If that is an indication of what you accept as evidence, you should perhaps not fancy yourself as having a scientific mindset
Not much, as you have currently limited yourself to snipe remarks, not showing yourself at all In an open discussion people are more vulnerable because they share things personally. Also, I said 'if', I did not determine it to be actually so. Of course, mainly it was just a little joke, hence the smiley
i do not think they were snipe remarks at all, it seemed to me, personally, that tcm is just as skeptical as i am, when the thread seems to float away on a gray cloud of vague spirituality.. i can respect that.. and no, i did not show myself much either, even though i read every post, however long, but i am not above being vulnerable for that. gray clouds...
Inspired from this thread I took the effort to have a look at Einstein's special relativity Theory and the General relativity theory. When I studied, spiritual aspects played no role in my life. So it had been quite interesting to redo it. It must be a 'spiritual' shock for all the Newtonian's and Einstein had been lucky that the measurement had been developed already enough when he came up with his theory. It is all about the position of the observer to which one relates to. Einstein became famous with the idea that huge masses bend a light ray when they come (pass) close to it. The total eclipse on 29th May 1919 brought evidence (Arthur Eddington) 1.75 seconds of arc. Further keywords for the general theory are: -equivalence principle (accelerated movements and the gravity force lead to the same physical effects, are physically not distinguishable) -stretching of time (the stronger gravity force or acceleration appear the slower the time, GPS satellite time correction ~40 microseconds) -gravity is nothing but curvature of space Special relativity theory -movement, location and velocity are relative -speed of light is constant and can't be accelerated -stretching of local time: Local time is faster when having a greater velocity. -length contraction: moving objects are contracted to direction of movement. -simultaneity is relative. It depends on the location of the observer. -space-time (the speed of light connects events in space and time) The view of the sky always is a view of the past. The present is an invisible phenomenon, relative to the observer (body location). -mass increase. The higher the velocity the higher the mass relative to the observer. It must be an infinite mass at light speed, hence masses cannot achieve the speed of light. -E=m*c^2: radiation (energy) and matter are equal /convertible. If we now consider that anything is relative to the observer (body-idea) and (what Einstein did not) consider that the identity to which we relate to is actually not determinable, then we are not far away from a spiritual ideology. I think that most adherents of science don't know what Einstein actually did with his theory. Space and light speed determine each other. In other words: Space to which we relate to is a product of the speed of light, means the speed of light cannot be faster relative to an observer (body). If we would be light then we would have no mass and no space. To light, space to transit does not exist. The faster, the shorter the distance to travel. At light speed the distance (in direction of movement) is zero since there is no space. Into the travel direction the size of space to a photon is clinched to zero. An other equivalent is consciousness.
Parapher, you mean to say mysticism relies on the idea that there is some mine of eternal truth sitting around somewhere, maybe existing deep within us or out in the universe and we have special access to that mine of truth via mystical practices. There is no reason to believe that 1) any such mine of truth exists, or that, 2) we humans have any special powers to access it. We do, however, have lots of evidence that transcendent experiences are interpreted through personal and cultural filters. We do, however, also know that certain conditions can produce these ecstatic or transcendent experiences in any functioning human being regardless of what they want the experience to mean. Again, mysticism is not a portal to higher truths. Rather,spiritual/ mystical ideas can be easily examined using the methods that we already know are the best we have at finding truth - the scientific method. For example, I think that may be some of Einstein's insights came to him in a "mystical" way. He then knew they needed to be tested scientifically. If the mystical claim cannot be tested or falsified, it is nothing more than a poetic interpretation of consciousness and the complexities of existence by an ordinary human being. The experience may feel good and may result in a profound and extensive adjustment of one's mental world, but that doesn't make it true. Since there is no evidence of such a truth and no evidence that mystical practices access anything but what's in our own heads based on a lifetime of cultural and personal experiences, it is absurd to place mysticism into any category of truth-finding methods. Mysticism belongs to art, music, and poetry in our human repertoire of expression of what it means to be human. As soon as you start proclaiming untestable mystical "truths," you're basically starting a cult. With that said I conclude here no more post , in short, mysticism is an expression of human experience, not a way to verify anything factual that makes sense in the material world.
This is why I said previously, to light the instance when it leaves a star and the moment it falls into your eye is the same instance It is a mind-blowing concept. It means all is relative to the speed of light, which is to say speed of light is absolute. Even when light appears to take more time, like when it travels through an optical medium, it really does not 'slow down'. Merely, the re-emission delay gives the impression the light slows down, where in reality it does not.
You're living in the mine How much you want to see of it will determine how deep you go. There is no 'objective reason sitting around somewhere' that would entice one to believe, no. But of course my point all along has been that such cannot and donnot exist. Like I said, it can only come from your own consciousness experience. However, that doesn't mean one cannot come to one's total self/consciousness by means of things entertained by the symbolic mind (all roads lead to Rome/Benares). And as indicated by me in a previous post to you, 'facts' are interpreted through such filters as well. But the method you purport stays in the realm of representation, whereas the method I purport is in the realm of direct experience. You say direct experience is not possible, but instead what is possible is only symbolic representation of reality in one's mind-space. So you are true to what your experience tells you. But so am I So now you have elevated science to the realm of truth-finding and meaning. At least you are honest about it, I do appreciate that. The way science is today, it is intrinsically impossible to provide truth to any human. The only thing it is able to do is provide models. It does not plumb the depths of consciousness. You say plumbing the depths of consciousness is either/both not possible, not worthwhile, not real -- as determined by a consciousness that has permitted itself to (consciously) limit itself to a very limited expression of it My favored definition of 'mystical 'would imply it touches all, including scientific endeavor. Whatever any one says, he/she is proclaiming something. Whether it be in the realm of believing, or of direct experience. Whether someone would blindly follow a thought-form representative of someone else's personally experienced reality would indicate a cult-like mindset. So I would say someone following someone else's thought patterns more than their own (so to speak) is in risk of starting a cult, not the person who shared his/her experience. As such, many non-scientists who believe in the scientific man fit the cult-nomer quite nicely. Especially when actual scientific man claims his methods are the way to the truth Well, thank you for contributing in a civil manner to the discussion. I do believe the subject of omniscience is a bit hard to make factual for the material world and/or our understanding of it. Still I don't think the main concern in discussing this topic could be observable data pieces in a material world. To work up from that to an concept like omniscience will indeed not be fruitful (nor was this ever the intent). So that one would encounter people talking from their personal experiences of the universe and life is only more than apt. Perhaps one could say that to truly stay on topic, this would have to be a precisely philosophical discussion. But since that is such a wide and varied field... well, you get the idea.
Something to consider might be the classic scientific definitions of evolution and devolution and how Science has had to rethink itself along those lines based on scientific evidence .. As populations/communities have less and less contact with their natural (nature) and social environments (tribal sense/communication/need) their skill sets are diminished along those lines and invites a certain devolution in this regard where what previously were common place experiences and reinforced by the sharing of those common experiences .. It is easy for me to see where this would leave some populations and or individuals of which their heightened sensitivity/awareness of a more natural world would appear to be out of place and therefore often ostracized even on a subconscious level for some .. The quickly evolving world that we live in is IMHO far to dismissive of what past and present cultures did and do have to offer us where devolution (spiritual atrophy) may inhibit us from seeing something that at one time was a part of our daily presence in the world we live in and most importantly our true nature .. Just my perspective If the testimonies/expressions of other humans experiences in your library of thoughts remains largely unexplored it is time to meet your neighbor
From my heart, I wish that there was an absolute definition of reality. One that can not be disputed nor debated. Alas, there is not. Reality is all based on our perception, and is in the eye of the beholder. And the human eye can easily be fooled. If this were not the case, "magicians" would be out of a job. All I can suggest is that you keep an open mind. Today's mystical events may very well become tomorrows' physics. It's happened before; It'll happen again. -Every- single discovery of science was met with criticizm and scrutiny. Sometimes to the point of ridicule. Perserverence and the eternal desire for proof prevailed and someone coroberated the theorem(s). Why not just wait and see. What do you have to lose?
I am sorry sid. But with your wiki-knowledge you come not far concerning Mysticism. Generally I have the impression that your ideas are template like with short references to some definitions. I am not sure if your idea of science is not affected...... I don't want to push you into a special direction. But you need to deal with Mysticism (as you have dealt with science) to get a widespread idea of what you are actually talking. The Tibetan Mysticism (I am familiar with it hence I can post about) has scientific structures and systems. It is impressively described by Anagarika Govinda’s Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism I'd say the Tibetan Mysticism is a result of a high culture, a science with a high value and actually a shame that it had been violently destroyed. This destruction is an example of human ignorance and a contempt for mankind, made by people who don’t have a sense of that what unites us all, no matter if ‘mystical’ or scientific. Made by those who only have a material world of evidences and determined values. I could cry....when rethinking what had happened to the Tibetan culture... Your opinion of Mysticism is OK. One should be interested in life what is personally important. But IMHO you actually cannot afford to talk about Mysticism without much knowledge. You are living in a world of matter, values and objects. That what you call truth is the ability to convince statistically significant many individuals of the same relative idea. Sciences have no more truth in it than Mysticism. It is absurd to see science as something different, I am sorry……. Also the act of transcending is nothing Mystical. It is a part of every step change in evolution. The previous state is included (implemented) and then transcended. A new state is created and will live until it is included and transcended again. With each transcendence a new form of consciousness is born and a new world also. Humankind’s next step is to overcome the ego by including it and to transcendent it. Until then the nature is just an object, determinable by science and determinable by value (money). Anyway it is not meant to change your ideas, sid. I respect your posts. Your life will be the best verification of anything. “One that cannot be disputed nor debated.” That is even the point. There is ‘such’ a reality. ‘The reality’ will never change, no matter what we are writing here, if disputed or debated or not…..the reality contains already any idea of it we could ever have about... Reality is based on perception and is in the eye of the beholder, that is right. That is personal reality since we relate it to an own personal identity. So you can say: No fool without one that let oneself become fooled. Living in a model of trinity, (Idea of observer, Idea of object to be observed and the observation itself.) determines the actual value and barrieres of science and science cannot rise above this without to discard this trinity. Mysticism is in that aspect not chained to this trinity and hence has more freedom to the reality. It is made to be the beholder itself.
I would like you to explain on what level mysticism is working since in your words, absence of one part of the trinity negates the event. http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...y-sound/page11?p=589234&viewfull=1#post589234 Is mysticism working in the illusionary world ?
I've restricted myself not to post a reply but Yen sir you're forcing me again and again. Can the valuable aspects of mysticism be clearly and concisely described? Perhaps a formal presentation? This may help to define the value, worth /or positive aspects of of mysticism. I think you can't do that. Once those aspects are defined, they are subject to rational examination, which tends to de-mystify things and then the mystical is no longer mystical. Poof, no more magic wisdom. The valuable aspects of mysticism are intuition and emotional experiences - not what believers want to hear. Intuition and emotional experiences can be useful for insight and creative problem solving, etc., and without it we'd be dysfunctional, a whole different humankind as we know it. But much of that can be understood in materialistic terms and the rest is unfalsifiable junk until science can explain or debunk it. Meanwhile, I see no need to label intuitive intelligence as mystical or as a method of inquiry comparable to reason and evidence/ rational thinking. Doing so just clouds the issue unnecessarily and the glaring absurdity of it is lost on believers.
“Once those aspects are defined, they are subject to rational examination, which tends to de-mystify things and then the mystical is no longer mystical.” That is right. I totally agree with it. But that is no statement about its original value. Wouldn’t there be effort to demystify things if there is no value in Mysticism? And when is something demystified? It is a personal matter! One can demystify science by studying it. That what to me is knowledge / wisdom / science can be to you Mysticism. And science is not the ultimate judge to decide when demystified it is junk or not. To those living a special Mysticism it isn't. It is a determination made by others, because they have no access to it = mystic. What about the demystification of acupuncture? The meridians? Do they exist to science? And what about the 7 chakras? The Nadis: Ida, pingala, sushumna? They all are scientifically described in the Tibetan Mysticism (Vajrayana) and to those who practice, it is their established science. Do they care about what you think? I guess not. According to the original meaning of Mysticism (Greek: mystikós--->mysterion) to determine your own value of it, you need to evaluate what all is still secret to you. For instance: Who are you and what will happen to you after death. Mysticism would have no value if one knows anything already, but then science would have no more also. "Is mysticism working in the illusionary world ? " It is 'working' as long you have the impression there are unsolved secrets to explore. 'The reality' itself has no secrets, though. Since it is absolute there is no place for trinity and no place for one who could have a secret. Add: The greatest Mystery is still how time is created from a timeless present. Also the intuitive intelligence has its source there. And I guess this is the core of all Mysticisms. It is that what I have meant with direct cognition. Einstein demystified a little by saying light does not have directional space to transit and light does not age....and simultaneity is relative. It depends on the location of the observer. According to Einstein light itself needs no time from sun to earth since there is no relative space to light to transit and it doesn't age. Relative to us it needs 8 minutes and hence it seemingly 'ages' 8 minutes.. it travels 149.600.000 km (our relative space distance) isn't that still 'mystic'? Isn't that a perfect example how different 2 relative truths can be? TCM? lol you knew it already.... I forgot...
Linear thought only will give a redacted perception of who we are based on the egos adherence to self preservation (I am my body) .. I mean really for some even as they read those words if they are capable of a deliberate honesty will be at the very least able to identify immediately a flight or fight reaction to those words .. The great mystery that lies beyond (what is correct perception) is a fearless threshold to an awareness that goes beyond the boundaries/limitations of linear thought and any attempts to try to explain that through the linear mind only take us back to a time where the world was flat .. I have enjoyed this thread and thank all for their contributions but now my focus moves to Spring planting and other worldly duties my contributions here will be limited accordingly and for some that may be welcomed however I will check in from time to time .. I hope you will be kind to each other and will keep an open mind .. Thanks again to all who take the time to share and to those nameless who help make this website work
I wish you fun with your spring planting and whatever you do. It is really nice to have you here. It is a great experience to interact with different people around the world. Especially to share own experiences from different cultures, no matter which member contributes. Thank you, too. Btw: I have started to grow my chili plants as I do every year. This spring is extraordinary cold here. I cannot remember ever to have had such a cold period on March / May.....honestly we have 5 degrees Celsius here only...
I for one have learned a lot from this thread. Thank you all for sharing. @Yen,redroad: Good fortune in your growing.