Do You See Into The Spiritual Realm?

Post Reply New Topic

Are you implying that if a spiritual experience arises from one of the listed conditions, it is not spiritual? Or are you stating a causality?

If, for example, alcohol intoxication (first on your list) were to be the "cause" of a spiritual experience, then shouldn't a spiritual experience occur every time or most of the time any person has alcohol intoxication?

I'm just thinking aloud here; if I were a scientist setting up an experiment to determine if alcohol intoxication caused religious experiences....you see where I am going here.

From Fnord's list, these are the only criteria I have experienced in my life. None of them caused spiritual phenomena / noumena, especially not drinking, bereavement or stroke. My stroke / brain lesion actually made me feel less spiritual.

In the 1980s when I had my major experience, I did not have CPTSD, depression or sleep disorders. I was not on any prescription meds. I was not bereaved.

Of course Fnord's list might trigger experiences for some people, but it's certainly not necessary for those conditions to be met.

Even if I had no experiences, I've read enough of classical metaphysics to understand that there is energy beyond that we can see. It's just my opinion, as others have said. Everyone is allowed an opinion, but it's important not to laugh at others or ridicule them for the experiences they've had.

I think I know who your least favorite thinker would be on this. His name is Aldus Huxley, and his thoughts on the subconscious parts of the brain as a filter (for Darwinian survival) actually would suggest that cracks in the subconscious would mean more more noumenal stuff getting through. That pretty much takes exactly what you and Fnord have been saying in criticism (ie. extraordinary mental states yielding this) and flips that in precisely the opposite direction.

I'm still trying to figure out what kind of drug, neurological disease, chemical deficiency, or waste buildup would cause an 'I' experience to ever form on neurons - which are just matter like any other matter. If we're to take reductive materialism seriously as a comprehensive understanding of the universe there's no reason for the lights to be on anywhere and that makes me wonder if something on Fnord's list is in the water - ie. maybe a good filtration system could knock it back out again (and it would even solve all of the antinatalist concerns about suffering without all the mass-killing or praying for asteroids!).

I forgot to comment on this earlier - it's really sounding like your participation in this thread is an externalization of an internal crisis, a bit like we're subbing in for the seducing voices in your own mind trying to get you to give in, live a little, and shag an incubus, take some ayahuasca, or go run around naked at Burning Man.

You have the right to do whatever you want with your own brain - we have no right to tell you what to do with it. It does help, however, to figure out what it is we're talking about, where we're coming from, or what we're trying to convey if the intent is a conversation or a useful exchange of ideas where people of differing opinions trade words or text and walk away smarter for having done so.

To be fair though - starting off from opposing viewpoints talking about 'entities' is probably a guaranteed no-go, it's like talking about the benefits of psilocybin therapy with Jeff Sessions. In that case a thread pouring over panpsychism, neutral monism, etc. would have probably been way better but where I already just about double over in pain saying that - those topics are dry, they aren't shiny or sexy the way entities are, and it's the kind of thing that would get most likely about two responses before falling off the front page of PPR.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 20 Jan 2020, 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I know that you prefer this conversation not be intellectualised, but I'm sincerely curious. Given that you've studied some philosophy, what is your understanding of Plato? Do you discredit the entire branch of metaphysics? I'm trying to understand your position in relation to what you've read.

Remember - you can't fly on the astral plane with unchecked emotional baggage.

^

Not true - the words 'carry on' get lost with quite a bit of the people I know who do that or the sorts of personalites who seem to pay me a visit occasionally (think of urban witches burning orange candles or guys who can astrally project who hardly work and mostly go on Facebook and plaster the airwaves with more low-brow political memes than a Russian farm or maybe I could say that probably 80% of their memes are probably from Russian farms).

My guess - a lot of people who can do that stuff have cracks in their foundations that let it circulate. I've noticed no correlation with intelligence, grasp on reality or the world (sometimes less of it), or common sense. Then again I'd say I've noticed similar lack of correlation with skills at football, basketball, and baseball, ie. it seems to have much more in common with athletic aptitude than something you can arrive at by effort (although with enough meditation, or cheating with pizza toppings and window panes, you can get a foot in the door in the same way that someone whose not a natural at basketball, football, or baseball can at least make in on the field or court and not embarrass themselves).

Then there's the question of the people who don't talk about it. It's a bit like back in high school you knew who was a stoner because they were sloppy, red-eyed, looked like they had no clue what was going on, but that only ever accounted for a small number for people who smoked weed or even did it regularly. Same's probably true of people who do or can do this type of thing and just live normal lives and don't bury themselves in crystals and patchouli.

Philosophers believe in very disparate things when it comes to metaphysics. I’m not going to buy into any conception of spirituality without proof - no matter how much a particular thinker is revered and respected. Authority is not proof.

That’s not to say that I don’t find this stuff very interesting from a literary or creative standpoint.

I think it’s great that we’ve evolved the capacity to be so creative and imaginative.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 21 Jan 2020, 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Not true. I don’t hear voices by the way. Never did. My struggles in that arena have long since been resolved.

If people are free to voice their reasons for a belief in a Spiritual Ream, I’m free to voice my reasons for disbelief.

This conversation was started with a question. I’m not straying far from the original post in which there was no mention of metaphysical philosophy.

My disbelief is hardly a fringe belief. Until there’s actual valid proof, I’d suspect that my disbelief would be a cultural norm, especially in countries that were directly involved in the Enlightenment.

We have an extensive amount of evidence showing how various mental states can cause supposedly spiritual experiences, but I have yet to see any that explicitly proves that something spiritual causes them. When I’m presented with a substantial amount of valid proof, I’ll have to change my position but until then it’s not happening.

In life, I don’t believe anything with certitude without demonstrable proof.

Thank you for so kindly explaining what I would have unkindly explained.

Claims require proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  The onus of proof is upon the claimants.

Okay, understanding the nature of the thread and the conversation so far I can see how that got taken literally.

I meant internal dialog.

And if people want to mangle the frame of the conversation to fit their own needs or purposes their request can be ignored all day long in its context.

Anyone who wants to disagree is free to but when their questions never actually dial in on the topic or offer meaningful criticism past the most first-stage pedestrian level it's evidence that there's no intention of actually engaging the content.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 21 Jan 2020, 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

And it's true.... because.... it's strategically useful to you for it to be true.