On Aug 25, 6:36 pm, "Simon Ewins" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:18:52 -0400, Bridge <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? > > As I have posted here recently I meditate at least once a day and > sometimes for four hours at a time, I studied and follow Wei Shih > Buddhism. Why? >
Meditation is mystical. > >> 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? > > Not likely. I maintain that if a mystical object or idea is testable and > repeatable it moves from mysticism towards science. What's a mystical object? > > >> >> 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. > > If it is scientific then there is no need to label it mystic, it is simply > yet another testable, repeatable phenomenon that is not understood (like > gravity). > If someone repeatedly enters into a state of communion within themselves then they are performing a mystic act. They are doing it with a certain amount of logic/science. They know what they have experienced. They can believe what they are told. They can see certain truths about what they are doing. A measure of control comes to them. How is this not science? > >> 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. > > If it is tested and repeated then it is moving in that direction. > Is there a sliding scale of how much something is scientific? I could see that. > -- > "Music is my religion" [Jimi Hendrix] > > "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." [Andre > Gide]
