Zevi - So happy to have this important conversation with you. So much respect for you thoughtful, careful approach to mysticism and your content generally. What important work you are doing !
@@timberfinn I think that's pretty much the point where this topic branches off into a *"Theory of Everything".* If they make that turn, they might not find a "logical" place to stop. LOL
Found you through Justin's Esoterica video on Neoplatonism and I found Justin through Let's Talk Religion who I found through Religion For Breakfast. Love all of you and your work its been a breath of fresh air to find a community of people on UA-cam who are spiritually inclined but not insane. The grounded academic approach is incredibly important, appreciated and needed.
It's not. It can be so if you like. Don't you think intimidate is in the person who experience it? You may reason or about intimidating but... I see two persons talking and both not appearing very intimated. Both see each other reasonable enough that there is no need for because they dare to assume there is nothing indicated a problem would arise within the self or other or both... Powerhouses may seem intimidating but in there reason they prefer not to use that power to blow the other away... Its not practically to do so for you need to shout over distance. Smile. Just a word from me to you... There is no need to be intimidated. Beside that you are able, value yourself. Don't let shadows of others... Hold you back. Rather use them for shadow when it's warm lol. In faith.
Hey if you see this could you recommend a book or two or more which approaches physics from a spiritual angle which isn't wooey, insane or scientifically inaccurate? I study both physics and world religions/philosophy in my spare time but have never found a good book which doesn't veer too off the path of science. The closest I've found is The Dancing Wu Li Masters but it's kinda outdated nowadays as science has advanced a great deal since then. Anything similar and more up to date come to mind?
Maybe the paradox that exists without application of logical propositions is the same kind of paradox as superposition (in physics) related to relativity.
6:19 Book: Varieties of religious experiences by William James 7:11 Article: The logic of mysticism by John Findlay 10:02 A concise introduction to logic by Patrick j hurley 11:13 Ethica by Spinoza 11:45 A study of mohist logic by yang wuhn 11:50 Buddhist Logic by th. Stcherbatsk 17:17 The idea of holy: An inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational by RUDOLF OTTO 20:30 Mysticism and Language by STETVEN T. KATZ 26:02 the port-royal logic 26:50 The foundadtions of arithmetic by GOTTLOB FREGE 27:24 Principia Mathematica by whitehead and russell 34:55 Mysticism by EVELYN UNDERHILL 44:20 why Contradiction is not acceptable
Two of the coolest content creators on UA-cam in one show? Outstanding! Perfect topic for this progssive hunanist Christian. I had a mystical experience 15 years ago. If you ever get to drink from that fountain beneath our conscious being, it changes everything. Spiritual intoxication is a real danger. Never underestimate something just because it's "in your head."
As a writer looking to tackle global mysticism, you guys helped bring to focus my dilemmas in how to treat the subject, if it is one subject, esp with varying degrees of understanding for the religious environment each flavor of mysticism was born from. I now have a grip on where we are in this conversation. 🙏 Phenomenal work
Hi Alicia. Thank you so much. So glad to hear this was helpful. I’d love to hear about your work and about what you’re doing. Feel free to reply here or drop us an email 🙏🏼
I have never used this feature to give thanks, because I have also never felt so deeply understood in having, what has mostly been a frustrated and stunted internal monologue, been so incredibly played out and explored by such incredible seekers of truth with such honesty and rigour ❤ Thank you both from the bottom of my being.
This is one of the most important conversations we can have as a species. Period. It always has been. G_d bless you both for bringing your substantial dedication and scholarship to it for us. WOW! 🔥
I feel blessed, we (the audience) can see these kind of intellectual conversations about one of the most important and most fascinating subjects talked about by two people i really admire on their knowledge and their very unique and pleasant personalities.
Thank you Art. It’s a pleasure to have them with such a fine thinker, scholar and friend and to people like you join us to think carefully about such important subjects.
@@SeekersofUnity before YT gave rise as platform for the more interesting things in life, about life etc. i dreamed sometimes imagining that Bruno or Spinoza, Mozes de leon, Chaim Vital, to name a few of all philosophers, kabbalists, etc could have been talking to eachother if there was internet ( and lived in eachothers times), that remained a fantasy untill you and others started this on YT and all the knowledge of the ages finds a way through you and others as medium for the wisdom and sometimes very ancient wisdom. For me its a miracle and very thankful i live in these times.
This reminds me of an essay by Aleister Crowley I read in The Equinox Volume 1 No 2 yesterday. In “The Psychology of Hashish” he brings up many of these points a hundred years ago. As you said if the mystics are right it’s crazy that this isn’t being discussed more in intellectual circles. Great discussion guys!
Twenty minutes in so far. Excellent discussion. He is underscoring the logic of one of my core arguments from religious experience: “ I am completely rationally justified to believe in that which I clearly perceive “ to do anything other then that would not only be irrational, but, depending on how strong and real the experience was to the perceiver: borderline crazy. I think this is the essence of mysticism. Your videos are really good. We seem to be on the same page about a lot of stuff.
7:45 Rationality is an amazingly undefined phenomena!! It's qualified by "normalcy", and "normal" is a relative term based on cultural and ideological upbringing, language, the accepted behaviors of others in society, family dynamics, economic status, ecology, etc. Etc. Etc. These are All fluid and change over time, (or what we perceive as 'time'). Down to the Individual level changes in mood, energy levels, health, accidents or incidents, relationships to all of the above will inevitably be percieved as normal or abnormal variably and almost entirely by exposure. One hardly thinks about what is normal or rational for themselves outside of habit or routine, save when in relationship to or comparison to someone or something outside of themselves. We should stop considering life experiences and interactions in general as normal or abnormal and therefore rational or irrational, but rather as simply Real, and perhaps in more present terms.
Introvertive as opposed to extravertive mystical experiences show many differences. Another good point to bring up would be that two mystics may experience the same phenomena but articulate their findings much differently, much like two people experiencing the perception of the same apple. There may be a difference in the perception of the actual colour. We can even go so far as to say that one may like that particular shade of green, while the other may detest it. I think you're right Zevi regarding the universality of the inherent qualities of the introvertive mystical experience. You are both amazing individuals. Much love! Lechaim!!
Around 55:00 , it is exactly what Lupasco found. He was trying to resolve the contradictions the quantum world was showing (where light can be both wave AND particles) and he found a system that can be applied to... everything ! Energy is the result of contradiction and so is the psyche. The law of contradiction still stands, of course, but the middle included that contains the contradiction relies on another level of reality. The mystics have access to that other level of reality, non-dual (often outside time ; no past and no future), from which comes our dual perspective.
@@SeekersofUnity He covers so many topics adressed in the discussion (and the one you had with John and Guy (which was really great discussion), you'll see, I think you'll like him because it will confort you in your attempt to find a universal common ground for mysticism when it comes to the coincidentia oppositorum ... I think one of his colleague, Basarab Nicolescu, wrote in English about Lupasco's work but Brenner will be a good intro. Great channel by the way Zevi, keep up the good work!
Zevi and Justin, thank you both for having this dialogue, which has raised the bar for me in my studies. I have learned much here, just by intently listening, not the least of which is that I still have much to learn 🤓 especially as pertains to logic. Wow. The “isms” abound, don’t they? Human logic and reason certainly have their limits, but they are useful tools. Trying to communicate the essence of something as complex as reality itself or a numinous experience via human verbal language is a daunting task. We (and our evolved languages) are shaped by nature/nurture factors. There is a humility, I believe, that must be protected and cultivated alongside this gift of intelligence we possess. Justin mentioned a charitable nature, which demonstrates genuine respect via matching the rigor of the mature mystics. We must give them serious consideration, using our gifts of understanding in various fields of knowledge as a means of reflection-the more varied perspectives, the better. For life itself is diverse, yet unified by patterns. We all pick up on different patterns, depending upon a number of factors-life experience, intellect, education, personality, etc. but I do believe that at the heart of mysticism is an essence of intimacy, which is based in emotion. Emotions are quite nuanced and difficult to describe in a consistent manner. Our experiences are subjective, by nature. When we try to relate an emotional experience through the language of logic, we remove its essence. Music is an emotional language, as is art. Poetry, parables, and other modalities which are emotionally evocative are, in my opinion, more semantically appropriate languages for the mystic. I recently read a story to my students, which expressed the need to listen with your eyes and your heart, not just your ears. I found this to express a simple, yet profound truth. Having a more comprehensive understanding of and appreciation for how humans communicate via all 5 senses is, I think, needful for defining (not just in words) this underlying unity amongst all mystics and seekers of unity. I feel it, too Zevi ☺️ We are ONE. Blessings to both of you 🕊
A conversation that has not aged. A pleasure to listen to & hear ideas that are still troubling thinkers today. I feel that I still have lots of homework to do to understand all that was discussed. So I'll keep seeking.
Well, I've been skirting around this dense but delightful subject (pushing upward, earth above mountain below, so to speak) and have discovered this rigourous philosophical debate, Esotericism, which does not look down on mysticism, but seeks to appreciate its analogical constant. This is a great gift. I simply don't have the resources or possibly even the time, but at least by listening to all these wonderful discussions, I will absorbed some of what has fascinated and entranced, and reached me in dreams and wonderful moments of insight - flashes of Wisdom - during a lifetime. Thank you. This appeals hugely and is profoundly enjoyable.
Brilliant and inspiring. After a day full of sweet remembrances of St.John of the Cross, this video made a fitting end to a very nice day. Thank You both.
In my personal experience I had tried casting some magick circles rooted in the Key of Solomon style. I tried it a couple times with no result...but I was very very logical at the time. I was pretty much an atheist but was open minded enough to try it. But it wasn't until I threw myself into it 100% and just dropped my left brained approach to the ritual that it finally worked with dramatic result. And by dramatic I mean I physically seen and heard spirits outside the circle. But it takes a certain amount of "letting oneself go", which is something Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa says in his "Three Books of Occult Philosophy" 1510.
Magic performed with faith and kept secret, even kept out of one's own thoughts as much as possible after casting, WILL have an effect beyond what mere chance could reasonably account for. I speak from experience.
1:29:26 “the cruel irony of a species that is aware of its own existence, without the emotional capacity to understand it” paraphrasing exurbia or some other UA-cam philosopher. I kept thinking about this line during this whole wonderful conversation.
This is a heroic task, the very foundation of a mysitcal worldview presents an incompatibility with rational thought. That said, the question is a valid one and, in the attempt to answer it, a great deal of valuable information comes to light. Fantastic work and admirable thoroughness displayed by both parties; this is indeed an important conversation. They do so much to bring the dialogue to students in a way that can easily be engaged with and facilitates a deeper understanding of the mystical traditions.
I like that there's still a big disagreement here: is mysticism unified globally? Dr. Justin Sledge says it is not and Zevi says it at least rhymes. The perspectives work well to center the definition of mysticism when they ask whether mystics were rational. The two answers coming out of the conversation sound like "mystics are rational in the logical considerations of their schools of thought" (Justin) and "there is a hidden logic common to all mysticism" (Zevi). I think you can use either POV based on your needs. If you want to understand how Eckhart logically established the ground as the primary reality, Justin's POV helps more. If you want to establish a mystical genre of thought as a global phenomenon and part of "philosophy," Zevi's POV is more helpful. At the end, they make sure to acknowledge the logical calculation inherent in major mystics, whether or not that means taking mystics at a time or together.
My personal favorite Leftbrainer and Rightbrainer discussing this subject as our contemporarys. Bought beautifully balanced in their stance which makes the listening of this dialog a wonderful experiance. A warm hearted scholar, of righteous pragmatism meets a radiant poetic philosopher of great benevolence. We can only rejoice to this opportunity and I personally hope that you will have time and desire to come back to us with more similar discussions . You are bringing to us the great personal insight grounded within the best of the diversity of the culture that you represent. Sincer gratitude 🙏 Jascha Heifetz Itzhak Perlman Leonid Kogan this artists of highest virtuosity are a testimony of what is like when left nad right are aligned in the name of Beauty Rigour and stucture meet poetic inspiration and hearts aspiration for the divine I wouder if you would be interested in giving an insight on the writing of Nikola Tesla, the scientist inventor and the mystic, Specifically on his essay How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinys Thanks to bought of you 💟💟
When I had my experiences ... I did not know how to assume facts or truths from them so i didn't try for a long time. I just let the experiences happen. At first, I thought i was just reviewing the furniture of my soul - especially, when my experiences seemed to trend towards to the Christian, I was honestly terrified. The most impressive experiences seem to be beyond words, I've tried to describe them. I can speak of what i learned as fiction,fantasy --- or metaphors .... I've been trying to write about the experiences and what they seemed to imply, but even speaking of them...seems to be profaning them. I want to paint a picture or tell a story ... create a world, the art of the soul's journey? I wish I could find the right form of art to express myself... it is like journeying to a distant world and returning ... and realizing, you don't have the vocabulary to describe what you saw.
@@SeekersofUnity Certo! words fail. Art fails, craft fails. How to you describe something beyond words? Light, Love, an down-pouring of Love, sheets of energy?? Beauty. simply beauty. I've always wondered what poor angel lost his job when he put my name on the wrong list. :-) I am certainly not a likely mystic. A hard working housewife/Widow? Right now, I have to cut up some boxes and put them in recycling, put the chickens in their coop.. clean up the garage. I've got mice in there, once again. Hate killing things. Even vermin. I'm just delaying the work by writing this..
Great content as usual. I am not much of an intellectual or philosopher so some of the more technical aspects of this discussion are lost on me but what really resonated with me with this was philosophies eventual rejection of mysticism that you both touched upon. As someone who cherishes certain experiences in my life above all others this rejection has largely turned me off from philosophy post-Spinoza (I loved your videos on Spinoza) in some part due to their attitude and their inability to take mystical experiences seriously. I'd like to think the 'goal' of philosophy would somehow inevitably lead to such experiences. Rather than mysticism being irrational I personally think that after exhausting rational thought it leads to something 'supra-rational' or above it. Someone like Abulafia and his prophetic Kabbalah to me embodies this type of rational or logical mysticism in a way that resonates with me. Or something like Aquinas's remarks at the end of his career after his experience says so much. Even reading Maimonides talk about prophecy to me indicates someone who has had a glimpse of what the prophets experienced. It's hard for me to accept someone who speaks so intimately and authoritatively on the experience of the prophets had not at least experienced a small part of it themselves. Anyways, I hope that made a little sense :) Your channel really touches on a really interesting and I'd say important niche. It is quite comforting to me to see you bridging certain subjects I've pondered myself (albeit with far, far less sophistication on my part) in some of your content. Take care and keep at it!
Thank you so much for this message. Making the Spinoza videos was really fun so I'm glad you enjoyed watching. (I'd recommend checking out William James as another post-Spinoza philosopher who takes mystical experience seriously). Ya, there are a bunch of logical/philosophical mystics throughout history, in every tradition. Abulafia is one such example. One of the things we're really trying to do at the channel here is to highlight those serious mystics, to open a new dialog and way of thinking about mysticism, as a serous option for an intelligent 21st century human to consider, and as a positive direction forward for humanity at large, as opposed to something backward, arcane, superstitious and 'woo,' as it's often seen and portrayed. Thank you for your kind feedback. This project will only have a chance at achieving the aforementioned if it succeeds at uniting seekers, in joining our forces and energy towards what we believe to be good, true and beautiful. So thank you for joining. Good to have you in the Seekers community. For Unity.
Zevi! I’ve been meaning to get to this for a bit on my watch list, until this early AM since I couldn’t sleep. Perfect time to watch through the whole thing though. Great convo! Justin is a powerhouse yet the thought I was left with is that he views things through a predominantly “Constructivist” lens despite his crazy depth of knowledge about mystics. So he sees the issues but somehow can’t seem to relate deeply to them IMO. Reminds me of Wouter Hanegraaff in a way, who probably played a large part in his Western Esotericism studies. Obviously, I adhere to a Perennial outlook ( note that I DON’T say philosophy because “words get in the way”). I wish that you had both gotten into the underlying fundamental aspect of the mystic vision (which includes the “Christian” beatific vision) which is Light! This is the near-universal aspect of mystical experiences from diverse traditions and based on my own experience I feel that it plays a role linking the material and the spiritual realms. Have you ever heard of Robert Forman? In his THE INNATE CAPACITY, he discusses how the “philosophical mystics” themselves argue that the deepest mystical core experience of the nondual Light of Pure Consciousness involves an innate capacity of the processes of Consciousness itself which goes beyond their own culturally indoctrinated conceptions and perceptions. Unfortunately I think that our limited understanding about Logic (and the whole development of Philosophy after the Axial Age) gets in the way. Your discussion on the Pre-Socratics is spot on since the whole “Science-Religion” divide doesn’t seem to be present then from the fragments we have. The importance of fire in Heraclitus, and even Empedocles, again points in the direction of light. And Parmenides is sort of mind blowing in his assertion that “all is one” and yet he posed constraints on both language and thought in stating that we cannot speak or think about things that are not real/do not exist. Anyway, I hope you can both discuss the whole issue of Light in mysticism in a future episode.
Late to the party on this particular stream, but I'm a practicing mystic working on my own interdisciplinary grimoire (for lack of a better word) and the very first of seven points deals with the question of if/how mystical and magic experiences can be quantified or verified and what good methodology on the part of the individual can look like to that end. I'm not really connected to the academic community on this but I highly value historical accuracy and scholarly integrity, and it's exciting to be part of this blossoming field of research. Esoterica is an invaluable resource for me and my work. Thank you.
I'm new to your channel (coming over from Justin's), and really enjoyed this conversation! What you were saying about hating the word "transcendent" and replacing it with the "sub-strata of reality" (or at least conflating them) reminded me of Deleuze and Guattari in "What is Philosophy?"
Definitions: 0:7:45 *Logic:* the ability to draw truth via inference. There are logical structures that we've discovered and that these logical structures, when applied to propositions (and this is a bit of debate: does logic apply to reality in sort of a general way or does it apply merely to propositions?) placed into those inferential structures, the truth drops out. Weirdly enuf. We can deduce or induce the truth and theoretically - assuming all that is supposed to work - we discovered what 20 or 30 of those inferential structures (things like Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens or De Morgan's) and ideally logic is the ability to generate truth from inference. Now the question is: how much broader can we zoom out logic to where we go, it's simply a way of talking about propositions and the truth values of propositions, how to deduce things from the relationship among propositions?; all the way out to, is logic a fundamental structure of reality? And it goes again to this question: is logic something we invent or something we discover? And if it's something we discover, and that reality is somehow governed or structured by it the way, for instance, the way the stoics thot, alot rides on that. 0:12:54 *Rationality in Relation to Logic* There are probably 5 different competing theories in different domains from game theory, to economics to philosophy about what exactly rationality is. I will say, before trying to get some theory of what rationality is - and then what I'm gonna say is going to be so trite and almost circular, and this is the problem with rationality: defining it - is that certainly logic is subsumed under... any theory of rationality is going to include logic. That seems relatively obvious to me. _[personal comment: last 2 statements are propositions that I may or may not agree with. But we have to start somewhere. I'm glad you used the words "obvious to me". This is a good habit to get into, methinks.]_ What that larger idea of what rationality is is really elusive and I think that philosophers are not honest enuf about the fact that we don't have a great definition of what rationality is because there's sort of 2 competing things we want to say: one, we want to say something like rationality is basically the principle of sufficient reason. That all true propositions have a reason why they're that way and not another way. That they are that way because of some other reason. That is to say rationality [is] simply being able to provide good reasons for your beliefs. The problem with that: being able to provide good reasons for your beliefs is _what the hell are good reasons?_ 0:17:18 *Irrational vs. Non-rational* A proposition is irrational if it contains a real contradiction. A proposition is non-rational if it contains a truth that is not subject to logic. Or if the propositional content can't be expressed. *I have tried to Google the definitions of the jargon you're using and it's just not matching up. I trust you. I understand you better. But some of it like Modus Ponens/Tollens are past my paygrade. I'm intelligent, but I'm not an academic. I know you are speaking to academics as well as us non-a's, but if you could post links to references _that you trust_ to define the Jargon, I will do the rest of the work myself. 👣👣👣🔎
Speaking of Ancient Greece... The logic/logos thing... Back in the day, they used the term "intellect" and I've gathered over the years that this is an assumption that logic is a fundamental structure of reality. I got here because I continuously looked for a distinction between logos and the "direct knowing" that one can potentially gain thru certain "mystical" experience. But all I could find was the term "intuition". And that didn't fit either. Even the Gnostics seemed to make this assumption. This was a source of deep frustration for me because I've had certain experiences and so I know directly that the knowledge gained that way cannot be gained using either intellect nor - reliably - thru intuition. I finally found someone make the distinctions to my satisfaction, tho: Ancient India... Under the heading of "Patterns of Consciousness", Patanjali states: _"1 :5 There are 5 types of Patterns, including both hurtful and benign._ _1 :6 They are Right Perception, Misperception, Conceptualization, Deep Sleep and Remembering._ _1 :7 Right Perception arises from Direct Observation, Inference or The Words of Others._ _1 :8 Misperception is False Knowledge, not based in what really is._ _1 :9 Conceptualization derives from Linguistic Knowledge, not contact with real things._ _1 :10 Deep Sleep is a pattern grounded in the perception that nothing exists._ _1 :11 Remembering is the retention of experiences."_ I know that I need to delve into the work of Noam Chomsky on the Linguistic Knowledge bits, but I haven't been able to penetrate his Jargon yet. Still working on that. I know that he has an important piece.
0:16:07 [etymology] *Rational* ratio? [can't find a source] To compare This is where the difficulties come. Direct Knowing _is_ ineffable. But because you want to avoid being called "irrational", you try and compare it to things anyway, and this is when you end up saying stuff that doesn't work. You create paradoxes. And that's the best you can do. You end up declaring 2 or more things that don't agree with one another as all true: *The World is Illusion* *Only Brahman is Real* *Brahman is the World* *Cast your bread upon the waters* *After many days it will return to you* etc. Hearers/Listeners, then come to believe that the Knowledge is "difficult to understand" but that it is possible if you're intelligent/rational/reasonable/logical enuf. And they argue about it. And when people disagree to the point of getting angry enuf, they murder. And this is one reason why the Rule of Silence is almost universally given. 🤫
Timelines 0:23:00 *5th-6th Century B.C.E.* Logic appears in history the way we understand it now simultaneously in China, India and Greece. *_Which is weird, btw!!!_* [personal note: I love _that_ conversation too, but it's risky and not time to bring it up here.] In the early Greek context we have: 620's - 490's B.C. _Thales & Pythagoras_ (showing first formal deductions) ***Added later*** Pre-Socratics: 510's B.C. _Parmenides & Heraclitus_ (Inventing logic and metaphysics at the same time. Blended logic and faith/mysticism comfortably) 430's - 260's B.C. _ Megarians: Euklid of Magera & Zeno of Kiteon_ (systematizing the previous) 380's - 320's B.C. _Aristotle_ ( 0:24:25 Syllogism. Deduction. Also is developed in China and India ) 280's B.C. - 120's A.D. _Stoics: Chrisippos, Marcus Aurelius, Epictet & Seneca_ (further systematizing the previous. Propositional logic & Modality.) Islamic Scholars: 1126 - 1198 A.D. _Averroes or Ibn Rushd_ (Adding more and making it more sophisticated) People European context: People (Square of opposition) 1590's - 1650's _Descartes_ (Port-Royal Logic) People 1840's - 1920's _Frege_ (Modern propositional logic as we know it) People (huge strides in Modern logic) 1840's - 1970's _Frege, Kurt Godel, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead_ (Mathematizing of logic) [My words] Division of logic from mysticism is a mistake. 0:33:37 When Plato is taught today, all of his mysticism is deleted. Also, when mystics are taught, a pretense to logic is sometimes added that wasn't originally there and damages both mysticism and logic. (Evelyn Underhill)
0:35:52 Fruitful Disagreement: Out of my wheelhouse. LOL But I think this is a good example of what you're talking about: _"Neither this... nor... not this."_ ~Nagarjuna And similarly: _"...neither himself... nor other."_ ~Pseudo Dionysius
Thank you, and thanks to Justin for making this video. I've always been deeply interested in studying philosophy and religion, and I decided before I really take the plunge and study these topics rigorously I should take the time to at least study basic logic. I started doing just that, but something I noticed very early on is how the logical laws of the excluded middle and contradiction seem to be at odds with what I have read of the mystics (such as Daoism, my preferred path). However, after watching this beginning to end I can now see how logic and mysticism can be reconciled together. Also, I had my own gut feelings about how the two could be reconciled, and it seems that in some ways my beliefs aligned with your's and Justin's. Again, I thank the both you and I found this video to be very insightful and valuable.
What this talk cemented for me beyond it's soteriological value is how different systems of mysticism rely so heavily on their use of language and storytelling in order to establish authority. The more naturalistic systems, to me, establish a far more liberating and unifying experience, if only in the detachment they offer from cultural conversations. It's very much the same contrast that plays out in politics where many things can be true and yet fail to coexist, demanding for us to choose what kind of world we really want to live in and be willing to let cherished traditions of the past go as a ruling precedent for the direction we want civilization to move forward in unity. Where the mystical experience shows us our connection to a divine sense of reality, so we must be willing to be creators of the truth and respect the seriousness of that role, rather than fight like children over what our absent parents would have wanted.
Was very interesting to see ESOTRICA been sympathetic to softening the need for Law of excluded middle, seems to be something more and more people are taking seriously.
Great talk! If you're looking for philosophers in the analytic tradition who are interested in mysticism, you might enjoy Raymond Smullyan. He wasn't just a logician; he was a MATHEMATICAL logician, which in those circles is as badass as you can get. Yet his most-read book is probably The Tao Is Silent, a series of whimsical essays inspired by his interest in Daoism.
As I've put it before on mystics, having my own experiences, they get a piece of the truth but the more they try express it the more it becomes a distortion of that truth. There is a reason for them to share and try to articulate despite it becoming a distortion. Partly it allows the indescribable fundamental reality to anchor into this reality, there are a lot who get lost in this and fall towards a grandeur delusion that they are solely the one anchoring it when they are really just a piece of the anchor that became aware of it. The other reason could be viewed as a sort of how bats navigate, sending out messages that make waves in order to reach others that can understand them. So what is spoken may be distorted but the words used can sometimes provoke the visualization or the feeling of that mystical experience in others meant to experience. I do not believe there is any meritable reason on which individuals get exposed to these experiences, it seems as if it just happens because it has to.
Great conversation. I think when we start talking about the differences in mystic experiences we have to remember that mystics are still people and are still going to have their own experience and place they come from. They aren't going to be able to interpret their experience of the divine ( or however we want to phrase it) through the lens of a culture they have never experienced. I think there is something of a through line for all these experiences but that doesn't mean that someone is going to suddenly drop their bias and start agreeing with people thousands of years apart.
Hey Otto. Glad you enjoyed it. Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. You might enjoy this video where we go into those exact questions in greater detail: ua-cam.com/video/n_RJQS-JRwM/v-deo.html Enjoy, Zevi
Been doing a lot of thinking on this subject and connected it to these conversations. The model of Rationality I'm constantly encountering is simulacrum rather than simulation, because Reason is a (useful) habituation tool. It reprioritizes our models using attentional-sites based on how evocative they are along the lines of affect and prioritization (such as morals). It arrives at useful data by how effectively it manages the aggregation of world experience data but to actually do that it needs to maintain a strong semiotic continuity. It is why experts are useful (focus on gathering a set of experience data) but also not believed without some prioritizing content, and then "anti-Reason" movements sometimes take this towards the limits of concept creduility by Reason itself while losing what that logic is trying to do. It's related to how everybody sorta fakes communication? We have to draw from our semiotic commonalities but to communicate we have to turn these into transmissible symbol content. But without that semiotic continuity between people and an ability to be receptive enough to interpret where incongruities might appear they talk past each other. Like, in Logic there arise concepts like 'P-Zombies'. What does it mean for a Person without an inner Being? Concept-wise it makes "sense" because we can have models of both, but semiotically it doesn't collapse into anything on the inner Being side. It's the NOT; it can been anything and thus it means nothing. It is purely evocative of something that our reasoning thinks *should* be there. And this is why I think people should try reading Jenna Moran's Philosophical Treatise masquerading as a TTRPG setting. (assisting content towards my reasoning: See the failures of 'Falsification' to demonstrate usefulness in how science is done and Thomas Kuhn, the polarization in binaries e.g. Science vs Mysticism, the conflicts of Modernity, etc.) EDIT: Rewatching is probably why I connected it with my own explorations. It was hard to keep track of all the concepts as discrete (I have poor concentration and memory) nor could I properly inculcate them into my own models but they sort of collapse into this, and it is a sort of, to us the evocative potential, a Quantum Logic that isn't about deniable reality as much as arriving at a point of useful data.
Nice conversation, thoroughly enjoyed it. A point that stuck with me from this was the limitation of language. When I stumbled across quantum grammar after many hours spent comparing religions and philosophy I find it really hard to be able to sit and listen to most anything being discussed on esoteric subjects. Just wanted to say I appreciate what seems to be a non dogmatic approach here.
Great talk. What struck me as a concern is Dr. Sledge presupposing his own philosophical and logical commitments. For instance, when (at 1:35:45) Dr. Sledge claims that Zevi has to provide an argument for compatibilism (of contradictory perspectives), he is presuming that his view -- that is, the standard, analytic philosophical approach -- is correct. Why? Because Zevi could appeal to compatibilism as a presupposition just as much as Dr. Sledge implicitly appeals to his own presuppositions. Dr. Sledge never provides an argument for his own presupposition (that the law of non-contradiction is true). In this, I think we find his analytic bias, one that is dominant in almost every graduate philosophy program in North America. Either they both have to provide arguments for their presuppositions, or neither of them do -- and this is something that Dr. Sledge conveniently ignores. Of course, espousers of dominant positions -- whether philosophical, logical, or political -- always seem to behave the same way: the minority view is expected to take down the majority view instead of vice-versa, or instead of differing views being accorded the same respect from the start. For me, Zevi's approach is much more open and holistic. It is evident, in the way he speaks, that he does not have this indoctrinated aversion to accepting contradictions that Dr. Sledge demonstrates. Indeed, every time an argument for accepting contradictions arises, Dr. Sledge's face tenses up. And that psychological reaction seems to have a direct relationship to dogmatic thinking, whether it be concealed by humility and charity or not.
Monism vs Non-dualism was an interesting segment. Hope to see a full exploration of this. Your suggestion that a possible differentiation is I Am all vs there is no I (or anything else) is an interesting one. I’m curious if you’ve explored this further. Regarding the point made about widely, even militantly, differentiating views amongst mystics: All mystics can agree that Oneness is the core truth, but might still adamantly disagree on what to do about it. Believing that all of humanity must accept a certain faith with a non-dual esoteric aspect is different than believing different groups should be able to grow organically as we find in nature and compete (while agreeing to specific basic principles). Said differently, within the apparent dualism that exists in nature, there is a need for hierarchy so that there can be growth and life, but it should be bottom up in terms of service. Ie. Leaders should serve their constituents, masculine should serve feminine, advanced nations should serve the less advanced, etc. A visualization of this theory would be that within nature there is an emergent hierarchy 🔼. Beyond nature there is down-flow of supprt and influence 🔽 and humans have the capacity to live in the middle ✡️. :)
There comes a point during jhana where thought stops. Logic will probably only get you so far (I do not know). I have only experienced 2nd jhana. I can say nothing beyond that. It seems to me that I wouldn’t have ever experienced it without the kind of questioning and self-examination similar to what is being said in this video. I really enjoyed this discussion. Great content
❤ truly beautiful. once read a description of Truth, from Ukrainian philosopher Skovoroda, who wrote in Latin, that ultimate truth is experienced as beautiful... as always, not sure about ultimate, but beautiful it was. Thank you 🙏
Aloha Devi, this became longer than I intended and i cant copy/save the excess work for some reason so begging you pardon, I'm hoping you find it entertaining if not useful in your own navigations. Both you and the subject of God warrant a comprehensive reply....and this is my passion! =) Interview @ 56:40-57:30 considering predication of the Absolute / God / state of existence before the appearance of universes: What about simply God is? The ultimate "is-ness" possible.... One of the oldest pan-cultural pre-universal themes I have found is that of an infinite undifferentiated substance often characterized as water. Including but not limited to: Nun from Egypt, Tiamat from Babylon, the ideas of Chaos, Apeiron and Prima Materia from Greece are similar. Brahman from Sanatana Dharma is in the same genre as is the Ain Soph Aur the infinite light of God. The Ocean of Bliss. The Eternal Abode. The Infinite One from whom come the many. With great respect to all cultures and to Thou, distilling the essense from these many God forms whispers to me an objective nature of The God (before creation): Infinite and Absolute. Meaning it takes up all space forever in all directions and fills it to the brim (scalar invarience) with pure substance. There is no where it is naught. It is the diametric conceptual opposite of nothing. God is Allthingness, the greatest possible extant state. What can be logically deduced and representationaly said about this extant infinite?: Because there is no room for anything else and no surface / edge / border, it is "the Formless One beside whom there is no other." As a consciousness, there is nothing else to describe but itself "I am". As a real absolute substance, the densest possible state we know of is a quark-gluon plasma (quagma) of liqufied protons and nuetrons (they are no longer a spatially lofted form, the quarks become a liquid and there is no space even between individual quarks.) which is believed to be the nature of the "hot dense state" prior to sudden universal inflation in the Big Bang theory. Truely an unapproachable all-consuming / destroying "fire" and simultaniously / paradoxically that from which all things are composed. Considering the beginning of a universe / creation as a finite space suddenly voided from God's incomprehensibly overwhemling absolute presense, it spatially follows that Thou art "within in whom we move and have our being." Classical Panentheism Another interesting consideration of infintes in general is that a serial infinite is impossible to realize in time so an actual infinite must be eternal. While the meta-mythic realm is rich and beautiful with circumabulating story, my domain of exploration has been accounting for the spatially quantifiable natures (equalities) of God, the "am" in "I am", the Logos of Infinity (image/word of God), and how it directly patterns universes inside and out. This is where the philosophical rubber meets the geometric road. A single universe is presented (unfolded) as a 3d image (hologram) of 10 nested fields/objects/shaping forces that order all internal creation and I'm willing to bet both of you likely already know more about it than i do but have never seen it presented in this form.... Tier 1 (location) "In summation of infinity, God is all around itself and at the center every where. In a beginning, God forms a periphery (spherical border) and a centralized nucleus (made of the same substance) and a vibrating field in tension is strung in between (either startretrahedral or cubeoctohedral)" Simplified in 2d it's a circle around a dot with a square star in the space between them. (Stretched out tent) Tier 2 (translation) "The capacitant space produces an electromagnetic field (pillar torus, imagine the white stringy part of an orange)" It represents the straight motion that made curved spacetime in Tier 1 as a single field object in continuous motion. A "particle and a waveform." Graphic reprsentation would be like a decending central pillar of light that spread out into the rainbow at the bottom wrapping up back to the top of the pillar. (Lamp stand, tunnel of light) Tier 3 (spin) "Spun outwards from the pillar axis is a wheel-like disk / hammered out flat membrane that divides the internal space into an upper and lower hemisphere." Discluding the startet field, the total 3d picture now is like a gyroscope inside a bubble. The 2d simplified version is an equilateral cross inscribed in a circle. (raqia, firmament, surface of a glassy sea) Tier 4: (4d spacetime) "The reflective disk of T3 concentrates the 4 phases motions of T2 (above and below) into 4 individuated expressions." These manifest as nested ring tori, on inside the other, on the top and bottom of the disk. 4 "wheels within wheels". In simplified 2d the total symbol looks almost exactly like the celtic cross or hopi medicine wheel missing just one extra circle inside the four quadrant cirlces. (Ophanim?) In total these nested fields divide the internal space of the unvierse into 6 main sections (days)?) as 3 "cupping/curving branches" on either side, with a 7th space inside the T2 pillar at the center of which rests the concentrated nucleus made of the same substance of the original undifferentiated field. "The Lord rested on (in) the seventh day." So how could all this seeming complexity be simply represented? In T1 the circle around the dot is a well known and ancient symbol for both God and gold...so lets start with gold. The total universe has a central pillar and 3 curved regions/branchs on either side. This is made with 5 tori in motion, so a perhaps 5 petal flowers on each branch would suffice? You already know what this is. The temple menorah is a highly accurate representation of the universal field nest / kingdom (court) of heaven / image/word of God. It seems Ezekiel got a first hand view! Hopeing you find this intriguing enough to start a conversation, it's just the iceberg tip of a comprehensive model. Shalom fellow seekers
Hey brother, That's a serious tip of the iceberg. I can see you've put quite some thought into you. I'll have to re-read it a little more thoroughly later but i have a feeling you might really enjoy this other short series we did here on comparative mythology. Check it out and let me know what you think, enjoy: ua-cam.com/play/PL_7jcKJs6iwV-0Ox5fLTzrl7duwNyk7Tr.html
@@SeekersofUnity There is a minimum complexity to it and the waveform expression of an extant infinite is not really something we deal with on the daily as mammals on a planet, lol, so some analogous language is helpful: If God is like an ocean of light, unvierses are like rainbow vaccuum bubbles. They are yanked open into existance as the liquid light contracts. The differentiated internal order of a universe is unfolded from and inherent in the previously unified state of God. If the universe is like a house then it has 2 stories, a central spiral staircase and 3 circular hallways on the top and bottom story. Local heavens / antimatter side above, matter side of the unvierse below. If the universe is like a great tree then it's seed and roots are in heaven/God (Keter), it's branches fill the internal space and we (conscious beings) are the fruit of it's combined essences and process. "As above so below, as within so without, as the universe so the soul."
@@SeekersofUnity I'll check it out next! @ 1:12 you were discussing how to read "the mirroring" and here's what I can offer: The initial local phase shift of The God state into an expanded / differentiated universe state is inversion symmetry , like an inverted pyramid tip to tip with a normal one. The qualities of the Infinite One get flipped inside out into finite quantities / forms and these are universes. It's a reciprocal relationship and multiplied together they still equal 1. The "rainbow tree" of 3d fields internal to universes unfold in this order: 1: Radial symmetry is formed by God's bi-contraction to a local center and spherical border condition (within and all around), T1. 2: Linear motion symmetry is formed by the T2 pillar torus that flows downward in the middle and upward in the periphery as a single field obejct in continuous motion. 3: Vertical mirror symmetry is formed by the T3 disk. 4: Whole translation symmetry is created by the 4 nested tori "wheels within wheels". They complete the 3d geometric solve to the maxim: "As above so below, as within so without..." All of this unpacks logically from applying the 3rd law of motion (equal opposite reaction) to an infinite saturated field, which is basically just the principle of balance and eqality in action creating real form from the formless. To create a voided space / universe it must contract locally outward andin order to balance that motion it must also contract to the center of that space. The rest is a cascade of equal/opposite reactions until the equation (quantum iteration) reaches full balance. After that it tends toward unitarity (fullfilment).
Thank you for the beautiful and thought-provoking dialogue. The one of the many matters discussed that stands out for me is whether there is one mysticism, as the ecumenicists might assert, or many mysticisms in difference and conflict, as those who follow a logic, eg, one that Mr. Hutchinson seems to follow in the context of the Conflict of Civilizations, ie seperate and differant The one shows itself in many different ways, which doesn't mean that the ways are all the same or that the one is different in each case, but rather means, i would have you consider, that it is we ourselves who are the open middle, open to the question of the one mystery, and mediating the answer of the many mysticisms, in the dialogue of questioning and questing truth we conduct with ourselves and have with each other. we ourselves thus would appear the one middle mediating difference
I'd say that the conversation got interesting at the end, about how all mystics are talking about the same thing. In one sense, they may all be reacting to the same transcendental phenomena from different angles. But I doubt many of them would see it that way. In any case, we can't forget the enormous damage done to both east and west mystical philosophy by the ruling class and racist structures which benefit at different times in history by condemning the experience of the other or conflation of all beliefs as one
I always say there’s a damn good reason that a religious edifice is found in the centre of every town around the world. We should all take spirituality/ mysticism much more seriously since it’s legitimately the only common denominator of humanity’s infallible truth of its existence on Earth that got us to modern society today
As a mystic, the various locations and experiences available through diverse technologies (rituals, art, music, language, entheogens, and so on) are ones I experience as fundamentally different phenomenological sites. What I experience in shamanic practices is different in resolution, scope, depth and duration then what I experience when meditating, dancing or reading Deleuze, for instance. I think for me the drive to to resolve the varieties of mystical experience into one grand mythos is a gorgeous endeavor yet less important than how each in its own way is an open ended participation in how to die well.
One of the things that may be possible for the first time in our modern multi-cultural world is, after the recognition of the heavily culture-bound content of most historical mystical experience (Buddhist mystics don't see Jesus etc), to at least >attempt< to bracket as much of the cultural tropes as possible while engaging in a meditative or contemplative exploration of reality. Whether this is even possible, and to what extent, is a difficult question, but it is certainly possible to be basically a secular humanist and do a simple meditative practice to quiet the mind and then begin to observe what is experienced without the many conceptual overlays that belief systems impose. Of course, while we may be able to escape the categories and tropes of organized religions we cannot escape our own personal history and our sub conscious zoo of energetic after effects of our life experiences. Nevertheless, it may be possible at least to some extent to investigate meditatively basic categories like "being" and "mind" largely as a scientist might investigate natural phenomena trying to bracket presuppositions. The experiences obtained this way can certainly be compared to those of historical mystics who were deeply embedded in an institutional belief system to see if there are commonalities or not, but if the goal is to understand reality (and not necessarily the history of mysticism) then these comparisons are not strictly necessary.
Well, It is not that Budhists don't find 'Jesus' in their Psychonautic Explorations ... They find another 'Anthropic Entities' in their travels to the 'Inner Mind Universes' or 'Imaginary Subtle-Spaces' or 'Chit' ( in the Sanskrit original terminology ) ... They Call Those 'Anthropic entities', The 'Buddhas', each of one representing some sort of Monadological Human Archetype in Nirvana or Eternally Liberated from Material Attachments ... and Those 'Buddhas' can assume any human form but they don't have any need to assume a specific form ... Therefore, Once The Monk achieved the state of 'Chit Concentration' for intuit The Eternal Radiation, Refulgence or Presence from those 'Buddhas' ... The monk will render an Image of them adequate to The Monk Dharma ... That should fit The Monks 'Higher Self' ... In the Monotheistic Middle East Jewish tradition, 'The Messiah' is 'The Incarnated Higher Self from The Tribe of Israel' or 'The Israelis Buddha' ... and for The Christians ( for some, Monotheistic Post-Jewish Mediterranean-European tradition ), 'Jesus' is 'Their 'Messiah' ... therefore, 'The incarnated and re-incarnated Higher-Self from The Western World' or 'The Westernner's Buddha' ... For A Traditional Indian Buddhist, 'Jesus' is a Shape of Buddha given by Buddha to the Western Monks seeking Nirvana/ Transcendental Truth from The Contingent Existence in This Contingent World/Universe ... But As in The Original Judaism ( Buddhism was a political branch from Hinduism that comes as a protest against a previously established 'system of Casts' that merge from A Monotheistic Branch from The Vedanta ... and that Monotheistic/Atheistic branch is way long ago Jewish monotheism ... that can be tracked in the middle east way long ago from 1400-1300 B.C in Egypt up to 4000-1400 B.C in the Indian Continent ), The Monopoly Deity or 'God's Presence' is not a 'human form' but an Inconceivable Shapeless Omnipotent Pure Energetic Entity that permeates and sustain Everything from 'The Unmanifest' (Brahman) or 'The Spirit' ( The Pre-Existence and Post-Existence ) ... That's the reason, behind Buddha himself rejecting Himself as The Path for Ultimate Truth and/or The Traditional Jewish Tradition to Reject Jesus as Their Messiah ... Because for them, The Ultimate Truth can not be constrained or confined to a Human Shape ... But In a Sense, Buddhism doesn't reject The Buddha's teachings ( Jesus's Teachings) as some sort of providers of guidelines for liberation and Communion with the Ultimate Truth ... The Ones who had trouble with that tend to be Jewish, Christians, and Muslims ... Basically, because most or the majority of the Jewish don't foresight in Jesus their 'Messiah or higher Self', the Christians wants to Kill Buddha ( Kill Jesus itself ) and impose His corpse as the magic amulet that gives to them God a Like Status by killing the Buddha ( Jesus himself ) and imposing their impersonal 'philosophical' imaginary god ... and the Muslims because they believe that they know better the impersonal God than everyone else and deeply hate any previous 'Incarnation of God in human shape' or The Buddha', their 'Messiah' will comes to establish a Monopolistic Islamic Global state ... At the end of the day ... Just the apes playing a game established by their Zoo Gatekeepers ... ( In Heaven ) ...
Within Eastern Orthodoxy 'rational' is defined as being able to behave according to right principles. So this ties into the hesychastic tradition of asceticism and mysticism and the mastery of passions (in the active/passive - action/passion sense of classical philosophy) so that our will is freed. Once the will is freed then rational thought and action becomes possible. In this regard, the question of rationality is tied directly to the ability of one to have a genuine mystical experience in the terms that one who is most capable of doing the former, is most capable of experiencing the latter.
A very condensed discussion. I haven't watched it all yet and I will, gradually, so my comment may be covered later on, on your discussion. There is, I believe, a line that unites logic with mysticism, that line can be explained in a few words as the 'nature of revelation', or, to put it more simply, the ability to watch, hear, touch, feel, be, without judging, trying, willing. By this inner stillness, one can jump from logic to mysticism. The 'inner stillness' is, from what I have seen, a common factor between many religions, but it is neglected by philosophy. At some point in time, religion and philosophy drew apart and now the two cannot meet, even though they stem from the same principle.
the best case scenario would be having as many unique mystical takes on the nature of reality as there are sentient beings. And >not< "all saying the same thing," but all with unique perspectives. I see no difference between philosophy, mysticism, literature, music or science: they are all expressions of various perspectives on the infinite. These kind of views get me in trouble all the time, for example in Buddhist groups lol. The world would probably be a better place if people could let go of a neurotic need for triumphalism when it comes to perspectives on the nature of reality.
From my perspective, what you said is true and I would describe it differently. When considered as a collective, a decent analogy would be that each individual is a cell in the eyeball of God. The more cells, the more perception of what is real. In the Blind men and the elephant sorta way. But if all we are is a heap of individuals, then infinite plurality is merely chaos. What do you think?
@@DarkMoonDroid yes we can't escape being parts of the whole, or the whole expressing itself in (seeming) parts, whichever way one likes to look at it.
@@Anthropomorphic Buddhists believe that their take on reality and what needs to be done is uniquely true and all the other religions and philosophies are wrong and will only lead to being trapped in the suffering of Samsara forever lol. So of course any suggestion that their views are subjective and culture bound like all other religions and philosophies makes them hopping mad.
I feel the mystic experience is awareness through a phase change of consciousness, so as unique as the individual consciousness, but also common in the sense that we all experience these phase changes, not always with the same degree of awareness.
I certainly think that these mystics have wrestled with the same consciousness-universe complex in some meaningful way; but I think its worth noting that Mystics, like Theoretical Physicists developing their/a/the new theory, are attempting to court genius and risking madness by leaving the realm of how we have thought, and trying to reach a different state of mind, perception in the hopes that it will give us new powerful insight. That's not abandoning reason, nor is it just coloring within the lines; its another hegelian engine of brilliant machine learning/conceptual-darwinism in which we seek out schizoid associations, not too much schizoid associations or useful/meaningful coherence will be lost, with each vision and inscrutable new-way of thinking then gets tested, and selected, or forgotten. The pregnant void, weather it was Ayin & Tzimtzum, or Atman Brahman and Anatma, or Akasha, or Yin, ancient mystic insights about the nature of no-thing has certainly been important to both mathematics, and physics. Even if Dr.Sledge is put off by Nagarjuna's four option system, I can see you certainly recognize the reasons why; Binary logic gates work great on abstract thought experiments, but almost nothing we talk about in real life is actually simple enough to be adequately matriculated in self-evident binary terms, and instead what we get is interlocutors smuggling in their assumptions and perspective by HOW they boil down the topic to cross that divide between a more complex real-life scenario and the absolutely simplest abstraction of binary logic. I think Justin Sledge is attached to the usefulness and purity of a logical machine universe, and the idea of pluralism, that beyond a certain point, "reality is one, and the wise speak of it differently" must seem to him like a cop-out used to keep the peace; I'd say Heisenberg kinda killed the hopes of a reducibly binary reality.
17:12 It's striking that although spiritual experiences are by nature ineffable and unquantifiable they are nevertheless comparable by virtue of their commonalities. So many individuals throughout esoteric history and into modernity have certain experiences in common, whether it's reincarnation, dreams, synesthesia, near death experiences, the interesting and diverse effects of amnesia, divine revelation, etc. These and many other experiences are universal to all humanity in every history, culture and religion, and yet they are deemed irrational despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For if our Reality is deemed so by the evidence of our senses and our senses translate themselves through our minds actual neurology then our very perception dictates the nature of Reality rather than the reverse. Therefore everything perceived by the mind is inherently Real in some form... And such is the nature of Conciousness.
Speaking to the final discussion at the end about the potential to find unity or comparability of mysticism, we ought to see that we are all speaking about the same reality here. Although our ideas and the way we percieve it and understand it through our minds, influenced by our language and cultural inheritance will be different, we are speaking to the same One, non-dual reality. Even the mystical experiences that mystics experience will express different things based on the mind that it is experienced in and through.
It's usual in Christian mediaeval mysticism for the apophatic strategy to be more applied as a double negation. So, there is a negation of the affirmation, and then a negation of that negation. It avoids the subject being the affirmed statement, whether in its simple affirmation, or its simple negation. This is often described as the 'sleep' of the intellectus, and the continuing life of the affectus - cf. Bonaventure's 'Itinerarium' for its classical statement. It's in his Franciscan tradition especially, that creation is affirmed and the passion of Christ is the ongoing motif for union with God. The passion of Christ is a good example of this double negation in the apophatic method; the life and mission of Christ are negated in his death and the failure of his mission on the cross, and the resurrection negates that negation. His life, mission, and now death, are now realised cosmically, not simply historically, religiously or geographically. And the death bestowing wounds of hate, and now the life giving wounds of love. Both Franciscan and Dominican affective piety and art are pretty strong on this too. There's a lot of this in Denys Turner's work, especially 'The Darkness of God', which has been taken up by several of his students, of whom I'm happy to say that I'm one 🙂
This was very interesting as an academic inquiry on the subject. On a more personal level, how does one discern between mystical experience and hallucinatory visions?
A hallucinatory vision is seeing something that isn't there. Mystical experience is generally assumed to be seeing something that is there but which others can't see. So with a mystical experience if everyone could see it they would see the same thing. As an example: the Fatima Apparition. A hallucination is likely just your subconscious projections, common in psychosis or drug use. I think that Mystical Experience is tapping into the Divine Realm and hallucination is your brain playing tricks on you. There may be some overlap like with how people on DMT tend to see similar things. When it comes to my own journey into mystical traditions I would feel more confident if I knew I could discern that which comes from Spirit and that which comes from my own brain. I do believe I have experienced both.
Let’s talk about this Paige when we do our upcoming Q&A, because i have a feeling that the “mystical experience” is not “there” but right here, and so is the Divine Realm, always right here, right now, it’s simply a matter of becoming aware of reality as it is. It’s for this reason that scholars like Bernard McGinn prefers to speak of “mystical awareness” rather than “experience”. Much love, Thank you for the great question, and i hope we get to discuss this, Zevi
I think there is something within a deep mystic state that reinforces the sense of the Sacred in some capacity holy, blasphemous, or at least quite noteworthy. These latch onto semiotic content and our internalized models in ways which reaffirm our own being by reconjuring an Essence of The True thing towards our icons (in my sense sharing a notion with models ). This reconnects our being with something in a way that no longer has the experience of 'aesthetics'. My own icon in this fight is a Marxist-inspired one in that there was something at least commonly deep within us about the needs of a social being that regularly appears in mystics through a renewed 'Love of their Own Being' which then wishes to engage in social being with renewed vigor.
52:10 what Justin is saying about human´s capacity of understanding the real nature of reality and evolution is being scientifically proposed by Donald Hoffman and mathematically by Nima Arkani-Hamed
Great discussion. In talking about paraconsistent logics the part of the conversation 40:30 to 51:00 was unfortunately a bit inacurate. Justin spoke of the principle of explosion, which indeed would undermine truth were a contradiction to hold in a logic with explosion as a principle. However, the principle of explosion is not valid in paraconsitent logic. In fact, formally, the class of paraconsostent logics can be defined as all logics where the principle of explosion is not universally valid. Different paraconsistent logics have different features that render explosion invalid. Relevance logics, for example, require that the arguments of an inference are syntactically related to the conclusions (in a formally precise way). In that case we can't derive an arbitray statement Q from a contraction P & not-P because in general Q will not be subformula of P. All this is to say I think there is even less to worry about when interpresting mystical writers as rejecting the law of non-contradiction. Paraconsistent logic makes it clear that there are rigorous ways one can endorse a true contradiction without thereby destroying truth or reason.
@@SeekersofUnity You mentioned Graham Priest in the episode. He is a great source for the philosophy of paraconsistent logic and dialetheism. While he is not a mystic himself, he does engage deeply with the paradoxical thought expressed by mystics. In his book, Beyond the Limits of Thought, he traces the history of paradox in both philosophical and mystical thinkers in the West. In his book One he discusses the paradoxes of Plato's Parmenides. In his more recent book, The Fifth Corner of Four, he proposes paraconsistent logical systems based the texts of on various Eastern thinkers including Nagarjuna. One interesting theme in Graham's thought is that he rejects ineffability. He claims that ineffability in relation to the paradoxes of metaphysics is necessitated by the legacy of Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction. Once we loosen this requirement and allow for true contradictions in a paraconsistent logic, then we can directly and literally talk about metaphysical truths that so many mystics have felt compelled to express through oblique, indirect, or poetic language. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him about this, but it certainly an interesting perspective to consider.
Sunyata is not merely emptiness as in "nothing" but that everything does not exist in and of itself but is interconnected with everything else. This matches up well with Adi-Shankara's teaching of non dualness. Even though the doctrinally both Adviata Vedanta differ they don't seem to differ much from a philosophy or their meditative experiences. In fact Adi Shankara was accused to be a crypto Buddhist and it's been discovered that the early teachings of the Buddha unlike later schools like Theravada which it's scriptures defined the most ancient of Buddhism up until recently actually did not deny the Vedic understanding of Self but his teaching of No Self was to make his students understand what is NOT the Self but after identifying these 5 skandas (components of the false self) then one can realize the True Self. In this sense, Nibbana (Nirvana) would be identical to Moksha.
Thank you for this conversation! I’ve had several mystical experiences and by no means consider myself enlightened, nor attribute the experiences to God or divinity. It is my opinion that prophecy and revelation are not part of the mystical experience but the remnants of ego and culture one is in. Prophecy and revelation is narcissism, plain and simple.
Not that I know a fraction of what you or Justin knows, but, I do agree with you in that the mystical experiences described by the mystics are, in essence, the same. Like I describe to my friends, the mystical experience is one both infinitely equal and eternally distinct from one person to another. My "we're all carbon-based structures" is another man's "we're all the one", to oversimplify it.
This is an incredibly fascinating discussion. I am truly enjoying it, as both a Greek, an adopted Jew, a philosopher and as a mystic. You may be interested in reading my poorly written book entitled 'Resoundingly Human: Aphorisms, Reflections and Poems' by Debby Emeth. You may find this on Amazon if you so wish. You two men have made me more understand my own mystical experience. Thank you so much for this!
Zevi - So happy to have this important conversation with you. So much respect for you thoughtful, careful approach to mysticism and your content generally. What important work you are doing !
Thank you Justin. What a pleasure.
Thanks for having this conversation... it would be cool if you guys talked again and explored logic and infinity (cantor godel etc) 😎
@@timberfinn I've a fairly comprehensive logistic on the nature of an extant infinite and how it "creates" finite form.
@@timberfinn
I think that's pretty much the point where this topic branches off into a *"Theory of Everything".* If they make that turn, they might not find a "logical" place to stop. LOL
I think great too.
Found you through Justin's Esoterica video on Neoplatonism and I found Justin through Let's Talk Religion who I found through Religion For Breakfast. Love all of you and your work its been a breath of fresh air to find a community of people on UA-cam who are spiritually inclined but not insane. The grounded academic approach is incredibly important, appreciated and needed.
Justin has such a fierce intellect. It's hard not to be intimidated by such a rigorous thinker. Thankfully, he's also warm, kind and gracious.
It's not. It can be so if you like. Don't you think intimidate is in the person who experience it?
You may reason or about intimidating but...
I see two persons talking and both not appearing very intimated. Both see each other reasonable enough that there is no need for because they dare to assume there is nothing indicated a problem would arise within the self or other or both...
Powerhouses may seem intimidating but in there reason they prefer not to use that power to blow the other away... Its not practically to do so for you need to shout over distance. Smile.
Just a word from me to you...
There is no need to be intimidated.
Beside that you are able, value yourself. Don't let shadows of others... Hold you back. Rather use them for shadow when it's warm lol. In faith.
@@imaginaryphi1618I would say Justin is very intimidated by mystics
Greetings from a physicist and a Buddhist! I really appreciated the philosophical rigour of the conversation. Very refreshing.
Thank you friend. Glad you appreciated it. Welcome to the channel 🙏🏼
Hey if you see this could you recommend a book or two or more which approaches physics from a spiritual angle which isn't wooey, insane or scientifically inaccurate? I study both physics and world religions/philosophy in my spare time but have never found a good book which doesn't veer too off the path of science. The closest I've found is The Dancing Wu Li Masters but it's kinda outdated nowadays as science has advanced a great deal since then. Anything similar and more up to date come to mind?
Maybe the paradox that exists without application of logical propositions is the same kind of paradox as superposition (in physics) related to relativity.
6:19 Book: Varieties of religious experiences by William James
7:11 Article: The logic of mysticism by John Findlay
10:02 A concise introduction to logic by Patrick j hurley
11:13 Ethica by Spinoza
11:45 A study of mohist logic by yang wuhn
11:50 Buddhist Logic by th. Stcherbatsk
17:17 The idea of holy: An inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational by RUDOLF OTTO
20:30 Mysticism and Language by STETVEN T. KATZ
26:02 the port-royal logic
26:50 The foundadtions of arithmetic by GOTTLOB FREGE
27:24 Principia Mathematica by whitehead and russell
34:55 Mysticism by EVELYN UNDERHILL
44:20 why Contradiction is not acceptable
Was jesus parables mystical or just everyday examples that fishermen and shepherds could relate. And jesus was the logos himself
I absolutely love that when one of them talks, the other holds their beard 😅🤣🤣 so perfect, what a great talk
Two of the coolest content creators on UA-cam in one show? Outstanding! Perfect topic for this progssive hunanist Christian. I had a mystical experience 15 years ago. If you ever get to drink from that fountain beneath our conscious being, it changes everything. Spiritual intoxication is a real danger. Never underestimate something just because it's "in your head."
Sharing the fluidity of knowledge through well mannered and thought-out discourse and play is as good as it gets.
Thank you Michael. Glad to be a part of it.
As a writer looking to tackle global mysticism, you guys helped bring to focus my dilemmas in how to treat the subject, if it is one subject, esp with varying degrees of understanding for the religious environment each flavor of mysticism was born from. I now have a grip on where we are in this conversation. 🙏 Phenomenal work
Hi Alicia. Thank you so much. So glad to hear this was helpful. I’d love to hear about your work and about what you’re doing. Feel free to reply here or drop us an email 🙏🏼
Esoterica is a great channel. I love the jokes Dr. Sledge does throughout every download.
They're so so so dry it's amazing. He delivers jokes with the same tone he describes the intricacies of an ineffable Monad. Love it.
I have never used this feature to give thanks, because I have also never felt so deeply understood in having, what has mostly been a frustrated and stunted internal monologue, been so incredibly played out and explored by such incredible seekers of truth with such honesty and rigour ❤ Thank you both from the bottom of my being.
You’re very welcome. I’m glad the dialogue resonated so deeply with you. Thank you.
This is one of the most important conversations we can have as a species.
Period.
It always has been.
G_d bless you both for bringing your substantial dedication and scholarship to it for us.
WOW!
🔥
Incidentally, because you _both_ speed-talk, I've dropped the playback speed down to .75 and now it's normal. 🤭
Love you both!!!
Thank you Jennifer ☺️🙏🏼 Just glad to be a part of it.
😋 good move 🙈😘
@@SeekersofUnity
🙏💙
I feel blessed, we (the audience) can see these kind of intellectual conversations about one of the most important and most fascinating subjects talked about by two people i really admire on their knowledge and their very unique and pleasant personalities.
Thank you Art. It’s a pleasure to have them with such a fine thinker, scholar and friend and to people like you join us to think carefully about such important subjects.
@@SeekersofUnity before YT gave rise as platform for the more interesting things in life, about life etc. i dreamed sometimes imagining that Bruno or Spinoza, Mozes de leon, Chaim Vital, to name a few of all philosophers, kabbalists, etc could have been talking to eachother if there was internet ( and lived in eachothers times), that remained a fantasy untill you and others started this on YT and all the knowledge of the ages finds a way through you and others as medium for the wisdom and sometimes very ancient wisdom.
For me its a miracle and very thankful i live in these times.
Btw do you know Mircea Eliade ( the sacred & the profane) also a very Interesting study with some of these topics.
Yes. I’ve read a good deal of his work :)
@@SeekersofUnity that was a bit naive of me to think that i can bring something new to the table for someone as well-read as you!
🤐🙂
This reminds me of an essay by Aleister Crowley I read in The Equinox Volume 1 No 2 yesterday. In “The Psychology of Hashish” he brings up many of these points a hundred years ago. As you said if the mystics are right it’s crazy that this isn’t being discussed more in intellectual circles. Great discussion guys!
The more they discuss it and take drugs, the more brain damaged they get, so...
Twenty minutes in so far. Excellent discussion. He is underscoring the logic of one of my core arguments from religious experience: “ I am completely rationally justified to believe in that which I clearly perceive “ to do anything other then that would not only be irrational, but, depending on how strong and real the experience was to the perceiver: borderline crazy.
I think this is the essence of mysticism. Your videos are really good. We seem to be on the same page about a lot of stuff.
7:45 Rationality is an amazingly undefined phenomena!! It's qualified by "normalcy", and "normal" is a relative term based on cultural and ideological upbringing, language, the accepted behaviors of others in society, family dynamics, economic status, ecology, etc. Etc. Etc. These are All fluid and change over time, (or what we perceive as 'time'). Down to the Individual level changes in mood, energy levels, health, accidents or incidents, relationships to all of the above will inevitably be percieved as normal or abnormal variably and almost entirely by exposure. One hardly thinks about what is normal or rational for themselves outside of habit or routine, save when in relationship to or comparison to someone or something outside of themselves. We should stop considering life experiences and interactions in general as normal or abnormal and therefore rational or irrational, but rather as simply Real, and perhaps in more present terms.
Introvertive as opposed to extravertive mystical experiences show many differences. Another good point to bring up would be that two mystics may experience the same phenomena but articulate their findings much differently, much like two people experiencing the perception of the same apple. There may be a difference in the perception of the actual colour. We can even go so far as to say that one may like that particular shade of green, while the other may detest it. I think you're right Zevi regarding the universality of the inherent qualities of the introvertive mystical experience. You are both amazing individuals. Much love! Lechaim!!
Around 55:00 , it is exactly what Lupasco found. He was trying to resolve the contradictions the quantum world was showing (where light can be both wave AND particles) and he found a system that can be applied to... everything ! Energy is the result of contradiction and so is the psyche. The law of contradiction still stands, of course, but the middle included that contains the contradiction relies on another level of reality. The mystics have access to that other level of reality, non-dual (often outside time ; no past and no future), from which comes our dual perspective.
Thank you Jean for sharing that. I'm going to look him up. Sorry your other comments got deleted. UA-cam does that sometimes when links are posted.
@@SeekersofUnity He covers so many topics adressed in the discussion (and the one you had with John and Guy (which was really great discussion), you'll see, I think you'll like him because it will confort you in your attempt to find a universal common ground for mysticism when it comes to the coincidentia oppositorum ... I think one of his colleague, Basarab Nicolescu, wrote in English about Lupasco's work but Brenner will be a good intro.
Great channel by the way Zevi, keep up the good work!
So glad to listen to two scholars exploring these ideas in a deep and skillful way!
The two of you in conversation is food for my mind. Thank you.
You’re most welcome. Thank you for joining us Karen 🙏🏼
The combination of logic/rationality and mystery/arcana is exactly what I love about the Esoterica channel.
Zevi and Justin, thank you both for having this dialogue, which has raised the bar for me in my studies. I have learned much here, just by intently listening, not the least of which is that I still have much to learn 🤓 especially as pertains to logic. Wow. The “isms” abound, don’t they? Human logic and reason certainly have their limits, but they are useful tools. Trying to communicate the essence of something as complex as reality itself or a numinous experience via human verbal language is a daunting task. We (and our evolved languages) are shaped by nature/nurture factors. There is a humility, I believe, that must be protected and cultivated alongside this gift of intelligence we possess. Justin mentioned a charitable nature, which demonstrates genuine respect via matching the rigor of the mature mystics. We must give them serious consideration, using our gifts of understanding in various fields of knowledge as a means of reflection-the more varied perspectives, the better. For life itself is diverse, yet unified by patterns. We all pick up on different patterns, depending upon a number of factors-life experience, intellect, education, personality, etc. but I do believe that at the heart of mysticism is an essence of intimacy, which is based in emotion. Emotions are quite nuanced and difficult to describe in a consistent manner. Our experiences are subjective, by nature. When we try to relate an emotional experience through the language of logic, we remove its essence. Music is an emotional language, as is art. Poetry, parables, and other modalities which are emotionally evocative are, in my opinion, more semantically appropriate languages for the mystic. I recently read a story to my students, which expressed the need to listen with your eyes and your heart, not just your ears. I found this to express a simple, yet profound truth. Having a more comprehensive understanding of and appreciation for how humans communicate via all 5 senses is, I think, needful for defining (not just in words) this underlying unity amongst all mystics and seekers of unity. I feel it, too Zevi ☺️ We are ONE. Blessings to both of you 🕊
A conversation that has not aged. A pleasure to listen to & hear ideas that are still troubling thinkers today. I feel that I still have lots of homework to do to understand all that was discussed. So I'll keep seeking.
Well, I've been skirting around this dense but delightful subject (pushing upward, earth above mountain below, so to speak) and have discovered this rigourous philosophical debate, Esotericism, which does not look down on mysticism, but seeks to appreciate its analogical constant. This is a great gift. I simply don't have the resources or possibly even the time, but at least by listening to all these wonderful discussions, I will absorbed some of what has fascinated and entranced, and reached me in dreams and wonderful moments of insight - flashes of Wisdom - during a lifetime. Thank you. This appeals hugely and is profoundly enjoyable.
Brilliant and inspiring. After a day full of sweet remembrances of St.John of the Cross, this video made a fitting end to a very nice day. Thank You both.
You're most welcome.
Your comment make a very nice start to what will hopefully be a sweet day. Thank you.
This is fantastic. Thanks for this, gentlemen. Now gonna go look for the sequel.
Our pleasure. Thank you Matthew.
In my personal experience I had tried casting some magick circles rooted in the Key of Solomon style. I tried it a couple times with no result...but I was very very logical at the time. I was pretty much an atheist but was open minded enough to try it. But it wasn't until I threw myself into it 100% and just dropped my left brained approach to the ritual that it finally worked with dramatic result. And by dramatic I mean I physically seen and heard spirits outside the circle. But it takes a certain amount of "letting oneself go", which is something Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa says in his "Three Books of Occult Philosophy" 1510.
Yeah I feel like it's really a leap of faith dude. Faiths bizare.
Magic performed with faith and kept secret, even kept out of one's own thoughts as much as possible after casting, WILL have an effect beyond what mere chance could reasonably account for. I speak from experience.
1:29:26 “the cruel irony of a species that is aware of its own existence, without the emotional capacity to understand it” paraphrasing exurbia or some other UA-cam philosopher. I kept thinking about this line during this whole wonderful conversation.
Ooh, nice!
This is a heroic task, the very foundation of a mysitcal worldview presents an incompatibility with rational thought. That said, the question is a valid one and, in the attempt to answer it, a great deal of valuable information comes to light. Fantastic work and admirable thoroughness displayed by both parties; this is indeed an important conversation. They do so much to bring the dialogue to students in a way that can easily be engaged with and facilitates a deeper understanding of the mystical traditions.
Thank you friend. I’m glad you’re here to share in it with us.
such a great discussion the best, really, and how very very rarely encountered in traditional academic contexts
Thank you Ante. Glad you’re enjoying it.
I'm on my like 4th watch on this one. Can't get enough!
Absolutely riveting conversation. Thoroughly enjoyed it. So much food for thought.
Fascinating discussion guys. Opened up a lot of different topics I need to get educated on.
I like that there's still a big disagreement here: is mysticism unified globally? Dr. Justin Sledge says it is not and Zevi says it at least rhymes. The perspectives work well to center the definition of mysticism when they ask whether mystics were rational. The two answers coming out of the conversation sound like "mystics are rational in the logical considerations of their schools of thought" (Justin) and "there is a hidden logic common to all mysticism" (Zevi). I think you can use either POV based on your needs. If you want to understand how Eckhart logically established the ground as the primary reality, Justin's POV helps more. If you want to establish a mystical genre of thought as a global phenomenon and part of "philosophy," Zevi's POV is more helpful. At the end, they make sure to acknowledge the logical calculation inherent in major mystics, whether or not that means taking mystics at a time or together.
This is a really well put reflection on a super dense conversation. Thanks!
My personal favorite Leftbrainer and Rightbrainer discussing this subject as our contemporarys. Bought beautifully balanced in their stance which makes the listening of this dialog a wonderful experiance.
A warm hearted scholar, of righteous pragmatism meets a radiant poetic philosopher of great benevolence.
We can only rejoice to this opportunity and I personally hope that you will have time and desire to come back to us with more similar discussions . You are bringing to us the great personal insight grounded within the best of the diversity of the culture that you represent.
Sincer gratitude 🙏
Jascha Heifetz Itzhak Perlman Leonid Kogan this artists of highest virtuosity are a testimony of what is like when left nad right are aligned in the name of Beauty
Rigour and stucture meet poetic inspiration and hearts aspiration for the divine
I wouder if you would be interested in giving an insight on the writing of Nikola Tesla, the scientist inventor and the mystic, Specifically on his essay How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinys
Thanks to bought of you 💟💟
Blessings guys keep up the great videos
Thank you 🙏🏼
Thank you Zevi for this interview! Dr. Sledge is one of my most favourite persons! Bless you both!!😊👍
You're most welcome. Mine too ;)
Dr. Sledge is the go to for all things Esoteric.
I would live to see he and Robert Sepehr have some great conversation
When I had my experiences ... I did not know how to assume facts or truths from them so i didn't try for a long time. I just let the experiences happen. At first, I thought i was just reviewing the furniture of my soul - especially, when my experiences seemed to trend towards to the Christian, I was honestly terrified.
The most impressive experiences seem to be beyond words, I've tried to describe them.
I can speak of what i learned as fiction,fantasy --- or metaphors .... I've been trying to write about the experiences and what they seemed to imply, but even speaking of them...seems to be profaning them. I want to paint a picture or tell a story ... create a world, the art of the soul's journey? I wish I could find the right form of art to express myself... it is like journeying to a distant world and returning ... and realizing, you don't have the vocabulary to describe what you saw.
Hmm, the eternal challenge of the mystic indeed ;)
@@SeekersofUnity Certo! words fail. Art fails, craft fails. How to you describe something beyond words? Light, Love, an down-pouring of Love, sheets of energy?? Beauty. simply beauty. I've always wondered what poor angel lost his job when he put my name on the wrong list. :-)
I am certainly not a likely mystic. A hard working housewife/Widow? Right now, I have to cut up some boxes and put them in recycling, put the chickens in their coop.. clean up the garage. I've got mice in there, once again. Hate killing things. Even vermin.
I'm just delaying the work by writing this..
@@kathleenhensley5951
Gosh, I can so relate.
💙
1 year ago, says UA-cam. I wonder how I missed this one. Appreciate you both. ❤️ 🙏
Appreciate you. Enjoy :)
All is one love is all. One is love and so is him.
Two of my favorite thinkers having open discourse 🍻 looking forward to the chat!
I hope you enjoyed it ☺️🙏🏼
Thanks so much! Brilliant minds picking up the pieces and trying to put them together.
You’re most welcome. Thank you friend 🙏🏼
Great content as usual. I am not much of an intellectual or philosopher so some of the more technical aspects of this discussion are lost on me but what really resonated with me with this was philosophies eventual rejection of mysticism that you both touched upon. As someone who cherishes certain experiences in my life above all others this rejection has largely turned me off from philosophy post-Spinoza (I loved your videos on Spinoza) in some part due to their attitude and their inability to take mystical experiences seriously. I'd like to think the 'goal' of philosophy would somehow inevitably lead to such experiences. Rather than mysticism being irrational I personally think that after exhausting rational thought it leads to something 'supra-rational' or above it.
Someone like Abulafia and his prophetic Kabbalah to me embodies this type of rational or logical mysticism in a way that resonates with me. Or something like Aquinas's remarks at the end of his career after his experience says so much. Even reading Maimonides talk about prophecy to me indicates someone who has had a glimpse of what the prophets experienced. It's hard for me to accept someone who speaks so intimately and authoritatively on the experience of the prophets had not at least experienced a small part of it themselves.
Anyways, I hope that made a little sense :) Your channel really touches on a really interesting and I'd say important niche. It is quite comforting to me to see you bridging certain subjects I've pondered myself (albeit with far, far less sophistication on my part) in some of your content. Take care and keep at it!
Thank you so much for this message. Making the Spinoza videos was really fun so I'm glad you enjoyed watching. (I'd recommend checking out William James as another post-Spinoza philosopher who takes mystical experience seriously).
Ya, there are a bunch of logical/philosophical mystics throughout history, in every tradition. Abulafia is one such example. One of the things we're really trying to do at the channel here is to highlight those serious mystics, to open a new dialog and way of thinking about mysticism, as a serous option for an intelligent 21st century human to consider, and as a positive direction forward for humanity at large, as opposed to something backward, arcane, superstitious and 'woo,' as it's often seen and portrayed.
Thank you for your kind feedback. This project will only have a chance at achieving the aforementioned if it succeeds at uniting seekers, in joining our forces and energy towards what we believe to be good, true and beautiful. So thank you for joining. Good to have you in the Seekers community.
For Unity.
Zevi!
I’ve been meaning to get to this for a bit on my watch list, until this early AM since I couldn’t sleep. Perfect time to watch through the whole thing though.
Great convo! Justin is a powerhouse yet the thought I was left with is that he views things through a predominantly “Constructivist” lens despite his crazy depth of knowledge about mystics. So he sees the issues but somehow can’t seem to relate deeply to them IMO. Reminds me of Wouter Hanegraaff in a way, who probably played a large part in his Western Esotericism studies.
Obviously, I adhere to a Perennial outlook ( note that I DON’T say philosophy because “words get in the way”).
I wish that you had both gotten into the underlying fundamental aspect of the mystic vision (which includes the “Christian” beatific vision) which is Light! This is the near-universal aspect of mystical experiences from diverse traditions and based on my own experience I feel that it plays a role linking the material and the spiritual realms.
Have you ever heard of Robert Forman? In his THE INNATE CAPACITY, he discusses how the “philosophical mystics” themselves argue that the deepest mystical core experience of the nondual Light of Pure Consciousness involves an innate capacity of the processes of Consciousness itself which goes beyond their own culturally indoctrinated conceptions and perceptions.
Unfortunately I think that our limited understanding about Logic (and the whole development of Philosophy after the Axial Age) gets in the way. Your discussion on the Pre-Socratics is spot on since the whole “Science-Religion” divide doesn’t seem to be present then from the fragments we have. The importance of fire in Heraclitus, and even Empedocles, again points in the direction of light. And Parmenides is sort of mind blowing in his assertion that “all is one” and yet he posed constraints on both language and thought in stating that we cannot speak or think about things that are not real/do not exist.
Anyway, I hope you can both discuss the whole issue of Light in mysticism in a future episode.
Thank you friend. I’ve been meaning to.
Fascinating and brilliant discussion
Late to the party on this particular stream, but I'm a practicing mystic working on my own interdisciplinary grimoire (for lack of a better word) and the very first of seven points deals with the question of if/how mystical and magic experiences can be quantified or verified and what good methodology on the part of the individual can look like to that end. I'm not really connected to the academic community on this but I highly value historical accuracy and scholarly integrity, and it's exciting to be part of this blossoming field of research. Esoterica is an invaluable resource for me and my work. Thank you.
You’re most welcome Robert 🙏🏼
Yes, Justin ✊🏼
I'm new to your channel (coming over from Justin's), and really enjoyed this conversation! What you were saying about hating the word "transcendent" and replacing it with the "sub-strata of reality" (or at least conflating them) reminded me of Deleuze and Guattari in "What is Philosophy?"
Thank you Douglas. Glad you enjoyed it. I’ll have to get to reading those two. Thanks for the rec 🙏🏼
Definitions:
0:7:45 *Logic:* the ability to draw truth via inference.
There are logical structures that we've discovered and that these logical structures, when applied to propositions (and this is a bit of debate: does logic apply to reality in sort of a general way or does it apply merely to propositions?) placed into those inferential structures, the truth drops out. Weirdly enuf. We can deduce or induce the truth and theoretically - assuming all that is supposed to work - we discovered what 20 or 30 of those inferential structures (things like Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens or De Morgan's) and ideally logic is the ability to generate truth from inference.
Now the question is: how much broader can we zoom out logic to where we go, it's simply a way of talking about propositions and the truth values of propositions, how to deduce things from the relationship among propositions?; all the way out to, is logic a fundamental structure of reality?
And it goes again to this question: is logic something we invent or something we discover? And if it's something we discover, and that reality is somehow governed or structured by it the way, for instance, the way the stoics thot, alot rides on that.
0:12:54 *Rationality in Relation to Logic*
There are probably 5 different competing theories in different domains from game theory, to economics to philosophy about what exactly rationality is.
I will say, before trying to get some theory of what rationality is - and then what I'm gonna say is going to be so trite and almost circular, and this is the problem with rationality: defining it - is that certainly logic is subsumed under... any theory of rationality is going to include logic. That seems relatively obvious to me.
_[personal comment: last 2 statements are propositions that I may or may not agree with. But we have to start somewhere. I'm glad you used the words "obvious to me". This is a good habit to get into, methinks.]_
What that larger idea of what rationality is is really elusive and I think that philosophers are not honest enuf about the fact that we don't have a great definition of what rationality is because there's sort of 2 competing things we want to say: one, we want to say something like rationality is basically the principle of sufficient reason. That all true propositions have a reason why they're that way and not another way. That they are that way because of some other reason. That is to say rationality [is] simply being able to provide good reasons for your beliefs. The problem with that: being able to provide good reasons for your beliefs is _what the hell are good reasons?_
0:17:18 *Irrational vs. Non-rational*
A proposition is irrational if it contains a real contradiction.
A proposition is non-rational if it contains a truth that is not subject to logic.
Or if the propositional content can't be expressed.
*I have tried to Google the definitions of the jargon you're using and it's just not matching up. I trust you. I understand you better. But some of it like Modus Ponens/Tollens are past my paygrade. I'm intelligent, but I'm not an academic. I know you are speaking to academics as well as us non-a's, but if you could post links to references _that you trust_ to define the Jargon, I will do the rest of the work myself. 👣👣👣🔎
Speaking of Ancient Greece...
The logic/logos thing... Back in the day, they used the term "intellect" and I've gathered over the years that this is an assumption that logic is a fundamental structure of reality. I got here because I continuously looked for a distinction between logos and the "direct knowing" that one can potentially gain thru certain "mystical" experience. But all I could find was the term "intuition". And that didn't fit either. Even the Gnostics seemed to make this assumption. This was a source of deep frustration for me because I've had certain experiences and so I know directly that the knowledge gained that way cannot be gained using either intellect nor - reliably - thru intuition.
I finally found someone make the distinctions to my satisfaction, tho:
Ancient India...
Under the heading of "Patterns of Consciousness", Patanjali states:
_"1 :5 There are 5 types of Patterns, including both hurtful and benign._
_1 :6 They are Right Perception, Misperception, Conceptualization, Deep Sleep and Remembering._
_1 :7 Right Perception arises from Direct Observation, Inference or The Words of Others._
_1 :8 Misperception is False Knowledge, not based in what really is._
_1 :9 Conceptualization derives from Linguistic Knowledge, not contact with real things._
_1 :10 Deep Sleep is a pattern grounded in the perception that nothing exists._
_1 :11 Remembering is the retention of experiences."_
I know that I need to delve into the work of Noam Chomsky on the Linguistic Knowledge bits, but I haven't been able to penetrate his Jargon yet. Still working on that. I know that he has an important piece.
0:16:07 [etymology] *Rational*
ratio? [can't find a source]
To compare
This is where the difficulties come.
Direct Knowing _is_ ineffable.
But because you want to avoid being called "irrational", you try and compare it to things anyway, and this is when you end up saying stuff that doesn't work. You create paradoxes. And that's the best you can do. You end up declaring 2 or more things that don't agree with one another as all true:
*The World is Illusion*
*Only Brahman is Real*
*Brahman is the World*
*Cast your bread upon the waters*
*After many days it will return to you*
etc.
Hearers/Listeners, then come to believe that the Knowledge is "difficult to understand" but that it is possible if you're intelligent/rational/reasonable/logical enuf. And they argue about it. And when people disagree to the point of getting angry enuf, they murder.
And this is one reason why the Rule of Silence is almost universally given.
🤫
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ratio#Latin
Timelines
0:23:00 *5th-6th Century B.C.E.* Logic appears in history the way we understand it now simultaneously in China, India and Greece. *_Which is weird, btw!!!_* [personal note: I love _that_ conversation too, but it's risky and not time to bring it up here.]
In the early Greek context we have:
620's - 490's B.C. _Thales & Pythagoras_ (showing first formal deductions)
***Added later***
Pre-Socratics:
510's B.C. _Parmenides & Heraclitus_ (Inventing logic and metaphysics at the same time. Blended logic and faith/mysticism comfortably)
430's - 260's B.C. _ Megarians: Euklid of Magera & Zeno of Kiteon_ (systematizing the previous)
380's - 320's B.C. _Aristotle_ ( 0:24:25 Syllogism. Deduction. Also is developed in China and India )
280's B.C. - 120's A.D. _Stoics: Chrisippos, Marcus Aurelius, Epictet & Seneca_ (further systematizing the previous. Propositional logic & Modality.)
Islamic Scholars:
1126 - 1198 A.D. _Averroes or Ibn Rushd_ (Adding more and making it more sophisticated)
People
European context:
People (Square of opposition)
1590's - 1650's _Descartes_ (Port-Royal Logic)
People
1840's - 1920's _Frege_ (Modern propositional logic as we know it)
People (huge strides in Modern logic)
1840's - 1970's _Frege, Kurt Godel, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead_ (Mathematizing of logic)
[My words]
Division of logic from mysticism is a mistake.
0:33:37 When Plato is taught today, all of his mysticism is deleted. Also, when mystics are taught, a pretense to logic is sometimes added that wasn't originally there and damages both mysticism and logic. (Evelyn Underhill)
0:35:52 Fruitful Disagreement:
Out of my wheelhouse. LOL
But I think this is a good example of what you're talking about:
_"Neither this... nor... not this."_
~Nagarjuna
And similarly:
_"...neither himself... nor other."_
~Pseudo Dionysius
Thank you, and thanks to Justin for making this video. I've always been deeply interested in studying philosophy and religion, and I decided before I really take the plunge and study these topics rigorously I should take the time to at least study basic logic. I started doing just that, but something I noticed very early on is how the logical laws of the excluded middle and contradiction seem to be at odds with what I have read of the mystics (such as Daoism, my preferred path). However, after watching this beginning to end I can now see how logic and mysticism can be reconciled together. Also, I had my own gut feelings about how the two could be reconciled, and it seems that in some ways my beliefs aligned with your's and Justin's. Again, I thank the both you and I found this video to be very insightful and valuable.
What this talk cemented for me beyond it's soteriological value is how different systems of mysticism rely so heavily on their use of language and storytelling in order to establish authority. The more naturalistic systems, to me, establish a far more liberating and unifying experience, if only in the detachment they offer from cultural conversations. It's very much the same contrast that plays out in politics where many things can be true and yet fail to coexist, demanding for us to choose what kind of world we really want to live in and be willing to let cherished traditions of the past go as a ruling precedent for the direction we want civilization to move forward in unity. Where the mystical experience shows us our connection to a divine sense of reality, so we must be willing to be creators of the truth and respect the seriousness of that role, rather than fight like children over what our absent parents would have wanted.
Was very interesting to see ESOTRICA been sympathetic to softening the need for Law of excluded middle, seems to be something more and more people are taking seriously.
When great beards meet... Good crossover.
_Barba non facit philosophum_ but in this case..
Great talk! If you're looking for philosophers in the analytic tradition who are interested in mysticism, you might enjoy Raymond Smullyan. He wasn't just a logician; he was a MATHEMATICAL logician, which in those circles is as badass as you can get. Yet his most-read book is probably The Tao Is Silent, a series of whimsical essays inspired by his interest in Daoism.
My two favorite people on the spiritual path!
I glad you picked misticks apart. It help me to understand me better
awesome!
Thank you.
Wonderful!! Ty gentlemen. Thank you
You’re most welcome 🙏🏼
잘 봤습니다. 덕분에 많이 배워갑니다.
As I've put it before on mystics, having my own experiences, they get a piece of the truth but the more they try express it the more it becomes a distortion of that truth. There is a reason for them to share and try to articulate despite it becoming a distortion. Partly it allows the indescribable fundamental reality to anchor into this reality, there are a lot who get lost in this and fall towards a grandeur delusion that they are solely the one anchoring it when they are really just a piece of the anchor that became aware of it. The other reason could be viewed as a sort of how bats navigate, sending out messages that make waves in order to reach others that can understand them. So what is spoken may be distorted but the words used can sometimes provoke the visualization or the feeling of that mystical experience in others meant to experience.
I do not believe there is any meritable reason on which individuals get exposed to these experiences, it seems as if it just happens because it has to.
Really fair points. I resonated with all of it.
More of this...please
Great conversation. I think when we start talking about the differences in mystic experiences we have to remember that mystics are still people and are still going to have their own experience and place they come from. They aren't going to be able to interpret their experience of the divine ( or however we want to phrase it) through the lens of a culture they have never experienced. I think there is something of a through line for all these experiences but that doesn't mean that someone is going to suddenly drop their bias and start agreeing with people thousands of years apart.
Hey Otto. Glad you enjoyed it. Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. You might enjoy this video where we go into those exact questions in greater detail: ua-cam.com/video/n_RJQS-JRwM/v-deo.html
Enjoy,
Zevi
Been doing a lot of thinking on this subject and connected it to these conversations.
The model of Rationality I'm constantly encountering is simulacrum rather than simulation, because Reason is a (useful) habituation tool. It reprioritizes our models using attentional-sites based on how evocative they are along the lines of affect and prioritization (such as morals). It arrives at useful data by how effectively it manages the aggregation of world experience data but to actually do that it needs to maintain a strong semiotic continuity. It is why experts are useful (focus on gathering a set of experience data) but also not believed without some prioritizing content, and then "anti-Reason" movements sometimes take this towards the limits of concept creduility by Reason itself while losing what that logic is trying to do.
It's related to how everybody sorta fakes communication? We have to draw from our semiotic commonalities but to communicate we have to turn these into transmissible symbol content. But without that semiotic continuity between people and an ability to be receptive enough to interpret where incongruities might appear they talk past each other.
Like, in Logic there arise concepts like 'P-Zombies'. What does it mean for a Person without an inner Being?
Concept-wise it makes "sense" because we can have models of both, but semiotically it doesn't collapse into anything on the inner Being side.
It's the NOT; it can been anything and thus it means nothing. It is purely evocative of something that our reasoning thinks *should* be there.
And this is why I think people should try reading Jenna Moran's Philosophical Treatise masquerading as a TTRPG setting.
(assisting content towards my reasoning: See the failures of 'Falsification' to demonstrate usefulness in how science is done and Thomas Kuhn, the polarization in binaries e.g. Science vs Mysticism, the conflicts of Modernity, etc.)
EDIT: Rewatching is probably why I connected it with my own explorations. It was hard to keep track of all the concepts as discrete (I have poor concentration and memory) nor could I properly inculcate them into my own models but they sort of collapse into this, and it is a sort of, to us the evocative potential, a Quantum Logic that isn't about deniable reality as much as arriving at a point of useful data.
Nice conversation, thoroughly enjoyed it. A point that stuck with me from this was the limitation of language. When I stumbled across quantum grammar after many hours spent comparing religions and philosophy I find it really hard to be able to sit and listen to most anything being discussed on esoteric subjects. Just wanted to say I appreciate what seems to be a non dogmatic approach here.
Thank you friend. Glad you appreciated it. Thank you for joining us.
All this conversation about contradictions embedded into the metaphysics of mysticism reminds me of the union of opposites in Hermeticism.
Right on.
Great talk. What struck me as a concern is Dr. Sledge presupposing his own philosophical and logical commitments. For instance, when (at 1:35:45) Dr. Sledge claims that Zevi has to provide an argument for compatibilism (of contradictory perspectives), he is presuming that his view -- that is, the standard, analytic philosophical approach -- is correct.
Why? Because Zevi could appeal to compatibilism as a presupposition just as much as Dr. Sledge implicitly appeals to his own presuppositions. Dr. Sledge never provides an argument for his own presupposition (that the law of non-contradiction is true). In this, I think we find his analytic bias, one that is dominant in almost every graduate philosophy program in North America. Either they both have to provide arguments for their presuppositions, or neither of them do -- and this is something that Dr. Sledge conveniently ignores. Of course, espousers of dominant positions -- whether philosophical, logical, or political -- always seem to behave the same way: the minority view is expected to take down the majority view instead of vice-versa, or instead of differing views being accorded the same respect from the start.
For me, Zevi's approach is much more open and holistic. It is evident, in the way he speaks, that he does not have this indoctrinated aversion to accepting contradictions that Dr. Sledge demonstrates. Indeed, every time an argument for accepting contradictions arises, Dr. Sledge's face tenses up. And that psychological reaction seems to have a direct relationship to dogmatic thinking, whether it be concealed by humility and charity or not.
Monism vs Non-dualism was an interesting segment. Hope to see a full exploration of this. Your suggestion that a possible differentiation is I Am all vs there is no I (or anything else) is an interesting one. I’m curious if you’ve explored this further.
Regarding the point made about widely, even militantly, differentiating views amongst mystics: All mystics can agree that Oneness is the core truth, but might still adamantly disagree on what to do about it. Believing that all of humanity must accept a certain faith with a non-dual esoteric aspect is different than believing different groups should be able to grow organically as we find in nature and compete (while agreeing to specific basic principles). Said differently, within the apparent dualism that exists in nature, there is a need for hierarchy so that there can be growth and life, but it should be bottom up in terms of service. Ie. Leaders should serve their constituents, masculine should serve feminine, advanced nations should serve the less advanced, etc.
A visualization of this theory would be that within nature there is an emergent hierarchy 🔼. Beyond nature there is down-flow of supprt and influence 🔽 and humans have the capacity to live in the middle ✡️. :)
Thank you Menachem. I’m glad you found it provoking.
I believe in a horizontal leadership. Top down or down up are neither necessary.
There comes a point during jhana where thought stops. Logic will probably only get you so far (I do not know).
I have only experienced 2nd jhana. I can say nothing beyond that.
It seems to me that I wouldn’t have ever experienced it without the kind of questioning and self-examination similar to what is being said in this video.
I really enjoyed this discussion. Great content
Thank you Luis 🙏🏼
❤ truly beautiful. once read a description of Truth, from Ukrainian philosopher Skovoroda, who wrote in Latin, that ultimate truth is experienced as beautiful... as always, not sure about ultimate, but beautiful it was. Thank you 🙏
Aloha Devi, this became longer than I intended and i cant copy/save the excess work for some reason so begging you pardon, I'm hoping you find it entertaining if not useful in your own navigations. Both you and the subject of God warrant a comprehensive reply....and this is my passion! =)
Interview @ 56:40-57:30 considering predication of the Absolute / God / state of existence before the appearance of universes: What about simply God is? The ultimate "is-ness" possible....
One of the oldest pan-cultural pre-universal themes I have found is that of an infinite undifferentiated substance often characterized as water. Including but not limited to: Nun from Egypt, Tiamat from Babylon, the ideas of Chaos, Apeiron and Prima Materia from Greece are similar. Brahman from Sanatana Dharma is in the same genre as is the Ain Soph Aur the infinite light of God. The Ocean of Bliss. The Eternal Abode. The Infinite One from whom come the many.
With great respect to all cultures and to Thou, distilling the essense from these many God forms whispers to me an objective nature of The God (before creation): Infinite and Absolute. Meaning it takes up all space forever in all directions and fills it to the brim (scalar invarience) with pure substance. There is no where it is naught. It is the diametric conceptual opposite of nothing. God is Allthingness, the greatest possible extant state.
What can be logically deduced and representationaly said about this extant infinite?: Because there is no room for anything else and no surface / edge / border, it is "the Formless One beside whom there is no other." As a consciousness, there is nothing else to describe but itself "I am". As a real absolute substance, the densest possible state we know of is a quark-gluon plasma (quagma) of liqufied protons and nuetrons (they are no longer a spatially lofted form, the quarks become a liquid and there is no space even between individual quarks.) which is believed to be the nature of the "hot dense state" prior to sudden universal inflation in the Big Bang theory. Truely an unapproachable all-consuming / destroying "fire" and simultaniously / paradoxically that from which all things are composed.
Considering the beginning of a universe / creation as a finite space suddenly voided from God's incomprehensibly overwhemling absolute presense, it spatially follows that Thou art "within in whom we move and have our being." Classical Panentheism
Another interesting consideration of infintes in general is that a serial infinite is impossible to realize in time so an actual infinite must be eternal.
While the meta-mythic realm is rich and beautiful with circumabulating story, my domain of exploration has been accounting for the spatially quantifiable natures (equalities) of God, the "am" in "I am", the Logos of Infinity (image/word of God), and how it directly patterns universes inside and out. This is where the philosophical rubber meets the geometric road. A single universe is presented (unfolded) as a 3d image (hologram) of 10 nested fields/objects/shaping forces that order all internal creation and I'm willing to bet both of you likely already know more about it than i do but have never seen it presented in this form....
Tier 1 (location) "In summation of infinity, God is all around itself and at the center every where. In a beginning, God forms a periphery (spherical border) and a centralized nucleus (made of the same substance) and a vibrating field in tension is strung in between (either startretrahedral or cubeoctohedral)" Simplified in 2d it's a circle around a dot with a square star in the space between them. (Stretched out tent)
Tier 2 (translation) "The capacitant space produces an electromagnetic field (pillar torus, imagine the white stringy part of an orange)" It represents the straight motion that made curved spacetime in Tier 1 as a single field object in continuous motion. A "particle and a waveform." Graphic reprsentation would be like a decending central pillar of light that spread out into the rainbow at the bottom wrapping up back to the top of the pillar. (Lamp stand, tunnel of light)
Tier 3 (spin) "Spun outwards from the pillar axis is a wheel-like disk / hammered out flat membrane that divides the internal space into an upper and lower hemisphere." Discluding the startet field, the total 3d picture now is like a gyroscope inside a bubble. The 2d simplified version is an equilateral cross inscribed in a circle. (raqia, firmament, surface of a glassy sea)
Tier 4: (4d spacetime) "The reflective disk of T3 concentrates the 4 phases motions of T2 (above and below) into 4 individuated expressions." These manifest as nested ring tori, on inside the other, on the top and bottom of the disk. 4 "wheels within wheels". In simplified 2d the total symbol looks almost exactly like the celtic cross or hopi medicine wheel missing just one extra circle inside the four quadrant cirlces. (Ophanim?)
In total these nested fields divide the internal space of the unvierse into 6 main sections (days)?) as 3 "cupping/curving branches" on either side, with a 7th space inside the T2 pillar at the center of which rests the concentrated nucleus made of the same substance of the original undifferentiated field. "The Lord rested on (in) the seventh day."
So how could all this seeming complexity be simply represented? In T1 the circle around the dot is a well known and ancient symbol for both God and gold...so lets start with gold. The total universe has a central pillar and 3 curved regions/branchs on either side. This is made with 5 tori in motion, so a perhaps 5 petal flowers on each branch would suffice? You already know what this is. The temple menorah is a highly accurate representation of the universal field nest / kingdom (court) of heaven / image/word of God. It seems Ezekiel got a first hand view!
Hopeing you find this intriguing enough to start a conversation, it's just the iceberg tip of a comprehensive model.
Shalom fellow seekers
Hey brother,
That's a serious tip of the iceberg. I can see you've put quite some thought into you. I'll have to re-read it a little more thoroughly later but i have a feeling you might really enjoy this other short series we did here on comparative mythology. Check it out and let me know what you think, enjoy: ua-cam.com/play/PL_7jcKJs6iwV-0Ox5fLTzrl7duwNyk7Tr.html
@@SeekersofUnity There is a minimum complexity to it and the waveform expression of an extant infinite is not really something we deal with on the daily as mammals on a planet, lol, so some analogous language is helpful:
If God is like an ocean of light, unvierses are like rainbow vaccuum bubbles. They are yanked open into existance as the liquid light contracts. The differentiated internal order of a universe is unfolded from and inherent in the previously unified state of God.
If the universe is like a house then it has 2 stories, a central spiral staircase and 3 circular hallways on the top and bottom story. Local heavens / antimatter side above, matter side of the unvierse below.
If the universe is like a great tree then it's seed and roots are in heaven/God (Keter), it's branches fill the internal space and we (conscious beings) are the fruit of it's combined essences and process.
"As above so below, as within so without, as the universe so the soul."
I hope you have somewhere you're developing and sharing your thoughts other than merely here.
@@SeekersofUnity I'll check it out next!
@ 1:12 you were discussing how to read "the mirroring" and here's what I can offer: The initial local phase shift of The God state into an expanded / differentiated universe state is inversion symmetry , like an inverted pyramid tip to tip with a normal one. The qualities of the Infinite One get flipped inside out into finite quantities / forms and these are universes. It's a reciprocal relationship and multiplied together they still equal 1.
The "rainbow tree" of 3d fields internal to universes unfold in this order: 1: Radial symmetry is formed by God's bi-contraction to a local center and spherical border condition (within and all around), T1. 2: Linear motion symmetry is formed by the T2 pillar torus that flows downward in the middle and upward in the periphery as a single field obejct in continuous motion. 3: Vertical mirror symmetry is formed by the T3 disk. 4: Whole translation symmetry is created by the 4 nested tori "wheels within wheels". They complete the 3d geometric solve to the maxim: "As above so below, as within so without..."
All of this unpacks logically from applying the 3rd law of motion (equal opposite reaction) to an infinite saturated field, which is basically just the principle of balance and eqality in action creating real form from the formless.
To create a voided space / universe it must contract locally outward andin order to balance that motion it must also contract to the center of that space. The rest is a cascade of equal/opposite reactions until the equation (quantum iteration) reaches full balance. After that it tends toward unitarity (fullfilment).
@@SeekersofUnity Not really. Still looking for peers and groups of like minds exploring these things
Thank you for the beautiful and thought-provoking dialogue. The one of the many matters discussed that stands out for me is whether there is one mysticism, as the ecumenicists might assert, or many mysticisms in difference and conflict, as those who follow a logic, eg, one that Mr. Hutchinson seems to follow in the context of the Conflict of Civilizations, ie seperate and differant
The one shows itself in many different ways, which doesn't mean that the ways are all the same or that the one is different in each case, but rather means, i would have you consider, that it is we ourselves who are the open middle, open to the question of the one mystery, and mediating the answer of the many mysticisms, in the dialogue of questioning and questing truth we conduct with ourselves and have with each other. we ourselves thus would appear the one middle mediating difference
Thank you friend 🙏🏼
I'd say that the conversation got interesting at the end, about how all mystics are talking about the same thing. In one sense, they may all be reacting to the same transcendental phenomena from different angles. But I doubt many of them would see it that way. In any case, we can't forget the enormous damage done to both east and west mystical philosophy by the ruling class and racist structures which benefit at different times in history by condemning the experience of the other or conflation of all beliefs as one
I always say there’s a damn good reason that a religious edifice is found in the centre of every town around the world. We should all take spirituality/ mysticism much more seriously since it’s legitimately the only common denominator of humanity’s infallible truth of its existence on Earth that got us to modern society today
As a mystic, the various locations and experiences available through diverse technologies (rituals, art, music, language, entheogens, and so on) are ones I experience as fundamentally different phenomenological sites. What I experience in shamanic practices is different in resolution, scope, depth and duration then what I experience when meditating, dancing or reading Deleuze, for instance. I think for me the drive to to resolve the varieties of mystical experience into one grand mythos is a gorgeous endeavor yet less important than how each in its own way is an open ended participation in how to die well.
I hear the sound of one hand clapping ✋️ 🤣
One of the things that may be possible for the first time in our modern multi-cultural world is, after the recognition of the heavily culture-bound content of most historical mystical experience (Buddhist mystics don't see Jesus etc), to at least >attempt< to bracket as much of the cultural tropes as possible while engaging in a meditative or contemplative exploration of reality. Whether this is even possible, and to what extent, is a difficult question, but it is certainly possible to be basically a secular humanist and do a simple meditative practice to quiet the mind and then begin to observe what is experienced without the many conceptual overlays that belief systems impose. Of course, while we may be able to escape the categories and tropes of organized religions we cannot escape our own personal history and our sub conscious zoo of energetic after effects of our life experiences. Nevertheless, it may be possible at least to some extent to investigate meditatively basic categories like "being" and "mind" largely as a scientist might investigate natural phenomena trying to bracket presuppositions. The experiences obtained this way can certainly be compared to those of historical mystics who were deeply embedded in an institutional belief system to see if there are commonalities or not, but if the goal is to understand reality (and not necessarily the history of mysticism) then these comparisons are not strictly necessary.
Welcome to the project 😉
Well, It is not that Budhists don't find 'Jesus' in their Psychonautic Explorations ... They find another 'Anthropic Entities' in their travels to the 'Inner Mind Universes' or 'Imaginary Subtle-Spaces' or 'Chit' ( in the Sanskrit original terminology ) ... They Call Those 'Anthropic entities', The 'Buddhas', each of one representing some sort of Monadological Human Archetype in Nirvana or Eternally Liberated from Material Attachments ... and Those 'Buddhas' can assume any human form but they don't have any need to assume a specific form ... Therefore, Once The Monk achieved the state of 'Chit Concentration' for intuit The Eternal Radiation, Refulgence or Presence from those 'Buddhas' ... The monk will render an Image of them adequate to The Monk Dharma ... That should fit The Monks 'Higher Self' ...
In the Monotheistic Middle East Jewish tradition, 'The Messiah' is 'The Incarnated Higher Self from The Tribe of Israel' or 'The Israelis Buddha' ... and for The Christians ( for some, Monotheistic Post-Jewish Mediterranean-European tradition ), 'Jesus' is 'Their 'Messiah' ... therefore, 'The incarnated and re-incarnated Higher-Self from The Western World' or 'The Westernner's Buddha' ...
For A Traditional Indian Buddhist, 'Jesus' is a Shape of Buddha given by Buddha to the Western Monks seeking Nirvana/ Transcendental Truth from The Contingent Existence in This Contingent World/Universe ...
But As in The Original Judaism ( Buddhism was a political branch from Hinduism that comes as a protest against a previously established 'system of Casts' that merge from A Monotheistic Branch from The Vedanta ... and that Monotheistic/Atheistic branch is way long ago Jewish monotheism ... that can be tracked in the middle east way long ago from 1400-1300 B.C in Egypt up to 4000-1400 B.C in the Indian Continent ), The Monopoly Deity or 'God's Presence' is not a 'human form' but an Inconceivable Shapeless Omnipotent Pure Energetic Entity that permeates and sustain Everything from 'The Unmanifest' (Brahman) or 'The Spirit' ( The Pre-Existence and Post-Existence ) ...
That's the reason, behind Buddha himself rejecting Himself as The Path for Ultimate Truth and/or The Traditional Jewish Tradition to Reject Jesus as Their Messiah ...
Because for them, The Ultimate Truth can not be constrained or confined to a Human Shape ...
But In a Sense, Buddhism doesn't reject The Buddha's teachings ( Jesus's Teachings) as some sort of providers of guidelines for liberation and Communion with the Ultimate Truth ...
The Ones who had trouble with that tend to be Jewish, Christians, and Muslims ... Basically, because most or the majority of the Jewish don't foresight in Jesus their 'Messiah or higher Self', the Christians wants to Kill Buddha ( Kill Jesus itself ) and impose His corpse as the magic amulet that gives to them God a Like Status by killing the Buddha ( Jesus himself ) and imposing their impersonal 'philosophical' imaginary god ... and the Muslims because they believe that they know better the impersonal God than everyone else and deeply hate any previous 'Incarnation of God in human shape' or The Buddha', their 'Messiah' will comes to establish a Monopolistic Islamic Global state ...
At the end of the day ... Just the apes playing a game established by their Zoo Gatekeepers ... ( In Heaven ) ...
Within Eastern Orthodoxy 'rational' is defined as being able to behave according to right principles. So this ties into the hesychastic tradition of asceticism and mysticism and the mastery of passions (in the active/passive - action/passion sense of classical philosophy) so that our will is freed. Once the will is freed then rational thought and action becomes possible. In this regard, the question of rationality is tied directly to the ability of one to have a genuine mystical experience in the terms that one who is most capable of doing the former, is most capable of experiencing the latter.
A very condensed discussion. I haven't watched it all yet and I will, gradually, so my comment may be covered later on, on your discussion. There is, I believe, a line that unites logic with mysticism, that line can be explained in a few words as the 'nature of revelation', or, to put it more simply, the ability to watch, hear, touch, feel, be, without judging, trying, willing. By this inner stillness, one can jump from logic to mysticism. The 'inner stillness' is, from what I have seen, a common factor between many religions, but it is neglected by philosophy. At some point in time, religion and philosophy drew apart and now the two cannot meet, even though they stem from the same principle.
Hey Vasilis. We did manage to pack in a lot in the conversation. I’d recommend watching through the whole thing and then hit us up.
Fantastic conversation!
the best case scenario would be having as many unique mystical takes on the nature of reality as there are sentient beings. And >not< "all saying the same thing," but all with unique perspectives. I see no difference between philosophy, mysticism, literature, music or science: they are all expressions of various perspectives on the infinite. These kind of views get me in trouble all the time, for example in Buddhist groups lol. The world would probably be a better place if people could let go of a neurotic need for triumphalism when it comes to perspectives on the nature of reality.
From my perspective, what you said is true and I would describe it differently. When considered as a collective, a decent analogy would be that each individual is a cell in the eyeball of God. The more cells, the more perception of what is real. In the Blind men and the elephant sorta way.
But if all we are is a heap of individuals, then infinite plurality is merely chaos.
What do you think?
@@DarkMoonDroid yes we can't escape being parts of the whole, or the whole expressing itself in (seeming) parts, whichever way one likes to look at it.
Out of curiosity, what do the Buddhists in question take issue with?
@@Anthropomorphic Buddhists believe that their take on reality and what needs to be done is uniquely true and all the other religions and philosophies are wrong and will only lead to being trapped in the suffering of Samsara forever lol. So of course any suggestion that their views are subjective and culture bound like all other religions and philosophies makes them hopping mad.
Thank you
I feel the mystic experience is awareness through a phase change of consciousness, so as unique as the individual consciousness, but also common in the sense that we all experience these phase changes, not always with the same degree of awareness.
mystics are not crazy but connected to the universe.
Straw in the sense of there is a difference between the discussion of, and the experience of, and being of.
Thank you for your videos.
You're most welcome. Thank you.
I certainly think that these mystics have wrestled with the same consciousness-universe complex in some meaningful way; but I think its worth noting that Mystics, like Theoretical Physicists developing their/a/the new theory, are attempting to court genius and risking madness by leaving the realm of how we have thought, and trying to reach a different state of mind, perception in the hopes that it will give us new powerful insight. That's not abandoning reason, nor is it just coloring within the lines; its another hegelian engine of brilliant machine learning/conceptual-darwinism in which we seek out schizoid associations, not too much schizoid associations or useful/meaningful coherence will be lost, with each vision and inscrutable new-way of thinking then gets tested, and selected, or forgotten. The pregnant void, weather it was Ayin & Tzimtzum, or Atman Brahman and Anatma, or Akasha, or Yin, ancient mystic insights about the nature of no-thing has certainly been important to both mathematics, and physics. Even if Dr.Sledge is put off by Nagarjuna's four option system, I can see you certainly recognize the reasons why; Binary logic gates work great on abstract thought experiments, but almost nothing we talk about in real life is actually simple enough to be adequately matriculated in self-evident binary terms, and instead what we get is interlocutors smuggling in their assumptions and perspective by HOW they boil down the topic to cross that divide between a more complex real-life scenario and the absolutely simplest abstraction of binary logic. I think Justin Sledge is attached to the usefulness and purity of a logical machine universe, and the idea of pluralism, that beyond a certain point, "reality is one, and the wise speak of it differently" must seem to him like a cop-out used to keep the peace; I'd say Heisenberg kinda killed the hopes of a reducibly binary reality.
17:12 It's striking that although spiritual experiences are by nature ineffable and unquantifiable they are nevertheless comparable by virtue of their commonalities. So many individuals throughout esoteric history and into modernity have certain experiences in common, whether it's reincarnation, dreams, synesthesia, near death experiences, the interesting and diverse effects of amnesia, divine revelation, etc. These and many other experiences are universal to all humanity in every history, culture and religion, and yet they are deemed irrational despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For if our Reality is deemed so by the evidence of our senses and our senses translate themselves through our minds actual neurology then our very perception dictates the nature of Reality rather than the reverse. Therefore everything perceived by the mind is inherently Real in some form... And such is the nature of Conciousness.
Speaking to the final discussion at the end about the potential to find unity or comparability of mysticism, we ought to see that we are all speaking about the same reality here. Although our ideas and the way we percieve it and understand it through our minds, influenced by our language and cultural inheritance will be different, we are speaking to the same One, non-dual reality. Even the mystical experiences that mystics experience will express different things based on the mind that it is experienced in and through.
Most people you talk about I lost but thank you and your fantastic mate
It's usual in Christian mediaeval mysticism for the apophatic strategy to be more applied as a double negation. So, there is a negation of the affirmation, and then a negation of that negation. It avoids the subject being the affirmed statement, whether in its simple affirmation, or its simple negation. This is often described as the 'sleep' of the intellectus, and the continuing life of the affectus - cf. Bonaventure's 'Itinerarium' for its classical statement. It's in his Franciscan tradition especially, that creation is affirmed and the passion of Christ is the ongoing motif for union with God. The passion of Christ is a good example of this double negation in the apophatic method; the life and mission of Christ are negated in his death and the failure of his mission on the cross, and the resurrection negates that negation. His life, mission, and now death, are now realised cosmically, not simply historically, religiously or geographically. And the death bestowing wounds of hate, and now the life giving wounds of love. Both Franciscan and Dominican affective piety and art are pretty strong on this too.
There's a lot of this in Denys Turner's work, especially 'The Darkness of God', which has been taken up by several of his students, of whom I'm happy to say that I'm one 🙂
Rigorous logic leads eventually to conclusions that can only be interpreted paradoxically.
This was very interesting as an academic inquiry on the subject. On a more personal level, how does one discern between mystical experience and hallucinatory visions?
Thank you Paige. How would you define hallucination, or hallucinatory vision?
A hallucinatory vision is seeing something that isn't there. Mystical experience is generally assumed to be seeing something that is there but which others can't see. So with a mystical experience if everyone could see it they would see the same thing. As an example: the Fatima Apparition.
A hallucination is likely just your subconscious projections, common in psychosis or drug use.
I think that Mystical Experience is tapping into the Divine Realm and hallucination is your brain playing tricks on you. There may be some overlap like with how people on DMT tend to see similar things.
When it comes to my own journey into mystical traditions I would feel more confident if I knew I could discern that which comes from Spirit and that which comes from my own brain. I do believe I have experienced both.
Let’s talk about this Paige when we do our upcoming Q&A, because i have a feeling that the “mystical experience” is not “there” but right here, and so is the Divine Realm, always right here, right now, it’s simply a matter of becoming aware of reality as it is. It’s for this reason that scholars like Bernard McGinn prefers to speak of “mystical awareness” rather than “experience”.
Much love,
Thank you for the great question, and i hope we get to discuss this,
Zevi
I think there is something within a deep mystic state that reinforces the sense of the Sacred in some capacity holy, blasphemous, or at least quite noteworthy. These latch onto semiotic content and our internalized models in ways which reaffirm our own being by reconjuring an Essence of The True thing towards our icons (in my sense sharing a notion with models ). This reconnects our being with something in a way that no longer has the experience of 'aesthetics'.
My own icon in this fight is a Marxist-inspired one in that there was something at least commonly deep within us about the needs of a social being that regularly appears in mystics through a renewed 'Love of their Own Being' which then wishes to engage in social being with renewed vigor.
52:10 what Justin is saying about human´s capacity of understanding the real nature of reality and evolution is being scientifically proposed by Donald Hoffman and mathematically by Nima Arkani-Hamed
This is awesome
Thank you.
Great discussion. In talking about paraconsistent logics the part of the conversation 40:30 to 51:00 was unfortunately a bit inacurate. Justin spoke of the principle of explosion, which indeed would undermine truth were a contradiction to hold in a logic with explosion as a principle. However, the principle of explosion is not valid in paraconsitent logic. In fact, formally, the class of paraconsostent logics can be defined as all logics where the principle of explosion is not universally valid. Different paraconsistent logics have different features that render explosion invalid. Relevance logics, for example, require that the arguments of an inference are syntactically related to the conclusions (in a formally precise way). In that case we can't derive an arbitray statement Q from a contraction P & not-P because in general Q will not be subformula of P.
All this is to say I think there is even less to worry about when interpresting mystical writers as rejecting the law of non-contradiction. Paraconsistent logic makes it clear that there are rigorous ways one can endorse a true contradiction without thereby destroying truth or reason.
Thank you Avi for the clarification. I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion. Welcome.
@@SeekersofUnity You mentioned Graham Priest in the episode. He is a great source for the philosophy of paraconsistent logic and dialetheism. While he is not a mystic himself, he does engage deeply with the paradoxical thought expressed by mystics. In his book, Beyond the Limits of Thought, he traces the history of paradox in both philosophical and mystical thinkers in the West. In his book One he discusses the paradoxes of Plato's Parmenides. In his more recent book, The Fifth Corner of Four, he proposes paraconsistent logical systems based the texts of on various Eastern thinkers including Nagarjuna.
One interesting theme in Graham's thought is that he rejects ineffability. He claims that ineffability in relation to the paradoxes of metaphysics is necessitated by the legacy of Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction. Once we loosen this requirement and allow for true contradictions in a paraconsistent logic, then we can directly and literally talk about metaphysical truths that so many mystics have felt compelled to express through oblique, indirect, or poetic language. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him about this, but it certainly an interesting perspective to consider.
I gotta get on those. Thank you. How’d you come to this?
@@SeekersofUnity Do you mean how'd I come to Graham Priest's work or how'd I come to your channel?
Was asking more so the former. But the latter is always helpful to know 🙏🏼
Sunyata is not merely emptiness as in "nothing" but that everything does not exist in and of itself but is interconnected with everything else. This matches up well with Adi-Shankara's teaching of non dualness. Even though the doctrinally both Adviata Vedanta differ they don't seem to differ much from a philosophy or their meditative experiences. In fact Adi Shankara was accused to be a crypto Buddhist and it's been discovered that the early teachings of the Buddha unlike later schools like Theravada which it's scriptures defined the most ancient of Buddhism up until recently actually did not deny the Vedic understanding of Self but his teaching of No Self was to make his students understand what is NOT the Self but after identifying these 5 skandas (components of the false self) then one can realize the True Self. In this sense, Nibbana (Nirvana) would be identical to Moksha.
Thank you for this conversation! I’ve had several mystical experiences and by no means consider myself enlightened, nor attribute the experiences to God or divinity. It is my opinion that prophecy and revelation are not part of the mystical experience but the remnants of ego and culture one is in. Prophecy and revelation is narcissism, plain and simple.
Not that I know a fraction of what you or Justin knows, but, I do agree with you in that the mystical experiences described by the mystics are, in essence, the same. Like I describe to my friends, the mystical experience is one both infinitely equal and eternally distinct from one person to another. My "we're all carbon-based structures" is another man's "we're all the one", to oversimplify it.
This is an incredibly fascinating discussion. I am truly enjoying it, as both a Greek, an adopted Jew, a philosopher and as a mystic. You may be interested in reading my poorly written book entitled 'Resoundingly Human: Aphorisms, Reflections and Poems' by Debby Emeth. You may find this on Amazon if you so wish. You two men have made me more understand my own mystical experience. Thank you so much for this!
You’re most welcome Debby. Thank you 🙏🏼