Nausea is divine (original) (raw)
August 31st, 2005
02:21 am - Nausea is divine
A friend (those of you who read this journal will know who he is ;-) ) was explaining to me that existential nausea is the vertiginous feeling you get when you realize that there is no ultimate meaning to existence and that we are totally free to create it; that we're condemned to be free.
But that didn't seem exactly the right way to put it. How can meaninglessness make us dizzy? We get dizzy when we're struck in the head by a brick or the vodka we've just chugged down. We get nausea from something, not from a lack of something. If it's the meaninglessness of life, or our imposed freedom, that causes existential nausea, Sartre would not have called it nausea.
I puzzled over this all day.
Then late afternoon when I was doing yoga (because I was doing yoga?) I suddenly understood nausea, hit it right on the head. Nausea, existential nausea, is a bodily experience.
Indeed here are Sartre's words:
existence had suddenly unveiled itself. It had lost the harmless look of an abstract category: it was the very paste of things, this root was kneaded into existence. Or rather the root, the park gates, the bench, the sparse grass, all that had vanished: the diversity of things, their individuality, were only an appearance, a veneer. This veneer had melted, leaving soft, monstrous masses, all in disorder—naked, in a frightful, obscene nakedness. I kept myself from making the slightest movement, but I didn't need to move in order to see, behind the trees, the blue columns and the lamp posts of the bandstand and the Velleda, in the midst of a mountain of laurel. All these objects . . . how can I explain? They inconvenienced me; I would have liked them to exist less strongly, more dryly, in a more abstract way, with more reserve. The chestnut tree pressed itself against my eyes. Green rust covered it half-way up; the bark, black and swollen, looked like boiled leather. The sound of the water in the Mas-queret Fountain sounded in my ears, made a nest there, filled them with signs; my nostrils overflowed with a green, putrid odour. All things, gently, tenderly, were letting themselves drift into existence like those relaxed women who burst out laughing and say: "It's good to laugh," in a wet voice; they were parading, one in front of the other, exchanging abject secrets about their existence.
Imagine settling into a nice puffy beanbag chair. And then something not feeling right. The chair is squirming under you. You suddenly realize it's stuffed with ten thousand live cockroaches.
That's the feeling of nausea-- the feeling that things around you are throbbing, squirming. You perceive matter in its all its intensity. It's like your mug of coffee is staring back at you. Like your toilet is trying to whisper to you. It's uncanny.
William Burroughs describes Naked Lunch as “a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork.”
You are about to put that meatball in your mouth and you realize it's twitching. You want to recoil. You realize that matter is invasive, it impinges on you, sends its electromagnetic radiation which you can't refuse, sucks you in with faint gravitational pull which you can't counteract...
The universe is trying to tell you something. But it has nothing to say; you must be hallucinating, having a bad trip. This is where reflections on meaninglessness comes in. You see that matter just is. It's this one throbbing protoplasm that just exists, with categories and meanings mere afterthoughts tacked on by humans. We suddenly are aware that we are totally free to create meaning for our lives; that these meanings are necessarily arbitrary, but to refuse one's power to create meaning, to pretend that one was not free, would be acts of "bad faith".
Now, the reason I understood nausea is that I have these experiences all the time. The experience of normally inanimate things coming shockingly alive around you. I feel the universe trying to communicate to me too, every particle of matter vibrating. Walking in the woods in the golden light of late afternoon, seeing sunlight reflected off the shivering leaves of trees does this to me usually.
I feel the universe trying to communicate to me, but I take this communication seriously. That is, I think there is a message, and I "listen" attentively. It is a mystical experience of unity; it is the universe saying, "Yes!". What else it is saying cannot really be put into words. And as Wittgenstein says: 'whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.'
Here's a quote from Colin Wilson's autobiography, from a chapter where he recounts his experience with mescalin.
Now I could understand why Sartre had had such a bad trip, and Huxley such a good one. Mescalin immobilises the filters that keep reality at arm's length. The effect is rather like waking up on a train and finding a stranger with his face within an inch of your own. The effect is one of shock. If, like Sartre, you basically mistrust the universe, your response is to scream. If, like Huxley, you trust the universe, then your response is one of wonder and delight.
So, it's the same basic mystic experience, of being united with-- swallowed up by-- the universe, but Sartre resists it and calls it nausea; mystics surrender to it, and hence call it bliss.
You know, spanking is a terrible punishment but I know some naughty people who actually enjoy being spanked. Whether an experience is pleasant or painful all depends on the spin you put on it.
Some consider it a mark of philosophical rigor to not entertain notions of the divine. But these experiences: of existential nausea or existential euphoria, point to the same truth: that there is far more to the universe than we typically experience in our daily lives; there's a far vaster presence, purpose and order inhering in, or underlying, the universe, than we can formulate in words intelligibly.
(23 comments | Leave a comment)
From: anastasia_says Date:August 31st, 2005 12:53 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
You are an amazing person. I am so impressed by the way you have managed to swallow a thought entirely and reason it out from it's conception to a logical conclusion. The step by step approach is amazing- not to mention the incredible intelligence that you posess that just oozes from your reasoning.
I enjoyed your arguments/theorizing on this topic- could you tell? Sorry, I must sound like a hopeless stalker. I actually followed Emily/Prettypoet43 over here. I hope you don't mind that I've friended you.
| From:ulyart Date:August 31st, 2005 08:27 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
Wow. I'm honored by your words. Thanks for reading! I will friend you back.
cheers!
| From:pooperman Date:August 31st, 2005 01:52 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
It is amazing to me how eloquent you can be with words and simultaneously how devastating your message seems to be to the idea of linguistic sensibility.
There are some whose approach to philosophy is to swing a sledgehammer, have it hit anything, and the vibrations at times strike a resonance with me and I agree with them in principle but wish I did not agree. I wish their sledgehammer struck a dissonance so I could feel free to walk away and ignore them.
Your words play me like a concert pianist, and sometimes I feel guilty with how much I agree with you--as if it is your style, and not necessarily the message, with which I agree.
Well done!
:)
"there is no ultimate meaning to existence and that we are totally free to create it; that we're condemned to be free."
I agree with this, but I get the feeling you are trying to say something negative about the desire and the execution of the creation of this meaning--as if we would be better off leaving our existence as meaningless and not deluding ourselves with artificial (as in "artifice" and "art") constructions. Am I reading you incorrectly?
| From:ulyart Date:August 31st, 2005 08:35 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
I agree with this, but I get the feeling you are trying to say something negative about the desire and the execution of the creation of this meaning.
We are condemned to be free is a quote from Sartre. He's basically saying we are free, and have no choice about that.
I would agree with Sartre that creation of meaning is one of the noblest thing a human can do-- which is why I have such great admiration for artists, philosophers and scientists.
But Sartre was also saying it's all that we can do, given the fundamental meaninglessness of the universe. This is where I don't agree, as I don't think existence is inherently meaningless; rather I think there is an ultimate point to existence, just one that cannot be put into words.
| From:tiresias2 Date:August 31st, 2005 08:27 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
Elegantly written, but I once again have a question for you!
You go in your entry from saying "I feel as if the universe is trying to communicate with me..." (words in italics added by me), to saying "I believe that the universe is trying to communicate with me..." (this is a paraphrase-- correct me if it's an inaccurate characterization).
You make this transition without ever telling us why or for what reason you can jump from one to the other. You describe for us this transition, but you give us no explanation for it.
So, my question for you is: What's your explanation for it?
I don't see where the divinity needs to come in, unless you're purposely looking for it. In which case, how do you rule out wishful thinking?
In other words, how do these experiences 'point towards' the same truth? Because I see no reason why they need to point toward the very specific and wishful truth you have assigned for them. You just go from one to the other, as if one follows from the other... but it doesn't follow, and you have not made any steps between them to show us otherwise....
| From:ulyart Date:August 31st, 2005 08:56 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
You go in your entry from saying "I feel as if the universe is trying to communicate with me..." ...to saying "I believe that the universe is trying to communicate with me..." ...
You make this transition without ever telling us why or for what reason you can jump from one to the other.
Well, Sartre starts from the same experience, and he transitions to "I believe that the universe is communicating nothing to me; I believe it is screaming incoherently..." (to put it metaphorically). He also makes an assertion about his experience, an experience that is essentially like mine.
It's like music. You can't hear the music if you don't listen. You can't hear the music if you are convinced there is no music, that it's just raw sound, noise.
It's like accepting the reality of the world. Yes, maybe it's all a dream, maybe we're all flesh-slaves of the Matrix, but I choose to accept that it's real, because I find that only by doing so can I interact full-heartedly with the world, and that interacting with the world is interesting and delicious.
I accept the reality of the divine because only by doing so can I interact with it; and I find that interacting with the divine is interesting and delicious.
One more thing I wanted to add. You know my past few posts have all been direct or indirect answers to your question "why seek happiness at all." What a simple, innocuous question it seemed to be at the time. Ha! ;-)
I now fully concede your point that criticism leads to progress. In any case, it's inspired a branching of ideas. Thank you.
| From:tiresias2 Date:August 31st, 2005 11:20 am (UTC) 1**(Link)** |
|---|
Well, Sartre starts from the same experience, and he transitions to "I believe that the universe is communicating nothing to me; I believe it is screaming incoherently..." (to put it metaphorically). He also makes an assertion about his experience, an experience that is essentially like mine.
My understanding of Sartre is that he is not making a metaphysical claim like you seem to be making. He is just making what he calls an 'ontological' claim, which is to be distinguished from a metaphysical claim. For him, 'ontology' is purely for the purposes of classification or for description, and nothing more. In other words, he doesn't make a metaphysical commitment like you seem to be making, because he is recognizing the difference between going from one claim to the other... and that there is a divide between them.
I'm no expert on Sartre though, so regardless of what Sartre says, I'm focusing on your claims now :-).
| From:tiresias2 Date:August 31st, 2005 11:20 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
It's like music. You can't hear the music if you don't listen. You can't hear the music if you are convinced there is no music, that it's just raw sound, noise.
I don't buy the analogy. You don't need to actually believe in unicorns in order to understand a fictional story about them, or to appreciate their beauty.
But furthermore, let me caution you about something. No one is saying they are convinced there is no divinity. You're presenting a false dichotomy here. I'm not convinced that there is divinity, and I'm not convinced that there isn't. My point is just that I'm not convinced. The way you're framing the issue, it's as if I have to be convinced one way or the other, but I don't need to be convinced one way or the other-- that's why you're giving a false dichotomy. Thus, let's apply this to the musical example.
ULYART: "There is music playing in the other room!"
TIRESIAS2: "Well, I'm not in the other room, so I'm not convinced that there's music playing."
ULYART: "If you don't believe there is music in the other room, then that's why you can't hear it!"
TIRESIAS2: "Nonsense! The reason that I can't hear music in the other room is because I'm not in the other room, not because I'm convinced there is no music! In order to listen to the music, I just need to go into the other room... I don't need to believe anything about the music. I just need to go in there and see for myself. I'll believe or not believe in the music depending upon what happens."
In other words, I don't need any belief prior to experiencing something. Rather, here is what is needed: (1) The thing must exist, and (2) I must have a way of testing for it (in this case, the test is going into the other room!)
What I'm asking of you is to supply me with the means of taking me into the other room. It does not suffice to say "it's true only if you believe it to be true". At the very least, if this is your rationale, then how might you distinguish between the belief and the fact of the matter?
Lots of people claim to believe in wild and crazy things. One person's crazy beliefs may even blatently contradict another person's crazy beliefs. And yet, you would allow, on the basis of belief alone, that this is enough of a criterion to justify a claim?
Clearly, this way of thinking can be dangerous, not to mention uncritical.
I accept the reality of the divine because only by doing so can I interact with it; and I find that interacting with the divine is interesting and delicious.
What I'm asking from you here is simple enough. You're a smart guy, a really smart guy, and very creative. So surely you would be willing to acknowledge the difference between the act of 'accepting a particular reality' and the fact of the matter, as to whether that reality is actually true.
That is, even if I concede the notion that you have to believe in something to interact with it (which I'm not conceding, but just for the sake of argument...), your believing it still has nothing to do with whether it is true; with whether it is a metaphysical fact of the matter. For all you know, you're interacting with a fictional creation of your own sensibility. It may still be delicious, but that doesn't mean you have any actual justification regarding its truth value.
As someone who is interested in the pursuit of truth and learning and knowledge in this world, it does us no good to use belief as a criterion for truth. It is the belief we are trying to test! It is the truth we are after! If you are not interested in truth, and merely interested in interacting with what you fancy to be delicious, then faith does good for you, I'm sure.
But for the sake of critical thinking, for the sake of rigor, for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge and truth (these are not things that should be short-changed!), we need to acknowledge that there is a divide between 'feeling as if the divine is interacting with you' and the 'belief that the divine is interacting with you'.
This is an essential distinction to make if you're at all interested in truth.
| From:ulyart Date:August 31st, 2005 12:59 pm (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
I'm not convinced that there is divinity, and I'm not convinced that there isn't. My point is just that I'm not convinced. The way you're framing the issue, it's as if I have to be convinced one way or the other
No, you do not have to be convinced of anything. Being agnostic is perfectly fine. I'm talking about my experiences here. I leave you free to interpret your experiences as you see fit.
What I'm asking of you is to supply me with the means of taking me into the other room.
All spiritual techniques, yoga, prayer, meditation, even contemplation of pure geometric forms, are ways to go into this other room. The experience of nausea or of ineffable bliss happens in this other room.
Thus, this brings me back to my question to you. Why force yourself to believe in the divine? Why not just say: "It is a beautiful theory, and I find it delicious, but really I just don't know whether its true..."
Wouldn't that be the prudent thing?
No force is involved in my beliefs. That would be like saying I am forcing myself to exist. Or that I am forcing to see an apple as red. And since when did being prudent become so important to you? ;-)
For all you know, you're interacting with a fictional creation of your own sensibility.
This is a possibility. But for all we know we are all plugged into the Matrix. How to take the red pill?
And there is probably confusion over the term divine. How I define "divine" is simply: what I encounter in my mystical experiences. It is just a way for me to refer to my mystical experiences. We are both getting trapped in this vortex of trying to talk about the ineffable.
I understand your points, and am sympathetic to them, but I just don't agree. That's just not the way I think. But this is an important discussion for me, and I will try to address these issues in future posts.
I would also be interested in seeing you write more extensively about your mystical experiences and how they form or change your worldview.
| From:catachrestic Date:September 4th, 2005 07:45 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
All spiritual techniques, yoga, prayer, meditation, even contemplation of pure geometric forms, are ways to go into this other room. The experience of nausea or of ineffable bliss happens in this other room.
I don't think any of these techniques are ways into the other room at all. Let's stick to the music analogy.
ULYART: "If you want to hear the music in the other room, you must do yoga, prayer, meditation, etc..."
TIRESIAS2: "Okay" (does all of those things...). You know, I really don't think this gets the point at all. I'm still doing all of these things in the wrong room. Shouldn't we just go and try the door instead?"
My point is that all those techniques you mentioned don't get you anywhere but deeper inside the room you're already in-- and deeper within your own head! If we want to hear the music in the other room, then we've got to go into the other room!
| From:tiresias2 Date:August 31st, 2005 11:41 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
Long story short:
When a child hears music for the first time, the child does not have a belief one way or the other. The child just listens. If there is music to be heard, then the child forms the belief that there is music.
But to suggest that the child needed the belief prior to being able to hear anything strikes me as absurd.
In the same light, the appropriate way to seek out knowledge is just to listen, not to enter with any preconceived notions one way or the other.
If the child has the preconceived notion that there isn't music, then maybe the child won't hear it. But also, if the child has the preconceived notion that there is music, then the child might hear what the child wants to hear even if it is fictional, or it might miss out on the rest of the noise, or the true nature of the noise, on account of trying to force her expectations upon what she hears.
Rather, the knowledge seekers, the wise, the sages, they just listen. They're like children in that way. That's how science is supposed to work too.
Thus, this brings me back to my question to you. Why force yourself to believe in the divine? Why not just say: "It is a beautiful theory, and I find it delicious, but really I just don't know whether its true..."
Wouldn't that be the prudent thing? I also think that would be the only way to really have the opportunity to experience the divine in its fullest splendor. That is, if it exists at all. To avoid the errors of the preconceived notions one way or the other, it is best not to believe either way.
It's best just to listen.
| From:ulyart Date:August 31st, 2005 01:22 pm (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
Rather, the knowledge seekers, the wise, the sages, they just listen. They're like children in that way.
This is why I write so much about wanting to stop preaching, wanting to abandon philosophy. This is also why I initially avoided bringing up the divine in our talk about happiness. I'm not at all trying to convert you to my view; you have been the one challenging my thinking all along.
This is why, as fascinated as I am by our talk, I am also exasperated. My parable about watching two tigers chase each other around a tree until they melted into tiger butter was actually inspired by reading a long inconclusive debate between you and nanikore. I thought, "how could they let themselves sink hours into that?" And now here I am myself in a long drawn out debate with you (albeit one that has helped me to articulate my ideas better, as well as to understand who you are in all your complexity and subtlety.)
Yes, I would like to just listen more.
You worry about philosophical prudence; but I'm just going to bet the farm, risk my very existence, on the divine-- it's an extravagant foolish gesture, perhaps, but it's mine to make, and I will assume all the consequences.
| From:bardcat Date:August 31st, 2005 02:48 pm (UTC) | |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| (Link) | |
_I'm just going to bet the farm, risk my very existence, on the divine-- it's an extravagant foolish gesture, perhaps, but it's mine to make, and I will assume all the consequences._This comment inspires me tremendously and offers me great hope in the midst of a floundering, doubting culture. You stand in a long, unending line of people through the ages, the wise and learned, the simple and the weak, who have simply and profoundly and with great depth, said Yes! to the divine. And you do it with grace and discernment and openness and insight. I celebrate your journey!
| From:catachrestic Date:September 1st, 2005 07:02 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
You worry about philosophical prudence; but I'm just going to bet the farm, risk my very existence, on the divine-- it's an extravagant foolish gesture, perhaps, but it's mine to make, and I will assume all the consequences.
Well, there's little more to be said regarding this, because it shuts off discussion. From my view, it seems as though you're blaming philosophy for being exasperated. But it's not the philosophy that's made this exhausting... it's the insistence of believing in something in spite of the philosophical discussion. I doubt that if neither of us were supporting a dogma that things would seem so futile. Discussion flows freely between people that have nothing personal at stake. The dogma shuts down the conversation, the willingness to discuss the issue critically.
But regardless, I still feel like my question has not been answered: "What do you lose by exploring the divine, but just admitting humbly that perhaps it may not be true, seeing as it's not provable..."? What does anyone lose by such an admission?
Lots of poets, philosophers, mystics, and spiritualists acknowledge the distinction between metaphorical description and metaphysical truth. I suppose I just don't see what you have to lose by simply allowing the distinction yourself, and not being insistent on a metaphysical truth based entirely on faith...
I understand, of course, that you are steadfast in your belief, but I still do not see why.
Keep in mind that I am not criticizing the content of your belief. In other words, I'm not steadfast that you are wrong. For all I know, your metaphysical claims could all be true... I have no stake in this. All I ask is for a justification, and for intellectual honesty.
As I've said many times, the critical attitude is necessary for the growth of knowledge. I recall you admitting to being compelled by this yourself. My final question for you is this, then: To the extent that you would believe in something which is unprovable, and would choose to believe in it over critical and philosophical prudence... How do you reconcile this with a life of learning, growing, and searching the world for knowledge and truth? Or are you not ultimately interested in these particular ends-in-themselves?
| From:ulyart Date:August 31st, 2005 01:44 pm (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
To avoid the errors of the preconceived notions one way or the other, it is best not to believe either way.
This is a good point. But I've also been listening for years! And reading accounts of others' mystical experiences from all traditions. My definition of divine is very minimalist. If your quibble is with the word divine, I can call it enlightenment energy or the Tao or infinite potential or the ground of being. But I do not call it "nothing."
And I keep saying the experience is ineffable; that is, any preconceived notion, any dogma, is not getting it exactly right, is only a partial truth at best. You ask me to pin down what I experience in words, and then ignore my caveat about ineffability, and go right ahead and try to show me I'm not getting it right.
| From:catachrestic Date:September 1st, 2005 06:41 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
Well, I'm not ignoring your caveat about ineffability. Rather, I'm focusing on the words you're using. You were not ineffable in labeling your experiences 'communications with the divine', as well as several of your other descriptions. I'm taking aim at your justification behind these phrases-- which you have taken effort to describe. I haven't criticized that which you have not described, or that which is ineffable... I've only been criticizing that which you have described.
| From:ulyart Date:September 1st, 2005 07:33 am (UTC) I take back what I said.(Link) |
|---|
Hey, I'm going to take back a lot of what I said about tiger butter and so on. Though it is sometimes exasperating debating with you, it is also a privilege. I can't think of anyone who reads what I write so closely and responds point by point, always with such substance. Debate with anyone else would not be quite as engaging. In a way, it's up to me to keep myself level-headed as I consider your points (and also to put a reasonable limit on the time I spend writing and responding to comments, but that's another issue ;-)
I know we have a lot in common. It's very exciting to hear someone else talk about mystical experiences, especially somebody so intellectually rigorous as you. It's thrilling to know that you also have these experiences that defy conceptualization; experiences whose very defining characteristic is that conceptualization ceases during them.
I lost my cool when I thought you were using reason to deny me my experiences. But really, you were looking not at my experiences, but at how I make sense of, and communicate, my experiences.
I certainly can choose how I communicate my experiences. But I'm not sure I can choose how I make sense of them, any more than I can force myself to see an apple as not red. When I hear the universe saying "Yes!" (in universe language of course)-- I can't with integrity then say, "well, maybe the universe said "no"... I don't quite remember which one it was..."
You want to suggest the universe was saying nothing in particular, just making noise, but that's not what I experience. You then suggest that the experience was just all in my head, psychological, but then, all my experience of the universe happens in my head! (this is why Schopenhauer offers such a compelling philosophy, for he starts from this observation).
For me, I am much closer to grasping the ultimate nature of reality in my mystical experiences than I am in normal, everyday life. That is, mystical experiences show me reality, where normally I only see impoverished fragments. Yes, I don't know why it should be so: but my glimpses of reality are ineffable and not inter-subjective. They leave me with the sense that everyone, myself included, lives out the majority of their life within a consensual hallucination. These are exciting thoughts, because they suggest the alternative, that we can come to live our lives in reality, and not in this impoverished vision that passes for reality.
This is why I would love to read more of your writings on your mystical experiences, and see how you make sense of them, and how they shape your worldview.
You just jumped on the words divine and happiness when I used them, as if you had some kind of personal issue with them. But they are good useful words, and if you feel they are being abused, as a philosopher you can reclaim them and redefine them, restore them to rigor. I shouldn't feel like I have to avoid using these everyday words just so I don't offend you. How would you use them? Are they really hopeless and beyond salvage?
| From:catachrestic Date:September 1st, 2005 07:52 am (UTC) Re: I take back what I said.(Link) |
|---|
You just jumped on the words divine and happiness when I used them, as if you had some kind of personal issue with them. But they are good useful words, and if you feel they are being abused, as a philosopher you can reclaim them and redefine them, restore them to rigor. I shouldn't feel like I have to avoid using these everyday words just so I don't offend you. How would you use them? Are they really hopeless and beyond salvage?
Firstly, I should say that I have never taken anything personnally, nor have I been offended by anything. In fact, I never am. If I am abrupt, critical, or direct, it is a stylistic thing for the sake of challenging you. You don't need or worry about me EVER taking anything personnally in a discussion. I have nothing at stake. I only expect intellectual honesty.
Secondly, I never have challenged your use of the words you have chosen. I've said on several occasions that I have no problem whatsoever with you using terms like 'the divine' as conceptual metaphor. What I have been challenging is your faith in the assertion of its metaphysical truth. I am drawing a line between useful metaphor and literal, metaphysical belief.
You are free to use the word however you want, but you don't seem to be justified in asserting anything about metaphysics based solely on (1) its use as a metaphor and (2) your own faith. I've also questioned your faith, and what use you get out of that.
But rest assured, because you always seem so cautious about offending (you're very polite!), I take nothing personnally, and I don't think I've ever been offended in a discussion in my life. You can go ahead and lash out at me if you want and be desperately cruel-- so long as your argument is not based upon such accusations, it still won't bother me. I'm not someone that's personnally invested in any viewpoint-- I'm only invested in free, honest, open discussion. I take very little effort to be polite myself because I would rather discussions be honest and open, and critically constructive.
| From:ulyart Date:September 1st, 2005 08:18 am (UTC) faith**(Link)** |
|---|
I've also questioned your faith, and what use you get out of that.
I'm not sure what you think I have faith in. Obviously it's not some white-bearded man on a heavenly throne holding a scepter.
All I assert is that in my mystical experience, I am closer to reality, than in my normal life. These mystical experiences I call divine.
What the divine is I do not say. I cannot say. It is vast mystery, unfathomable. But it is not nothing. And as I've already said, I'm willing to assign any other word to it-- Tao, enlightenment energy... etc.
If I have faith, it is faith in my experiences. What do I get out of faith? What do I get out of believing my experience is real? I get a world, for starters!
| From:catachrestic Date:September 4th, 2005 07:37 am (UTC) Re: faith**(Link)** |
|---|
What the divine is I do not say. I cannot say. It is vast mystery, unfathomable. But it is not nothing. And as I've already said, I'm willing to assign any other word to it-- Tao, enlightenment energy... etc.
But you do say a lot of things. To call it Tao or enlightenment energy also carries with them certain metaphysical entailments, because these words have previous meanings that you are linking them to.
You say your entailment quite blatently in the previous statement: All I assert is that in my mystical experience, I am closer to reality, than in my normal life.
If you really wished to say nothing of your experiences, then you would not link them to reality at all. You would just let them be experiences. But by saying what you assert, you are essentially implying a metaphysical entailment, that reality looks in-and-of-itself like it looks to you when you have a mystical experience.
This is the point I am asking you to justify. It does not suffice to repeat what the mystical experience is like for you, or that this is genuinely how the world seems to you.
If I have faith, it is faith in my experiences. What do I get out of faith? What do I get out of believing my experience is real? I get a world, for starters!
I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. (1) Whether there is a world or not doesn't depend upon whether you believe your experience is real. (2) It seems that what is at contention anyway is not whether you get to have a world, but rather what your descriptions and explanations of the world happen to entail.
| From:bardcat Date:August 31st, 2005 09:29 am (UTC) | |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| (Link) | |
_I accept the reality of the divine because only by doing so can I interact with it; and I find that interacting with the divine is interesting and delicious._Precisely!
| From:ixtasis Date:September 1st, 2005 10:11 pm (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
"You realize that matter is invasive, it impinges on you, sends its electromagnetic radiation which you can't refuse, sucks you in with faint gravitational pull which you can't counteract..."
Not to be crass, but this is kinda like sex is for a female and reading this kinda turned me on.
| From:illusorynirvana Date:September 7th, 2005 08:10 am (UTC) (Link) |
|---|
u should prbably read futuristic sex fiction then! :p