It is possibly a hyperbolic statement if just applied to the pedophilia issue, but not in the larger historical sense.

This seems to imply that there should be no credence given to Revelations, yet earlier in the thread you blithely announced that Revelations labelled the Catholic Church as "the beast"- "By the way, does anyone know that the Book of Revelation (chapters 16-18) refers to the Roman Catholic Church as Babylon, the Great Harlot? ... I would also suggest that the Book of Revelation has already been fulfilled. Clarify this position, please.And we also must understand that mystics and schizophrenics are hard to distinguish in the field.
Erm, yes, yes it does. Is there any evidence of this alleged "spiritual world" apart from the writings of this man? I can claim that there is an army of devil monkeys living in my butt that stand ready to cleanse the world of cheese when the stars are right, in a spiritual sense. Does not make it so. Sorry.
Erm, no, we do not need to take into account any such thing. The "collective unconscious" is the accumulation of cultural references that we humans share, not a realm apart from the objective world. And if there are no humans living on the Moon or Mars, how can "spirits" of the "collective unconscious" be living there?

It all depends on whether you wish to accept the writings of a mystic or not. I just figured I should bring it up now since people tend to reach for their favorite interpretation without it even crossing their minds. And then to automatically try and discredit somebody else just because he was a mystic, well I think it bears repeating. So basically this is what all the hubbub regarding the Book of Revelation is all about.

If we understood that the Christian Church is the fourth in succession in the lineage of the church called the Church of Man, beginning with the Church of Adam, the Church of Noah and the Israelite Church, then we must understand that the Christian Church should also come to a close and a fifth church be established.

While typically at the end of each church something cataclysmic occurs that signifies its destruction, hence the end of times or, end of an era so to speak. For example the Great Flood signified the end of the Church of Adam, while the fall of the Tower of Babel signified the end the Church of Noah and, the captivity of the Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians signified the end of the Israelite Church.

As for the end of the Christian Church, represented by the Roman Catholics, it began to decline and lose its power over the two centuries that the Reformation became established. While it continued to establish itself and gain power until the advent of the Age of Enlightenment which, as I said coincides with the Advent of the New Church. So at this point the Reformation, represented by the Great Red Dragon, etc. (Revelation 12-13), begins to rule and persecute those who don't abide by its doctrine, namely that faith alone saves without works (the ten commandments) which, is why it's called the Dragon and not the New Church. This was allowed to continue for a time, up until it, along with the Roman Catholic Church, represented by Babylon, the Great Whore, are ultimately dealt with and the Last Judgment is performed. Which, according to Swedenborg occurred in the spiritual world in the year 1757.

And, while I'm sure there are gobs of things I've overlooked here, if you would like to understand the lineage of the first five churches better, as well as the sixth? please refer to chapters 1-3 of my book.

Is there really a difference? This is kind of what you make it sound like. Well, perhaps with the mystic the insanity is only temporary, that is until he learns how to put his brain back together again. That's kind of what happened to me anyway. And it reflects the typical shamanistic experience which happens throughout the world. Hey, look at John the Baptist for a case in point.

I've had any number of experiences happen to me if that's what you mean, many of which I've detailed in my book. But, does that classify it as the typical "hard" evidence most people are looking for? I doubt it. However, if you were to refer to chapter 5 and chapter 9, you might inquire as to what it was I was smoking, really? although I can assure you I wasn't on drugs.

The fact that we're speaking of the unconscious mind suggests it has nothing to do with the "objective world." Are you at all familiar with Carl Jung?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Just to show you what a "good sport" I am, I just got through posting this on the JREF Forums ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Okay, so what you are saying is you believe that Revelations was written by a genuine mystic that accurately foretold a change in "churches", and you feel it is relevant to our time because it implies the shift to yet another "church" - is this a correct assesment?

Is it remotely possible for you that Revelations was a political treatise, written to warn the Christians of the author's time of the persecution being initiated by the current emperor, and that this warning was couched in symbollic language to conceal it from the persecutors?

Well, I cannot understand any such thing, mainly because the first two churches are based on fictional people. But, granting that they are not for a second - how are these divisions at all useful? The question boils down to - So what if there were four, or six, or twelve, or four million and seven "churches" before this. So what if there is another coming? All this does is illustrate a capricousness on the diety's part - he keeps changing the terms of the relationship with his slaves. Without answers to those questions, the "history" of these divisions is rather pointless.


I suppose a short, non-techincal answer to this would be everybody dreams- average people are entertained (or sometimes frightened) by them, Mystics base their lives on them, and schizophrenics live in them.

That's a bit flip. If you want to discuss it further it should be in it's own thread, probably.


I have had very similar experiences. MANY people have- that's why we have all these "visions" popping up throught history - religious or otherwise. Constantine, Augustine, Jean d'Arc make the history books. But it happens to almost every human being, only most of ours do not have world-altering implications.

Yeah, I studied Jung in college, but it has been a long time. He had some good ideas. But you do realise there has been a century or more of work in the field of Psychology since him, and that just because he was right about a few things doesn't make his every idea true, right? I do not see any reason at all to extrapolate a Platonic unconsious world just because we are not always fully aware of some of our thought processes.

Seems like just a dream to me - I have similar ones all the time. What about it makes it "mystical"?

Yes.

It's possible, but then you have to ask whether it was a genuine mystical account or not. If you don't believe in mysticism that's one thing, but if you do, then you'd want to understand what that mystical meaning was. In other words it's all contingent upon whether mysticism per se' is genuine or not.

However, if you understood that you had a soul, and that there is an afterlife, maybe you wouldn't be so rash in your conclusion?

What do you mean by flip? And, are you referring to dreams here? If you want to start a new thread, then by all means ...

So all we need to do is get at the source of it then right?

Which doesn't make it wrong either does it? In fact many would posit the same thing about the Bible as well ... Not to say that times don't change mind you.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

As I said on the JREF Forums thread, it all depends on whether you believe you have a soul or not.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

If it is possible that Revelations is not a mystical account, how do you go about determining if it is or not?

You seem to take as given that everything is "mystical". Is this accurate? If not, what are some things you don't consider mystical?


You are assuming that I believe neither of those things. Without commiting myself, let's say I am Buddhist - in which case I believe I have a soul and that soul persists after death. Neither of these beliefs changes the statement I made- that the bible is largely fictional, Adam and Noah are characters in a story, and that the "history" of the relationship of a made-up god to his worshipers is irrelevant. Why is it important to you?


Precipitous and somewhat less than serious. A "cute" answer rather than accurate.
Yes, dreams.


That is what the study of Psychology is about- a facinating dicipline in itself without mystical trappings. You really need to read something more current than Jung.

In a nutshell, there is no reason to presuppose that any of the images that I experience while dreaming come from some external source, especially as I (and it would seem you also) can identify images from my own experiences represented in them.


This isn't clear to me- What doesn't make what wrong either? Many would posit what same thing about the bible?


That is a dodge, not an answer. Let's assume I have a soul- what makes the dream you cited (or any dream) "mystical"?

Like I said, if the practice of mysticism was legitimate, then we would first have to go with the possibility that a mystic did write it, rather than some "non-mystical" person introducing it merely for political sake.

By the very nature of the human mind which, is subjective, "Life is but a dream."

It's a rather moot point then really. But, since there is so much more that we can glean from the Bible about our spirituality, I don't see how it would make much difference one way or the other. In which case we might as well stick with what the Bible says. But hey, if it makes that much difference to you which, I can understand, then don't believe it.

It's still valid nonetheless ...

This is what's wrong with society. We don't believe in a motivating life-force.

Yes, but who or what are you in relation to them? How do you know that these images aren't just dreaming you up? Wouldn't it be fair to say that there was some sort of interaction going on? If so, then what makes them any less real than you are? Are you saying that there's nothing there in your dreams? Not even you?

Well let's just say there are a lot of things I don't agree with that have come along since Jung or the Bible.

Because the soul is the portal to the spiritual experience, and when one is dreaming, this is you, your soul, in the spiritual world. And the mystic knows this.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Which premise you start with isn't really important. How are you going to decide if it a mystical text? Because the author says so? Because Swedenborg says so? Is there some criterea you use to distinguish a genuine mystic from a fraud, a charlatan? Or are there fraudulent mystics at all?


That's actually the answer to the question "Why do you consider things to be mystical?", which I didn't ask. Let me rephrase. What are the limits of mysticism, if any? Is there any aspect of life to which you feel mysticism does not apply?

Let me see if I understand you; The history of god's relationship to his worshipers is not relevant to those that do not believe in the validity of the bible, but since the bible has things to teach us about spiritual maters, we should stick to the bible. Is that correct? Why then not the Koran? or the Baghavad-gita? or the Book of Mormon? or Moby Dick? You can plug any text into that statement and it will make as much sense. Why is the bible unique among these others?


Please expand on this. What is "wrong" with society? do you mean American society, or humans in general? What is a "motivating life-force"? Is there a coresponding non-motivating life force? Is it different from the biochemical processes that animate our corporeal bodies? If theis life-force exists, in what way does our belief or non-belief in it affect our social behaviour?

1) I am a human being. The dreams are images flashing through my brain as a natural funcion of that organ.
2) Because I am usually aware I am dreaming when I dream, I (usually) remain aware of who I am in waking life no matter the role I play in a dream, I can exert control over events in a dream I cannot in waking life, and because the waking world is unaltered by the content of the dream.
3) One could say there was "interaction" between different thought processes, but this can occur in waking life as well. There is nothing about it to presuppose an external influence. It's all in my own head.
4) Yeah, I like "Through the Looking Glass" too... . See points 1&2.
5) If by this do you mean "Do dreams have content?" then yes, they do- the same as my imagination. I "see" pictures, "hear" conversations when I read- it does not imply that the characters are somehow coming to life when I read.


Well, that's hardly surprising given that most of human thought contradicts the rest in some way. This is why most skeptics feel reason and the scientific method are such useful tools. The question would be then, why did you settle on these sources- did they tell you what you wanted to hear, or do you have your own criterea for evaluating them?


How does the mystic know this?

"Many will come in my name to lead many astray." Yes, it's entirely possible for a person to misrepresent who they are.

Also, regarding the idea that the Book of Revelation represented the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church, according to the source you quoted in the JREF Forums thread, it may not be entirely unfounded. If in fact there's any universality to the Book of Revelation at all which, it seems to portend, then it only stands to reason that its repercussions be felt throughout the ages, much like the effect of creating ripples when throwing a rock in a pond. In fact I allude to many of these repercussions in my book.

I have something further to add here, regarding the number 666 and the Reformation which, should really hammer the idea home, however I don't have time to get into it now. If you remind me I'll try and address it later, Okay? Thanks.

What I'm suggesting here is that mysticism can be viewed as a point of reference if you understand what that means. In which case it can be applied to just about anything, merely because man is subjective by nature. Albeit it's more properly defined as an internal experience. Hence when we say, "The kingdom of heaven is within," that by definition is mysticism.


No, what I'm saying here is that the only thing that's relevant is what you understand, regardless. Why? Because your understanding in effect determines who you are and, what you do. Why should you believe in something that has no significance to you? What do they say, "Garbage in garbage out?" How can you add its variables otherwise? Which isn't to say you shouldn't focus your attention on the Bible if, that's what you're inclined to do.

This is just the basic emnity thing between the spiritualists and the materialists. And what does the Bible say? "The love of the world puts you at emnity with God." That's pretty clear isn't it? In other words spiritualists claim that we're more than just the electro-chemical processes which go on inside our brain and, that Science neglects the fact that we have a soul. Which, is the basic premise for materialism.

Actually I misunderstood the original question here. I didn't realize you were drawing a comparison between dreams and external reality. In which case I was trying to illustrate the relationship between dreams and internal reality and, that we are in fact coming into contact with the spiritual world in our dreams.

Well let's just say nothing beats firsthand experience, not unlike many of the things described in my book. By the way, we all own a piece of the original equipment, so if there's anything there to be found, persistence dictates that it will.

How does the Art Major know anything about art, if that doesn't imply working with the medium itself?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

So again I ask, what criterea do you use to judge if a "mystic" is authentic, simply mistaken, or outright fraudulent? What makes Revelations a mystical text?


As for Revelations, of course it is possible that other interpretations may be correct. The strictly historical interpretation is the one that seems most likely to me, and the one that best fits the pattern of evidence (in its similarities to other, similar writings of the period, for example) but that does not preclude the possibility that the author meant it to represent a more generalised exortation to keep to the core tenents of the faith as he saw them.
I do dispute the universality of the text, however, as outside the Zoroastrian dualism exhibited by Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, the symbology breaks down. The book's themes of a redeemer delivering the faithful from corruption and evil are not going to mean much to the Hindu, Buddhist, or animist. This means that the "ripples" of Revelations' influence will be little felt among cultures influenced primarily by these traditions.


This number can be manipulated all sorts of ways to make it stand for anything one cares to, and I've seen dozens, so I doubt I'll be impressed- but mention it if you wish.


Well, anything can be a "point of reference". In this sense mysticism is no different from communism, capitalism, skepticism, alcoholism, hedonism, or any other -ism. Humankind percieves the universe through subjective eyes, indeed- but this neither negates the existence of an objective external universe nor does it require the existence of a separate "internal" universe. I can obtain many different perspectives on the human experience from speaking to others, or reading their words. Given the admitted subjective nature of human experience, does this not suggest to you that it is inherently less than "perfect", and thus far short of the usual definitions of "heaven"?

Given that we've already stated that human understanding is subjective, isn't this a little delusive? What if I decide the limit of my understanding is what I immediately perceive myself? In such case I might conclude that the world is flat, the sun moves around the Earth, and that I am the centre of the universe. Does mysticism preclude the need to admit ignorance? If so, I can certainly see its appeal.

Mainly because the universe is so vast and wonderous that I cannot be so arrogant as to assume that everything in it will somehow be signifigant to me, or if something is, that I will immediately recognise it as such.


So if I understand you (heh), What I understand already is the measure of what I am, I should ignore what has no immediate signifigance to me because what is not signifigant to myself cannot be signifigant because I cannot understand it (GI-GO), so I should just read the bible if so inclined. Isn't this philosophy self-negating? How does it allow for personal growth? Or is growth and change allowed under mysticism?


I don't see an answer here. If there is "enmity" between spiritualists and materialists, I do not see how it is relevent here, and if there exists such enmity, it can hardly be the general cause of all society's "wrongs". If I am mistaken, please feel free to illustrate why. Also, it is disingenuous to claim that "Science" is essentialy materialist, as there are many scientists who have had, and do, maintain unprovable, untestable, religious beliefs. If science neglects the soul, it is only because the notion is hard to experimentally test (not that such exeriments have not been tried- but to my knowledge so far they have been inconclusive at best).


Then let me ask the same questions of you, and you can tell me what the answers are in relation to the "spiritual world":
1) Who or what are you in relation to the images in dreams?
2) How do you know that these images aren't just dreaming you up?
3) Is there was some sort of interaction going on?
4) What makes the images in dreams any less real than you are?
5) What do you feel is there in your dreams?

Given that you argued earlier that human perception is subjective, does it not imply that first-hand experience is by nature unreliable? Does mysticism not allow for misapprehension, for self-deception, for wishful thinking?

To be honest, I've only scanned your book, as it is hard to follow and seems to assume the reader already shares your premises, which you fail to clearly state at the outset.


I have no idea to what you are referring to here.


This is a non-answer that begs the question. What you've just told me is essentially that the mystic knows the spiritual world exists because the mystic works with the spiritual world. "Art" can independantly verified by an outside observer- can this "spiritual world"?

As far as the book goes- what is up with the photo of Hedy Lamar in the background? It shows through the text and makes it harder to read.

Hedy Lamarr represents the heavenly bride. She died in 1999, which was the same year I came up with this Julie Beloved thing in chapter 17. And, while I generally haven't made it known to anyone, except a few people, this particular picture looks like a spitting image of this Julie woman I used to know. Also, Hedy Lamarr was an actress, with its similarity to Dionysus, the god of drama, her daughter's name was Denise, which is the feminine of Dennis (my name), both of which come from Dionysus, while she had also written a book called Ecstasy and Me, with its similarity to another of Dionysus' epithets, the god of ecstasy.

Hedy was also the first woman to appear nude in a film, called Ecstasy (released in 1934), with its connotations to Daphne, the freshwater nymph and beloved of Apollo. (Hedy appeared nude while swimming in a lake.) While in some accounts Daphne is purported to become Pasiphae, the mother of Ariadne, the beloved and wife of Dionysus. And here I've also ascribed Daphne to the heavenly bride in chapter 4.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

How about when you take the numerical value of the letters in Jesus' name, which are, 10, 5, 19, 21 and 19. When added, you get 74 which, when multiplied by 9 you get 666. That's a little strange don't you think? And, when I first heard it just about floored me, because I too have a sense for numbers, and to me the number 9 implies a sense of dead-seriousness. Please refer to chapter 4. So I'm thinking what could it possibly mean? Then I realized that most people misconstrue the anti-Christ to mean someone who is anti Christian, when in fact it's not like that at all. The anti-Christ is actually the false Christ, who appears in Jesus' name, and yet is not what he claims to be. So why can't the number 666 represent the false Jesus? (or false prophet).

Now I don't know of any other languages besides English, I suspect there are at least a few, where the numberical values of Jesus' name add up to 74. Regardless though, we are speaking of where the Reformation had its stronghold at the time the Last Judgment was performed according to Swedenborg, in Great Britain. So at least this much would be correct if the Reformation represented the Dragon, the Beast out of the Sea and the False Prophet.

We also need to understand that the only significant development of Christianity since its establishment in Rome, was the development of the Reformation. Thus we have the two key players that are supposed to appear at the advent of the New Church, the Great Dragon which is the Reformation, and Babylon the Great Whore which is the Roman Catholic Church ... where the Great Dragon is somewhat new to the scene, and Babylon the Great isn't brought into remembrance until towards the end of the judgment upon the Dragon and its crew, at which point both are ultimately judged (in the spiritual world).

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

What makes Betty Crocker taste so good? How do you know anything? Actually, I don't believe most people are qualified to do so, not without having done the proper research anyway.

In other words you don't actually believe it entails a visionary experience.

The ripples originate from the center and spread outwards until they reach the furthest outreaches.

Please see post above.

Yes, all I'm trying to do is validate it in this sense, and get away from other possible connotations such as "wacko," at least for now.

Is a contemporary ignorant of his own times? Typically no.

Well you learn as go is the way I see it.

Yes, this is why Science tends to lend itself to the materialist's point of view.

Typically just somebody else.

Because I am conscious and aware of them.

More often than not, yes.

Not much, since I usually afford them the same standing as myself.

Why do you say feel, because you don't believe there's any more to it than that?

Firsthand experience is nothing more than learning from doing, as opposed to just reading about it in a book.

Have heard different things from different people, however I admit it could stand to be rewritten.

By original equipment I mean we all have a soul ... or, maybe not?

Not everyone has an appreciation for art.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

3) I didn't ask about "most people". What criterea do you use to judge if a "mystic" is authentic, simply mistaken, or outright fraudulent?

No, I don't- I have been very clear in that opinion. The unanswered question is why do you?

Yes, thanks, I understood the metaphor. To extend it- ripples in a pond will not cause ripples in the shore. Other belief systems that are not based on Zoroastian dualism are the shore. They are constitutionally different from J/C/I and are not moved by the same symbology.

I have never denied mysticism as a "point of view". What I am trying to understand is how this POV is more valid to you than any other. You have repeatedly stated that mysicism is akin to the "Kingdom of heaven", and that it exists within human beings. How do you reconcile this. Is "heaven" not by definition "perfect"? What does "perfect" mean, anyway?

One would hope, but it does happen. Consider that there are yet Flat-earthers, biblical literalists, faith healers, pagans, et al. For a more prosaic example, there was Lt. Hiroo Onoda.

You yourself have stated your refusal to consider phsychological developments subsequent to Jung. Does this not tend to illustrate that human understanding is flawed and limited?

Well, that is certainly what I believe, but it doesn't seem to be what you said. Please explain how the following is incorrect, else please illustrate how it is compatible with learning.


This statement is just as specious as claiming that carpenters have an anti-electricity bias because their tools are not designed to work with electricity. Really- you are better than that.

Please provide answers, I am trying to understand. What is "wrong" with society? do you mean American society, or humans in general? What is a "motivating life-force"? Is there a coresponding non-motivating life force? Is it different from the biochemical processes that animate our corporeal bodies? If this life-force exists, in what way does our belief or non-belief in it affect our social behaviour?

Do you never occupy different roles in a dream than you do in wakng life?

How do you differentiate between waking and dreaming? What makes you aware you are consious?

And you believe that this interaction is with other, separate entities with their own independant existance, if I understand correctly. Is this right?

What leads you to believe they have an independant existance?

Because you do believe, and I am trying to understand.

I know what first-hand experience is, that is not the question(s) I asked.

We all have a soul, so if the soul is there to be found, the soul will be. Is this what you are saying?

Another dodge. I despise Jackson Pollack, that does not lead to the conclusion that "painting" does not exist. I fail completely to have any appreciation for dance, that does not negate the existence of dance.

How does the mystic know that the spiritual world exisits? What makes him confident that he is not delusional, nor misapprehending the phenomenon he seem to be exeperiencing?


EDIT NOTE: Well you can't say I didn't try! Humpty Dumpty is more or less back together again! Feel free to modify if need be. Thanks!

Okay, sorry, I cannot wade through any of that (sorry, meaning the book). Without clearly explaining any of the symbols you are attempting to use, what you've put on the page is unintelligeable. Further, do keep in mind you cannot link in print, so you need to thing about footnotes, or, heaven forfend, repeating an explanation or two.

Regardless, let me strongly suggest that you that you use the photo as an inserted image, rather than a background (which you wouldn't be able to do in print, either.)

Some of your facts are in error in the above post, however: There is a rich history of nudity in film prior to 1934- See Here

Daphne, far from being "the beloved of Apollo", was rather fleeing his attempted rape and her father turned her into a tree. I know Bullfinch says "Apollo's first love", but it clearly was NOT reciprocal, and Bullfinch seems to have shied away from such tawdry subjects as lust and rape.

Sorry, I just botched up your previous post. I inadvertantly hit "Edit" instead of "Quote" (with "Edit" being a moderator option), and thought I was posting my own post when in fact I was editing yours. Damn! That's the second time I've done that. Once again, sorry.

Will see if I can't try and reconstruct it, after copying and posting it as my post below, Okay?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

From the standpoint of my own uniqueness. Only uniqueness can recognize uniqueness.

However, it's important to make the distinction either way. Because one denies God exists as a spirit and the other doesn't.

What are waves then?

So what? I don't deny other people their beliefs. In fact I think it's crucial, otherwise where's our point of reference?

Well, most have and do deny mysticism. As for how it pertains to me that's long story. This is why I wrote a book about it.

I have to admit I was more of a biblical literalist at one point, but now I appreciate it mostly in the allegorical sense. Which isn't to say there aren't things inherently correct about it.

This is because psychology has very little to offer in the mysticism department.

About all I can say is follow your own interest. Is that such a terrible thing to do?

Are you a materialist? Because they're usually the one's who deny there's any problem.

Yes, you must be materialist, because you obviously know very little about spirituality.

Sure. One time somebody picked me up by the scruff of the neck because they thought I was a little kitten. Oh, you're so cute!

How does a spirit know whether it's dreaming or is conscious? Well, the more conscious you are the more aware you become and the more detail you recall. However, like in the dream mentioned above, there was no way of waking up and becoming aware in the "waking state" you're referring to. In which case this is really the only way you can differentiate, if in fact your dreams become that real. Of course that isn't to say it's not possible to realize you've died and passed on in the other state. You just don't actually know until you wake up (in your physical body).

Jolly good!

Just like in the dream I had this morning. It started out with me introducing my uncle to a very nice piece of propery, but come to find out he and everybody else had their own ideas about the whole thing, and it pretty much wound up to my detriment.

Well, obviously it kind of goes along with what I've been saying above.

I would suggest that unless you know enough about yourself, and are able to differentiate between such things, mysticism is probably not for you. Indeed, people can and often do become deluded under such practices.

Essentially, yes.

Jackson Pollack? Never heard of him.

Like I say, it's something you come to understand through working with it. What else can I say? How do you come to know your wife except by being intimate with her? However, I will admit that if something extarordinary happens, there's not much point in blabbing about it to everyone else, because they have no means by which to receive it.


P.S. I don't drive a Doge by the way, I strictly drive Ford products. Oh, and can you tell me what a Piscivore is? Is that anything like a herbivore?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?