What is Humanism and the Importance of an 'Open Mind' ?

[Consul]

If knowledge is a priori if it is not (directly or indirectly) based on any form of sensory experience, then knowledge based on rational or irrational intuition is a priori…

However, given the following definition of "mystical experience", there are both sensation-involving and non-sensation-involving kinds of irrational intuition:

"A purportedly nonsensory awareness or a nonstructured sensory experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of ordinary sense-perception structured by mental conceptions, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection.
…
* “Nonsenory awareness” includes content of a kind not appropriate to sense-perception, somatosensory modalities (including the means for sensing pain and body temperature, and internally sensing body, limb, organ, and visceral positions and states), or standard introspection.…
…
*“Nonstructured sensory experience” consists of phenomenological sensory content but lacks the conceptualization normally structuring sense-perception."

Mysticism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

"Nonstructured sensory experience" is still a form of sensory experience, so sensation-involving mystical experiences (allegedly) provide knowledge a posteriori, whereas non-sensation-involving ones (allegedly) provide knowledge a priori.

[stevie]

I read a 'Humanist Anthology: ....

I have lost interest in reading, so I don't read much. Even your opening posts to your threads I can't read because they appear to be inappropriately long.

[JackDaydream]

I read a 'Humanist Anthology: ....

I have lost interest in reading, so I don't read much. Even your opening posts to your threads I can't read because they appear to be inappropriately long.

I am sorry if my opening posts seem too long. It is hard to know how much to write and I appreciate that clarity is important. When writing posts as well as threads it is hard to know how much to write since ideas need to be explained. I know that some people often only write a few lines. Even though I love reading sometimes I sometimes find it difficult reading too much online. I will stop here!

[JackDaydream]

If knowledge is a priori if it is not (directly or indirectly) based on any form of sensory experience, then knowledge based on rational or irrational intuition is a priori…

However, given the following definition of "mystical experience", there are both sensation-involving and non-sensation-involving kinds of irrational intuition:

"A purportedly nonsensory awareness or a nonstructured sensory experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of ordinary sense-perception structured by mental conceptions, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection.
…
* “Nonsenory awareness” includes content of a kind not appropriate to sense-perception, somatosensory modalities (including the means for sensing pain and body temperature, and internally sensing body, limb, organ, and visceral positions and states), or standard introspection.…
…
*“Nonstructured sensory experience” consists of phenomenological sensory content but lacks the conceptualization normally structuring sense-perception."

Mysticism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

"Nonstructured sensory experience" is still a form of sensory experience, so sensation-involving mystical experiences (allegedly) provide knowledge a posteriori, whereas non-sensation-involving ones (allegedly) provide knowledge a priori.

It is hard to know what a person is tuning into in having a mystical experience and how it connects to sensory perception or another dimension separate from the basis of reason. There is often such a variety of experiences that it can be hard to know what constitutes one. Also, because it is an experience it is hard to know constitutes one, and whether there are any ultimate criteria of a mystical experience. On that basis, I am not sure if I have ever had one or not. The closest I have probably felt to one was after having been in a really dark state of mind, I have sometimes switched over to a sensation of joy and sense of peace and contentment, like some form of 'healing' state of consciousness, with some kind of connection to some kind of higher source, whether it is called 'God' or not.

Of course, not all mystical experiences are religious and there is nature mysticism, which seems so interconnected with the senses. Also, metaphysical poets, including John Donne spoke of love as a form of mysticism and the human romantic experience was a starting point for appreciation of the divine.

Going back to the distinction between rationality and intuition one important distinction may be about the distinction of different mental processes, including reason, emotion and intuition. This has been explored by Gilchrist in his, 'The Master and the Emissary'. This looks at the difference between the right and left brain. This split has been looked at by some other writers and Gilchrist argues that it is not as clear cut as some people had believed initially. However, he does think that the left brain is more associated with the overall 'gestalt', especially intuitive knowledge and the left with the analytic approach. On that basis, he speaks of them as the master and the emissary, with the intuitive, and emotional as the basis for insight with the analysis of reason as a complementary aspect at a slower pace.

[Pattern-chaser]

The search for new and original ideas may depend on what leads one to seek them. Is novelty to be valued for itself? Many follow trends and fashions but this may be different from the actual spirit of innovation. It may be that some who are comfortable in life have no need to look for the new because the ideas or philosophy they have works for them. It may be that those who experience greater angst and conflict need to explore further, digging for new ideas and ways of seeing.

The value of novelty and supermarkets is the same: we value them for that to which they give us access, in this case, foodstuffs or interesting ideas. So we might conclude that novelty, of itself, has no intrinsic value?

[Consul]

It is hard to know what a person is tuning into in having a mystical experience and how it connects to sensory perception or another dimension separate from the basis of reason. There is often such a variety of experiences that it can be hard to know what constitutes one. Also, because it is an experience it is hard to know constitutes one, and whether there are any ultimate criteria of a mystical experience. On that basis, I am not sure if I have ever had one or not. The closest I have probably felt to one was after having been in a really dark state of mind, I have sometimes switched over to a sensation of joy and sense of peace and contentment, like some form of 'healing' state of consciousness, with some kind of connection to some kind of higher source, whether it is called 'God' or not.

Of course, not all mystical experiences are religious and there is nature mysticism, which seems so interconnected with the senses. Also, metaphysical poets, including John Donne spoke of love as a form of mysticism and the human romantic experience was a starting point for appreciation of the divine.

Going back to the distinction between rationality and intuition one important distinction may be about the distinction of different mental processes, including reason, emotion and intuition. This has been explored by Gilchrist in his, 'The Master and the Emissary'. This looks at the difference between the right and left brain. This split has been looked at by some other writers and Gilchrist argues that it is not as clear cut as some people had believed initially. However, he does think that the left brain is more associated with the overall 'gestalt', especially intuitive knowledge and the left with the analytic approach. On that basis, he speaks of them as the master and the emissary, with the intuitive, and emotional as the basis for insight with the analysis of reason as a complementary aspect at a slower pace.

The occurrence of abnormal or anomalous experiences, or altered states of consciousness is not in question. What is in question is that such experiences, including so-called mystical or religious ones, are a genuine source of belief-justification and knowledge. (I think they are not.)

[Ecurb]

The occurrence of abnormal or anomalous experiences, or altered states of consciousness is not in question. What is in question is that such experiences, including so-called mystical or religious ones, are a genuine source of belief-justification and knowledge. (I think they are not.)

I doubt I ever will get into Narnia through some magical door. But if I do, I hope I believe my own eyes.

[JackDaydream]

The search for new and original ideas may depend on what leads one to seek them. Is novelty to be valued for itself? Many follow trends and fashions but this may be different from the actual spirit of innovation. It may be that some who are comfortable in life have no need to look for the new because the ideas or philosophy they have works for them. It may be that those who experience greater angst and conflict need to explore further, digging for new ideas and ways of seeing.

The value of novelty and supermarkets is the same: we value them for that to which they give us access, in this case, foodstuffs or interesting ideas. So we might conclude that novelty, of itself, has no intrinsic value?

The internet is becoming like a supermarket of ideas. Everything is increasingly more superficial. When stevie wrote a post yesterday telling me that I write outpost introductions which are too long because he dislikes reading, while I do listen to feedback, it made me think how many people want 'quick fix' philosophy solutions. It is all about 'faster faster' lifestyles, with the latest phones and Apps.

I grew up with novelty: punk rock and putting posters on the wall of all my favourite music bands. However, I was aware of a deeper side of exploration, the world of libraries. Even though I have a Kindle I still read paper books too. When I got a Kindle someone I worked with was so surprised because they knew that I am not into all the latest gimmick devices. However, I loved the Kindlr because I probably downloaded about 1000 books and I am reading them. What I found strange was some people who have Kindles but don't have any books on them and having it seems to just be about novelty..

I simply don't understand people who are just into novelty. There definitely are people who prefer going beyond the shallow and 'quick fixes', but it can be difficult to find them at times in the maze of novelties and amusement arcades of ideas.

[JackDaydream]

It is hard to know what a person is tuning into in having a mystical experience and how it connects to sensory perception or another dimension separate from the basis of reason. There is often such a variety of experiences that it can be hard to know what constitutes one. Also, because it is an experience it is hard to know constitutes one, and whether there are any ultimate criteria of a mystical experience. On that basis, I am not sure if I have ever had one or not. The closest I have probably felt to one was after having been in a really dark state of mind, I have sometimes switched over to a sensation of joy and sense of peace and contentment, like some form of 'healing' state of consciousness, with some kind of connection to some kind of higher source, whether it is called 'God' or not.

Of course, not all mystical experiences are religious and there is nature mysticism, which seems so interconnected with the senses. Also, metaphysical poets, including John Donne spoke of love as a form of mysticism and the human romantic experience was a starting point for appreciation of the divine.

Going back to the distinction between rationality and intuition one important distinction may be about the distinction of different mental processes, including reason, emotion and intuition. This has been explored by Gilchrist in his, 'The Master and the Emissary'. This looks at the difference between the right and left brain. This split has been looked at by some other writers and Gilchrist argues that it is not as clear cut as some people had believed initially. However, he does think that the left brain is more associated with the overall 'gestalt', especially intuitive knowledge and the left with the analytic approach. On that basis, he speaks of them as the master and the emissary, with the intuitive, and emotional as the basis for insight with the analysis of reason as a complementary aspect at a slower pace.

The occurrence of abnormal or anomalous experiences, or altered states of consciousness is not in question. What is in question is that such experiences, including so-called mystical or religious ones, are a genuine source of belief-justification and knowledge. (I think they are not.)

The way in which I see mystical insights is that they are moments of 'insight' experiential. That doesn't mean that the ideas are correct. Many people stretch these moments of insight out of proportion into belief, almost beyond the realm of analysis. That is what I have found with some 'mind, body and spirit' or 'new age' thinkers. I do like such people but it often seems as if they take everything at face value rather than applying any philosophical rigour.

[JackDaydream]

One of the main issues which I see in the context of humanism, especially in relation to the area of exploration between religion and science is that of emotion and reason. How can these two aspects of experience and understanding be balanced effectively in life and human civilisation?

[JackDaydream]

If atheism, naturalism, and (scientific) rationalism are deleted from the list of humanism's essential ingredients, then it boils down to a humanitarian liberal secularism, doesn't it?

I wonder to what extent naturalism and rationalism can be deleted from the ingredients of humanism. If anything, it may be religious thinking and materialism which are fading out of significance. One of the biggest issues, beyond personal choices, is what makes sense? It may be hard to separate reason and emotions because human beings experience both. This is an ongoing part of the development of understanding of 'truth', especially in regard to objectivity and subjectivity.