100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: crow on March 01, 2013, 10:48:27 AM

Title: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 01, 2013, 10:48:27 AM
Who can spot the deliberate error in the title?
You may be a mystic, or you may be a thinker, but you may not be both at the same time.
Mysticism being the absence of thought, and thought being the absence of mysticism.
Something is whatever it is, until you run it through your thought-machine, ending up with whatever you think it is.
One may learn to suspend thought, at will, thus attaining the ability to become mystical.
This does not mean one is unable to think.
Only that one now has the choice of whether to think, or not.

Highly recommended: the ability to not-think, when thinking does not serve.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: WAAAAAAGH! on March 01, 2013, 03:09:32 PM
I don't like the use of the word "thus," I think...
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Jim Necroslaughter on March 01, 2013, 03:52:37 PM
I don't like the use of the word "thus," I think...

Then, mystically speaking, you must actually like it.  Good, I agree, 'thus' is a fine word!
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: aquarius on March 01, 2013, 05:28:25 PM
Sometimes I try to think things out with logic, other times I go with my gut feeling. Using the two together without relying on either helps develop natural intuition. This is a true form of strength.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Wild on March 02, 2013, 06:15:23 AM
I dont know if I understand.

If mysticism is the perception of 'what is', isn't that = reality?
If thinking adds incorrect perception/bias/damned human stupidity, doesn't that = illusion?

Why would one ever desire thought over mysticism? When would thinking serve?
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 02, 2013, 09:01:05 AM
Thinking is for problem-solving. You got a problem? You need to think.
Other times, you don't need to think.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Dylar on March 03, 2013, 12:31:11 AM
When I encounter a situation that calls for less thought and more...whatever, I'll let you know.

I wouldn't hold my breath for too long, were I you...
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: username on March 03, 2013, 01:07:12 AM
For humans there are not really pure discursive thougth, unlike for a computer (if/then/else,) and neither purely intuitive thougth, as a feeling alway has an object

Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: username on March 03, 2013, 01:08:57 AM
Humans use fuzzy logic and they invent explanations for their doings even if they if they stemm from some feelings and hunches.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Jim Necroslaughter on March 03, 2013, 07:31:18 AM
All my best thoughts come when I'm not thinking.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Phoenix on March 06, 2013, 10:17:42 PM
So if a person engages in thinking half of the time and in mysticism the other half, may they not be called a 'mystical thinker'? Like a peaceful warrior, a transcendent nihilist, a moral capitalist or, dare I say, an intelligent Republican?

I'm all for straightening out semantics and the stereotypes they nest, but I think mysticism and thought are two sides of the same coin both, if used well, leading to the same conclusions. I think it takes the one to fully recognize and appreciate the truth of the other.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 07, 2013, 07:58:33 PM
As usual I disagree. But don't let that bother you.
Mysticism can not be reached or realized by way of the mind.
Which is why drugs may show a vague image of other realms, but can never transport you to them.
The mind is for mind stuff. Repairing tumble dryers, watching the visuals, man, etc.
The soul, if indeed you have one, is used to reach behind and beyond the material.
The eye of the needle.
No brain is going to squeeze you through that.
You must leave the brain, and everything else, behind, to go there.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Phoenix on March 07, 2013, 09:03:36 PM
I think the mind is important in order to help a person arrive at a conclusion or belief allowing them to leave the mind behind; we didn't choose to start our minds but we can choose to stop them. Also I do not believe we are born in a disgusting ego merely to suffer, I do not believe it's some cruel joke--not because the universe is necessarily benevolent but because it is efficient and minimizes waste--rather I believe we need to go through the trials of the ego to gain experience and individuality. If we were suddenly born into a mystical, immortal state without ever having known scarcity, want, simple pleasures and the accomplishments of effort, I could see us quickly becoming conceited, lackadaisical and ultimately unable to survive.

Cue Q?
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 07, 2013, 09:28:52 PM
Well, if you gotta believe something, then that is not a bad belief.
I cite my various meetings with retards and not-all-there types, over the years.
They seem curiously content with their lot. Unlike the clever ones.
Which leads me to wonder if the brain defeats itself, more often than not.
All Zen is, really, is the suspension of the thinking-state.
Easier for some than for others.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Phoenix on March 07, 2013, 09:46:34 PM
It's funny, on any spirituality forum we'd be bashed for neither of us proposing the path of the heart as the way to move beyond the mind. That honestly makes me feel warm and fuzzy, maybe you and I are bonding (please detect my whimsicality).
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 08, 2013, 09:45:10 AM
Probably that is why I no longer bother with 'spirituality forums', finding them to be as far removed from spirituality as it is possible to get. Some of the very worst are so-called 'taoism forums'.


Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Dylar on March 08, 2013, 10:52:00 AM
The mystic experience isn't non-thought, it is thought in its least adulterated state, thought divorced from sensory input, thought untainted by discourse with others and their thoughts.  The tools of the mystic—isolation, asceticism, meditation, trance states etc.—aren't tools for emptying the mind of thought (even if they are presented as such), they are tools for clearing the mind of impediments to thought and the obligation to consciously shape thought or herd it in a particular direction.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 08, 2013, 11:31:49 AM
We are talking about two different things here.
What you say is true, up to the point where it is no longer true.
When I say 'no thought', that is exactly what I mean:
A state in which thought is utterly superfluous, and simply ceases to occur.
Indeed, as soon as a thought manifests, the no-thought state ceases, and the thinker returns to its accustomed state.
There is, for example, in the no-thought state, no hint of emotion, or identity; only one-ness with everything.
Thinking separates itself from everything else, in order to consider it.
Not-thinking removes that separation.

Ha. I had to repair the insane misspelling of that last 'separation' about nine times before it was right.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Cargést on March 09, 2013, 08:27:32 AM
Dylar, what is is beyond thought; a thought can be pointed out, but reality is the pointer - how can a knife cut itself?  The mystical experience, the experience of that reality (of one's own reality), is not primarily a thought-state, though, of course, thought might arise; even so, it is known, at that point, that one is not the thinker (it is no longer "my thought").  Shiva sits upon Kailash in the deepest of meditations, being only the Self; there is no thought, no feeling, no sensation, only existence.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 09, 2013, 02:00:37 PM
Anyway: so much for Mistickle Finkin.
It's so rare that it scarcely deserves a mention.
Call it a very obscure disease that has no known cure.

Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Dylar on March 10, 2013, 07:26:45 AM
We are talking about two different things here.
What you say is true, up to the point where it is no longer true.
When I say 'no thought', that is exactly what I mean:
A state in which thought is utterly superfluous, and simply ceases to occur.
Indeed, as soon as a thought manifests, the no-thought state ceases, and the thinker returns to its accustomed state.
There is, for example, in the no-thought state, no hint of emotion, or identity; only one-ness with everything.
Thinking separates itself from everything else, in order to consider it.
Not-thinking removes that separation.

Ha. I had to repair the insane misspelling of that last 'separation' about nine times before it was right.

That sense of "oneness"?  It's only in your head.  It is, as we like to call it in the parlance of my generation, a thought.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Dylar on March 10, 2013, 07:41:29 AM
Dylar, what is is beyond thought; a thought can be pointed out, but reality is the pointer - how can a knife cut itself?  The mystical experience, the experience of that reality (of one's own reality), is not primarily a thought-state, though, of course, thought might arise; even so, it is known, at that point, that one is not the thinker (it is no longer "my thought").  Shiva sits upon Kailash in the deepest of meditations, being only the Self; there is no thought, no feeling, no sensation, only existence.

Nonsense.  Mystical experiences, like any other thoughts, are ephemera conjured by the human mind, no more, no less.  The distinction is whether one imposes conscious control of the process.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 10, 2013, 10:11:29 AM

That sense of "oneness"?  It's only in your head.  It is, as we like to call it in the parlance of my generation, a thought.


Read that again. It's only in your head. Which is fine by me. If all you know is in your head, I have no problem with that. I am reporting that it doesn't necessarily have to be so confined.
I prefer being a bird than an egg.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Cargést on March 10, 2013, 01:00:26 PM
Nonsense.  Mystical experiences, like any other thoughts, are ephemera conjured by the human mind, no more, no less.  The distinction is whether one imposes conscious control of the process.

Perhaps the confusion is in calling it an "experience", when, in fact, it is what underlies experience.  An experience can be made out of it by reflecting the perceiver; for one, this is not a perception of the mind (there is no "sensation" to it, though sensation can be seen to be born from it - "The Kingdom of God comes with no signs by which to be seen"), and, secondly, it is still a step removed from reality.  The state to which one retreats (it is not an entry, but an exit), the "home state", is one of non-distinction.  Where is "thought" in the nondistinct?  By what indistinguishableness would you distinguish it?

Also, you ought clarify in your mind what constitutes a thought and what constitutes a feeling.  The feeling of oneness is, by definition, a feeling, not a thought.  It can be grasped by the mind, and so a concept of it can be formed (and transmitted), and in that process the feeling can even be lost, but the feeling itself is not a thoughtform.  Furthermore, that feeling is not the Truth of the mystical state (a better term for it?); the Truth of the mystical state is the self - the state allows the recognition of that Truth.  It is perfectly self-contained, in containing all, and thus comes not the "feeling of oneness", but the "knowing of oneness".
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 10, 2013, 01:10:58 PM
Nice :)
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Phoenix on March 11, 2013, 11:05:10 PM
Hold on, if a feeling can exist independently of thought like that, and if it's a very nice feeling to have, then is it purely a matter of hedonism? What makes a person choose between basking in "oneness" versus basking in "separatedness"? Why do you assume any such oneness even exists? Darker modalities for the human state of awareness do exist on the left-hand path (beyond superficial egocentrism), so I do believe a conscious choice, based on examination of the variables at play and the expression of personal character, is involved.

Surely there is oneness or there isn't, and the fact will remain constant regardless of what you 'feel' about it. Being one is much different than feeling one (and the latter could obviously result from the former). Of course you can never be a whole constituting a variety of parts beyond yourself, since you are by definition limited to yourself, which is why you often repeat that oneness involves loss of self. And yet simultaneously oneness involves not a surrender to pure feeling but quite the opposite a mechanical transformation of the self into a supposedly 'non-self'.

It seems to me the 'experience of oneness' is surely a self-contained experience of specific conventional stimuli, that may well be described as maintaining a state of awareness in a healthy way in full realization and acceptance of the real nature of the human condition and reality at large, but that should not be described as magically grasping reality at large precisely despite the human condition by transcending it as if it's a piece of litter to be tossed aside.

If you deny the human condition then your experience is a generic blob of undifferentiated oneness akin to the womb, without color, expression or individuality. I have long reviled this false path of weakness for the deception promoted by its supporters in the marketplace of ideas. It represents the most far-fetched, blindest faith as it declares that if it feels good then it must be good, that it is ineffable and therefore cannot be disputed and that it is boundless (without markers or points of reference, hence the ineffability) and therefore of a higher order. It's like being a drug addict and having no idea whatsoever that you're taking drugs or that it might be bad for you. It's the most comfortable escape possible, the most comforting lie.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 11, 2013, 11:21:56 PM
Strangely, I never concern myself with questions like that.
I function better because of it.
"It is what it is" covers most things.
Being functional and content doesn't seem to me to be hedonistic.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Phoenix on March 11, 2013, 11:31:17 PM
I was going to add that I look forward to passionate rebuttals invariably requiring their authors to step outside any solace of indifference. But your reply was quite reserved. Perhaps you are not explaining what you truly mean, or I am not interpreting your words as they were meant...
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 11, 2013, 11:51:39 PM
You've got the wrong guy then.
I meant what I wrote.
I've had a high-speed, out-of-control computer for a mind.
But not for quite a while.

What I have discovered is this:
Most questions really do not need answers.
The questioner assumes there is an answer to the questions he asks.
Stop asking questions and very little changes.
It gets a lot quieter, though.

Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: WAAAAAAGH! on March 12, 2013, 06:31:29 AM
Hold on, if a feeling can exist independently of thought like that, and if it's a very nice feeling to have, then is it purely a matter of hedonism? What makes a person choose between basking in "oneness" versus basking in "separatedness"? Why do you assume any such oneness even exists? Darker modalities for the human state of awareness do exist on the left-hand path (beyond superficial egocentrism), so I do believe a conscious choice, based on examination of the variables at play and the expression of personal character, is involved.

Surely there is oneness or there isn't, and the fact will remain constant regardless of what you 'feel' about it. Being one is much different than feeling one (and the latter could obviously result from the former). Of course you can never be a whole constituting a variety of parts beyond yourself, since you are by definition limited to yourself, which is why you often repeat that oneness involves loss of self. And yet simultaneously oneness involves not a surrender to pure feeling but quite the opposite a mechanical transformation of the self into a supposedly 'non-self'.

It seems to me the 'experience of oneness' is surely a self-contained experience of specific conventional stimuli, that may well be described as maintaining a state of awareness in a healthy way in full realization and acceptance of the real nature of the human condition and reality at large, but that should not be described as magically grasping reality at large precisely despite the human condition by transcending it as if it's a piece of litter to be tossed aside.

If you deny the human condition then your experience is a generic blob of undifferentiated oneness akin to the womb, without color, expression or individuality. I have long reviled this false path of weakness for the deception promoted by its supporters in the marketplace of ideas. It represents the most far-fetched, blindest faith as it declares that if it feels good then it must be good, that it is ineffable and therefore cannot be disputed and that it is boundless (without markers or points of reference, hence the ineffability) and therefore of a higher order. It's like being a drug addict and having no idea whatsoever that you're taking drugs or that it might be bad for you. It's the most comfortable escape possible, the most comforting lie.

Your feelings are important, only if you think them to be; align them properly.

Maybe that is too cryptic. Oneness merely constitutes a recognition that "i" am a component in the whole. Inseparable. Therefore "i" gives way to "I"

Na me so atta. In some sense.
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Cargést on March 13, 2013, 08:17:00 AM
Why do you assume any such oneness even exists?

I can answer most of your post by saying that it is the one thing that is not an assumption, being the noumenon, prerequisite for all phenomena.  Being in this state, one knows it is Truth: that is its proof, not the "evidence" clamored for by those looking into the world, but the "insight" (invidence) found by those returning whence they came.

I was going to add that I look forward to passionate rebuttals invariably requiring their authors to step outside any solace of indifference.

Transcix, you might want to be aware that there aren't as many people in this thread as there might seem ; )
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 11:02:03 AM
To clarify...
Mysticism is detached observation of what is.
Thinking is active manipulation of what might be, into what it almost certainly isn't.
You may be mystical, or you may be thinking, but you may not be (doing) both, at the same time.

Why would you want to be mystical?
So that you may know the truth without making it untrue by inserting yourself into it.

Why would you want to think?
So that you might avoid the possible consequences of truth by making it more comfortable to you.

Thinking could be seen as a last resort.
The lengths to which one might go when one is unable to deal with what is.
Thinking is fantasy made 'real'.

Mysticism could be seen as stark courage.
The ability to face, head-on, an often terrifying reality.

Can you deal with it, as-is? Or must you make it sugary-sweet, first?
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: Cargést on March 22, 2013, 11:05:35 AM
Amusing that the results of mysticism vs. thinking are the opposite of what one might expect: facing Truth as it is yields laughter and enjoyment (Truth helps you along in life); constructing fantasies yields depression and madness (Truth beats the shit out of your mind).
Title: Re: Mystical Thinking.
Post by: crow on March 22, 2013, 11:08:12 AM
Whoa!
Go Man Go!