Sunfair

I've had a few experiences in my life that might fall into your definition as mystical experiences. I would prefer not to post them here, but I would be willing to discuss it privately. PM me if you like.

Oh, yeah, and if you PM me please reiterate your criteria- so far I've had an awful habit of not being able to again find threads I've posted in.

Hedwig

The book I have with the title The Way of the Shaman was written by one Michael Harner, Ph.D. who is indeed (or at least was...it says "former"...but it's a fairly old edition so can't be sure of his status) an anthropology professor who's been practicing shamanism since 1961.

Is that the one you were referencing?

Buffman

Vogelfrei

Welcome to the "mystical" forums. The fact they they exist at all is surely a miracle.

Does talking to ETs inside their UFO count as a mystical experience?

I do apologize for not taking your query as seriously as you would hope that I might. I fear that I have spent far too much time studying brain chemistry to ever enter the world of "Mysticism." (i.e.: Currently unexplained natural phenomena.) I might suggest that you take a tape and visit some of our mental health institutes and record the experiences you are sure to hear from some of the residents. (Remember, they sincerely believe what they relate.)

Diana,

I'm still laughing. Thank you.

Vogelfrei

[asshole mode on]
It seems like some of the time you've spent studying neuroscience would have been better spent studying English.
[asshole mode off]

Here's what I wrote:

"A mystical experience doesn't require that the experience interface with reality in any way besides the fact that it occurs; it doesn't neccesarily imply anything either way about God, reality, etc."

That is to say, the adjective "mystical", in the way I've used it, refers to a *psychological* fact, not a metaphysical one.

Speaking of metaphysics, I wonder why you think learning about brain chemistry tells you anything, either way, about the subject, when not coupled with philosophical investigation. Neuroscience is one of my favorite subjects, but any scientist worth his salt should know that scientific observation sans analysis yields only meaningless data.

Vogelfrei

One more thing...

A person who discovers, say, 2% of the total amount of information regarding how the brain *functions* would be a shoe-in for the Nobel prize. Neuroscience is, to rehash the overused phrase, still in its infancy. For some reason, it's laypeople who don't really know much about it in the first place that make grandiose claims for it. For instance, the thesis "consciousness originates solely in the brain" is *light-years* from being able to be assessed, let alone proven. Many laypeople assume, however, that science will actually bear this conclusion out. Personally, I think that stating wild guesses about information that may take ~100 years for science to uncover as fact, indicates that you're a theist of some stripe, given the absolute paucity of credible evidence upon which to base such a conclusion.

On the other hand, perhaps it's I who is the ignorant one. I'd be happy to hear you tell me about the functional neurobiology of mystical experiences (surely a less herculean feat than proving something about the metaphysical status of mystical experiences through neuroscience). The word "functional" here is key; I want you to tell me all about how this sort of brain activity causes the cognitive/emotional/perceptual changes inherent in these experiences. Note that saying things like "well, the thalamus gates sensory information, so it's involved" simply shows that, like other neuroscientists, you actually have no clue whatsoever about the functional mechanisms involved beyond the so-general-as-to-be-virtually-contentless level.

freemonkey

Oops, my mistake about the book/author. I was thinking of Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, by Mircea Eliade.

Carry on

diana

Koiyotnik and Buffman,

It's my pleasure to bring a smile to your faces. Anytime I can be of service....(within limits, of course )

Still wondering about Edgar Cayce. (Am I the only one?)

d

Buffman

Vogelfrei

Apparently I know enough to be able to manipulate your chemistry. I would like to recommend you obtain the "NEUROSCIENCE" catalog from:

The MIT Press
Five Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142-1493
USA

Though many of the books listed there are somewhat on the expensive side, they are current.

[asshole mode on]
It seems like some of the time you've spent studying neuroscience would have been better spent studying English.
[asshole mode off]

I'm sorry if my English does not meet your standard. I am constantly attempting to improve on that weakness. However, I rather doubt that I will ever match your command of the language.

That is to say, the adjective "mystical", in the way I've used it, refers to a *psychological* fact, not a metaphysical one.

Perhaps you can help me to better understand your definitions of "psychological" and "metaphysical" facts. You have already made five posts attempting to explain what it is you are truly seeking. ---I did enjoy your last two paragraphs. I found the following particularly interesting:

Note that saying things like "well, the thalamus gates sensory information, so it's involved" simply shows that, like other neuroscientists, you actually have no clue whatsoever about the functional mechanisms involved beyond the so-general-as-to-be-virtually-contentless level.

Do you suppose that the human body contains chemicals that can produce pleasure or pain feelings? Ever heard of "enkephalins," or "endogenous morphine," or the "subatantia gelatinosa," or "serotonin." or, or, or? Why not just read the case of Lisa Harrison and what she described after coming off 16 years of benzodiazepine tranquilizer use.
("The Mind" by Richard M. Restak, M.D., pg. 133)

Better yet, just hold your breath until you pass out and then explain why you passed out before you died. Ever heard of "Rapture of the Deep?" How about "hypoxia?" (Been there! Done that!)

Why do you suppose that methadone is a legal treatment technique (albeit still addictive) for opium addiction?

Some examples:

-Talking to God, angels, metaphysical beings, etc., whether profound or not
-Strong sense of meaning or purpose that transcends oneself, strong otherworldly feelings, etc.
-Out-of-body experiences, visions, anomalous processes of information transfer

I didn't misread that also, did I?

Perhaps you missed, or simply ignored this: "(i.e.: Currently unexplained natural phenomena.)"

Buffman

Diana

Still wondering about Edgar Cayce. (Am I the only one?)

Nope!

<a href="http://skepdic.com/cayce.html" target="_blank">http://skepdic.com/cayce.html</a>

(Added a few more URLs for fun.)

<a href="http://www.nhne.com/misc/edgarcayce.html" target="_blank">http://www.nhne.com/misc/edgarcayce.html</a>

<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcayce.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcayce.html</a>

<a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/265862.html" target="_blank">http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/265862.html</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879751983/ref=ase_roberttoddcarrolA/104-1515569-2707920" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879751983/ref=ase_roberttoddcarrolA/104-1515569-2707920</a>

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

diana

Buffman,

Great links. Thanks.

Interesting how I'd never read anything about him other than the literature of believers.... It always sounded too fantastic to be true. Having read There is a River, I can attest that the skeptics' reviews of Cayce's performances fit nicely with the "facts" supplied by his followers.

d