Krimel said: Saying that an experience is drug induces or a product of brain chemistry does not detract in the least from the experience itself. It may however cause us to be cautious about the cosmic significance we want to attach to such experiences.
dmb says: It does not detract in the least but only causes us to be cautious about assigning significance? What kind of logic is that? I mean, if such reductionist explanations result in the loss of its meaning, how can you say it does not detract from it? [Krimel] I suppose the logic kicks in from the notion that meaning can not be lost where it does not exist. There are a host of mental states there have been touted as having religious or cosmic significance whose effects can be traced to plant toxins, brain seizures and mental exercise. While changes in brain states can clearly be demonstrated, assigning religious or otherwise metaphysical meaning to these states does little to enrich our understanding of these states. We know full well that frontal lobe seizures produce profound religious experiences. Those who have such seizures tearfully report experiences of oneness with the divine. We know that LSD interferes with the processing of sensory data. Does this detract from the experiences at all? Not a bit. The epileptic and the acidhead remained convinced of the cosmic significance of these states. The issue is should the rest of us take their reports of these experiences at face value? I would once again recommend for your attention this bit from Lord Russell: "The drunkard who sees snakes does not imagine, afterwards, that he has had a revelation of a reality hidden from others, though some not wholly dissimilar belief must have given rise to the worship of Bacchus. In our own day, as William James related, there have been people who considered that the intoxication produced by laughing-gas revealed truths which are hidden at normal times. From a scientific point of view, we can make no distinction between the man who eats little and sees heaven and the man who drinks much and sees snakes. Each is in an abnormal physical condition, and therefore has abnormal perceptions. Normal perceptions, since they have to be useful in the struggle for life, must have some correspondence with fact; but in abnormal perceptions there is no reason to expect such correspondence, and their testimony, therefore, cannot outweigh that of normal perception." [dmb] That's exactly what it does, of course. It explains it away as a chemically induced hallucination or a product of biological processes and thereby drains the significance out of it for the experiencer. This is not to say that mystical experiences occur in some disembodied way or that there are no correlated biological events. This is a natural event, after all. But to say they are CAUSED by or are the PRODUCTS of the bio-chemical processes is, by definition, materialistic reductionism. And that kind of reductionism is one of the MOQ's central enemies for the way it denies things like morals, values, mysticism. But you know all that. [Krimel] Mystics of all people should be wary of infusing "experience" with undo significance. Isn't the whole idea that reality is Maya? Isn't it the ever shifting meaning our perceptual capacity overlays onto our sensations. It is all hallucination. Perception is the ordering of patterns of sensation. This is CAUSED by the interaction of our tissue with the environment. This explains nothing away; it simply begins to hint at a real explanation. You have a really silly notion of whatever it is this materialistic reductionism is supposed to be. You can not acknowledge the biological correlation on the one hand then dismiss it on the other without even a clue as to what it is. Frankly even as you describe it, materialistic reductionism sounds a whole lot better that the fantasy world you embrace. It is after all the view held by philosophers of mind, neuroscientist, biologists, cognitive scientists, and medical researchers. In short the folks who are asking the intelligent questions, proposing ways to answer them and actually advancing our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the environment. Krimel said: Beyond that I would say this culture does embrace mystical experiences. From speaking in tongues and snake handling to Bud Lite and Raves; from trances induced by cathode rays to jingles that stick in our heads; roller coasters, novels, paintings, hot and spicy and scratch and sniff; we live in a culture that thrives on the manipulation of experience. dmb says: Hate to sound like a snob, but I think philosophical mysticism demands a more precise idea about what is and is not a mystical experience. [Krimel] But Dave that is snobbery. It is also lazy. You want to define what it is so you can rail against what you say it is not. [dmb] I don't see how ad jingles or scratch-n-sniff figures into it, for example. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is only one kind of mystical experience or that there is only one way to evoke them. In fact, I think its better to think of mystical events as a category of experiences. [Krimel] Yes and associated brain states that go with them. States by the way, which can be initiated or disrupted in a host of ways from meditation to surgery. There are whole industries at work across this planet striving to manipulate your consciousness for you. They have at their disposal an advanced technology that they readily use to manipulate your emotions in art and film, in advertising and marketing, in business and commerce, in religion and mysticism. Denying it only serves to make it more potent. Pursuing exotic phantasms does not make a virtue of ignorance. [dmb] And we all know that different cultures have developed different techniques. Whirling dervishes, silent meditators, drumming, chanting, dancing, and yes, "drugs" too. As I understand it, they go back as far as the record goes. The variety and antiquity is fairly well matched by the ubiquity. Makes it hard to ignore. No, ignoring something that deep and old and pervasive is just plain stupid. Not that you're stupid. [Krimel] The antiquity and universality of such states and activities points clearly to a genetic basis. I would not be so stupid as to claim otherwise. All the more reason to study the biological basis and evolutionary function of such activities. The ancients had all manner of explanation for things that we no longer take seriously why do you insist that mystical explanations should be treated differently than creation myths. Well, I mean gav takes that kind of crap seriously but not you too... [dmb] I'm just saying that intellectual respectability on the topic does not have to be purchased with reductionistic science. Mysticism as such is a cultural and, not a physical of biological event. [Krimel] Right, Dave; man at the center of a universe created to serve the needs of man: the Omega Point. This is the kind of high sounding puffery the Inquisitors used to question Galileo and the fundamentalist's to poo-poo Darwin. But it just sounds goofy to anyone a serious desire to know the truth. [dmb] Its point, purpose and meaning cannot be realized through a microscope. That's just a matter of looking in the wrong direction, treating the subject-matter as something other than what it actually is in people's lives. [Krimel] Perhaps you could cite someone in the real world who holds such view rather than this imaginary straw man you have hallucinated. You could try James again it is always entertaining to hear you butcher to poor guy. [dmb] But I did handle a snake on a roller coaster once and THAT was certainly some kind of experience. Shirley MacLaine and Samuel Jackson were there in the seat behind me. She was wearing this weird stole that sorta looked like a snake when it flapped in the wind. Just as we were about to go down the first big hill she took it off and wrapped it around my neck. That's when Sam started screaming profanities. Or maybe it was just a dream. In any case, it changed my life. I became a devout frisbetarian that day. May your soul get stuck on the roof forever, amen. [Krimel] That's some funny stuff there Dave. But really, your single phrase "psycho-spiritual reality" up a bit highe, stands out as the roll-on-the-floor-knee-slapper in a post clearly designed to amuse. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
