Now that you mention it, here is mine on Debian Buster (I have many other distros on my computer, installed and on VirtualBox). I like to keep many distros as an Indian Rajah or Nawab will have a number of queens in his harem.
Big fan here, both of Debian and of Marvin the Paranoid Android. Brain the size of a planet... and all they ask him to do is pick up a paper tissue, or park the space cruisers at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe...
I run Debian Stretch [ first released in 2017 ] .. I don't bother with Windows or virtualbox / an emulator. It is my OS of choice .. not that Windows or Macs aren't good .. I just like Open Source.
As l see it: Mysticism = a focus on the ineffable Atheist mysticism / your Atheist mysticism = the mysticism that comes from mathematics (is that Fibonacci?), maybe physical sciences too. What you are doing is cutting God in half and saying there's no God. I agree that a half-god probably is no god. We diverge because l go further: l admit to the supramundane / supersensible, and so my sense of mysticism continues all the way to spirituality. Effectively we diverge because l am Theist, you are Atheist so it all just boils down to that.
Here's one excerise: chase aesthetics. Take something you like or hate. Ask yourself why you like or hate it. Keep asking why to that answer and the next answer and so on. Admitting to aesthetic = admitting to spirituality = becoming a theist mystic. Although there are spiritual atheists ... but i'm guessing that is meant to mean atheist mystic i.e. physical mystic.
If that's how it worked out for you, that's great! But if it did work for you as you describe, how can my godlessness even challenge you? Is God an object to you, that can be manipulated, cut in half...?
This is not about the person. This is about Atheist Mysticism. This is not a matter l have even dwelt on recently and it certainly didn't convert me to theism, as l was already theist. I am asking you to try it to see where it leads you. No, God is not an object to me. No, l do not recommend cutting him in half. No, l don't think he can be cut in half, in fact l opined that a half-God probably isn't God. I am saying cut the scheme in half. Physical from Spiritual. In my understanding (and l did explain this already) your Atheist Mysticism is the ineffable aspect of the physical. My suggestion was to consider the aesthetic world. The axiom being tested was, as stated: Admitting to aesthetic = admitting to spirituality and further = becoming a theist mystic.
Well, you're making several bold assumptions here. I'll pick two: 1. That the contemplation you suggest has the result you desire for me, when you haven't even tried it yourself. 2. You assume my godlessness is a frivolous choice, a lifestyle choice, a matter of aesthetics. Did you read this entire thread?
1. I don't desire any result for you 2. I strongly believe you will never be Theist. Call it a hunch. 3. Caveat: feel free to disagree. If i wrote this out for every post, my posts would be occluded but yeah feel free to differ constructively. 4. As elaborated: it was an axiom being tested. 5. Again l assert that admission to aesthetic = admission to spirituality. This is a prompt to say l am right or wrong. Debate. Or did you have another purpose for mentioning your atheist mysticism? 6. Where did l say frivolous? And where did l say a matter of aesthetics? In fact l asked you to consider aesthetics because l feel considering it would lead one to confront the opposite view: spirituality. I have a right to recommend an opposite view if done constructively, l am doing so contructively. If you would rather not examine aesthetics, then please, do not examine aesthetics. No offence but it is zero loss to me (other than a loss of exploring aesthetics), and l mean that sincerely. I am happy to leave it at that.
I think what l wanted to know is: how do you explain aesthetics? That's fundamentally it. I would like you to confront aesthetics and feed back how you get around what l feel is a spiritual viewpoint (l don't think aesthetics can be explained via materialism - and would like to know how you would do just that).
Thanks for clarifying your intentions. Interesting question. Before we dive in, let's agree on what "to explain aesthetics" means in this context. Explain to whom, do you mean it like explaining color to a person blind from birth? Or do you mean something like critique of art, why one work is more or less aesthetically valued or even justified as art at all? Or do you mean it in the sense "to derive from other causes"? Those would be rather different discussions.
Yes, there was a participant who got really bothered by my tag line. That person never participated in this thread, however. I'm all for debate! Religious instruction, seeking converts, and so on is, however, against our Code of Conduct (which you can find listed among the top level forums).
Back for a moment only: This is the precise question: You smell a rose perfume. It invokes a poignant bittersweet emotion in you. You respect numbers, the Fibonacci sequence, the prime number sequence, it feels like the universe, reality itself, has a "mind", and this mind culminates in us, as the universe's desire to know itself a la Sagan (actually we have a hadith precluding this, that says God was a hidden treasure and desired to be known so he created creation). Does this core mystery of numbers that you predicate your Mystic Atheism on, explain your reaction to the rose perfume? How? If not, then l would wonder how you would explain the reaction to rose perfume. I mean, how do you explain the concept of bittersweet. And the answer to that, how do you explain that? And the answer to that, how do you explain that? Eventually l predict you'll have to confront the spiritual. You might say it's to do with neurochemicals. Sure, it's the brain's olfactory detection of aroma chemicals. But where does the bittersweet emotion itself come from? A jar full of dopamine doesn't feel like breaking down in tears nor does it feel glad or uplifted. It just sits there inert. My solution: there's a soul, it's all predicated on the soul. The soul defeats materialist dialectic, it surpasses physical explanations. I'll try to be back in a few days.
Not sure about a jar full of dopamine, but I hear that a dose of MDMA can evoke powerful emotions of empathy and well-being. Let me turn your question around. How does the bittersweet poignant emotion which arises upon smelling the scent of rose water account for the Fibonacci sequence? Also, and again, have you read this entire thread from the beginning?
I have read your OP, i believe that is the focal point of the thread. MDMA is not a powerful emotion by itself. It works via acting on a subtype of serotonin receptor and doubtless has knock on effects with other neurotransmitters. But again, not even these chemicals are an emotion by themselves. Sure, they modify emotions. With low levels of serotonin, l could feel extremely worn down. But that could still be a happy kind of worn down, or it could be suicidal worn down. So there's still the matter of emotion unexplained. Emotions are aesthetics. I believe the golden mean to be a unit or measure of aesthetic, which is quite amazing because normally units measure quantity not quality. As you see these things are not on the same plane, the maths and the aesthetics, and that's why l was asking if you had considered the mystery of aesthetics.
That explains your assumptions. What different planes? They are both on the human plane, accessible to us human beings with our faculties of cognition and affect. So we've done Truth and Beauty. Will it be Goodness next?
I have no idea what you are talking about other than a vague impression that l am wrong, l do not know, but you do know. Honestly, l don't mind. Feel free to keep this critique to yourself if you wish, as you have done so far. Or just speak plainly, l prefer that. I'm not here for personal stuff. Human plane isn't a dimension l recognise. Humans span multiple planes, hence you recognise maths and aesthetics. Hence a human speaks to a human about these multiple planes. I didn't realise we had done with Beauty, and l don't believe we discussed Truth. I don't understand what good it will do to move on to goodness when you clearly have a haughty and defensive approach. Actually l wrote a bit more then re-read it and l think we should just be friends. I know you don't like to be shaken in your views, but please understand, l am only here to challenge and be challenged. In a fair and polite manner of course.
You jump into the middle of a long-running thread, not bothering to read it, with assumptions that are a bit out of context to someone who actually read the thread up to the point of your first post. Nothing wrong about that, just amusing. Are you referring to me pointing out our Code of Conduct earlier? As stated there, I did so after you wanted to recruit me as a guinea-pig for a contemplative practice you never tried on yourself. I don't know about Sufi masters, but the teachers I had the fortune of learning from would have given me a lot of grief if they caught me doing that. As you wish! Big Love. (Edited to reflect edits in the post replied to)
Great! Let's continue with Truth an Beauty then. I see. To me, T & B are like X and Y axes or dimensions of our human existence, orthogonal so to speak, but as I said within our "plane" of experience. To you they don't share the same plane. Are these different planes arranged hierarchically to you? If so, which one is higher, and what does this difference mean, by which scale do you determine the relative position of the two?
