It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Plato's theory of forms is untenable, and it was pretty much refuted by his pupil Aristotle thousands of years ago. It's interesting to note that the more empirical approach to philosophy, such as is found in Democritus, Lucretius or Epicurus, is still relevant even today.




Either way.. philosophy as you understand it is just a waste of time. Metaphysics as you understand it is just a waste of time. You can't help but pour your scorn on mysticism saying it has never amounted to nothing.. but using your partial criteria that goes for philosophy too.


Philosophy has branched into science, politics, education, etc. It is the foundation of our knowledge hitherto. Mysticism has branched into, well, nothing. Philosophy as you understand it is just a waste of time because apparently you do not understand philosophy.




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What are your thoughts on the "philotic web" and it's philosophical implications?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
well...so if plants have conciousness and by your standards this is a local thing connected to the body of organism. What thing in plant is concious? what part exactly?

For humans, you probably obviously deduce that it is in our head/brains, but what do you think about the plants? They are very different biologically, yet they posses some of it, how? What is the trigger/source of it in them?

And then if you would look just the first 10 min in the video of first link, you would learn, that apparently plants react to just our thoughts alone?! How can that be in your opinion? This would be impossible if it was purely local, but it is not...another puzzle to solve, apart from the origin/source issue of conciousness.
---
And mysticism has evolved to all religions...just like philosophy has evolved. You obviously are interested in the spirit or something or else you would not write about is so much on ATS in general, what motivation do you have really, if you discard everything outside of the body/mind combo?

Each experience is subjective, and if you only try to and validate experience of the body senses, well you are selling your whole entity very short. First you have to have an open mind then you will get some results, if you are decided from the start that body mind is everything, than naturally you will not have experience outside of your own expectation. Even though the main rule is don't expect anything, with this kind of things...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
also sorry for the derailment of the thread...it is just that conciousness is so fascinating for me and I had to write something.

Regarding the stuff you posted first I would say that separating stuff is not the way to go. If people are honest and they can communicate nicely even when there are opposing opinions then it does not matter to me what label you put on anything.

You can say "Philosophy is the use of wisdom to arrive at truth. Pseudo-philosophy is the use of wisdom to arrive at personal advantage. "

Is it not a personal advantage when you arrive at the truth? what makes it the truth, is not the truth personal or subjective in the context of mysticism and such? to me it seem like we play games with words instead of just playing and describing our experiences the best we can. And then the replay should follow in the same manner, is it so hard to do something simple as that? There will always be different kind of experience, opinions, etc...it all comes down to accepting an opinion even though it is opposite of your own.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I didn't mention the theory of forms. The idea was to point out the concept of māyā being advocated by one of the most eminent philosophers in all of our history.

In the end philosophy is just the red-haired child of mysticism and almost all illustrious contributors to science/philosophy have been mystics of one kind or another.

Do you want to go through the list of distinguished Freemasons? Rosicrucian's? Hermeticists? Bacon? Newton? Goethe?

Science is just the outer form of mysticism/magic. Magic was always the first science, but one needs the first degree in wisdom and understanding to appreciate this truth. Rhetoric and eloquence can only get you so far.

Of course, feel free to keep ignoring this uncomfortable fact.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity


well...so if plants have conciousness and by your standards this is a local thing connected to the body of organism. What thing in plant is concious? what part exactly?

For humans, you probably obviously deduce that it is in our head/brains, but what do you think about the plants? They are very different biologically, yet they posses some of it, how? What is the trigger/source of it in them?

And then if you would look just the first 10 min in the video of first link, you would learn, that apparently plants react to just our thoughts alone?! How can that be in your opinion? This would be impossible if it was purely local, but it is not...another puzzle to solve, apart from the origin/source issue of conciousness.
---



No one part is conscious. A brain cannot be conscious. Only the whole is conscious to the extent that the whole allows it to be. For instance, if an organism lacks eyes it lacks sight. If it has different kind of eyes it has different kind of sight. Everything of the organism, from the bone to the hormones to the type of bacteria that lives within it, is the structure and reality of consciousness. This is why we cannot imagine the consciousness of, say, a dog, simply because we are not dogs. We do not have dog bodies, dog lives etc. This is why you are unable to fathom my subjectivity, because you are not me, you do not have my body, and you are not positioned exactly where I am in space and time. Figuratively speaking, you cannot put yourself in my shoes because I am still wearing them.

Plants do not have any sort of consciousness as we do, because they do not have our bodies. We cannot think about their consciousness in human terms. We can only deduce from their biology.


And mysticism has evolved to all religions...just like philosophy has evolved. You obviously are interested in the spirit or something or else you would not write about is so much on ATS in general, what motivation do you have really, if you discard everything outside of the body/mind combo?


I think the idea of spirit is dead wrong, and in fact, unethical and dangerous. This is why I write out against it.

I don’t think I have discarded anything, because I have found nothing to discard. And as for everything outside the body, a rich environment is just as important as the body when it comes to consciousness. Some externalism is necessary.


Each experience is subjective, and if you only try to and validate experience of the body senses, well you are selling your whole entity very short. First you have to have an open mind then you will get some results, if you are decided from the start that body mind is everything, than naturally you will not have experience outside of your own expectation. Even though the main rule is don't expect anything, with this kind of things...


I don’t agree with that. Each experience is a body in a rich environment. These are the two components of experience. Nothing else is necessary.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


What are your thoughts on the "philotic web" and it's philosophical implications?


I can’t say I’ve ever heard of it. Do you mind a brief explanation?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod




I didn't mention the theory of forms. The idea was to point out the concept of māyā being advocated by one of the most eminent philosophers in all of our history.


The allegory of the cave is in direct reference to the theory of forms. But you would know that if you had read it. Like you said, words from other people's mouths.



Do you want to go through the list of distinguished Freemasons? Rosicrucian's? Hermeticists? Bacon? Newton? Goethe?


What will this list prove? Probably that their philosophy generated interest, while their mysticism generated nothing. I have read all three, and there is very little mysticism in them. Care to provide some examples of mysticism in their works?

ETA: I am aware of Netwon's occult ideas and theology, but Mysticism?
edit on 8-9-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm


What are your thoughts on the "philotic web" and it's philosophical implications?


I can’t say I’ve ever heard of it. Do you mind a brief explanation?


ansible.wikia.com...

like a sci fi version of string theory. its come up several times recently and im curious as to what your surgical precision would yield. being a discussion on pseudo philosophy and all.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Any criticism I could offer would only reveal my lack of knowledge in Quantum Mechanics. I would need more time.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I didn't mention the theory of forms. The idea was to point out the concept of māyā being advocated by one of the most eminent philosophers in all of our history.

In the end philosophy is just the red-haired child of mysticism and almost all illustrious contributors to science/philosophy have been mystics of one kind or another.

Do you want to go through the list of distinguished Freemasons? Rosicrucian's? Hermeticists? Bacon? Newton? Goethe?

Science is just the outer form of mysticism/magic. Magic was always the first science, but one needs the first degree in wisdom and understanding to appreciate this truth. Rhetoric and eloquence can only get you so far.

Of course, feel free to keep ignoring this uncomfortable fact.


Science is always reproducible. Science is based on definitions and all science is understood in terms of those definitions.

Except for Newton and part of Bacon, your list of persons are all political justification theorists. Politics is rule of man by man. Magic is the only way to defend politics and the divine State.

If magic were real, there would have been no industrial revolution, and no need for it.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
To me 'beliefs' are an exercise in psychology. One may dabble in certain paradigms, and whether those ideas or beliefs can be validated or not, it is the psychological effect of having those beliefs or practicing certain rituals that interests me the most. The beliefs may be completely false but the results one gets from subscribing to them are very real...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

Any criticism I could offer would only reveal my lack of knowledge in Quantum Mechanics. I would need more time.


if its quantum mechanics, then its possible that the subject would need more time than either of us have.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


I don’t agree with that. Each experience is a body in a rich environment. These are the two components of experience. Nothing else is necessary.

what about the mental state when experiencing happens? where would you put that into equation of body and environment? For instance when I look at banana, it will bring totally different thoughts then when you look at it. And because of that I will have a different experience. Mental is the part of experience which counts for me all else is just what is obvious to all present.

what do you think about different character traits in babies if we all have the same default set up from birth - body/mind and no other deeper component is present? Why do some babies hurt animals while others are gentle with them. Do you explain that with just genetics. Than what about the brothers and sisters which can be like oil and water in character?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity


what about the mental state when experiencing happens? where would you put that into equation of body and environment? For instance when I look at banana, it will bring totally different thoughts then when you look at it. And because of that I will have a different experience. Mental is the part of experience which counts for me all else is just what is obvious to all present.


A mental state is another term for a body state. Since our bodies are different individuals, they necessarily have different thoughts, given that they are different beings. For instance, if you get into an aggressive bodily pose, confidence raises, and not because body affects the mental, but because they are one and the same.


what do you think about different character traits in babies if we all have the same default set up from birth - body/mind and no other deeper component is present? Why do some babies hurt animals while others are gentle with them. Do you explain that with just genetics. Than what about the brothers and sisters which can be like oil and water in character?


We do not have the same default set up from birth, is my understanding. If we are to take biology seriously, we are not blank slates. If consciousness was an external property or substance, and we were all born as default, we would all be the same in consciousness, and we would be unable to account for any differences between people. For instance, twins separated at birth for many years have been shown to have very similar behaviours. Then again, environmental factors have just as much to do with it as genetics. If two brothers were drastically different in behaviour, yet were raised similarly and in the same environment, then biology has plenty to do with it. Any slight difference in bodily structure, whether it be hormones, health or appearance, necessarily affects the results.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you want to separate occultism and mysticism be my guest. Now there may be many definitions of occultism, many of them quite specific but positing that the two aren't intimately connected is not something I would ever try arguing.

Yes, but the allegory of the cave or the theory of forms was not the point in quoting Socrates. I think I already explained that.

Generated nothing? One could make a great case that Hermeticism was THE reason free thinkers ever got out from under the yoke of the church. Alchemy yielded chemistry, astrology generated astronomy (which is a 'stripped' clean version of astrology). Separating these personas from their mysticism would be akin to separating Tolkien's Middle Earth from Celtic and Norse mythology or separating Blake's art from his mystical understanding.

It all comes back to magic and mysticism. Of course you would never give any credence to the concept of spiritual fulfilment though I'm quite sure billions of people throughout history would disagree. Too subjective for you, I understand. So we're back to square one you and me. Always the same story there. We cannot prove our subjective experiences or our views to you and you can not take them seriously without experience. So we're stuck pointing at the Moon and you're stuck looking at it. Kind of tedious isn't it? If I could I would throw you at the Moon, you can trust me on that.. it's a shame it's not that easy, if it was that easy we'd all be Rosicrucian grand masters having sex with water nymphs.

Going round in circles.. I just hope this circle is a spiral because at least then we'd be getting somewhere.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

This is explained by historic and "cosmic" cycles and different levels of ambient etheric energy.. if you were really interested this is where to begin looking.
(If you want to know about this current age I've got two words for you: Plausible deniability. See, this World is set up in a specific fashion to engender certain catalysts that serve the purpose of spiritual evolution. One has a right to not know, this is the Kali Yuga.)

As for science being reproducible. This is at the heart of mysticism, all mystical traditions adhere to this. This is why a tradition will prosper and survive, because someone great enough to do it went through it and then drew a roadmap pointing out all the mile stones. I don't know what you think these people do/are engaged with really? Take Tibetan Buddhism, this is a complete corpus of teachings. You want to attain the rainbow body? Do this, then that, and that etc. It is a science because it is reproducible, the student follows the guidelines and if done right he will experience the same things that thousands of students before him too have experienced. This IS mysticism.

These people are not making this stuff up for fun, they're not high functioning schizophrenics imagining things. If you were to ever meet a great master like Jesus you would KNOW and understand what kind of person and charisma it takes to inspire a passion strong enough to spark a religion(Buddha, Laozi, Jesus, Padmasambhava). These people are not making this stuff up for fun though that seems to be the (somewhat) infantile popular opinion.

You want proof that these people aren't insane? Look at the effects of meditation studied by science. If you need more convincing of the efficacy of meditation you are not ready. One can't always get everything handed to oneself on a silver platter though that seems to be the general expectation. If I can't levitate after meditating for 3 hours then no one can.

The fruit is in the practice and study. If you want to attain the heights then expect to spend decades pursuing it. And then if you're incredibly lucky you may find some success, but these things are never given out free. Blood, sweat and tears is the currency here.



Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. And after they have reigned they will rest.

"Everyone who seeks should continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will be troubled at the contemplation of Truth, but when he has passed through the time of trouble, he will be astonished at the brightness of the Light, for the Way of Truth is the Pathway to the Eternal Godhead, and the price of the beatific vision is the wringing of the soul. The person who desires to rise above all things must descend below all things, for the way to the heights passes through the depths of anguish, which generate the fires of Life. The person who has suffered and found Life is blessed."



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




if its quantum mechanics, then its possible that the subject would need more time than either of us have.


I'm not sure it is actual quantum mechanics, but it obviously uses the terminology. If there is a principle or axiom that it follows that you might know of, then we could better discuss it. Frankly, I am unsure how something can have location but no mass, but then again they probably know something I do not.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: humanityrising

I just saw this going through my notes earlier today:

"Upaya (Sanskrit: upāya, expedient means, pedagogy) is a term used in Mahayana Buddhism to refer to an aspect of guidance along the Buddhist Paths to liberation where a conscious, voluntary action is driven by an incomplete reasoning around its direction. Upaya is often used with kaushalya (कौशल्य, "cleverness"), upaya-kaushalya meaning "skill in means".

Upaya-kaushalya is a concept emphasizing that practitioners may use their own specific methods or techniques that fit the situation in order to gain enlightenment. The implication is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to the true realization in a similar way. The exercise of skill to which it refers, the ability to adapt one's message to the audience, is of enormous importance in the Pali Canon."



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Yes we've had this exact discussion before as I recall.

I don't think astrology or alchemy are mystical practices, but failed sciences. They are falsifiable, which is a necessary condition of a scientific theory. They have been falsified. Mysticism, however, cannot be falsified. It won't allow itself that sort of scrutiny.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Ye shall know them by their fruits.

The fruits of magic are... Feelings

The fruits of science are... a level of civilization in which the poorest class lives more comfortably than the richest class of any other age in the history of the universe.

Everybody is different. Your brain differs from the brain next to you more than your faces differ.

Magic is subjective, science is objective.

Philosophy and Metaphysics are concerned with facts that are true for everybody.

Magic is a dog accidentally learning how to turn a levered door handle. Lottery odds of success at best, and no context with which to expand the knowledge gained.

Magic is neither Philosophy or Metaphysics.




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join