On Aug 24, 5:10 pm, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Bridge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 24, 3:45 pm, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Since most definitions of 'science' refer in some way to our physical > > world, > > > that which is experienced beyond our physical world is outside the > > provided > > > definition for mystical (ergo my contention that the definition is still > > > lacking). > > > Think about it with only the standard requirements for the scientific > > method. > > > Hypothesis > > Test > > Result > > > A teacher or other guide tells you something about your inner psyche > > and how to interact with it. This is the hypothesis. > > > You try it. This is the test. > > > It works or not. This is the result. > > Didn't you leave out a step: "Take a toke" (just kidding)
SM, that was a pretty bad joke if you want me to take you seriously. > > > There is no proof to anyone but yourself and true guides insist that > > you don't take their word for it. > > Fine, that's just not what our modern vernacular considers 'science'. > I'm not having a problem seeing the hypothesis-test-result cycle in mysticism. I already explained that it can only be science to the practitioner. The best part about your disrespect is that this is the same experiential science that Christianity asks of everyone all the time. "Just try it, it'll work" "I can't prove it to you or explain it to you but it'll work." > > The subject of mysticism is corrupted by new-agey types who accept any > > and every hypothesis with the belief that their puerile acceptance > > somehow equals adepthood or mastery. > > > I treat mysticism atheistically. I don't care what angel or saint or > > deva or demon is supposed to be talking to me. I do take as an > > experience the conversations I have with my psyche. > > > Just because these conversations are not outside the realm of > > explainable biochemistry/physiology does not make the act of the > > communion non-mystical. > > Just 'non-scientific' (according to accepted uses of the word). That's my > point; the proposed definition is lacking. > Accepted by whom? > > There's nothing supernatural about mysticism. > > I perceive that to be a contradictory statement given your suggestion that > you may be interacting with angels or demons (which are generally considered > to be supernatural). If you would have read more carefully you would see: "I treat mysticism atheistically." So here is where you must have started skimming and not reading. No offense but it seems like you're not taking this conversation seriously. I'll bow out.
