All Things Mystical - Real or Not?

by Sirona 131 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Terry, no offense, but I tend to think many times (not everytime) you get "real" confused with "tangible". Something

  can be real though unseen. Take Sirona's example of trying to describe the scent of a flower. We can describe

  the scent in relation to another scent (it smells like vanilla mixed with apricots) or it smells sweet like candy, but

  you can never capture the description with words......only metaphors or similes.

  The essence of something IS real.......it's just not tangible

  The topic heading gave me two choices of reply. One of which was not "tangible".

  I did not distinguish real from unseen. I distinguished real from imaginary.

  You are changing what I said.

  The scent of a flower is tangible. Aren't you aware of what causes a scent? It is a chemical reaction caused by the interaction of molecules from the flower which are carried in the air to the sensors in the nose leading to the brain. The amount of chemical constituencies can be quantifiable (measured) because they are real.

  Whenever somebody wants to disable our thinking ability they destroy our burglar alarm by subverting our vocabulary trying to convince us it isn't accurate or reliable. When it comes to measurement (the bedrock of the scientific method) is is reliable.

  Now, having said that, let me proceed to burrow down to the essence of your comment.

  In everyday language, conversational parlance and such, it isn't usually necessary to be precise about such things as colors and scents. But, this does not mean there is not a scientific vocabulary which is accurate and precise that can well encompass scents and colors.

  The usual vocabulary of science is numbers.

  You blur the distinction between ordinary conversational vocabular and scientific data AS THOUGH science were INCAPABLE of dealing with such unseen phenomena as smells.

  Context is everything. A poem is not about information so much as it is about evoking subjective emotional resonances. Simile, metaphor and such are part of the aesthetics of art. That is a philosophical domain.

  Why not be clear that Mysticism is a kind of ART and not a kind of science?

  Mystical "things" are "real" in the sense that our responses are subjective emotional sensations which, rather than being connected to an actually existing REAL THING, are triggered by our value system (aesthetic sense) and we FEEL something often with a greater intensity than in ordinary situations. (When Bambi's mother is shot by the hunter, little kids cry their eyes out.)

  Bambi is not real and the mother didn't really die. But, the sorrow of empathetic loss is real.

  See the difference?

  Once you buy in to a MYSTICAL context you can be emotionally manipulated to feel all sorts of REAL feelings AS THOUGH something genuinely realistic was involved.

  Not seeing this is what leaves us intellectually vulnerable to manipulation and the distortion of our conclusions.
• 

  Narkissos

  Why should a "mystic" want them to be "real"?
• 

  james_woods

  Bravo, Narkissos.

  As James T. Kirk said - "Why would God need a Starship?"
• 

  diamondblue1974

  Yeah - and what's up with the "holy magic water" and that silly red string?

  Ah..this is entirely different to the Qabala of Gareth Knight or Dion Fortune and is entirely seperate from the Western Esoteric Traditions.

  The holy water and silly red string are the items peddled by a cult advocated by the likes of Britney Spears and Madonna - totally different.

  Gary
• 

  journey-on

  The topic heading gave me two choices of reply. One of which was not "tangible".

  Your choices were Real or Not Real. I assert that many times you confuse "not real" with "unseen". I say something can be real and unseen at the same time and NOT be imaginary. You make a blanket statement that "mysticism is subjective because it deals with imaginary things." This is not necessarily true....it is your opinion based on what YOU have or have not experienced.

  The scent of a flower is tangible. Aren't you aware of what causes a scent? It is a chemical reaction caused by the interaction of molecules from the flower which are carried in the air to the sensors in the nose leading to the brain. The amount of chemical constituencies can be quantifiable (measured) because they are real.

  I am well aware of the anatomy of olfaction. (Aromatherapy is a deep interest of mine.) What I am saying is that the quintessence of a flower is intangible, yet real and not imaginary. It transcends scent and interacts in a "spiritual dimension" and then its essence....not its physical scent...can literally transform some aspect of our being if used properly. There is a spiritual power behind the ESSENCE of all things living and in my experience, this power is REAL....it is not IMAGINARY...and it is the quintessential substance of existence itself.

  Once you buy in to a MYSTICAL context you can be emotionally manipulated to feel all sorts of REAL feelings AS THOUGH something genuinely realistic was involved.

  Not seeing this is what leaves us intellectually vulnerable to manipulation and the distortion of our conclusions.

  There are all sorts of shams out there and people who are vulnerable to them. You are right in that people who allow themselves to be manipulated without thorough investigation are easy prey for these charlatans and can fall into all sorts of quackery schemes and their reality can, as you say, become distorted.

  The key is education, healthy skepticism, and caution. There are methods to brush away the dust of the fake and find the flecks of truth hidden within. It takes a healthy mental and spiritual outlook and should not be undertaken as a game.

  Which world does science, technology, fact, medicine, human progress and education flow from? The real world, the objective one which is definable.

  It may flow from the real world, but much of it begins in the fantasy world of imagination and make-believe. I remember my mother telling me that many modern-day inventions were just imaginary things in the Buck Rodgers' movies in her day. I watched a Star Trek documentary not long ago starring Wm. Shatner and it was all about how Star Trek's imaginary technology on TV has greatly influenced some of the weapons and other technological advancements we see today. Nothing is manifested that does not begin in the world of imagination. Whether that world is actually connected to a free-flowing data stream of quantum particles connecting everything like the billions of synapses in a brain, who is to say.

  To me there is an experientialist alternative to that which motivates both subjectivism and objectivism. It's when you lean too far either way that you become unstable.

  If I haven't made sense, I apologize. I'm not a black and white, either/or, kind of person and I tend to seek balance in all things.
• 

  diamondblue1974

  To me there is an experientialist alternative to that which motivates both subjectivism and objectivism. It's when you lean too far either way that you become unstable.

  Great post and excellent point!

  An interesting quote from Dion Fortune on imagination is quite interesting too

  "To say that a thing is imaginary is not to dispose of it in the realm of mind, for the imagination, or the image making faculty, is a very important part of our mental functioning. An image formed by the imagination is a reality from the point of view of psychology; it is quite true that it has no physical existence, but are we going to limit reality to that which is material? We shall be far out of our reckoning if we do, for mental images are potent things, and although they do not actually exist on the physical plane, they influence it far more than most people suspect." --Dion Fortune

  Gary
• 

  Sirona

  Wow some interesting viewpoints.

  Especially Simon, who likes to call people "an idiot", which is slightly amusing since I don't see him writing countless well respected books on any subject. It could be accurate to state that the author is mislead or deluded, but an idiot he is not.

  The inference by extension is that I am also an idiot, for having any respect for the author. What a shame that Simon once again reduces himself to name calling to try and elevate his own opinion!

  Many of the points made by Terry I would agree with. The difference is that, like Dion Fortune, I don't see the imagination as less "real". Therefore what I can imagine has some reality for me yet I know its of my own creation.

  This use of the imagination is recognised by science as beneficial. In particular people are able to aid their own healing by "imagining" the body fighting the illness, for example. Our imagination directly affects our external reality.

  As for mystical experiences not existing - I find it odd that scientific types deny this. "Mystical experiences" can be induced using chemicals. Hypnosis induces altered states of awareness. I'm simply asserting that in this altered state we are able to perceive things which we wouldn't perceive in our ordinary state of consciousness. Gill touched upon this with her comments regarding quantum physics. The world of the quantum is strange indeed and we know it exists despite the extreme difficulty of experiencing it for ourselves.

  Occultists assert that their practice simply allows them to experience realms and phenomena which are not currently accepted by science. Most occultists would accept that eventually science will explain these things. Dion Fortune went into great detail regarding the "scientific" process of a soul inhabiting a human body, and what processes occur at death to eventually separate that consciousness from its physical body.

  I have been involved in mediumship these past months - which of course involves communicating with those who have left their physical bodies. I am aware of the critisisms levelled at mediums. My experience has been one which has shocked me. Over and over again have I passed on messages which were very accurate, providing always a description of the deceased, what they died of, often their profession or hobbies, their personality and other information which proves to be correct, including names and other details. To do this once I could put down to chance guessing. To do this lots of times - well I have to accept that I'm "receiving" information.

  I know that the "it has to be proven in a lab" brigade will jump on me for this assertion. I'm simply relaying what has happened and too many things have happened to me to put it down to imagination or chance.

  Sirona
• 

  Gill

  Sirona - You may like to read, if you haven't already, 'Is there Life After Death? The Extraordinary Science of what happens when we die', by Anthony Peake.

  As you note, proving our experiences is almost impossible unless someone is with us when they happen.

  But, I have been fortunate to have relatives around when I became 'aware' that something had happened and so did not have to prove anything.

  I'll give three examples though there are many more:

  I became aware that my aunty had died. I had an overwhelming sense of loss and became aware of her 'leaving' and became very, very upset.

  A few minutes later, our phone rang and we were informed that she had just passed away.

  One Saturday morning I woke up and felt strange. I said to my husband and daughter that someone had just died..... a relative. Two hours later, my mother rang me to tell me that an Aunt had died......two hours ago.

  I was ironing and could see the local hospital in my mind. My son rang to say they had just arrived at the hospital and the baby was on the way.

  Strange or what?

  We are all connected in some way and reach out to eachother constantly with what is inside our shells.

  Anthony Peake has some very interesting theories that begin to make sense, but I still think that people who have not experienced or are not aware of this being able to 'feel' or sense what is happening with others will still be skeptical until it happens to them, and then they too begin to search for the answers.

  The answers may not be as mystical as they appear.

  I'm not surprised that you communicate with the dead. The possibility is, that we never die at all and the reality may be that life is a sharade: a game played by beings that we don't even know we are. We constantly look and reach to the stars, both in pre history and even now. Don;t you wonder why?

  Please have a go at reading the above book.
• 

  Angharad

  Sirona. I could tiptoe all around it but it comes down to someone being an idiot and it isn't me.

  Hey, I loved Star Wars ... all that "force" stuff was great fun. I think I'd be an idiot if I actually believed it was real though. Shrek was fun with the 'fairy tale creatures' but it was animation.

  Now as to who is insulting who, the point I was making is that this person and others like them are the ones that start with the insults. Basically, what they are saying is:

  "Hey, we believe in mystic stuff (ooooh, wiggling fingers). You should believe in it too but if you don't it's because you are too lazy to try or just aren't smart enough like us".

  The bottom line is that the original quote was insulting and the person is a complete idiot. There is no difference in what they are doing (selling books) and other people selling red stringy bracelets or super-cure-all medicine from a carpet bag.

  Some of us just chose to live in the current century or the place I like to think of as 'reality' though.

  Thanks for the ad-hominem attacks though - you can always tell that people don't have an argument and lack confidence in their belief system when they resort to that ...
• 

  Simon

  OMG, how mystic was that? I posted something and it showed up as Angharad who isn't even here - she's at work !!!

  Some would say it's just that the idiot posting didn't notice he wasn't logged on but for me it's yet more proof that mysticwysm is wery weal ...