[MD] Mystics and Brains

[Case]

dmb says:
Um, my attack here is upon reductionism, not science. I'm saying that its a 
huge mistake to confused enlightenment with a brain fart. The reductionist 
approach commits a profound category error. Its like trying to measure the 
greatness of a novel with a ruler and a scale. One might discover the book's

size and weight, but that has nothing to do with the accomplishment of the 
novelist. To discover that one would have to examine the novel in a more 
appropriate way, namely by reading it.

[Case]
But your scheme offers no way to distinguish between enlightenment and a
brain fart. They are both spontaneous and unique events. 

I would say reduction and emergence are complimentary to one another. They
are complete opposites. You say that a great novel can not be reduced to
paper and ink. I say that because it can be reduced in that way, it is also
true that paper and ink can be infused with inspiration and a great novel
emerges. 

It rather depends on the level of resolution you expect from answers to your
questions.

As I mentioned earlier this is magic not mysticism.

dmb says:
... sex is rarely a mystical experience.

[Case]
Actually I think sex should always be a mystical experience. Perhaps it
often is not but this should seen as unfortunate not ordinary. From the
Temple prostitutes of Babylon to the Kama Sutra and Tantric traditions to
the Song of Solomon and the Catholic Church's image of the church as the
Bride of Chris, all major faiths have spoken of sex in mystical terms.

A culture that treats sex as other than sacred and mystical risks disease,
heartbreak, broken homes and neglected children.

------------------------------------------------------
dmb says:
Okay, time for a little reality check. As I often like to do (to keep out 
those darb RSC and otherwise keep things honest, I'm gonna quote from public

sources. Like I said before when you made this point, you are using early 
James to quarrel with late James. You are using his less mature psychology 
phase with his final metaphysical phase in order to deny the claims of his 
radical empiricism. I think this makes very little sense, so little that I'm

not so sure you're being entirely intellectually honest. Here is a quote on 
this part of the issue from the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology...


[Case]
Interesting quotes but I quoted James himself from his 1904 essay "Does
Consciousness Exist" in which he reference his own 1890 "The Principles of
Psychology". So I thought I gave an example the old James referring directly
to his younger self. There is no conflict.

The World of Pure Experience (1904) where the term Radical Empiricism is
introduced was written within a couple of months of 'Does Consciousness
Exist". In it James makes his position clearly and consistently: "My
description of things, accordingly, starts with the parts and makes of the
whole a being of the second order."

Interesting as your Wikis were, all they seem to indicate is that over the
course of his life James expanded or changed his focus. They do not suggest
that he repudiated of even sought to modify his earlier work. In fact he
quotes early James to clarify his late James meaning.