The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

I'm arguing the opposite, in fact: that you cannot "think away" realities.

You are making ontological claims about things which can just as well be explained as states of mind.

Clearly, the opposite is true: a man who jumps off a building cannot avoid the ground by changing his state of mind. That's what I've said. So you'll have to explain to me how you came away with the opposite view. I say again:

Sheesh. Have you been reading at all?

Not only do I read, I have the supplementary skill of comprehension.

Evidently, your "supplementary skill" has failed you badly, in this case.

[Immanuel Can]

His book Mysticism and Philosophy changed me from atheism to agnosticism.

And...what did you want to ask/tell/convince me about that? I think I've missed the conclusion you were hoping I'd catch.

[Gary Childress]

His book Mysticism and Philosophy changed me from atheism to agnosticism.

And...what did you want to ask/tell/convince me about that? I think I've missed the conclusion you were hoping I'd catch.

The point is, no one except the one experiencing them seems to know much about religious experience because there are different religious or mystical experiences out there, they may contain similarities but they aren't all described the exact same way and I don't know which one of them, if any, is the "one true" experience. Or maybe they all are.

I thought you might be interested in the book, or what my views on mysticism and religions are, and what they are based on.

[Gary Childress]

Here's a short synopsis of Stace's book that more or less captures the essence of what he states in it, from ChatGPT.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68584a84-28cc ... 747c5457d8

There, of course, has been a lot of back and forth and many different reactions by other philosophers over just about every aspect, as it is a work of philosophy. But the basic outline and conclusion are what I took to heart.

[Immanuel Can]

His book Mysticism and Philosophy changed me from atheism to agnosticism.

And...what did you want to ask/tell/convince me about that? I think I've missed the conclusion you were hoping I'd catch.

The point is, no one except the one experiencing them seems to know much about religious experience because there are different religious or mystical experiences out there, they may contain similarities but they aren't all described the exact same way and I don't know which one of them, if any, is the "one true" experience. Or maybe they all are.

I thought you might be interested in the book, or what my views on mysticism and religions are, and what they are based on.

Yes, it's interesting. But I think your conclusion deserves further thought, too.

From mere "mystical experiences" had by others, (or rather, from the mere telling of such, because we have no way of knowing how inauthentic reports could be interspersed with genuine reportage) we can conclude nothing. Even if they are compelling to the experiencer, they are not informative to us, are they? We can't know what they mean, or even if they're genuinely recounted. So something other than the experiences of others would be necessary for you and me.

What about something else? Or how about a combination of other things? Say, perhaps, reason, revelation and our own experiences? If we could get that combination, would that not be far more legitimately convincing for you and me?

So maybe, if we're looking for verification of religious truth, we need to look in another direction than merely the "mystical experiences" reported to us by others. If true, such reports might count for something...but unless confirmed by something from this group of the other three, we couldn't regard them as reliable at all.

[Will Bouwman]

I'm arguing the opposite, in fact: that you cannot "think away" realities.

You are making ontological claims about things which can just as well be explained as states of mind.

Clearly, the opposite is true: a man who jumps off a building cannot avoid the ground by changing his state of mind. That's what I've said. So you'll have to explain to me how you came away with the opposite view.

You have a list of things, such as justice, that, without any evidence, you think exist independently of human consciousness. Anyone who understands philosophy will reserve judgement and accept that such things might just be states of mind. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to argue in favour of it, but in cases which cannot be conclusively demonstrated, those who insist their opinion is 'the truth' fall somewhere between ignorant and mental. The argument, which is clearly over your head, is that someone jumping off a building and fatally meeting planet Earth, can be explained equally well by idealism and your non gnostic dualism.

I say again:

Sheesh. Have you been reading at all?

Not only do I read, I have the supplementary skill of comprehension.

Evidently, your "supplementary skill" has failed you badly, in this case.

No. That'll be you.

[Belinda]

Here's a short synopsis of Stace's book that more or less captures the essence of what he states in it, from ChatGPT.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68584a84-28cc ... 747c5457d8

There, of course, has been a lot of back and forth and many different reactions by other philosophers over just about every aspect, as it is a work of philosophy. But the basic outline and conclusion are what I took to heart.

If mystical experience exists there must be at least one sign or symptom of it which is common to all 'mystical experiences' and which does not occur in other experiences .
For instance it's not enough to say an experience is mystical because you felt happy. And seeing a ghost is not enough to define an experience as mystical because newly bereaved people and others such as dreamers see ghosts .
In short, what is the definitive attribute of mystical experience? Gary, your link to ChatGPT did not supply that info.

[Belinda]

Here's a short synopsis of Stace's book that more or less captures the essence of what he states in it, from ChatGPT.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68584a84-28cc ... 747c5457d8

There, of course, has been a lot of back and forth and many different reactions by other philosophers over just about every aspect, as it is a work of philosophy. But the basic outline and conclusion are what I took to heart.

If mystical experience exists there must be at least one sign or symptom of it which is common to all 'mystical experiences' and which does not occur in other experiences .
For instance it's not enough to say an experience is mystical because you felt happy. And seeing a ghost is not enough to define an experience as mystical because newly bereaved people and others such as dreamers see ghosts .
In short, what is the definitive attribute of mystical experience? Gary, your link to ChatGPT did not supply that info.

Defining attribute of mystical experience according to ChatGPT :-

A definite attribute of mystical experience—one found consistently across cultures and traditions—is the sense of unity or oneness. This is often described as the dissolution of boundaries between the self and the external world, or between the self and a perceived ultimate reality (e.g., God, the Absolute, the Tao).

My own brief sensation of unity or oneness was not interpreted by me as unity with God, in whom I do not believe, but as unity with the grass that I was walking on.

[attofishpi]

Here's a short synopsis of Stace's book that more or less captures the essence of what he states in it, from ChatGPT.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68584a84-28cc ... 747c5457d8

There, of course, has been a lot of back and forth and many different reactions by other philosophers over just about every aspect, as it is a work of philosophy. But the basic outline and conclusion are what I took to heart.

If mystical experience exists there must be at least one sign or symptom of it which is common to all 'mystical experiences' and which does not occur in other experiences .
For instance it's not enough to say an experience is mystical because you felt happy. And seeing a ghost is not enough to define an experience as mystical because newly bereaved people and others such as dreamers see ghosts .
In short, what is the definitive attribute of mystical experience? Gary, your link to ChatGPT did not supply that info.

Defining attribute of mystical experience according to ChatGPT :-

A definite attribute of mystical experience—one found consistently across cultures and traditions—is the sense of unity or oneness. This is often described as the dissolution of boundaries between the self and the external world, or between the self and a perceived ultimate reality (e.g., God, the Absolute, the Tao).

My own brief sensation of unity or oneness was not interpreted by me as unity with God, in whom I do not believe, but as unity with the grass that I was walking on.

Walking within shoes doesn't permit one's sole to admire the grass.

(*soul)

[Belinda]

Atto, saying something mysterious does not qualify as wisdom or knowledge

Your history of confusing puns with messages from God does not inspire confidence in your posts.

Try saying something simple in plain simple English. I enjoy a pun as much as anyone but you are obsessed with puns as indications of truth. Puns are about language, puns are not about wisdom.

[attofishpi]

Atto, saying something mysterious does not qualify as wisdom or knowledge

Is there something mysterious in comparing of walking on our SOLES for all our days and walking metaphorically upon our SOULS for all our days?

Your history of confusing puns with messages from God does not inspire confidence in your posts.

Do NOT use 'confusing' with me Belinda when you don't even comprehend cumulative evidence within the English language that has merit for my argument...that a 3rd party intelligence formed IT.

Try saying something simple in plain simple English. I enjoy a pun as much as anyone but you are obsessed with puns as indications of truth. Puns are about language, puns are not about wisdom.

..U R not about wisdom either tho R U?

HELL O?

[attofishpi]

..oui

No wisdom here Belinda..

Venus:- https://www.androcies.com/Music/Venus.mp3

[Immanuel Can]

You are making ontological claims about things which can just as well be explained as states of mind.

Clearly, the opposite is true: a man who jumps off a building cannot avoid the ground by changing his state of mind. That's what I've said. So you'll have to explain to me how you came away with the opposite view.

You have a list of things, such as justice, that, without any evidence, you think exist independently of human consciousness.

Amphiboly again. What do you mean by "independently of"? I have never even remotely suggested the physical phenomenon are uncoordinated with, or unrelated to, or disharmonious with the mental phenomena. If "independently of" is supposed to include any of those ideas, then what you're saying is clearly wrong.

However, I do say this: that the Materialist or Physicalist hypothesis that physical causes can account comprehensively in a causal way for these mental phenomena is merely reductional and logically absurd. And if that's what you meant by "independently of," then you'd be right.

Were you right or wrong? I can't tell, from your wording. So you'll have to clarify what you meant before I can either confirm or deny your allegation.

Anyone who understands philosophy will reserve judgement and accept that such things might just be states of mind.

Oh, I just love the buried ad hom, compounded with a no true Scotsman fallacy in that. Most people cannot make two fallacies fit so neatly in one line. I congratulate you on the achievement.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to argue in favour of it, but in cases which cannot be conclusively demonstrated, those who insist their opinion is 'the truth' fall somewhere between ignorant and mental.

A double, no less! You've done it twice, now. No need to so lavishly demonstrate your ability to employ fallacies. If your argument were better, I suspect you'd need them less.

The argument, which is clearly over your head, is that someone jumping off a building and fatally meeting planet Earth, can be explained equally well by idealism and your non gnostic dualism.

Three in a row! And this one with the old canard, "You're a dualist" thrown in! This seems to be your day for fallacies.

Of course it cannot. Your jumping man will not be "explaining" anything at all, if he meets the real ground. And his Idealism will not save him the splat. YOU might imagine he wasn't dead, and that Idealism would save you the pain of missing him at the next football match. But it won't save him, nor make him less dead.

[Will Bouwman]

. Your jumping man will not be "explaining" anything at all, if he meets the real ground. And his Idealism will not save him the splat.

You clearly have no idea what Idealism is. This might help:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/
The story goes that Samuel Johnson and his biographer James Boswell, attended a lecture by idealist philosopher George Berkeley. On leaving, Johnson made his contemp for the theory clear, to which Boswell pointed out that it is very difficult to refute. Johnson responded by kicking a rock and shouting "I refute it thus."
So you are not the first to miss the point.

[Walker]

The Idealism of Power fueled by Any Means Necessary

The Rising Star of The Democrat Party That Hates America.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b9G6XFSxDAM

She says that the mental acuity of POTUS Biden is a thousand times better than POTUS Trump, and the sad part is, TDS causes folks to agree. Even edumacated folks.


Ten months ago she had a different accent, an example of phoniness which is another affliction of the pandering Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gwdJjmTBRiE

Keyword: Pandering.