Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [existlist] What if there had been no name for it?

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    The question is just plain silly. Its like asking what if we did not have a name for car or mountain or whatever. People like to label things. That was
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 30, 2012
      The question is just plain silly. Its like asking what if we did not have a
      name for "car" or " mountain" or whatever.

      People like to label things. That was Adam's first job ... naming things.

      People also like things that are mystical. We all love a mystery and the
      unexplained, because our brains can attach so many other things it,
      especially stuff that appears to be a desirable solution or gives direction.

      So much of what happens to us is just happenstance. Yet we strive to obtain
      the mental comfort that comes from knowing "why". And the "why" can be
      anything which is the reason some mystics and gurus and whomever make their
      money out of the business.

      The church/religions did not kill off the mystics. Or rather the church
      supplied their own. They killed off the ones who did not follow the
      prescribed belief system. If you are a two-feather mystic, you won't last
      long if God is said to be a three-feather diety.

      eduardathome

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Dick.
      Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:12 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] What if there had been no name for it?


      What if there had been no name for it?



      [ You said that it was not your idea originally to write about mystical
      experience but that you did so by request, and mostly from scientists.
      But what if there had never been a name for this, then what would you
      have called it other than mystical experience? And why would scientists
      have wanted you to write this if it had not been hidden by the world at
      large? ]



      I do not usually get involved in what if questions, but in the
      historical sense these two are very interesting. First it is not the
      world which hides mystical experience, it is only the western world.
      Neither is it science which hides mystical experience and kills mystics,
      psychics, and scientists, it is the western religions which have done
      that. Obviously that was and still is the reason for writing about it.
      Added to which there has been a world-wide interest in it for the last
      fifty or sixty years, especially when religions began to fade away in so
      many places around the world. Also, scientists know well enough that
      they have no means of studying all this phenomena, so therefore
      firsthand accounts is all that exists. It was scientists who first set
      the ball rolling in at least trying to understand the more subtle
      aspects of consciousness and direct life experience. Both of the
      organisations which I worked with were both set up by scientists
      originally. Obviously the thing that made me very angry was all those
      years of religions killing off mystics, psychics and scientists. And
      Rome being the very worst of them. One cannot wave that away and make
      believe that it did not happen. Things are improving slowly however.



      The other part of your question is directly related to something I have
      in fact covered in some articles – what if mystical experience had
      never been known and thus never been mentioned, then what would I have
      called it? You have to try and imagine an imaginary world where just
      one person is the first ever to have such experiences; then what would
      they do? Would they mention it? If they did then how would they talk
      and write about it? What would they call it if they did mention it? It
      is impossible to say isn't it. You HAVE to have fitting words to
      talk about it. But as for me then most of the words were already there,
      so I used them. But what if they had not been there? Well, I don't
      know, I guess I would have had to invent appropriate words and then
      explain what I meant by them.



      But, in large measure, the phenomenon and fitting words for it have been
      around for millennia, and even before language was written down, and
      before religions existed. We are NOT dealing with something new here.
      What IS new here is the open mentioning of it. Even in the western
      world. By far the biggest hurdle to overcome is that religions pinched
      so many of the words for it and while killing off the mystics faster
      than you can yell murder. They plainly took it for political control
      and power purposes. Religionists are not mystics and mystics could never
      be a religionist. So, I found so many good reasons for writing about it
      for so long. Every single pebble rolling down the hill helps in causing
      an avalanche, and one day there WILL come a tipping point when there is
      enough momentum. And that day is inevitable.



      I would mention in passing that it was not ONLY scientists who asked me
      to write about it, for the second biggest section of those people were
      Quakers – the Inner Light brigade. They were the first to print and
      publish one of my early books and distributed them among their members
      at that time in England. The others came via simply reading the poems,
      and they were from all walks of life, young and old, housewives,
      doctors, psychologists, psychics, bus drivers, you name them. The whole
      thing just snowballed. And which was encouraging. So, it has made some
      difference. But it is NOT a language problem, it is fighting vested
      interests which has been the problem and the hard work. As for the word
      `mystic' then it has been abused so many times. But it IS the
      best word nonetheless. It seems that I have been marked off as the
      English Mystic. I don't mind.



      Dick Richardson







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • Dick.
      Mister, you are so naive that it is unbelievable. Best go play with your machines and keep out of that which is way out of your league. rwr ... have a ...
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 30, 2012
        Mister, you are so naive that it is unbelievable. Best go play with your
        machines and keep out of that which is way out of your league.

        rwr



        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        >
        > The question is just plain silly. Its like asking what if we did not
        have a
        > name for "car" or " mountain" or whatever.
        >
        > People like to label things. That was Adam's first job ... naming
        things.
        >
        > People also like things that are mystical. We all love a mystery and
        the
        > unexplained, because our brains can attach so many other things it,
        > especially stuff that appears to be a desirable solution or gives
        direction.
        >
        > So much of what happens to us is just happenstance. Yet we strive to
        obtain
        > the mental comfort that comes from knowing "why". And the "why" can
        be
        > anything which is the reason some mystics and gurus and whomever make
        their
        > money out of the business.
        >
        > The church/religions did not kill off the mystics. Or rather the
        church
        > supplied their own. They killed off the ones who did not follow the
        > prescribed belief system. If you are a two-feather mystic, you won't
        last
        > long if God is said to be a three-feather diety.
        >
        > eduardathome
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Dick.
        > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:12 AM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] What if there had been no name for it?
        >
        >
        > What if there had been no name for it?
        >
        >
        >
        > [ You said that it was not your idea originally to write about
        mystical
        > experience but that you did so by request, and mostly from scientists.
        > But what if there had never been a name for this, then what would you
        > have called it other than mystical experience? And why would
        scientists
        > have wanted you to write this if it had not been hidden by the world
        at
        > large? ]
        >
        >
        >
        > I do not usually get involved in what if questions, but in the
        > historical sense these two are very interesting. First it is not the
        > world which hides mystical experience, it is only the western world.
        > Neither is it science which hides mystical experience and kills
        mystics,
        > psychics, and scientists, it is the western religions which have done
        > that. Obviously that was and still is the reason for writing about it.
        > Added to which there has been a world-wide interest in it for the last
        > fifty or sixty years, especially when religions began to fade away in
        so
        > many places around the world. Also, scientists know well enough that
        > they have no means of studying all this phenomena, so therefore
        > firsthand accounts is all that exists. It was scientists who first set
        > the ball rolling in at least trying to understand the more subtle
        > aspects of consciousness and direct life experience. Both of the
        > organisations which I worked with were both set up by scientists
        > originally. Obviously the thing that made me very angry was all those
        > years of religions killing off mystics, psychics and scientists. And
        > Rome being the very worst of them. One cannot wave that away and make
        > believe that it did not happen. Things are improving slowly however.
        >
        >
        >
        > The other part of your question is directly related to something I
        have
        > in fact covered in some articles â€" what if mystical experience
        had
        > never been known and thus never been mentioned, then what would I have
        > called it? You have to try and imagine an imaginary world where just
        > one person is the first ever to have such experiences; then what would
        > they do? Would they mention it? If they did then how would they talk
        > and write about it? What would they call it if they did mention it?
        It
        > is impossible to say isn't it. You HAVE to have fitting words to
        > talk about it. But as for me then most of the words were already
        there,
        > so I used them. But what if they had not been there? Well, I don't
        > know, I guess I would have had to invent appropriate words and then
        > explain what I meant by them.
        >
        >
        >
        > But, in large measure, the phenomenon and fitting words for it have
        been
        > around for millennia, and even before language was written down, and
        > before religions existed. We are NOT dealing with something new here.
        > What IS new here is the open mentioning of it. Even in the western
        > world. By far the biggest hurdle to overcome is that religions pinched
        > so many of the words for it and while killing off the mystics faster
        > than you can yell murder. They plainly took it for political control
        > and power purposes. Religionists are not mystics and mystics could
        never
        > be a religionist. So, I found so many good reasons for writing about
        it
        > for so long. Every single pebble rolling down the hill helps in
        causing
        > an avalanche, and one day there WILL come a tipping point when there
        is
        > enough momentum. And that day is inevitable.
        >
        >
        >
        > I would mention in passing that it was not ONLY scientists who asked
        me
        > to write about it, for the second biggest section of those people were
        > Quakers â€" the Inner Light brigade. They were the first to print
        and
        > publish one of my early books and distributed them among their members
        > at that time in England. The others came via simply reading the poems,
        > and they were from all walks of life, young and old, housewives,
        > doctors, psychologists, psychics, bus drivers, you name them. The
        whole
        > thing just snowballed. And which was encouraging. So, it has made
        some
        > difference. But it is NOT a language problem, it is fighting vested
        > interests which has been the problem and the hard work. As for the
        word
        > `mystic' then it has been abused so many times. But it IS the
        > best word nonetheless. It seems that I have been marked off as the
        > English Mystic. I don't mind.
        >
        >
        >
        > Dick Richardson
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
        nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • eduardathome
        And a happy non-reply to you too .... Why is it that some people simply can t get beyond the abusive?? That in itself is a subject worthy of study.
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 30, 2012
          And a happy non-reply to you too ....

          Why is it that some people simply can't get beyond the abusive?? That in
          itself is a subject worthy of study.

          eduardathome

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Dick.
          Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 5:32 PM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Re: What if there had been no name for it?


          Mister, you are so naive that it is unbelievable. Best go play with your
          machines and keep out of that which is way out of your league.

          rwr



          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
          >
          > The question is just plain silly. Its like asking what if we did not
          have a
          > name for "car" or " mountain" or whatever.
          >
          > People like to label things. That was Adam's first job ... naming
          things.
          >
          > People also like things that are mystical. We all love a mystery and
          the
          > unexplained, because our brains can attach so many other things it,
          > especially stuff that appears to be a desirable solution or gives
          direction.
          >
          > So much of what happens to us is just happenstance. Yet we strive to
          obtain
          > the mental comfort that comes from knowing "why". And the "why" can
          be
          > anything which is the reason some mystics and gurus and whomever make
          their
          > money out of the business.
          >
          > The church/religions did not kill off the mystics. Or rather the
          church
          > supplied their own. They killed off the ones who did not follow the
          > prescribed belief system. If you are a two-feather mystic, you won't
          last
          > long if God is said to be a three-feather diety.
          >
          > eduardathome
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Dick.
          > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:12 AM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] What if there had been no name for it?
          >
          >
          > What if there had been no name for it?
          >
          >
          >
          > [ You said that it was not your idea originally to write about
          mystical
          > experience but that you did so by request, and mostly from scientists.
          > But what if there had never been a name for this, then what would you
          > have called it other than mystical experience? And why would
          scientists
          > have wanted you to write this if it had not been hidden by the world
          at
          > large? ]
          >
          >
          >
          > I do not usually get involved in what if questions, but in the
          > historical sense these two are very interesting. First it is not the
          > world which hides mystical experience, it is only the western world.
          > Neither is it science which hides mystical experience and kills
          mystics,
          > psychics, and scientists, it is the western religions which have done
          > that. Obviously that was and still is the reason for writing about it.
          > Added to which there has been a world-wide interest in it for the last
          > fifty or sixty years, especially when religions began to fade away in
          so
          > many places around the world. Also, scientists know well enough that
          > they have no means of studying all this phenomena, so therefore
          > firsthand accounts is all that exists. It was scientists who first set
          > the ball rolling in at least trying to understand the more subtle
          > aspects of consciousness and direct life experience. Both of the
          > organisations which I worked with were both set up by scientists
          > originally. Obviously the thing that made me very angry was all those
          > years of religions killing off mystics, psychics and scientists. And
          > Rome being the very worst of them. One cannot wave that away and make
          > believe that it did not happen. Things are improving slowly however.
          >
          >
          >
          > The other part of your question is directly related to something I
          have
          > in fact covered in some articles â€" what if mystical experience
          had
          > never been known and thus never been mentioned, then what would I have
          > called it? You have to try and imagine an imaginary world where just
          > one person is the first ever to have such experiences; then what would
          > they do? Would they mention it? If they did then how would they talk
          > and write about it? What would they call it if they did mention it?
          It
          > is impossible to say isn't it. You HAVE to have fitting words to
          > talk about it. But as for me then most of the words were already
          there,
          > so I used them. But what if they had not been there? Well, I don't
          > know, I guess I would have had to invent appropriate words and then
          > explain what I meant by them.
          >
          >
          >
          > But, in large measure, the phenomenon and fitting words for it have
          been
          > around for millennia, and even before language was written down, and
          > before religions existed. We are NOT dealing with something new here.
          > What IS new here is the open mentioning of it. Even in the western
          > world. By far the biggest hurdle to overcome is that religions pinched
          > so many of the words for it and while killing off the mystics faster
          > than you can yell murder. They plainly took it for political control
          > and power purposes. Religionists are not mystics and mystics could
          never
          > be a religionist. So, I found so many good reasons for writing about
          it
          > for so long. Every single pebble rolling down the hill helps in
          causing
          > an avalanche, and one day there WILL come a tipping point when there
          is
          > enough momentum. And that day is inevitable.
          >
          >
          >
          > I would mention in passing that it was not ONLY scientists who asked
          me
          > to write about it, for the second biggest section of those people were
          > Quakers â€" the Inner Light brigade. They were the first to print
          and
          > publish one of my early books and distributed them among their members
          > at that time in England. The others came via simply reading the poems,
          > and they were from all walks of life, young and old, housewives,
          > doctors, psychologists, psychics, bus drivers, you name them. The
          whole
          > thing just snowballed. And which was encouraging. So, it has made
          some
          > difference. But it is NOT a language problem, it is fighting vested
          > interests which has been the problem and the hard work. As for the
          word
          > `mystic' then it has been abused so many times. But it IS the
          > best word nonetheless. It seems that I have been marked off as the
          > English Mystic. I don't mind.
          >
          >
          >
          > Dick Richardson
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
          nothing!
          >
          > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------

          Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

          Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.