Amygdala wrote:
All experiences are mystical experiences, if you choose to view it that way. You can view it anyway you want.
I simply do not agree, no offense intended.
For me this view is human-centric and supposes that the determination of reality or even cause and effect is found in the viewpoint or opinion of those who observe and or experience.
I understand the reasons this view is maintained by many, and why it's psychological aspects are relative, after all if an opinion is changed perspective is also changed and so the individual experiences differently from a subjective standpoint. However in my own experience and case spirituality is not an opinion based experience, rather it can be considered analogous to an experience of sense, consider taste in this regard if you will.
Consider spiritual to be a flavor, in terms of how one chooses to view it, one could like it, or dislike it, or be neutral regarding it. Ones opinion or perspective of it does impact the experience, however the flavor does not change and if you do not put the flavor in your mouth you do not taste it, even if you remember the flavor of it perfectly and thus experience the memory as a sensation the determination of the flavor is not made by viewpoint. It is as with other forms of measurement, take weight for example, your opinion of your body weight can change, ergo your viewpoint regarding your weight can change, but this does not determine your weight or change it.
For me spirit is rather specific in some ways, like a flavor it is not something I experience all the time or constantly. I cannot taste salt right now, but have eaten salt in the past, spiritual is like this for me.
It makes sense from a specific point of view to say that experience is itself spiritual, however one might also observe that our taste-buds operate constantly but that does not mean we are constantly experiencing the same flavors. One can logically proclaim that life is a flavor experience, because we taste all the time, but when this is contrasted to actually easting and tasting a substance then the idea becomes rather vacuous. In this sense we can exclaim that existence and life itself is spiritual, but the experience of a spiritual event is very distinct from existence itself, much like eating a food you like is different than just having taste-buds. We hear all the time too, but music is still special, again for me this is what spirituality is like, a specific experience like flavor, or hearing.
On this note I will add something that I expect many here to disagree with:
It is my opinion that the experience and or epiphany that we are one with everything is basically worthless and not special at all.
It is kind of a massive "well duh" followed by a "so what?"
It is my belief, perhaps in ignorance, that the divisions between us and everything are more meaningful and important in terms of insight and behavior etc.
The idea that everything is connected and all is one only has meaning because of the divisions that exist. It only has utility if it affects or has an impact upon our behavior in terms of interaction, as opposed to opinion. Basically knowing we are one with everything is not very useful unless you act according to it, but the action in such accordance is only possible as an agent which is in many ways independent.
Moreover in animal studies of psychedelics the implication is that psychedelic drugs affect the brain in ways to actually cause this "one with everything" sensation, which in our species is interpreted as meaningful, but in mice the same effect occurs and they stop fearing, they stop avoiding predators and they stop hiding and being safe, this reduces their survival. What we propose is a spiritual insight obtained through the use of psychedelics strikes me as a side effect that while it having a bearing upon our psychology should not be confused with a genuine insight or a meaningful discovery, sure it makes us feel profound, but it kills mice indirectly and certainly makes sense as a chemical defense effect upon mammal nervous systems.
I find the concept that all is one, or we are one with everything to be essentially worthless outside of feeling profound, it can seem amazing, but is it really an insight? I don't think so, though this is just my opinion. I've experienced it many many times and have even been swayed by it, thinking that through experiencing it I had arrived at a meaningful truth, however I no longer believe that. I believe that saying we are one with everything is almost worthless and can even be detrimental. It is to me a lot like saying life is always spiritual, it devalues the experience of spiritual things in terms of their distinction to the mundane, and in the same way saying that all is one likewise devalues the distinctions that even allow this concept to be considered or experienced at all. It feels significant because in essence we are not one with everything, on some levels everything is connected, there is unity and singularity, but it is the fundamental division of perceptive consciousness that allows us to say "I am one with everything" but this statement is an apparent contradiction, an oxymoron, for the very concept of self-hood or I entails that self not be one with everything.
Consider this in terms of action, being one with the universe does not mean one does not need to sustain themselves with nourishment. Being one with the water does not mean that one does not need to drink. When it comes to all being one, it isn't very useful, it is essentially worthless and to label it as a truth seems dubious.
Now we can have different views, I appreciate this very much, but when it comes down to it, viewpoint isn't worth much and wrong and right still exist in terms of correct and incorrect. Consider weight, your view or opinion of what you weigh, or should way, doesn't change how much you weigh, if you want that to change you have to do something about that beyond having a distinct viewpoint or opinion. But isn't this the way of existence?
If it is possible to have a belief that is wrong, then we must be cautious about believing that a change of viewpoint results in a change of reality. While one can believe what they want, that does not mean those beliefs are correct. I have a stone in one of my hands, both are closed and hidden, what your opinion is of which hand the stone is in, what your viewpoint is regarding that doesn't mean anything in terms of what stone the hand is in.
In terms of language a lot of people like to invent and or use their own definitions and interpretations of words, it is common for people to say that a word means something other than what it is defined as, because their opinion of it is different. But aren't the definitions of words what makes them useful? If I change the words to suit my views then how am I communicating? To change ones opinion or view about what a word means is like changing your view about weight, your experience of it might be different, it may well be impacted, but that doesn't mean you are right.
No matter what people believe, there is a reality with a gravity to it, I am referring of course to real gravity, the force we all know. Your view of gravity, the definition of it you accept, your beliefs about it, not any of these things affects, alters or impacts the cause and effect relationship of gravity phenomena.
When it comes down to psychedelics it is not uncommon for people to form views that opinion is deterministic, that since a change of opinion and affect experience then it equates to a change of reality, however for me this is delusion and is the most dangerous and potentially problematic delusion associated with the use of psychedelics. In terms of memory and therapy and life experience a change in viewpoint is very useful, and can lead to behavioral changes and improvements in appreciation and quality of life. However in terms of measurable cause and effect this becomes nearly worthless and to me is nothing more than vanity and ego attachment.
To presume that our perspective is deterministic of reality is to me extremely arrogant. I consider self an artifact of the experience and believe that belief in self is very problematic and delusional. Consider that the concept that "I am one with everything" is loaded with problems, even the statement "I am" is dubious. "everything is one, I is an illusion" is more accurate, though that is not to say that the body is not real, but that what we call self is not real, it does not exist outside of the context of reference.
The impact of our use of language is what this all comes down to. By having a referential term for self we have invoked concepts of identity that are unsupported by any evidence. The concept of self is a tool, like all words, used for relating information, but self is an illusion insofar as it is an artefactual concept that doesn't exist independently.
When someone explains that they are one with everything, or that self is eternal, that we have identity; it strikes me as problematic. We mistakenly belief that we determine identity, that we choose aspects of self, that we in effect "self create" but for me nothing could be further from the truth, we "self express" but our viewpoint is not deterministic outside of conditioned responses. We can influence our preferences and condition ourselves intellectually and physically, but we do not in effect have much choice at all in terms of what we are calling self. Contrary to popular myth, one cannot reprogram ones genes, otherwise people could change their skin color, hair color and eye color just by reprogramming genes. Likewise a great deal of personality and behavior is largely innately biologically determined, like begets like, they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, because children are like their parents, moreover even identical twins separated at birth are remarkably similar in terms of behavior, the indication here is that much of what we consider to be self creation aspects, like choice, is largely determined far before choice is made.
What I am relating is very much like changing hair color. If you bleach and color your hair it looks different, but you have not changed the underlying basis for the color, you have only changed the appearance. Our minds are much like this, we can change our thoughts like imposing a color, but the underlying basis for color, the nature of the color itself, the nature of the mind itself is ever present. When we do this it feels like we have changed, much like when our hair is colored it too appears different, but these changes are superficial and imposed. Personality is a lot like this, ergo self is much like this. When we say we have changed, through determining or changing our views or opinions we often fail to recognize that belief is imposed, it is like a paint or dye on a surface and changing the outer quality does not change the inner quality. If this were not the case then there would be no constancy, because there would be nothing to allow different beliefs and transition between them, there must be something innate and underlying that facilitates belief and in order to do so it must itself be largely unchanging.
The import of this for me is that if I desire or want something, even in terms of an effect, I can aim my consciousness or mind at it, I can focus with intent upon it or put that energy out there, to use the common vernacular. However it is irrelevant if I believe or do not believe in terms of this, and likewise it is the unchanging underlying aspect of mind function that directs the energy, not beliefs per say. In terms of spiritual work then, belief is not particularly important, it is more important to understand the nature of belief itself than to maintain a particular belief. In effect, the way one thinks is more important, in terms of general content, structure and patterning than what one thinks specifically. The method of thinking is more important than the thoughts themselves. Consequentially most spiritual work and meditative work is geared not towards changing specific beliefs, but focuses upon changing thought patterns. In terms of psychedelics when positive effects and personality changes are noted this is not due to a change in beliefs or due to a particular insight or "truth" rather this is due to a change in approach and or thinking patterns, in effect behavioral change in this manner arises from changes to the structure of the thought patterns themselves, which is largely a matter of conditioning and often irrespective of belief. In terms of behavior changing ones opinion does not amount to changing ones behavior, changing how one considers something is more consequential than changing the conclusion. Moreover changes in conclusion or belief or opinion that are associated with behavioral changes seem largely based in changes in thought structure and approach, as opposed to a mere adoption of a new belief.
This impacts our discussions severely, because we often employ the conversational form of arguments, where premises are supported and lead to conclusions, but this is largely ineffective to convince, if you want someone to change an opinion, changing how they think about something is more important than a good argument or evidence or anything like that. In this regard nothing I have written will be effective in terms of argument in changing opinions that are in contrast to my own. A glance at the function of social structure and language reveals that the use of language can influence thought patterns, relating to this is neuro-linguistic programming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...o-linguistic_programmingHow we think is more important than what we think.
What we believe is trivial, almost definitively, but how we think is consequential.
When someone speaks to us what they say is not as important as how they say it, the patterns affect us more than the definitions, ergo we are programmed, not by the meanings of words, but by how they are linked together.
Again in terms of conditioning, perception and spiritual enterprises spiritualistic approaches, experiences and methodologies are largely concerned with the pattern of thought and less so with the content. Consider the sacred Icaro songs, these change the thought pattern and focus the mind in a specific way, their effect is not based upon language content specifically.
When I affirm that psychedelics can facilitate spiritual methodologies I am stating specifically that one can employ psychedelics to affect thought patterns and alter the energetic focus of mental effort and this is how results are had, as opposed to being had through a change in belief or through having a specific thought, insight or truth. This is just what I think about this though and I am an ignorant person after all.
