different information content, which means it will take me close to eternity to even enumerate them, not to mention having a brain bigger than the universe. But there's still nothing "mystical" there, the difficulty in doing so is more one of logistics

than anything else.

4. Although mystics say Ultimate Reality is not a thing, they also agree that this emptiness or no-thingness is not a mere vacuum. It is radiant with the Light of Pure Spirit, Primordial Awareness, Buddha Mind, or Consciousness Itself.

Whatever "radiance" self-styled mystics might assign to anything, is up to them. This arbitrary "radiance" should then be testable and provable. What is it? Where is it? What is "Pure Spirit", pray tell? What is "Primordial Awareness", except for some vague term that sells? What is "Bhudda Mind"? What "radiance" could emanate from consciousness? Short answer - it's all bullcrap. Bring me a slice of "radiance" that springs from one of the above so that we can test it.

5. Mystics of all traditions also agree that when distinctions created by imagination are taken to be real—especially the distinction between 'subject' and 'object', 'I' and 'other', 'self' and 'world'—we lose sight of the Ultimate Nature of Reality and fall into delusion. This is the cause of all our suffering.

Oh. So "mysticism" isn't concerned so much about the "Ultimate Reality", as it is about human suffering? Which means that the great impetus for mysticism is that life, so to speak, sucks. Which explains nothing about the natural world, or the universe in general.

6. The fact that distinctions are not ultimately real means that we are not truly separate selves. In Reality, all mystics declare, our True Nature is God, Brahman, Buddha-Nature, the Tao, or Consciousness Itself.

Bullshit. Distinctions are real. Look around you. There's a book on the table, and a glass on the shelf. Ask any mystic about this obvious fact, and he will tell you that "you are not enlightened". "Enlightenment" means nothing, and explains even less. Distinctions between objects, concepts, data sets, theories, particles, vectors, mass, anything you care to mention, is the Great Enlightener in that it makes it possible to derive Truth from it. The Laws of Nature as known to us currently, is the Truth these mystics are after. They're just too goddamn lazy to invest in the effort of understanding it. My god, I started this thread with all the intentions on Earth not to loose my cool, but such utter, glaring bullshit deserves to be called as such.

7. Although the Truth of one's identity with Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought, all mystics testify that It can be Realized or Recognized through a Gnostic Awakening (Enlightenment) which by-passes the thinking mind altogether.

Testifying about anything implies using your mind. It implies and involves thinking about stuff. The thinking mind can by definition not testify about anything "by-passing" it. I cannot testify about how it feels to have neutrinos passing through my mind. I have no conscious awareness of the fact. It "by-passes" my thinking mind altogether. Yet it happens. Once again, I call bullshit. All these soaring terms sound impressive and authoritive, but it only serves to obfuscate matters. It means nothing. I implore you, Michael, to think about it.

8. All mystics agree that Realizing our Identity with this Ultimate Reality brings freedom from suffering and death.

Same as point 5. All religions, and everything "mystic" serves the same human purpose. Fear. You're afraid of death. You're willing to give a tenth of your income towards the guy with the flowing white beard and crazy eyes, because Jeebus will give you a seat on the afterlife bus. It's got nothing to do with "fundamental truths" or "mystical insights" or even morality. All of this, everything, has to do with the completely understandable animalistic fear of death, or self-preservation instinct. Why would it even be important to state points 5 and 8, if the real purpose for any of this bullshit was "truth"? Why?

9. Finally, mystics of all traditions agree that their teachings about the Ultimate Nature of Reality should not be taken on faith alone. Just as scientific theories can be verified by anyone willing to perform appropriate experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by anyone willing to engage in appropriate spiritual practices and disciplines. (This, incidentally, is why we at the Center believe mystical teachings and practices are rightly said to constitute a science of the sacred.)

Ah. Finally. The point you referred me to. Let's being with the first sentence:

"Finally, mystics of all traditions agree that their teachings about the Ultimate Nature of Reality should not be taken on faith alone. "

One of the traditions this page refers to, is Christianity. One of the quotes under this point for Christianity, is "If you follow my teachings, then you are truly my disciples and you shall come to a gnosis of the truth, and the truth shall make you free. —Jesus of Nazareth (Christian)" Yet, the Bible says explicitly that you should "Believe like a Child", don't ask too many questions, take the Big Man's Word for it. I call this first sentence the enumeration of favourable samples. Apart from that, how do you not take any religion's opinion regarding the Ultimate Nature of Reality but on faith alone? Not a single religion of the "six great traditions" as per the referred page, proposes any element of the "Ultimate Nature of Reality" that can be tested in a lab. Every single one of them requires an enormous leap of faith in the face of a glaring lack of anything that can even remotely be called "evidence".

As to the second sentence, "Just as scientific theories can be verified by anyone willing to perform appropriate experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by anyone willing to engage in appropriate spiritual practices and disciplines." This is obviously, clearly, and screamingly wrong. "Appropriate spritiual practices" involve the transfer of money (in some form) from the trainee to the trainer. And if the trainee still doesn't come to grips with the "Truth", he must have done something wrong. So the trainer lets him know that he's not "enlightened" yet, and to come back tomorrow with another offering, for another lesson.

And then that final sentence, this final glimmer of insight into the mental workings of those mystics: "(This, incidentally, is why we at the Center believe mystical teachings and practices are rightly said to constitute a science of the sacred.)" If you attach any value to the proposition in this sentence, then you have no idea how science works, and what and what not can be considered to be science.

 

In conclusion, Michael, the following:

 

You have referred me to a website. I've read it. And I cannot, for the life of me, understand how somebody with the high IQ you're allegedly blessed with, can fall for this crap.

 

Science is objective, science is about the Truth. Empirically so. And if it turns out that humans have an ego, that so be it - science will just have to cater for that, because that's just the way it is. You will not see a line of scientists mumbling incantations and repeating mystical mantras to shed their egos in order to understand their egos.

 

Besides that, in you calling the ego for what it is and in your attempt to shed it, you've named it. You've distinguished it from the rest of the universe. You've increased the duality of the universe. Which means that you're even further away now from the "ultimate reality", if I understand this "mysticism" bs correctly.

 

"Mysticism" has many definitions. Hit Google, and type define:mysticism. I'll save you the effort, and paste here the first few hits:

 

The very first two hits are from wordnet.princeton.edu:

 

• a religion based on mystical communion with an ultimate reality
  
• obscure or irrational thought
  

The second bullet kinda explains what this hogwash is all about.

[Jway]

The Ultimate Reality can be said to be the information content of the entire universe. Now, given the fact that any sort of computer or brain, for that matter, capable of encompassing data for each and every fundamental particle or wave or whatever in this universe, has to be bigger than the universe itself,

 

You are introducing idea that ultimate reality is CONTAINED to an object, i.e. brain or computer. Ultimate Reality could be information content in form of energy that is, perhaps not visible to human eyes. Thus "bigger" would be a bit nonsensical. The Ultimate Reality could be in and around us.

 

If size matters, I believe mystics since ancient days have suggested Ultimate Reality is infinite / eternal. It is possible it could be in this (physical) universe while not of it.

 

it's glaringly obvious that there's no way for anything or anybody in this universe to "know it all", or, to have insight into the Ultimate Reality.

 

These two statements do not necessarily follow. It's possible that beings we encounter who appear contained to human bodies will appear to not "know it all," though feasible that any being could display insight into Ultimate Reality; especially if said Reality is in and around us.

 

This does not require or even imply anything even remotely mystic. Introducing mysticism only serves to obfuscate matters.

 

Unless it doesn't. Depends on what 'matters.' If all that is important is what the body's sensory organs perceive, then mysticism could be seen to obfuscate (matter). If what is most important is invisible to body's eyes, then perception could be seen as obfuscating (what actually) matters.

 

Naming something distinguishes it from something else. That's the whole point. It doesn't create "duality" in any sense,

 

I agree with this. Words, in and of themselves, are not what is projecting duality onto Reality. Words are tools as you have astutely pointed out.

 

The "duality" you refer to, is the information content of the universe. Your dog and the stick is a tiny part of it. Attempting to remove this "duality", is to deny the obvious, and serves as a tool 180 degrees opposed to understanding.

 

LOL on a dualistic statement.

The point about denying duality is it can lead mind to acceptance of totality. Of One as Many and Many as One. Duality sets up things as either or, but not both. Duality serves purpose of divide and conquer. Duality does serve a purpose. Many mystics would say, have said, that the purpose is misguided.

Understanding can occur through duality, though I find it is, how you say, more efficient when open to totality.

 

Whatever lies "beyond words" points not so much to anything "mystical", as merely to a shortcoming in our vocabulary.

 

Silence is a "shortcoming in our vocabulary?"

Interesting.

 

Direct experience that is not being described is a "shortcoming (in vocabulary)?"

Also interesting.

 

Anything fundamental is fundamental. If the "Ultimate Reality" is fundamental in any way, I just put it into words. Look - I'll do it again: "Ultimate Reality".

 

But what is it you are putting into words?

Are you claiming to be putting the experience of Ultimate Reality into words?

Are you claiming to be putting into words the totality of all informational content in the universe?

I believe you are attempting to claim this. Personally, I find this very okay. I'm wondering though if you care to "own your intent?"

 

Unless what I said to point 1 holds true - then the Ultimate Reality would be the information content of the universe, which is dualistic in that things are set apart and have different information content,

 

You did not say this previously. Perhaps you feel it was implied, but I observe you are adding to "information content." The content is (literally) in - formation, thus set apart is perceptual. What is it set apart from? Itself? What is the content different from? Itself? The "many as one" concept bypasses this, if it is allowed to. Things don't have to be perceived as all different, nor all the same, but can be perceived as One (totality), while in -formation.

 

which means it will take me close to eternity to even enumerate them,

 

Thank God we have (an) eternity.

 

not to mention having a brain bigger than the universe.

 

Why "bigger?"

Size really does matter, huh?

Again, thank God we have eternity.

 

But there's still nothing "mystical" there, the difficulty in doing so is more one of logistics

than anything else.

 

Difficulty? LOL.

 

Whatever "radiance" self-styled mystics might assign to anything, is up to them.

 

On behalf of mystics everywhere (and now here) - thank you.

 

This arbitrary "radiance" should then be testable and provable.

 

It is. Go within.

 

What is it?

 

It is what is.

 

Where is it?

 

Everywhere and nowhere.

 

What is "Pure Spirit", pray tell?

 

It is Light.

It is Life

It is Love.

 

What is "Primordial Awareness", except for some vague term that sells?

 

It is awareness that is said to exist before time. But IMO, that is a bit confusing. Cause it is awareness that exists Now. You can find it. You always do. It exists between the gaps of thoughts and phrases. It is beyond time and beneath time. If this is all too much and all stuff you'd rather not deal with at this stage, then go on to what is desired, to what makes sense, and trust that the Awareness will be with you, every step you take.

 

What is "Bhudda Mind"?

 

Yep.

 

What "radiance" could emanate from consciousness? Short answer - it's all bullcrap.

 

LOL. When you close your physical eyes, do you feel able to see anything within the Mind? In night dreams, when eyes are closed, do you feel capable of seeing 'world without?'

 

Now just imagine that this occurs via what mystics refer to as radiance. Yeah yeah, I realize there's another way of looking at same phenomenon, but perhaps you could allow for sense of appreciation rather than blatant dismissal.

 

Perhaps you will understand that the radiance is how all vision occurs. Ultimately what I believe you come to understand is that everywhere you look, you are really seeing your Self in all things as all things. But this sort of vision is not for the faint of heart. It doesn't take time to see this way, it happens via desire. It may appear to happen when ready. That could be later Today.

 

Bring me a slice of "radiance" that springs from one of the above so that we can test it.

 

Go within. Test all you desire.

 

So "mysticism" isn't concerned so much about the "Ultimate Reality", as it is about human suffering?

 

You could say that. Oh wait, you already did. Or did you?

 

Which means that the great impetus for mysticism is that life, so to speak, sucks.

 

Actually, the great impetus for mysticism, based on quote you cited, is that losing sight of Ultimate Reality sucks and can lead to human suffering. Life is going to be (perfectly) okay according to the mystic.

 

Which explains nothing about the natural world, or the universe in general.

 

Unless it does.

 

Bullshit. Distinctions are real.

 

LOL. Distinctions are made up.

 

Look around you. There's a book on the table, and a glass on the shelf.

 

And I have given meaning to all of it.

 

Ask any mystic about this obvious fact, and he will tell you that "you are not enlightened".

 

He would?

Bad mystic. Bad bad mystic.

 

"Enlightenment" means nothing, and explains even less.

 

The word means nothing? The concept means nothing? Or the experience?

 

Distinctions between objects, concepts, data sets, theories, particles, vectors, mass, anything you care to mention, is the Great Enlightener in that it makes it possible to derive Truth from it.

 

Distinctions isn't what is doing this. Consciousness does this.

 

The Laws of Nature as known to us currently, is the Truth these mystics are after.

 

If you mean physical nature, I'm going to say no. And some of these Laws have spiritual correlation, so what you say isn't far off, though is if stuck only in materialistic dogma.

 

They're just too goddamn lazy to invest in the effort of understanding it.

 

Stupid, confounded mystics. Let's get out the pitchforks and get dem bastards!

 

My god, I started this thread with all the intentions on Earth not to loose my cool, but such utter, glaring bullshit deserves to be called as such.

 

Yep, it's the words on the screen that caused you to loose your cool. Not you.

 

And on that note, I'll pause here in this dialogue. Maybe I'll pick up the rest later.

 

It's been fun,

Jway

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun,

You are clearly a died-in-the-wool dogmatic materialist with no respect for other worldviews or the long world- history of spiritual awakening among mystics of all traditions (and of no tradition, like myself.)

Beyond lack of respect you are a blatant basher and extremely insulting name caller.

 

I will not respond point by point... yet, but rather provide more background material on the philosophy of what spiritual awakening is from a well respected enlightened mathematician/philosopher, Franklin Merrell-Wolff.

This thread is on transpersonal psychology which is based, in large part on a worldview which transcends the"flatlander materialism" (ref: Ken Wilber) with which you bludgeon mysticism. Merrell-Wolff is the most excellent spokesman I know for the transcendence of the purely rational/empirical worldview to which you are so profoundly limited.

 

One last point before the link:

Everything you "believe" about the world has come from your perception of it and your reasoning based on those perceptions.

 

Likewise mystics directly perceive that Ultimate Reality which was the subject of my last link. Your obviously hostile bigotry against the latter is based on your absolute certainty that your perceptions and reasoning reflect The Truth, while mystics' direct perception of the realm transcending materialism.empiricism is delude "bullshit."

This is the very definition of bigotry... hostile bigotry in fact.

 

This piece will probably be philosophically over your head, but others here with more tolerance for the spiritual reality which transcends pure materialism may appreciate it:

 

The Heart of Franklin Merrell-Wolff's Philosophy

 

Michael

Ed: Jway,

You posted while I was composing. Great (extremely intelligent) reply.... and with a sense of humor in the face of such vehement hostility! Thank you!

[Erasmus00]

The problem I have with the link above about mysticism being the "science of the sacred" is this- mystics of different traditions have reported very different, often contradictory, experiences. As a result, many contradictory mystical interpretations have sprung up.

 

It seems obvious to me that if mystics are directly experiencing "ultimate reality" they are directly experiencing the SAME ultimate reality. Why then so many conflicting experiences?

[GAHD]

IMHO any "transcendence" or visions of "ultimate reality" have a very clear explanation; a runaway imagination, or seizures.

 

EG I can visualize (see in my mind) an orange, I can spin it, slice it, change it's color or texture, make it rotten, peel it, section it, etc... All with my "mind's eye". The difference between what I describe here, and "radiance", is that I realize *I* am the one generating these images and not some third party.

 

Your cryptic statement of "go within" is actually very descriptive; all that malarkey comes from 'inside your ego' and is under your control if you chose to control it.

 

God is an Imaginary Friend for Adults; AKA schizophrenia.

[Jway]

It seems obvious to me that if mystics are directly experiencing "ultimate reality" they are directly experiencing the SAME ultimate reality. Why then so many conflicting experiences?

 

Perhaps because when it comes to descriptions, there are different filters conveying the concepts.

 

Like, I'm guessing you're aware that many NDE's report a "white light, tunnel" experience. But not all NDE's do. Some report a) nothing or back of eyelids, or :) hellish fire experience, or c) other. While there is other ways to explain this, the idea that "white light, tunnel" conflicts with (say) hellish fire experience is IMO, only looking at the surface of what is going on. Like if I saw Supernova and wished to convey what I saw, how I interpreted, and another saw it, we might come away with different interpretations of "what occurred" with different expressions. That they conflict, could be matter of interpretation. Perhaps this isn't good example, but is an example.

 

Personally, I think it is somewhat determined by idea that materialism is allowed to be domain in what science studies if it is deemed "good" science, and so the potential studies that could follow scientific method, are generally poo poohed and/or automatically relegate to psuedo-science. You don't have to take up every experiment and hypothesis that floats your way, but to pre-judge conclusion without testing seems contrary to basis of (what I'd call) good science.

[Jway]

IMHO any "transcendence" or visions of "ultimate reality" have a very clear explanation; a runaway imagination, or seizures.

 

IMO, neither are explanations but are after the fact descriptions of WHAT occurred, according to some.

 

EG I can visualize (see in my mind) an orange, I can spin it, slice it, change it's color or texture, make it rotten, peel it, section it, etc... All with my "mind's eye". The difference between what I describe here, and "radiance", is that I realize *I* am the one generating these images and not some third party.

 

Actually, radiance encompasses the process you are conveying. Radiance is the idea that you can "see" this while physical eyes are closed. Radiance has, in my experience, deeper levels, so it is this and more than this.

 

Your cryptic statement of "go within" is actually very descriptive; all that malarkey comes from 'inside your ego' and is under your control if you chose to control it.

 

It is if you stay at a certain level, which I would call the surface. I may call it other things, but just looking to convey understanding. You can go within and get to level where sense of detachment occurs. Where you are no longer in control. This can be somewhere between initially fearful and disorienting. Yet, with just a little willingness (perserverence) I believe you will find that you don't lose total control, but instead hook up with unified control. You receive 'messages' (could be images, unspoken words, words) that provide direct experience with Self that instinctively you realize is "always here." This is challenging to put into words. Though I don't think it is impossible. For sure words, don't even come close to matching the experience, but then again when do words really come close to matching experience?

 

The sense of appreciation / joy that comes from this is what I would call enlightening. You may come back to human land and (still) be dumb as a door nail, but the joy is literally not of this world while you are (arguably) in this world.

 

I do believe that this test of which I speak is replicable and falsifiable, for it is plausible you could go within, detach, and observe no noticeable difference from what human experience is like when attached to mind and ego. But I reserve the right to continually update this assertion I am putting forth, especially if I am preaching to a den of wolves who would like nothing more than poke holes in my little test.

 

The result of the test is you do realize ego can be undone (at literally any time) and that it is desire to experience ego, as self, that keeps it going. I believe you also realize that self without ego is what holds both your life and cosmos together, even while ego will swear from here to Tuesday that without ego, you cannot live. Without ego you are nothing.

 

Which really isn't such a bad "thing" if you think about it for more than 8 seconds.

[Boerseun]

Michael, I've looked around the Franklin Merrill-Wolff link you pasted. And once again, my point holds true about being astonished that intelligent grown-ups can fall for this crap.

 

Religion, faith, mysticism and the concept of "looking within" as proposed by Jway, all of these, share the same root cause. And that cause is nothing more or less than merely an improper understanding of causality.

 

GAHD proposed a few possible causes for your mystical experiences. Seizures might induce that very same feeling in you - not necessarily Grand Mal (the Tonic/Clonic kind), but Petit Mal seizures where the manifestation is much more subtle and the patient does not lose consciousness. Petit Mal seizures are way more common, is a form of epilepsy, and may strike the majority of the population at some time or another without them even being aware of the fact. Common occurrences like Déja Vu might also be ascribed to a mild Petit Mal seizure. What GAHD propose, makes sense. I doubt if you will agree with me, however - but that's entirely up to you.

 

Mysticism is a load of hokum that might serve a positive role in your life. But, much like any placebo medication, the mere fact that it serves a purpose in your life, makes it no more True or Real than any other religion or faith or "spiritual" exercise you'd care to mention. Religions are placebos of the mind. Science is the Real Thing.

 

People saying that "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual" deserves meningitis, in my honest opinion. There is no such thing as "spirit".

 

Billions of years ago, when the plasma from the Big Bang cooled down and the first Hydrogen atoms formed, your fate was sealed. Those hydrogen atoms fell together in clumps and ignited in a nuclear fire under the force of its own weight. Hydrogen atoms got squeezed together to make Helium atoms. In a second round of nuclear fusion, the Helium got squeezed under unimaginary forces to form bigger atoms. The first generation of stars exploded under their own weight and formed even denser atoms. The entire periodic table of elements originally formed from humble hydrogen. And now, billions of years later, here we are. The stuff in your body consist of calcium, carbon, oxygen, iron, nitrogen, and a host of other elements. You get to contemplate the origins of the universe. But that ability is nothing more and nothing less than the capabilities of a mind evolved to recognize patterns, is adept at considering issues from different angles, and has a vested interest in problem solving. Nothing more and nothing less. But in the final analysis, it's merely what Hydrogen gets up to if you leave it alone for fourteen billion years. There is nothing magical or mystical there - but it's the most awesome thing I've ever heard of - bigger than anything any religion or mystic cult can offer or even dream of. Religions and mysticism pale in comparison, they totally and utterly disappear in a tiny dot of ignorance and pathetically limited vision, as obsessed with human interests as they are. You want to "zen" out? Then consider that this vast and majestic universe is not even aware of your existence, and couldn't care less about your fortunes or misfortunes.

 

Or, like Douglas Adams said, "I'd rather be awed in understanding than awed in ignorance"

 

Or my personal favourite: "Science: it works, bitches."

 

I think if you really are in need of anything awesome, merely consider the humble hydrogen atom.

 

Also - seeing as you want to get involved in a link-exchange, merely do a google search for "why mysticism is bullshit". Plenty links there, many of them written by average people just totally and completely fed up with the self-delusion dished up by idiots of all flavours, to articles written by professionals that are much more authoritive than links to sites written by fanboys about "mystics".

 

Another thing - you called me a "dogmatist". Sure. The Scientific Method is my Dogma, and it forces me to accept everything flowing from it. Because it works. Now bring me a piece of that "radiance" so that we can test it. If your "mysticism" or "Christ" or "Bhudda" or "Allah" or whatever you insist on deluding yourself with passes that test, then yes, I'm with you all the way to Nirvana/Paradise/Valhalla etc. But you can't. So I won't. So there.

 

"Opening the mind", "meditation" and "looking inward" as practiced by mystics, is an attempt at changing brainwaves to the sleep pattern whilst the subject is clearly awake. While perfectly possible with intense practice and repetition over the years, and might feel like an "altered state of awareness" is nothing more and nothing less than lowering your brainwave patterns. An "Enlightened" Zen-master is merely asleep with open eyes. I doubt that sleeping will give the individual any special insight into the nature of the universe - although it will decidedly feel odd. Maybe odd enough to start your own cult - because you dreamed about God talking to you.

[Qfwfq]

Obviously this conversation will be of a spiritual nature. But "theology' is usually more about religious doctrine, which is really not the same.

Apparently the conversation has been covering many topics of religious doctrine, despite its title. If you care to read the description of Theology Forum, you find: "Covers all varieties of religious thoughts."