Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy! (Moved)

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I understand that your not understanding the lens of consciousness that the mystics look through. That's all I see here.

Perhaps you could describe and explain the 'lens of consciousness that the mystics look through' for me?

Would perhaps the image of Buddhist Nirvana help with understanding?

OK, so by 'pure', you mean free of undesirable elements in a moral or spiritual sense, rather than in the sense of an independent essence?

What would being "mystical enough" look like to you?

Generally, vague and ambiguous pronouncements that give the impression of special knowledge but without specific content. Often in the form of deepities (aka Chopra-isms) and, when being personal, 'Barnum statements'.

But I'd be interested to hear some specific and verifiable special knowledge obtained from mystics.

 

[dlamberth]

Perhaps you could describe and explain the 'lens of consciousness that the mystics look through' for me?

Can’t do that. Basically, the problem is that I don’t know how to describe consciousness. Is that something you can help me with, maybe? It seems to me that consciousness is one of those things that can be pointed towards and that we experience, but I don’t think it can be described. Love is that way too. So, unless you can help me describe consciousness, I’m at a loss on how to proceed with a description. Sorry.

At the same time, Mystics work in the realm of consciousness. So for example where the muscle builder is working to build muscle, or the singer works to improve voice or the blind person works to improve hearing sensitivity, the mystic works in the area of consciousness. To understand that is to understand how Christian Mystics, Sufies, the Jewish Mystics, the Indigenous cultures, Shamans, Buddhist, basically all of the Wisdom Tradition trajectories work.

I don't know if true, but I've read that Einstein would put himself consciously into his formula's and ride them out to see where they went. That's mysticism at work.

OK, so by 'pure', you mean free of undesirable elements in a moral or spiritual sense, rather than in the sense of an independent essence?

“independent essence”. What do you mean by that?

And what's an undesirable element? That doesn't sound like words I'd use.

It’s a meditation experience of complete opening and losing one’s self into consciousness awareness. I know…complete babble to you. And I fully understand. I get similar feelings when reading the attempts to describe high physics...totally woo woo stuff to me. But I find it interesting anyway.

An image I play with is of God before the Big Bang. It doesn't matter if one believes in God or not, but anyone can still play with the image of what pure Consciousness might look like in a Being before the physical world came to be.

Generally, vague and ambiguous pronouncements that give the impression of special knowledge but without specific content. Often in the form of deepities (aka Chopra-isms) and, when being personal, 'Barnum statements'.

Ya, I can see the why for your demeaning comments towards the mystic trajectory. I'm wondering if you actually knew more about it if you might feel differently. But my impression is completely different. Where I go is with Wisdom.

But I'd be interested to hear some specific and verifiable special knowledge obtained from mystics.

The Mystics are more about Wisdom than any kind of special knowledge. But roughly, using your words, example of verifiable special knowledge often talk about by the mystics is of a very different and often heightened perspective of Love, Compassion, Empathy and how important it is to serve. And, how these things make us a more human, Human Being.

As an aside, for myself, I see it as a part of the evolutionary trajectory. Along with everything else, consciousness is evolving. And I’ve wondered, as consciousness evolves, where it might lead to? Is the mystic and the consciousness they work in, I've wondered if they are window into the future? I have no idea. But when looking at evolution, I find it interesting to watch consciousness from that perspective.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can’t do that. Basically, the problem is that I don’t know how to describe consciousness. Is that something you can help me with, maybe? It seems to me that consciousness is one of those things that can be pointed towards and that we experience, but I don’t think it can be described. Love is that way too. So, unless you can help me describe consciousness, I’m at a loss on how to proceed with a description. Sorry.

Do you understand what the 'lens of consciousness that the mystics look through' is? because if you do and you're not a mystic, you should be able to explain what you understand by it. OTOH if you don't understand it yourself, you're in not position to tell me that I don't.

If you do understand it because you're a mystic yourself, but nevertheless you can't explain it, that's pretty much my experience of mystics - vague promises and claims of special abilities and/or knowledge that they can't explain.

At the same time, Mystics work in the realm of consciousness. So for example where the muscle builder is working to build muscle, or the singer works to improve voice or the blind person works to improve hearing sensitivity, the mystic works in the area of consciousness. To understand that is to understand how Christian Mystics, Sufies, the Jewish Mystics, the Indigenous cultures, Shamans, Buddhist, basically all of the Wisdom Tradition trajectories work.

I'm reasonably familiar with some of those (the last three).

I also know a fair amount about the science of consciousness, so I know that empirically it behaves like an activity, a set of processes, a mode of operation, of biological brains. IOW it can no more exist without its substrate (a brain) than running can exist without legs. In that sense, 'pure consciousness', i.e. consciousness without some physical substrate, makes no more sense than 'pure running', i.e. running without legs...

So it all comes down to the meaning of 'pure' in the context.

I don't know if true, but I've read that Einstein would put himself consciously into his formula's and ride them out to see where they went. That's mysticism at work.

As I understand it, Einstein was a visualiser, he would imagine scenarios for how his ideas would play out; i.e. gedankenexperiments (thought experiments).

“independent essence”. What do you mean by that?

Something unattached to, & not dependent on, anything else, and consisting solely of a single undifferentiated thing. As I mentioned before, pseudoscientific claims often refer to 'pure energy', meaning energy unconnected to & independent of anything else, a thing in its own right; which is meaningless, as energy is a property things have by reason of their physical situation. IOW, it's like talking about 'pure enthusiasm' in the absence of things that can be enthusiastic, or 'pure flow' in the absence of things moving. My usual analogy is 'financial value', which can take many forms, but doesn't exist as a thing in its own right; it doesn't exist apart from stuff that has financial value - there's no such thing as 'pure financial value'.

And what's an undesirable element? That doesn't sound like words I'd use.

In Buddhism they include attachment (clinging, desire), ignorance (of impermanence), sense or idea of self, discomfort or suffering (caused by attachment, idea of self, ignorance, etc), and so-on. The idea is to lose the undesirable elements.

It’s a meditation experience of complete opening and losing one’s self into consciousness awareness. I know…complete babble to you. And I fully understand.

I don't think you do understand. It doesn't sound like complete babble to me; I practice mindfulness and meditate regularly (not to mention the use of certain substances in my student days); I've also had experience of being in 'the zone', aka 'flow' in sports, which is a somewhat similar kind of state of mind.

If that's the lens of consciousness through which mystics look, maybe you can explain what's mystical about it? What do you understand by that word?

An image I play with is of God before the Big Bang. It doesn't matter if one believes in God or not, but anyone can still play with the image of what pure Consciousness might look like in a Being before the physical world came to be.

The idea of a being without the physical world seems incoherent to me - what, besides abstractions, exists without some substrate? how do you define being or existence to accommodate the non-abstract but non-physical? - not forgetting the problem of interaction...

Ya, I can see the why for your demeaning comments towards the mystic trajectory. I'm wondering if you actually knew more about it if you might feel differently. But my impression is completely different. Where I go is with Wisdom.

My view of mystics is based on long experience and a lot of reading. If you can link or give references for source materials that describe and explain a mysticism that is coherent and useful, I'd be interested to read or view them.

The Mystics are more about Wisdom than any kind of special knowledge. But roughly, using your words, example of verifiable special knowledge often talk about by the mystics is of a very different and often heightened perspective of Love, Compassion, Empathy and how important it is to serve. And, how these things make us a more human, Human Being.

OK; is this knowledge communicable? if so, can you point me to a description or explanation of this 'very different and often heightened perspective of Love, Compassion, Empathy and how important it is to serve'?

As an aside, for myself, I see it as a part of the evolutionary trajectory. Along with everything else, consciousness is evolving. And I’ve wondered, as consciousness evolves, where it might lead to? Is the mystic and the consciousness they work in, I've wondered if they are window into the future? I have no idea. But when looking at evolution, I find it interesting to watch consciousness from that perspective.

A good deal of how consciousness develops is culturally determined, the rest is a product of biological evolution and physiological development, so I wouldn't be overly optimistic about future developments - all three influences are unpredictable.

 

[dlamberth]

This this WAY more than I intended to write.

Do you understand what the 'lens of consciousness that the mystics look through' is? because if you do and you're not a mystic, you should be able to explain what you understand by it. OTOH if you don't understand it yourself, you're in not position to tell me that I don't.

I've been doing this for over 40 years. I'm now 72, so over half my life. I kind of know what I'm talking about. I've spent the last couple of years studying the Medieval Christian Mystics, particularly centered around the Beguines. But through the years I've studies many other Christian Mystics. Within the last several months I've shifted to a Sufi by the name of Ibn Arabi. Rumi entered my life years ago as have other Sufies along the way. And all while I've been hanging out with the local Indigenous people, doing lodges and such, which is where the shamans pop up. But shamans have a way of popping up in other places somehow. My Hindu connections are not as exhaustive, but I have gone there. And there's the Buddhist retreats at Cloud Mountain Retreat Center that I go to. That is up until Coronavirus put a stop to all of that. My routine is do at least two week long retreats a year, often I'd do more. Sometimes at the Buddhist center mentioned and sometimes Sufi Guided and sometimes at Our Lady of Guadalupe, which is a Trappist monastery. Through the years I've worked directly with 3 different guides as well as various teachers along the way. I'm giving only a shortened version.

If you do understand it because you're a mystic yourself, but nevertheless you can't explain it, that's pretty much my experience of mystics - vague promises and claims of special abilities and/or knowledge that they can't explain.

Where I stand is that all Human Beings are mystics. I see it as an aspect of being a Human Being.

I'm reasonably familiar with some of those (the last three).

I'm assuming that you are aware that for those last three you mention that they experience trees, animals, and everything as verbs. Which is very different way of knowing life than most of us in the modern world know. Consciousness and where we human beings go with it is interesting. We can shift it, play with it, grow it and even take it places. Christian mystics for instance might take their consciousness and sit in the Heart of Christ and see what they see from that position.

I also know a fair amount about the science of consciousness, so I know that empirically it behaves like an activity, a set of processes, a mode of operation, of biological brains. IOW it can no more exist without its substrate (a brain) than running can exist without legs. In that sense, 'pure consciousness', i.e. consciousness without some physical substrate, makes no more sense than 'pure running', i.e. running without legs...

I'm not doubting your knowledge of the science of consciousness. Your a pretty intelligent person. I appreciate that about you and I do not question it for a minute. But there's a question that your not addressing at all. "What is consciousness doing?" It's not a thing. It's doing something. "Where can consciousness take us?" That's the ream of the Mystics. You used legs and running as an example. That's doing something. What can consciousness do? Like legs, consciousness can be trained to run further, that's all I'm saying.

So it all comes down to the meaning of 'pure' in the context.

I'm coming to believe that we are looking at two different perspectives with the word "pure". And I'm at a loss on how to bring the two different perspectives together.

As I understand it, Einstein was a visualiser, he would imagine scenarios for how his ideas would play out; i.e. gedankenexperiments (thought experiments).

Visualizing requires a shift in consciousness. It's about consciousness. To put one's self into the visualizing IS mysticism in action.

Something unattached to, & not dependent on, anything else, and consisting solely of a single undifferentiated thing. As I mentioned before, pseudoscientific claims often refer to 'pure energy', meaning energy unconnected to & independent of anything else, a thing in its own right; which is meaningless, as energy is a property things have by reason of their physical situation. IOW, it's like talking about 'pure enthusiasm' in the absence of things that can be enthusiastic, or 'pure flow' in the absence of things moving. My usual analogy is 'financial value', which can take many forms, but doesn't exist as a thing in its own right; it doesn't exist apart from stuff that has financial value - there's no such thing as 'pure financial value'.

There's a lot of pseudo mystics out there too. The New Age folks are who I have in mind. When saying "pure consciousness", to be clear I am not suggesting that consciousness is hanging out there by itself.

Consciousness has no form. It has no color, no taste. We can't point at it and say there it is. It can't be measured, weighed or even seen. Yet we all have it. A Mystic will shift their consciousness towards the subject of interest and focus on it 100 percent without any of the other senses attached during that moment. That's the part I suspect your having trouble grasping. It's in the training.

In Buddhism they include attachment (clinging, desire), ignorance (of impermanence), sense or idea of self, discomfort or suffering (caused by attachment, idea of self, ignorance, etc), and so-on. The idea is to lose the undesirable elements.

That sounds like a text book description more than anything. It's good, but in practice Non-attachment is quite a bit more that that. And the elements are not seen as undesirable. They are just not something to hang on to for awakening.

I don't think you do understand. It doesn't sound like complete babble to me; I practice mindfulness and meditate regularly (not to mention the use of certain substances in my student days); I've also had experience of being in 'the zone', aka 'flow' in sports, which is a somewhat similar kind of state of mind.

You meditate? I'm impressed and surprised to hear. Thanks for sharing that.

Being in the zone or the flow, it takes a shift in consciousness in one form or another to get there. I'm at a loss in how to escape that truth. As an aside, I also have to include those certain substances alluded to in my life experiences. My age should give hints of those times. I've seen both Janis Joplin and the Doors in concert and was very much a part of that scene. That was a long time ago.

If that's the lens of consciousness through which mystics look, maybe you can explain what's mystical about it? What do you understand by that word?

I can only give examples, sorry. At it's simplest, Creativity, the arts, music, poetry, love, sex, the aweness when seeing a rainbow...all of these things take a person out of their normal self, and shifts their consciousness, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.

The idea of a being without the physical world seems incoherent to me - what, besides abstractions, exists without some substrate? how do you define being or existence to accommodate the non-abstract but non-physical? - not forgetting the problem of interaction...

We're in agreement. The question raised...what IS Being? Can it even be defined? Yet at the same time we can shift our consciousness inward and experience Being.

My view of mystics is based on long experience and a lot of reading. If you can link or give references for source materials that describe and explain a mysticism that is coherent and useful, I'd be interested to read or view them.

As an avid reader, I have a large library. Of all of those books what the authors tend to give is only chapter or two. Mysticism can't be taught. I'll go through what I have and get back to you if I can find something useful. But off hand as I grab something quick, "The Coming of the Cosmic Christ" by Matthew Fox has a good chapter on Mysticism.

OK; is this knowledge communicable? if so, can you point me to a description or explanation of this 'very different and often heightened perspective of Love, Compassion, Empathy and how important it is to serve'?

All I can say is the every authentic Mystic I've ever come across point towards Love, Compassion, Empathy and Service. William Johnson, a Jesuit Priest in "The Inner Eye of Love" talks about "riding Love like an arrow to the Heart of God". That's a pretty heightened perspective of Love. For the Medieval Christian Mystic, Hildegard of Bingen, her entry point was through Compassion. Christ to her is an "Infinate Divine Compassion that is Activated. Ibn Arabi entry was also Compassion. For Hadewijch of Antwerp, it was Love as it was also for Rumi. Hadewijch and other Beguines called that intense kind of Love "minne". Every word that Rumi wrote was about Love. All of were/are about service in what they wrote, preached and practiced.

A good deal of how consciousness develops is culturally determined, the rest is a product of biological evolution and physiological development, so I wouldn't be overly optimistic about future developments - all three influences are unpredictable.

Quite right. At the same time as I look around, it's very clear that consciousness has evolved into a lot of different ways. And contrary to your thoughts, I have no doubt the future will see new and different developments. I don't have to jump far to believe that something more aware might be out there right now on other planets. Evolution isn't just for life on Earth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where I stand is that all Human Beings are mystics. I see it as an aspect of being a Human Being.

So why say things like "Mystics work in the realm of consciousness" if all it means is the trivial "Human beings work in the realm of consciousness"? If all humans are mystics, why use the word at all?

Christian mystics human beings for instance might take their consciousness and sit in the Heart of Christ and see what they see from that position.

all Human Beings are mystics ?

I'm not doubting your knowledge of the science of consciousness. Your a pretty intelligent person. I appreciate that about you and I do not question it for a minute. But there's a question that your not addressing at all. "What is consciousness doing?" It's not a thing. It's doing something.

It is part of a set of processes that facilitate flexible, creative behaviour, including using past experiences to predict and visualise future scenarios for planning activities - especially with regard to theory of mind - predicting the mental states and behaviour of others, and presenting a consistent and unified social self to others.

"Where can consciousness take us?" That's the ream of the Mystics. You used legs and running as an example. That's doing something. What can consciousness do? Like legs, consciousness can be trained to run further, that's all I'm saying.

For example?

I'm coming to believe that we are looking at two different perspectives with the word "pure". And I'm at a loss on how to bring the two different perspectives together.

I already gave two different meanings of the word... did neither of them fit? If not, please give your definition.

Visualizing requires a shift in consciousness. It's about consciousness. To put one's self into the visualizing IS mysticism in action.

OK; I suspect most people just call it using your imagination.

When saying "pure consciousness", to be clear I am not suggesting that consciousness is hanging out there by itself.

Glad to hear that.

Consciousness has no form. It has no color, no taste. We can't point at it and say there it is. It can't be measured, weighed or even seen. Yet we all have it.

We all have it intermittently - it's a process, an activity - that's why it isn't 'stuff'. It's a common error to reify such abstractions, and consciousness seems to be the biggest victim.

A Mystic will shift their consciousness towards the subject of interest and focus on it 100 percent without any of the other senses attached during that moment. That's the part I suspect your having trouble grasping. It's in the training.

I understand focus.

But you keep doing it - "A Mystic human being will shift their consciousness towards the subject of interest and focus on it 100 percent..." Is there some special meaning when you capitalize 'Mystic'? If so, please just say what you mean. It doesn't really make sense if all humans are Mystics.

That sounds like a text book description more than anything. It's good, but in practice Non-attachment is quite a bit more that that. And the elements are not seen as undesirable. They are just not something to hang on to for awakening.

It's not a textbook description, it was my attempt to summarise a philosophy of life in a couple of sentences. The difference between 'something undersirable for awakening' and 'something not to hang onto for awakening' escapes me. Please explain.

You meditate? I'm impressed and surprised to hear. Thanks for sharing that.

Nothing to impressed with, it's just good mind exercise. When I stopped karate, I got involved with Tai Chi and Qi Gong, which (stripped of the mumbo-jumbo) are literally physical meditation exercises.

Being in the zone or the flow, it takes a shift in consciousness in one form or another to get there.

All different activities require a 'shift in consciousness' from one to the other; even walking into another room causes a shift in consciousness - which is what makes it so easy to forget what you went in there for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can only give examples, sorry. At it's simplest, Creativity, the arts, music, poetry, love, sex, the aweness when seeing a rainbow...all of these things take a person out of their normal self, and shifts their consciousness, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.

OK, I guess I'm a mystic and a Mystic then.

We're in agreement. The question raised...what IS Being? Can it even be defined? Yet at the same time we can shift our consciousness inward and experience Being.

That sounds like a mindfulness of subjective experience. The simple sense of awareness, that there is something it is like to be you.

Mysticism can't be taught.

Being human can't be taught? I'm sorry to be pedantic, but this is puzzling me.

I'll go through what I have and get back to you if I can find something useful. But off hand as I grab something quick, "The Coming of the Cosmic Christ" by Matthew Fox has a good chapter on Mysticism.

OK, thanks. I'll check the reviews.

All I can say is the every authentic Mystic I've ever come across point towards Love, Compassion, Empathy and Service. William Johnson, a Jesuit Priest in "The Inner Eye of Love" talks about "riding Love like an arrow to the Heart of God". That's a pretty heightened perspective of Love. For the Medieval Christian Mystic, Hildegard of Bingen, her entry point was through Compassion. Christ to her is an "Infinate Divine Compassion that is Activated. Ibn Arabi entry was also Compassion. For Hadewijch of Antwerp, it was Love as it was also for Rumi. Hadewijch and other Beguines called that intense kind of Love "minne". Every word that Rumi wrote was about Love. All of were/are about service in what they wrote, preached and practiced.

OK; it just sounds like being a nice person.

Quite right. At the same time as I look around, it's very clear that consciousness has evolved into a lot of different ways. And contrary to your thoughts, I have no doubt the future will see new and different developments. I don't have to jump far to believe that something more aware might be out there right now on other planets. Evolution isn't just for life on Earth.

I didn't say there won't be new and different developments, my point was just that none of those influences are necessarily what we think of as beneficially progressive. IOW, the evolution of consciousness can be for the (subjectively) worse as well as the (subjectively) better.