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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Dec 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 4 , Dec 30, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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.