---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :
I don't think you know what you're talking about, Buck, if you're saying philosophy is sophistry. And the idea of Curtis helping us "sort this out" is laughable. Might as well appeal to Richard Dawkins for assistance. I think Dawkins would be a fine person to get in on the debate. He could tell you all about brain evolution and which parts came about when and are common to which animals. This might give us an idea about which cognitive elements are responsible for mystical states and to find out what cognitive threshold is required. For instance, does a dog have mystical experiences? A fish, spider? I suspect our that temporary confusion in the extra complexity in our cerebral cortex - missing in most other animals - is responsible for these "higher" states. If, say, dogs get them too I would think it's our metaphorical ability and willingness to attach "god" labels that blows them out of proportion in a way other animals obviously can't. It's the suddenness and the unusual nature of mystic states that make them stick in the mind, LSD, meditation, it doesn't matter where it cam from. Lawson's post give us a good indication that altering brain functioning in some way is how to get them. I think there's a continuum of potential but normal consciousness, from mental illness to things we consider godly, otherwise we are left with the possibility that we have our constructed inner world that we take for granted plus a different type of consciousness that pops into our heads at certain times but is perceived internally in the same way as our normal reality is! I'm no dualist but surely there can't be both types, a mind inseperable from our brains but also a mystical world made of something else? I also think Curtis was a very clear thinker. Maybe you just disliked his conclusions? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Philosophy sophistry.. ., hell. Nuomenal. Great word, I feel we all should be finding ways to use it as a new word bracket for really spiritual description around the Transcendent Unified Field experience we all have here. We proly needs CurtisDeltaBlues to come back here and sort this out as POV's and such and such philosophical mental ontological constructs of how we gain Knowledge. But of course it would need more refinement. More than just the philosophical mind it seems nuomenal consciousness is right in the middle of transcendental consciousness as we experience it. An aspect of 'Self-Referral'. I am going to sleep on it. Good nite, -Buck Wiki: The noumenon / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_Englishˈ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyɒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyuː http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keym http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyɨ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyɒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#cite_note-1 [Self-referral Transcendent?] The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "phenomenon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena_(philosophy)", which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(philosophy) of, the senses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_senses. In Platonic philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_philosophy, the noumenal realm was equated with the world of ideas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms known to the philosophical mind, in contrast to the phenomenal realm, which was equated with the world of sensory reality, known to the uneducated mind.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon#cite_note-2 Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant gave this point of view its classical version, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans. In Kantian philosophy the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable "thing-in-itself" (Ding an sich, which could also be rendered as "thing-as-such" or "thing per se"), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy. Emilymae as a non-meditor here writes: "Scientists need to get some philosophy under their belts so they see what the problem is." I'm reading that Denys Turner book you posted here awhile back. Loving it - dense as it is. I can pick it up and open it to any place and be surprised over and over at the way it affects me. It's all new to me and I find it fascinating. authfriend as a meditator charitably writes: Glad you enjoyed it, Emily. It certainly is an unusual pair of pieces to appear in the NYTimes! Her new book, from which she adapted her piece, has created something of a stir. From what I understand, it's completely unlike anything she's ever written and has really startled people who were familiar with her work and thought they knew who she was and what she stood for. Must have taken guts to publish it. And so odd to for her to have had that wild experience a half-century ago but not really have tried to come to terms with it until very recently. But it's great to see somebody of stature saying, "WAAAIIIIIT a minute, folks, there's more going on here than you realize. You can't just shut it out and pretend it doesn't exist." On the other hand, I think Douthat nails it where scientific investigation is concerned. We are still SO far away from understanding everyday consciousness, let alone mystical, nuomenal consciousness. But boy, it's long past time for science to start taking it seriously and realizing the limits of neuroscience to figure it out. Scientists need to get some [philosophy*] under their belts so they see what the problem is. [ In this case, philosophy should=experiential-mysticism] -Buc emilymaenot writes: Judy, wonderful post. I loved Ross Douthat's article. authfriend writes: A fascinating exchange of views... Opinion piece in the NYTimes by Barbara Ehrenreich, rationalist author and political activist (and atheist), about the change in her perspective on life wrought gradually over many years by a mystical experience she had as an adolescent (note: at age 73, she's still an atheist): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/a-rationalists-mystical-moment.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/a-rationalists-mystical-moment.html Response by NYTimes columnist Ross Douthat (not an atheist) pointing out that her call for science to investigate mystical experiences in depth is premature because science doesn't yet understand ordinary experience well enough: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/how-to-study-the-numinous/ http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/how-to-study-the-numinous/
