Karl

I claimed that this is how it seemed for me. Not how it must be for everyone. That was my story of my experience. I let you in on it. I decidedly don't expect others to employ logic on this forum. If they do then good for them. Nothing said so far is new to me, but some of the things that have come out of the discussions have been revelatory. If few bother then that is how it shall be, I won't be offended or upset. I will spend less time writing here and more time doing something else. Perhaps I will do something else anyway. As TI likes to say 'things are impermanent'.

Mysticism is what you feel to be true. I don't have a definition of reality. Reality is reality. By detaching and facing emotion ? What is detaching and how can you face emotion ? You are clearly using emotion by 'feeling' things to be true as you disparage reasons ability to do that. I'm in agreement on impermanence, I don't require Buddhist philosophy to know that is true, yet this is not what you believe. You believe in permanence of some things such as consciousness and reincarnation and impermanence of others. For me I believe in impermanence for everything. No conflict. Mastering the mind is an interesting strategy, but what shall be the master and of whom ? You are you, there is no one else. It is possible to consistently improve the mind in various ways. Master reaction by training, improve function by repetition etc. We is the generality. All men are mortal therefore 'we' applies to that. If you say you are immortal, then that is what you believe. Reality shows otherwise, but I cannot argue that your belief is reality to you as it is to me.

Hasn't changed any. The way in which we engage is just different. I challenge and expect challenge in return, that's how I learn. That wasn't allowed on AYP, it was their way or the highway. Things I'm pointed at I review critically, a lot of the learning is done within the argumentation. Some of the challenges I receive are quite aggressive, this is also part of the learning. Just because you don't persuade me to take your ideology should not be seen as a waste of that effort for either of us. I've had several revelations here already from these interactions.

Greece wasn't always rational though. It had its share of Gods, a very many of them. I'm not entirely sure all Eastern was mystic either, it wouldn't make sense that it was, only that the prevailing orthodoxy might be seen/interpreted that way. The quadrivium is also about natural things, so the recognition that nature is intertwined with human spirituality is clear.

I define my reality and not yours. That's your responsibility. If you see dragons and floating guru then that is your reality, then you start talking about world events. Karl's logic ?

What exactly are you doing about the world of chaos and monumental events ? Do those events define how you are ? You are reaching for the moon and you can't tie your shoe laces.

I don't claim that. Reason seemed as if it didn't have an equal seat at the ring. Reality is reality, logic is only required for integrating concepts. I look at a horse, it's a horse. I might see that a label is attached to it, but why analyse that. It's a real object with defined and independent characteristics verified directly with the senses. I can only theorise why reason held a back seat, I can't know why, that's how it seemed because prior to that point it wasn't. Its like a man that fears to look and so keeps his eyes closed. The paradox is that it is necessary to see in order to dispel the fear.

Reality is reality it doesn't respond to mysticism or rationalism. If I drop a hammer on my toe I need not rely on anything to prove or disprove the reality of it. I will jump up and down cursing the pain in my toe. Logic won't change it, neither will mystic beliefs. How you chose to cope with the incident is all that remains. One can deny it was your own fault, blame fate, God, sin etc if that makes you feel better, but it won't alter the facts.

I've seen many ghosts. Inundated by them. I've been there TI. I have been a mystic for virtually my entire life. I've been out of body, past life, ghosts, clairvoyance and what not. It was all, perfectly real at the time. My brother once had a dream that my Dads office had been broken into and water was pouring down the stairs from a broken pipe. Next day we went across at his insistence and found that to be exactly as he predicted. The problem is not an open mind to mysticism, but a closed mind to reality. Mysticism is the more attractive, just as we enjoy a story, the cinema or the theatre. Truth is not always as palatable as imagination. We run from things we cannot face, from emotions that make us unhappy, from the reality of our lives and our death. We wrap it around us like a defensive cloak and believe in it absolutely.

Well we aren't omniscient so we won't ever know everything. Yet here you suggest 'the painting' and I wonder if that's what you mean ? I'm just trying to get safely to the end of the street and you want to cross the universe. I don't know what you smoking by the time you added that final sentence

That wasn't proof of anything. I had a dream where I saw a passenger aircraft crash into a mountainside and burst into flame. After the recent crash in the Alps I began to match the memory of the dream with the pictures I had seen. Before long I was convinced that this was exactly what I had seen. The mind is very susceptible to error. Most of us can't remember where we put the car keys and yet we don't go intuiting those- which would frankly be a lot more useful than seeing someone's face.

Logical argument already accepts that premise. An argument may well be valid but still may not true. If you can show me an ego that has returned sans body, then present your evidence. I would happily wager all I have that you cannot prove it. It's no good postulating on unproven premise, only on what your consciousness is witness of. Past lives: We had a saying in NLP which said that the presuppositions on which it was based were not true. They were just convenient beliefs. Some people never understood what was meant by that, and treated NLP as a mystic art. I learned the trick of using time line therapy which convinces the client that they can travel back to a past life. Indeed I experienced the power of my own mind to create trance illusion and found myself in a past life having undergone the process. What you want to believe you will believe, even if reason, experience and common sense say otherwise.

Well I could just repeat that back to you from then where are we ? Pointless. I don't see that anyone is in a cage, so I have no desire to free them, that they believe they are in a cage has been explicitly stated. If you think that, then you measure everyone by that yardstick. If someone helped you to see you were in a cage then they didn't help at all.

There is no God and therefore no deity. So, that argument doesn't follow. I surrendered to the religious concept of a Christian God, or the of Krishna but not logic. At that time I had no knowledge of logic. I was where you are now, a mystic believing in all the same things you claim are true. I can however accuse you of deifying Tao and Buddhism as they actually do have people who have created religious ideologies. :-) similarly I can do that to Christians, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind. That you believe you are 'throwing me a lifeline' is In sharp contrast to the fact that I don't believe I can throw anyone a lifeline. Who then is the egotist ? That you quote BR.....purleeese. The man was a complete buffoon.

There is no 'historical context'. It is you that is saying logic is the next Jesus Christ I have no understanding of that analogy. Neither do I think it will bring peace and compassion to the world. The world is full of people making illogical choices based on gut instinct, fear, superstition and other mysticism. Wars are an example of that. What's more, just like religion, rhetoric from those trained in twisting logic, can be used to further causes of violence. Logic is subject to reason which is subject to that capacity inherent in the human animal-as far as we currently know. When death occurs we cease to use reason and therefore logic, so from that perspective it is most definitely impermanent. So goes the syllogism. All men are mortal Aristotle is a man Therefore Aristotle is mortal. As ego is simply a mans identity then it will also die. Ego and logic are therefore impermanent. Correct. You are improving in the art of logic every day. :-)

Just weird :-) Why concern yourself with externalities ? These go on regardless. Logic won't stop a volcano erupting or a man dying of cancer either. Somehow you made the leap from internal to external. It is hypocritical. There is no need to apply logic to see that you gave up everything you hold to be truth to go on the offensive. With very little provocation you stopped internal self development and reached outwards for truths. You are claiming now that it is the material world that holds the truth and just a short while ago you were claiming that it was all illusiory. It cannot be both. You use phrases such as 'shooting down'. The imagery is clear. You hold conflicting premises and this is all logic shows. Nothing more or less. It highlights the fallacies and conflicts by which you understand the world. Logic isn't a thing you can hold in your hand, it's neither weapon or saviour, it is simply the balance point on a scale that gives clear understanding of the measures on either side. It is incorporated not the sole device.

It's just one tool, the edge of the sword and not the sword itself. I can only be a litmus for my own state. After many false dawns it became clear just how many ways I could invent to fool myself. What was required was some method to discover if it was a 'state' or reality. This is difficult because a 'state' IS reality. That paradox exists. However nature has given us emotion. It is the twinning of one with the other than creates a natural pumping effect. One tests the other once the fighting has ceased. They are married and learn to listen to each other. This I believe is what unity means. Here, on this forum I see that it is emotion that remains dominant. It's expected. We have been emotional since we emerged from our mothers. Only later did we develop reasoning. In between logic and reasoning is the unfettered intellect. It can manifest as the clever tyrant or the suicidal teenager depending on how emotion drives it. It means we can mistake materialistic or spiritual things as the thing that must be obtained. Reason is something which has to be developed and it can only be developed once it is accepted as being a final arbitrator. Intellect and emotion will get together to prevent that happening. If logic is developed as a means to obtain the material/spiritual things that are desired then it won't be pure. It will become a weapon and there can be no satisfaction in it. It becomes an appendage of intellect rather than its master and emotion will produce manipulation and the desire to win at all costs. I think of this as the province of Darth Vader in which the force is perverted by emotion into a weapon of grasping and success. It is pointless to learn reasoning until the emotions and intellect are settled and give up the need to control things because they see it isn't getting them anywhere. This doesn't mean they take a back seat, it's a partnership. All three are necessary :-) maybe here I'm swayed by the religious terminology that has naturally been part of life, but it sounds very similar to the holy trinity. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Unity. I found that surrendering to a higher power-in my mind this was God-was necessary. As an Atheist this was immensely difficult for my intellect to accept and the emotions rebelled, but I kept at it. I had no idea what I was surrendering to until several years later. I am only an adequate logician Bud. Barely adequate at that, but enough, in balance. I'm of average intelligence and had a raft of powerful dark, self destructive emotion barely contained by that intellect. The intention was never to become a master of logic. I'm not up to playing logic games. A half decent logician would leave me standing. However, logic is a natural opposition to mysticism and emotional mysticism will fight like hell to stay on top using the power of intellect. Emotion needs to accept that reasoning isn't it's enemy, but it's natural life partner.

A thirsty man craves water. The suffering arises in the mind not because of the craving-it cannot be escaped. If water is not forthcoming then the body will perish in much pain, but no suffering is required. Man can decide if he wishes to suffer or not by seperating liking from loving. Likewise Pizza and Buddhist ideals. It's inescapable, whatever you fixate on will become desired and so it's only necessary to see desire as the reality and then desire becomes liking and reality becomes loving. That's what works for me. I don't pretend it's the perfect solution that others demand, but it has been effective in changing my life around and I don't suffer. I certainly knew what suffering was, it was a full time occupation for me, now there is peace. I have Pizza as Pizza appears in the moment. That isn't a kind of fanciful interpretation, that's exactly how it is. It seems to me that this is how we all are naturally. Pizza-virtually health food. :-)

It's just formalised reasoning. Aristotle looked at how we make decisions based on reasoning and the places where errors occur. Remember that-just like you are doing in a more mystic sense-the Greeks were doing from a logic sense. They wanted to know the nature of things and would argue for years over the meaning of something. It required formal argumentation on a flat plane where everyone knew the rules. Today there is a confusion about argumentation because of our tendency to try and win. Winning isn't what logic is for, it's about setting up rules by which an argument can be had between a group/or individual to ensure those in the discussion don't fall into predictable traps. Aristotle did an incredible job of recognising and cateloguing the common fallacies that lead to errors in thinking-poor reasoning. It meant that during discussion participants could censure, or accept their arguments were in error very clearly and then move on to the next set of assertions. It isn't far off a kind of human computer. The rules of Aristotlian logic are correct. If you study them, then it becomes very obvious that this is so. The hard part is seeing the fallacy and error in arguments. For instance a definition of the Sun. 'The sun is a star that shines by day' : is an example of begging the question. The subtlety of the fallacy makes it hard to discover. It isn't enough to say that an error has been committed. It's that the error must be identified. Here is another very commonly known set of premises: think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do your country. How many bought that line ? Millions. Yet it is an example of a cleverly constructed false argument that logic sees through.

It would certainly be hilarious and quite impossible for super natural things to be happening, but eat your heart out :-) maybe that's just where you live ? You still going on about unlicensed therapy ? I have millions of unlicensed things I do, indeed my entire career has never required licences. Time is tied up with logic as it is with everything else. I'm going to meet quite a few real people tonight so you can have a night off from trolling me.

I wouldn't. They are clearly incapable of sight and that's as true to them as it is to me. Nothing alters, we can discuss the feel, smell, taste, sound of a thing. You may as well ask how I can prove to you I have a thought in my head. That is why I say, if someone sees miracles then I cannot challenge that assertion, I cannot see them, so for me it is immaterial if they exist or not. We have those senses we have. That's game, set and match.

Then as far as I'm concerned miracles don't exist, but don't let that stop you enjoying them. I haven't 'clung'. I asked you to demonstrate and you refused. All Mystics say the same thing when asked to provide proof-proof isn't something they want to give, they just want everyone to B-E-L-I-E-V-E. Well I don't buy it.

Me and Buddah would be bezzy mates. :-) you could maybe have a drink with us if we weren't too busy.;-) I've read about Dukkha from the link you gave and it accords precisely with what I'm saying. No difference what so ever. BC was more formulaic saying 'do this get that'. Neither do I propose that anyone follow what I'm doing, or have done. I don't believe there is one solution to suffering, we are all individuals, so it follows that those experiences and actions will necessarily be different. However I see many commonalities with Buddhism now you have pointed me towards it. I don't know what you think you are seeking a way out of ? There is nowhere to go unless you count death as a destination. Loving reality isn't 'loving what is'. There is a subtle, but very important distinction. BK is-I think-like a dream solution, it's effective in that state. You follow the Buddhist route the way you interpret it if it's right for you. Nowt to do with me. We are just talking.

That distinction between intellect and reasoning is very often conflated. Logic is more like learning a musical scale so well that you can hear flats and sharps with ease. I have found it's becoming ever more situated. Its interesting that you say intellect is threatened by it, I think also subjective emotions. As I studied it I could feel resistance like a grindstone in my mind. It felt like a refusal to accept it, like a stubborn animal it has to be forced to work.

As I don't have enemies so that's perfectly true. If I'm defeated then I'm defeated, I will dislike it, but continue to love it. I am in charge-of me. It's unconditional love, I require nothing from it at all. There is no gain-which is something I would strenuously argue against when altruism is mentioned-but here there is no giving either. This isn't altruism, it's a love of the reality of things, which is a love of life. As I already have life it's impossible to add a quantity of extra life. I hadn't thought about any of this until it was brought up. It's quite strange exploring it. So 'enemies' would not be different to 'circumstances' and neither can I, or do I wish to control either.