Mysticism

Post Reply New Topic

[quote="ryan93"

try to disprove any of the above.

[/quote]

The concept of proof rests on the assumption of the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. So it is impossible to disprove these laws.

ruveyn

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

The closest possible approximations to zero and infinity respectively are NOT zero nor infinity.

The fact that machines and universes are designed to operate with mere tolerances does not invalidate the absolute.

Truth [with a capital RUTH] IS - it just won't fit in you por me or the Universe.

Exactly.

I go with this definition:

Yes, this is what I meant by mysticism, thank you for quoting Evelyn Underhill, she's one of the best authors on the subject.

So, any people around here who consider themselves mystics in the way their approach Reality?

I don't see why it is wrong to define Truth as that which is known tautologically, and define everything else as a varying degree of assumption

Let me get this straight; We know truth is impossible to know -> Everything we know is false -> First statement is false.

ryan93:

Deconstructionism works if and only if there is nothing real. We went through this in linguistics, though I misinterpreted the labels and thought I was on the side of thr "God's truth" people who in fact deny or ignore truth.

I [and not I alone, if that matters] contend there IS reality, there is an actual state, condition, meaning, and I will continue the tradition of applying the term to the REAL instead of joining Pilate and the academic in croed and defining truth as what Big Brother says.

kenjuudo - you misstate.

I do not say "we know truth is impossible to know", but "we have cause to believe that Truth is not in toto accessible to minds stuck in the universe"

If I DID claim ""we know truth is impossible to know", that would not imply "ergo all we know is false". It implies at most that "what we "know" is never the whole truth." My actual claim modifies that to "what we "know" is probably not the whole truth"

Study the syllogism carefully. You may find it freeing.

It's not impossible to know truth. It is only impossible for limited beings to know EVERYTHING or develop a TOTALLY comprehensive perception of truth.

The room I teach in during the day is a filing room, not a problem since I work with individual students in 30-minute sessions. It's not a bad place for lessons, is functional, but offers no natural light--no windows, nothing. As long as I'm stuck behind those two doors and four walls, I have no perception of the outside, sunlit world. Does the sun stop existing just because I can't see it? I'm limited by the 4 walls that enclose me.

Now, in order to prove/disprove the sun, I have to somehow exist beyond my limits. Epistemic knowledge and propositional knowledge give you a "4-walls" view of the physical universe but do not account for internal kinds of truths (experiential, as one example) or external kinds of truths (Heaven/hell, God, the spirit world). What ultimately matters is whether the way in which we go about finding such truth is reliable. In my "piano closet/dungeon" I can ask someone what the outside world is like, have someone email me photos, and so on. While those things are useful, there's no guarantee that the input I get is really accurate at the time I receive it. I can also walk outside and see for myself, of course, and thus come to some conclusion of what the world outside is like when I'm NOT looking.

In terms of mysticism, there are right ways of connecting with this reality and there are wrong ways. Direct manipulation of the spirit world, from the Christian perspective, is not the way to go. I'm satisfied with reading scripture myself. But I've also had affirmative experiences in life, that "see-it-for-yourself" kind of thing. Those kinds of encounters force the experiencer to make decisions--are my senses reliable or not? The encounter itself, though, is undeniable. Some traditions use mind-altering substances. Of that I have not made up my mind, but I have to wonder whether the experience in question is genuine if there is some kind of psychoactive agent involved. I would ask the same question of "real world" physical observations.

If we can rely on our senses for anything, we can connect with reality and perceive at least all of the Truth that matters. If we cannot, we have to look to either repeating the experience or drawing other conclusions.

There is nothing mystical (as far as I know) about manipulating the spirit world. Communicating with it is something entirely different. John 16:12-13

Mysticism is about quieting your mind, rather than letting your brain manipulate the data you receive from your senses, so you can connect with the foundation of life and reality.

Do you?

If you mean Mysticism as in the energy fields of living beings and the universe then yes I am interested in that type of thing.

Scientific Language, but so little science. When someone shows a differential equation, or successful medical trial demonstrating the existence of an "energy field" I'll start believing.

That is fair enough. Everybody is entitled to be allowed to have their own opinion on this type of thing.

What makes me believe it myself is sometimes, when in the right mindset being able to feel these energies slightly. Before anyone says it, it is not a placebo effect.

I have friends a lot more in tune with their spiritual self than myself and they can sense a whole lot more energy out width what our 5 senses feel.

I used to be in a very good routine of meditation and had a very positive outlook on most things for a while. This helped me stay in tune with my own "vibes" and energy of others.

Since slipping out the routine of meditating. focussed on more negative things and being inside more because of winter i am not as in touch with myself and others in this sense as i used to be.