Philosophy Now Forum

Hardly.

It's unethical to intentionally miss the point.

Jaded Sage wrote: I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. Mysticism is closer to philosophy than science.

Just because mysticism studies the subjective side of experience does not mean it cannot be "scientific." And like any other science, its findings are open to interpretation.

Exactly: it's unethical to intentionally miss the point. "A religion having an import that is not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence and beyond ordinary understanding" is communion with Ultimate Reality without the intervention of ideas. It IS "direct interaction with the divine."

Who/what is aware of the "hot"? Or is "hot" the awareness?

Back the the topic.

In your mind, where should philosophy of religion begin? What are the basic premises? I begin with the reality of self-consciousness. The excerpt is what logically follows.

I didn't say that. I just said that mysticism is closer to philosophy. I just remembered that mystical experiences are supposed to have some sort of noetic quality, supposed to bring some kind of understanding.

Hot exists without cold, and cold exists without hot. You miss the point when you change the subject to "who/what experiences it." The point is that self-awareness can exist independently of other-awareness, and I assume vice-versa (simple animals, and plants).

Also, I don't understand the distinction you are making when you say, "there isn't a lack of experiencer-experience duality, there just isn't an 'and'."

I suppose Philosophy of Religion should begin with a reading of James' lecture. Consciousness seems to belong more to the field of psychology and neurology. Again, Watts makes some mistakes in his reasoning that are very apparent, at least to me. He's not so much of a scholar as he is an artist.

Jaded Sage wrote: Hot exists without cold, and cold exists without hot. You miss the point when you change the subject to "who/what experiences it." The point is that self-awareness can exist independently of other-awareness, and I assume vice-versa (simple animals, and plants).

Who/what is the very heart of the matter. There simply is no "self" without an "other" to make that determination possible.

Also, I don't understand the distinction you are making when you say, "there isn't a lack of experiencer-experience duality, there just isn't an 'and'."

This isn't surprising. "Not one, not two" is an experience impossible to convey in words.

I suppose Philosophy of Religion should begin with a reading of James' lecture. Consciousness seems to belong more to the field of psychology and neurology. Again, Watts makes some mistakes in his reasoning that are very apparent, at least to me. He's not so much of a scholar as he is an artist.

Point out the mistakes. That's the purpose of this thread.

I've read James. The problem is, you can't study religion or consciousness from the outside.

No, it isn't. It's an analogy, and you are taking it literally.

Failing to explain something doesn't make it unexplainable.

If you don't have anything real to contribute, then remain silent. It is unethical to peddle bullshit. I'll point out Watt's mistakes later. I'm surpised I have to.

I agree that any comprehensive study that does not include personal first-hand experience is incomplete, though it can be done.

Words are often more confusing than edifying in such matters. "I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me" may not be an exact quote, but it and other similar statements have led to a great deal of confusion. An analogy I like to use is to say God is the light on the other side of the cosmic prism (will) and we live, move and have our being in the spectrum of his light. This is consistent with the excerpt and just about every "mystical" teaching I'm aware of.

Analogy or not, who/what is the very heart of the matter and you haven't answered it.

Are you going to point out Watts' mistakes?

Clearly, Paul's statement is mystical as we've defined here. The other is interesting in the original form. It sounds panentheistic or pantheistic. That analogy isn't very helpful. I've never read anything mystical that sounds like that. I've noticed that on the internet, when people talk about how words often get in the way more than they communicate, those people often have no idea what they're talking about.

Jaded Sage wrote:Clearly, Paul's statement is mystical as we've defined here. The other is interesting, in the original form. It sounds panentheistic or pantheistic. That analogy isn't very helpful. I've never read anything mystical that sounds like that.

This is pointless. You're begging the question. You've made statements (Watts' mistakes and self-awareness without other-awareness) without making any effort to explain them.

Your analogy works for consciousness, but not for self-consciousness.

Question begging means using circular logic. I haven't done that.

You've also failed to explain yourself. The difference is, in addition to acknowledging it instead of bullshitting, that I will have explained myself in the future, and you will not have.

Jaded Sage wrote:Question begging means using circular logic. I haven't done that.

Your credibility is gone.

Not with anybody who attended a university.

"where should philosophy of religion begin?"

With this: "The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love.".

It starts with the (comm)union, not the gap.

That would suggest only mystics can participate in POR, wouldn't it? At least to participate completely. Also, there is much more to religion than the mystical sects. I agree this is an understudied area, but why suggest this is the starting point. Surely, it makes the best ending point.