Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:The syntactical machinery of description undergoes some sort of hyper-dimensional inflation instantly, and then, you know, you cannot tell yourself what it is that you understand. In other words, what DMT does can't be downloaded into as low-dimensional a language as English.

I'll say this for Terence McKenna. He sure knows how to spread the fertilizer around. Remember what I said about the cargo cults and their simulated radios? McKenna is sorta doing that right there. Philosophy is fine, if you don't pretend to be doing anything MORE than playing with language to titillate your intellect the same way you scratch your balls.

Well, I don't think of philosophy that simply. I'm more inclined to agree with the ancient female philosopher by the name of Hypatia who echoed the teachings of Plotinus who said the goal of philosophy is a "mystical union with the divine."

Fortunately reality does not operate, based on your beliefs.

We all have our own favourite philosophy.

"There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it." Cicero

ॐ

Cito di Pense wrote:

I just had to look up the location

Searching for God within?

Why would I want to? The examples I've seen lately of people who claim to be searching for God within themselves are not encouraging me to start. To begin with, they assume their conclusion: Not that God is established, but that contemplating God necessarily does anyone any good. Look! they seem to be saying. Look what a swell person I've become after figuring out how to contemplate God! And look at all these fine folks who took psilocybin and ceased to identify as atheists! And what swell folks they turned out to be!

I mean, Alan Watts really does seem like he was a neat guy. He probably would have been OK whether or not he searched for God, and he turned out to be a gifted interpreter of religious tradition. Some people try and try, and never figure it out. This looks easy, they seem to have decided. Then it turns out not to be so easy, so they adopt the position that the more you practice, the more you succeed, which works for physics and maths and playng the piano, where success is demonstrable.

God-bothering just is not really any kind of meritocracy.

Cito di Pense wrote:Searching for God within?

Why would I want to? The examples I've seen lately of people who claim to be searching for God within themselves are not encouraging me to start. To begin with, they assume their conclusion: Not that God is established, but that contemplating God necessarily does anyone any good. Look! they seem to be saying. Look what a swell person I've become after figuring out how to contemplate God! And look at all these fine folks who took psilocybin and ceased to identify as atheists! And what swell folks they turned out to be!

Alan Watts isn't really saying anything other than what I've attempted to illustrate here.

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Searching for God within?

Why would I want to? The examples I've seen lately of people who claim to be searching for God within themselves are not encouraging me to start. To begin with, they assume their conclusion: Not that God is established, but that contemplating God necessarily does anyone any good. Look! they seem to be saying. Look what a swell person I've become after figuring out how to contemplate God! And look at all these fine folks who took psilocybin and ceased to identify as atheists! And what swell folks they turned out to be!

Alan Watts isn't really saying anything other than what I've attempted to illustrate here.

Despite your professed dedication to studying comparative religion, I don't find you to be a reliable authority on what anyone having to do with the field is really saying or not saying. You're just an anonymous so-and-so in an internet chatroom. You've already admitted that you're not setting yourself up as an authority, and have also admitted that you're just trying to develop your own skill at articulating these issues. You fail, over and over again, because you don't really use the feedback you get from anyone else, and just keep on regurgitating the latest spiritual tidbit that resonates with you. Soundbites from Alan Watts don't suffice to back you up, either, because Alan Watts is just articulating religious experience for people who are interested in it in the first place. Your input is entirely superfluous to the enterprise of my study of comparative religion or the religious experience; this is because all you bring to it is your enthusiasm, and you don't listen to any voice except your own as you search for voices that resonate with your own -- that's all religion is, when you get down to it. Maybe that's as it should be. May you get everything you deserve from your approach to the topic.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Searching for God within?

Why would I want to? The examples I've seen lately of people who claim to be searching for God within themselves are not encouraging me to start. To begin with, they assume their conclusion: Not that God is established, but that contemplating God necessarily does anyone any good. Look! they seem to be saying. Look what a swell person I've become after figuring out how to contemplate God! And look at all these fine folks who took psilocybin and ceased to identify as atheists! And what swell folks they turned out to be!

Alan Watts isn't really saying anything other than what I've attempted to illustrate here.

Despite your professed dedication to studying comparative religion, I don't find you to be a reliable authority on what anyone having to do with the field is really saying or not saying. You're just an anonymous so-and-so in an internet chatroom. You've already admitted that you're not setting yourself up as an authority, and have also admitted that you're just trying to develop your own skill at articulating these issues.

Sure, I may be some "anonymous so-and-so in an internet chatroom," but I'm an anonymous so-and-so who's had this experience, and so if there's any authority I speak from, it's simply that. It's from actually undergoing these type of experiences.

Cito di Pense wrote:You fail, over and over again, because you don't really use the feedback you get from anyone else, and just keep on regurgitating the latest spiritual tidbit that resonates with you.

It's internecine to point that out, because this failure hasn't simply been my own. I'd say it's mutual, not simply a failure of my own. Most of the people here have not had this experience, including yourself, and so they speak from pure ignorance and speculation based on that ignorance. So, a lot of the criticism ends up being absolutely baseless. And the attitudes met with attempting to grasp this research haven't necessarily been sincere, either.

Cito di Pense wrote:Soundbites from Alan Watts don't suffice to back you up, either, because Alan Watts is just articulating religious experience for people who are interested in it in the first place. Your input is entirely superfluous to the enterprise of my study of comparative religion or the religious experience; this is because all you bring to it is your enthusiasm, and you don't listen to any voice except your own as you search for voices that resonate with your own -- that's all religion is, when you get down to it.

I have been patient and considering what people say, and I try to respond precisely to their concerns. And I don't think Alan Watts is simply speaking of the religious experience of the religiously-inclined. He notes that this experience can happen to anyone, and you don't have to be part of a religion for it to happen. I mean, Alan Watts has given lectures on the Perennial philosophy, and he has made these things quite clear.

Cito di Pense wrote:Maybe that's as it should be. May you get everything you deserve from your approach to the topic.

The only issue when discussing science that hints towards a Perennial philosophy in a skeptical forum where most people identify with atheism is that the Perennialist position is a form of theism, it's an opposing position to atheism, and so anyone attempting to speak on this topic automatically is regarded as an opposition to atheists. That's the real issue going on here. If that's what it takes to have a discussion about these things, then so be it. There's no really helping that, you see. How else do we approach these things except to speak on the scholarly approach to mysticism?

From your own reference:

The notion of "experience" introduces a false notion of duality between "experiencer" and "experienced", whereas the essence of kensho is the realisation of the "non-duality" of observer and observed.

So, the bollocks you post about your interlocutors not having the relevant "experience" is irrelevant in a "scholarly approach" as well as being anathema to the scientific method in general. Please refrain from such bitching and moaning in future.

You came here purporting your wish to discuss the science of drug P consumption. The science is as clear as it can be with such a small cohort - drug P in doses up to 35 mg/kg body weight induces hallucinations. The neuroscience of hallucinatory states is understood poorly (Ramachandran, 1998). The plural of anecdote is not data.

If you wish to discuss Perennial philosophy further, there's a sub-forum for that hereabouts.

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Kafei wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Searching for God within?

Why would I want to? The examples I've seen lately of people who claim to be searching for God within themselves are not encouraging me to start. To begin with, they assume their conclusion: Not that God is established, but that contemplating God necessarily does anyone any good. Look! they seem to be saying. Look what a swell person I've become after figuring out how to contemplate God! And look at all these fine folks who took psilocybin and ceased to identify as atheists! And what swell folks they turned out to be!

Alan Watts isn't really saying anything other than what I've attempted to illustrate here.

Despite your professed dedication to studying comparative religion, I don't find you to be a reliable authority on what anyone having to do with the field is really saying or not saying. You're just an anonymous so-and-so in an internet chatroom. You've already admitted that you're not setting yourself up as an authority, and have also admitted that you're just trying to develop your own skill at articulating these issues.

Sure, I may be some "anonymous so-and-so in an internet chatroom," but I'm an anonymous so-and-so who's had this experience, and so if there's any authority I speak from, it's simply that. It's from actually undergoing these type of experiences.

Cito di Pense wrote:You fail, over and over again, because you don't really use the feedback you get from anyone else, and just keep on regurgitating the latest spiritual tidbit that resonates with you.

It's internecine to point that out, because this failure hasn't simply been my own. I'd say it's mutual, not simply a failure of my own. Most of the people here have not had this experience, including yourself, and so they speak from pure ignorance and speculation based on that ignorance. So, a lot of the criticism ends up being absolutely baseless. And the attitudes met with attempting to grasp this research haven't necessarily been sincere, either.

Oh no, most of the criticism you have met here has be very rational and highlighting your own factial and epistomological failures. All you've really done here is misinterpret the research and repeat that you and others have had a strange experience that convinces you of something because it appeals to your "intuition".
Others have had strange experiences, some have taken these drugs. This is relevant to your claims, especially the nonsense about "universal experience".

Cito fairly points out that you haven't done well at acknowledging or correcting your errors and limitations and you would benefit from taking note of that.

newolder wrote:From your own reference:

The notion of "experience" introduces a false notion of duality between "experiencer" and "experienced", whereas the essence of kensho is the realisation of the "non-duality" of observer and observed.

So, the bollocks you post about your interlocutors not having the relevant "experience" is irrelevant in a "scholarly approach" as well as being anathema to the scientific method in general. Please refrain from such bitching and moaning in future.

You came here purporting your wish to discuss the science of drug P consumption. The science is as clear as it can be with such a small cohort - drug P in doses up to 35 mg/kg body weight induces hallucinations. The neuroscience of hallucinatory states is understood poorly (Ramachandran, 1998). The plural of anecdote is not data.

If you wish to discuss Perennial philosophy further, there's a sub-forum for that hereabouts.

Anecdotal data is quite important in these double-blind trials. You say "the plural of anecdote is not data" as though it's some sort of adage. Well, it's not. To ignore the anecdotal data that's filtered through the double-blind method, is just denying the evidence of which this research has established.

GrahamH wrote:Oh no, most of the criticism you have met here has be very rational and highlighting your own factial and epistomological failures. All you've really done here is misinterpret the research and repeat that you and others have had a strange experience that convinces you of something because it appeals to your "intuition."

In what fashion have I supposedly "misinterpreted" this research? Please, what do you think I'm saying that is different from the research? Instead of making this accusation and not pointing to anything whatsoever to support your case, where's your evidence?

GrahamH wrote:Others have had strange experiences, some have taken these drugs. This is relevant to your claims, especially the nonsense about "universal experience."

I'm not the one that's claiming that this research, indeed, suggests a potential universal phenomenon that could happen in the consciousness of anyone one of us, that'd be the professionals involved in this research who've made this claim.

GrahamH wrote:Cito fairly points out that you haven't done well at acknowledging or correcting your errors and limitations and you would benefit from taking note of that.

Well, I could say the very same of Cito, he hasn't done well at acknowledging or correcting his errors and limitations, and so to merely pour emphasis on me as though it's my fault no one here that I've been in discussion with can grasp this research is nonsense.

Kafei wrote:Well, I could say the very same of Cito, he hasn't done well at acknowledging or correcting his errors and limitations, and so to merely pour emphasis on me as though it's my fault no one here that I've been in discussion with can grasp this research is nonsense.

And what we get from you is your anecdote that you've had this experience and therefore you're qualified to comment on it relative to someone who has not. As I've pointed out to you, your behavior is not obviously that of anyone who's seen deeper into reality than anyone you're talking to at the moment, which is what I meant by pointing out that you're just another anonymous so-and-so in an internet chatroom. All your anecdotes regarding mystical experience or Perennial Philosophy add up to religious evangelism. We'd need in addition some criteria, not conveyed by anecdotes, something besides your testimony that you don't identify as an atheist. That's an anecdote, too. You haven't even been able to make the case that this should be interesting to anyone you're talking to at the moment. When confronted with that, you claim that you're being confronted with bias.

Bullshit artistry like yours is a dime a gross in these threads.

On top of that, you've shown a singular ineptitude in understanding what it takes to produce scientific research, so you can also leave off complaining about the chilly reception your testimony about supposed research is getting, unless you restrict yourself to talking about something besides anecdotes, and assuming that repeated anecdotes are suitable for double-blind studies.

newolder wrote:If you wish to discuss Perennial philosophy further, there's a sub-forum for that hereabouts.

We're in general debunking, so I'm not sure there's an issue with that.

Kafei wrote:I'm not the one that's claiming that this research, indeed, suggests a potential universal phenomenon that could happen in the consciousness of anyone one of us, that'd be the professionals involved in this research who've made this claim.

I don't think you're really being confronted with much skepticism of the so-called universal phenomenon potential in human consciousness, what you're referencing as the CME. What you're leaving out is what is interesting about it. You're the one interested in comparative religion, and you are doing a lousy job of explaining, for all your supposed study, why anyone else should be.

You keep suggesting that having this experience threatens the identification with atheism, but noting you've cited indicates that this is the potential in human consciousness to which you refer. You write a tautology between the CME and ceasing to identify as atheist, but there's nothing for you to cite that suggests this is anything anywhere near a potential universal of human behavior.

Kafei wrote:To ignore the anecdotal data that's filtered through the double-blind method, is just denying the evidence of which this research has established.

Not enough anecdotes about ceasing to identify as atheist. Not nearly enough.

Kafei wrote:I mean, Alan Watts has given on the Perennial philosophy, and he has made these things quite clear.

So your anecdotes and personal testimony seem to claim. Alan Watts lectures on religious experience to people interested in religious experience. You seem pathetically unable to get anyone interested in religious experience, as far as I can tell.

Kafei wrote:
In what fashion have I supposedly "misinterpreted" this research? Please, what do you think I'm saying that is different from the research?

You have been informed, repeatedly, that you haven't pointed to any research that documents anything you're trying to interpret from whatever it is you think constitutes the 'research'. Instead you talk about the utitilty of anecdote in so-called double-blind studies, and we went over why your citations don't reveal anything compelling to anyone who would be persuaded by rigorous research.

Cito di Pense wrote:You have been informed, repeatedly, that you haven't pointed to any research that documents anything you're trying to interpret from whatever it is you think constitutes the 'research'. Instead you talk about the utitilty of anecdote in so-called double-blind studies, and we went over why your citations don't reveal anything compelling to anyone who would be persuaded by rigorous research.

And I've pointed out repeatedly that this is merely an accusation made with absolutely nothing to back it but personal atheistic bias. What I've laid out here is in no way incongruent with the research. What I've said and what the research entails is fundamentally one and the same. I'm literally not saying anything other than what has been implicated and established by this research, and this is further evidenced by the fact that you nor anyone else participating in this thread cannot point to some fundamental difference in my interpretation and what's been established by this research.

Kafei wrote:What I've laid out here is in no way incongruent with the research.

Nor is atheism. Nor is theism.

It's your insistence that they are - which is contained in no research - that is as wrong as it has become tedious.

Kafei wrote:

newolder wrote:From your own reference:

The notion of "experience" introduces a false notion of duality between "experiencer" and "experienced", whereas the essence of kensho is the realisation of the "non-duality" of observer and observed.

So, the bollocks you post about your interlocutors not having the relevant "experience" is irrelevant in a "scholarly approach" as well as being anathema to the scientific method in general. Please refrain from such bitching and moaning in future.

You came here purporting your wish to discuss the science of drug P consumption. The science is as clear as it can be with such a small cohort - drug P in doses up to 35 mg/kg body weight induces hallucinations. The neuroscience of hallucinatory states is understood poorly (Ramachandran, 1998). The plural of anecdote is not data.

If you wish to discuss Perennial philosophy further, there's a sub-forum for that hereabouts.

Anecdotal data is quite important in these double-blind trials. You say "the plural of anecdote is not data" as though it's some sort of adage. Well, it's not. To ignore the anecdotal data that's filtered through the double-blind method, is just denying the evidence of which this research has established.

The "evidence" in these studies simply isn't that interesting or sound. It could have it's place in studies of comparative religion and the possible role of perceptual distortions in the origin of religions, but this isn't really the place for it and you aren't really tackling that, are you?

After a lot of beating around the bush and obfuscation you did get to "see God", which has been an implication throughout, from you and "the researchers". But there is nothing in CME that stands up as any sort of evidence for God or contact with God. What is in evidence is anecdotes about unusual things going on inside people's head when brains are fucked about with. So some people have thoughts and feelings about God. That isn't news.

The other aspect of this, which could be interesting, but you haven't shown interest in, is the potential "brain washing" effects of some drugs and psychological conditioning that may, or may not, make some people believe things against reason.