On Aug 25, 12:04 pm, "Simon Ewins" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:03:33 -0400, Bridge <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 4:17 am, "Simon Ewins" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:00:31 -0400, Redshirt Bluejacket > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > But when you make a point, you don't, sadly.... by your definition, > >> > gravity doesn't exist since we can't explain it, but can only test its > >> > effects!! > > >> <sigh> Last time. > > > Did you mean that to come across so rude? > > Would it help? > > >> If X is said to be mystic but X is testable and repeatable then X > >> becomes science and is no longer mystical. > > > Because you're taking the definition for mystical to be supernatural/ > > magical. > > Did you mean to be so rude as to tell me what I think? The gall. >
Have you ever meditated? > I actually have stated that I am in agreement with the OED as far as > definitions. > And one of the definitions was something like "pertaining to the attribute of a mystic". Are you such a one? > >> Gravity is testable and repeatable so your analogy is simply wrong. > > > Why do you think mystical experiences aren't repeatable? > > Because when they are repeatable and testable they cease to be mystical. > > > I repeat them all the time. > > Good for you, however, if that is so then they have left the realm of the > mystical and are nudging on scientific. > Only if mystical means non-scientific, which it doesn't. > Ask yourself if a secret is still secret if it is revealed. > Ask yourself if knowing that smiling at your wife will make her happy is a science. > -- > "Music is my religion" [Jimi Hendrix] > > "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." [Andre > Gide]
