--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn" <emilymae.reyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > (snip> > > > I see traditional systems as an attempt to define that > > > mystery within their POV. I believe it is premature to > > > buy into that. Not to ignore their input, but not jump > > > the gun and interpret inner experience of altered states > > > within their framework. I think we are babies at this > > > and many people act like they don't know this. Altered > > > states may not be higher states at all. > > > > > > EM: Perhaps this take is what Judy disagrees with. > > > > First, just to be clear, what I was objecting to in Curtis's > > previous post--the one that triggered a heated discussion-- > > were not the kind of things he's said in this one. > > > > As to his paragraph above, it should be noted that human > > beings have been interpreting inner experience of altered > > states for many millennia; we're hardly "babies at this." > > "We are babies at interpreting them through the knowledge > base we have on brain states and psychology today.
Oh, you didn't specify that. > So yes neuroscience is in its infancy and we are gunna need > that info to evaluate the value of these states. Or (much more likely, IMHO) we're never going to get a meaningful evaluation of these states from neuroscience. > > Other than that, what he says is too vague and general for > > me to say whether I agree or disagree with it. I will say > > I don't think it much matters what ontological framework > > one uses to explicate higher states of consciousness (by > > which I mean those resulting from meditation and other > > spiritually oriented practices of the Eastern traditions)-- > > as long as the framework isn't imposed on others or used > > to exalt groups or individuals above others. > > So you are not interested in accuracy all of a sudden? Huh? > You don't want to really know with more certainty, you are > happy with any version of interpretation. So seeing your > meditation as opening you up to demon possession which is > the fundamentalist's view is equal to your understanding > from Maharishi? Huh?? Think you could come up with a few more non sequiturs? (Which Eastern fundamentalists, by the way, claim that meditation opens you up to demon possession?) > > (snip) > > > > TM was a very regimented system in how we were trained > > > > in a vocabulary for how to express our experiences. > > > > At first this was very exhilarating and allowed us to > > > > share our inner lives with a shared word and phrase > > > > group. But now I see it as a limited language of > > > > groups like TM, providing more emotional experience of > > > > understanding something due to pattern recognition > > > > instead of actually, deeply thinking about how to > > > > express inner experience outside the buzz words. So I > > > > am at once handicapped by my experience and positively > > > > affected by having taken it all so far that I realize > > > > that mystical subjective experience is something > > > > interesting. But not necessarily in the way that the > > > > groups think of it. > > > > > > EM: Interesting. Judy may disagree with you here also > > > > I don't have much tolerance for the kind of psychobabble > > Curtis is into these days; I don't think it has much to > > do with the TM experience on its own terms. Or to put it > > another way, I don't think psychobabble serves to > > elucidate the nature of or reason for TM-babble. > > I purposely did not put this in Lifton's terms to avoid > this criticism. Gosh, I don't think I said anything about Lifton's terms, did I? > This is simple linguistic philosophy as well as anthropology. OK, "simple-linguistic-philosophy-babble" and "anthropology- babble." > Our use of language defines our sense of what is real > and can confine us to a POV if we are speaking in > specialized jargon as is used in the movement. On this level of abstract experience, what does it matter what the "POV" is? > > Here's an example of the latter: > > > > "...clear transcending, witnessing transcending, witnessing > > the celestial level, realizing that what you are experiencing > > as outside you is actually the same unboundeness as your own > > Self, having that thread of unity woven into the cloth of > > Brahaman as even those things not directly perceived are > > enveloped by your Self..." > > > > Obviously these are incredibly abstract experiences that > > have virtually nothing to do with everyday experience or > > even of garden-variety altered states. To refer to this > > kind of description as "providing more emotional > > experience of understanding something due to pattern > > recognition" strikes me as an attempt to force it into an > > inappropriate psychological mold, to demystify the > > mystical and thereby delegitimize it. > > The whole progress of human knowledge has been to demystify > what was mystical. Or do you think that it would be better > to view the sun's motion as Indra pulling it across the sky > in a chariot instead of planetary gravitational theory? Huh??? What does Indra's chariot have to do with the kind of experiences you cited that I quoted? That's *mythical*, not "mystical." Haven't you had your coffee yet, Curtis?
