@Cognostic

Mysticism is not a "woo" term.
Then what the fuck are you waiting for. DEFINE it. What is the "Concrete" definition of mysticism? Why is this so damn hard for you.

It isn't hard. I've left plenty of material here for anyone to satisfy having defined this experience. Let me attempt to spell it out once more, mysticism involves spiritual techniques and disciplines aimed at eliciting mystical states of consciousness from which the mystic gains insight and applies it into his or her daily life. That's mysticism in a nutshell, however the mystical state of consciousness is more accurately what is being defined here. These researchers make a distinction between what they call the archetype/visionary state of consciousness which occurs just moments before or right after the height of this experience which is the unitive or .

You assert that these terms have "Concrete" meanings. Well.................... still waiting. Define the term without moving to inane assertions or higher abstractions. YOU SAID "CONCRETE" Waiting.......

Yes, that's right. Concrete definitions. If you had done a little research of your own and reviewed the lectures, you wouldn't be here "still waiting."

Kafei: Why are you avoiding the topic. Define the term. Give me a definition not based on bullshit or just admit that you can't do it. No one asked you what mysticism involved/ You are using the word SPIRITUAL. Now you have two words to define. Stop spouting bullshit and give me a concrete definition of the word MYSTICISM.

@Sheldon

Mysticism is a woo woo term by definition, that's what woo woo means.

Woo woo
adjective
1. relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.

No, woo-woo is defined by that which is pseudo-scientific, little or no scientific basis, etc. Sure, it can relate to mysticism, spirituality, or alternative medicine, but that doesn't make mysticism, spirituality, or alternative medicine "woo-woo," you see. It just means that someone attempted to associate it with such things, not that it's truly or directly related to mysticism or spirituality or alternative medicine, for that matter. A very effective alternative medicine, for instance, has been recognized as ayahuasca. And the benefits of such things are beyond amazing. I'll offer a couple of examples from Chris Kilham and Amber Lyon. If you click one of those, check out Amber Lyon's story. They're both good, but I think I like hers better, and she has has a slideshow that shows the process.

"neuroscientists are referring to as mystical states of consciousness."

No they're not, mainstream science doesn't support the idea mysticism is objectively evidenced.

Yes, it does, and this is mainstream science at this point. Do you realize how many times Dr. Roland Griffiths' work has been cited out of Hopkins' medicine?

"There are peer-reviewed studies on mystical experience."

No there aren't, and again it's risible ti imagine mainstream science wouldn't be trumpeting this along with every single global news network if it were remotely true.

Well, it has been in the media, it's been on CNN for some time now. Matt Dillahunty thought the same exact thing when I called him. In my more recent call, he conceded that he was not too familiar with the research.

"Sure, the second definition is made by those who've not had a mystical experience,"

No it isn't, that's nonsense, dictionary definitions are determined by common usage. Nor is there any objective evidence anyone has had a mystical experience. Again any remotely objective person can see the mainstream global scientific community does support these claims.

Well, I've been following this research for about a decade only to realize it had a much more rich history than that initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s and has been elaborated and refined throughout the decades. There was a gap in '66 with the psychedelic studies, because they became illegal, even for scientific research. That gap ended when Dr. Rick Strassman performed his studies with DMT in the mid-90s. Then, in '99 with the psilocybin research that started at Hopkins, the first study being published in 2006, the same year Richard Dawkins released his book "The God Delusion," which makes no reference to Griffiths' work. He couldn't of, he was already getting ready to publish. However, he was once challenged by Graham Hancock to try ayahuasca, while he declined, he nevertheless had a very interesting response.

"We're not talking about the supernatural in the sense often bandied about and defined by atheists, as "that which is not natural,"

The definition of supernatural has nothing to do with atheism or atheists, you're talking nonsense sorry, and anything supernatural would by definition be beyond scientific study, and beyond laws of nature.

Supernatural
adjective
1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

So claiming there is peer reviewed research for something supernatural is demonstrable nonsense. Even before we point out yet again the entire scientific world and all the global news networks seem to have missed this paradigm shifting event.

That's not how mystics define this term or Perennialist, for that matter. I believe even Matt understands this point. And he had a contention about it in our most recent encounter, but he in his last statement to me said that there's everything right with addressing your interlocutor presents as what they're actually saying and portraying, however he was referring to Jordan Peterson here, not me. If he was really getting what he knew about this stuff from Jordan, I figured perhaps Jordan Peterson gave him this misconception. So, I wasn't really one for Jordan Peterson at all, so I chimed into what Jordan Peterson was saying about this stuff to see if Matt really inherited this misconception from Jordan. Nope. It was Matt's misinterpetation, it was his own misconception about this research. Jordan Peterson's interpretation of Roland Griffiths' work is pretty on point. Recall, Peterson isn't involved in this research, he just so happened to bump into Dr. Roland Griffiths when he became informed about this research. People don't really watch TV anymore. I see this stuff pop-up on my YouTube ad feeds, but it's probably due to the algorithms and the fact that I constantly research this stuff, but it has been in the media forever, and people are slowly waking, I think, to it, but there is something to say that when it's the most cited out Johns Hopkins, yet most people don't know about this stuff does speak to rate at which people are becoming aware which is another interesting topic within itself. Why isn't this more known? Terence McKenna asked that question all the time.

"Funny how you chose this clip. This is actually not only my call, but the clip I uploaded to my YouTube channel."

That says it all really. You couldn't even define the deity you claimed to believe in.

Because we're not speaking about a "deity" which is ordinary construed, if you want to go by your "dictionary definition." I don't think you're going to find William James' definition of mystical experience in the dictionary. Why? Probably because the dictionaries haven't caught up with the science. So, if you go by "common usage" over etymology, especially when studying a religious text, then you're prone to eisegesis. This is why exegesis is emphasized. The hermeneutic study of religion is how theologians and mystics studied the scriptures of the major religions, as well as having these mystical experiences. You see, because if you have a mystical experience, you're no longer attempting to interpret scripture, you know relate to it, because these mystics who were describing these mystical experiences as being "outside of space and time," were describing a potential in consciousness, so any religious scholar who comes along without direct knowledge of mystical experience is very liable to fall victim to eisegesis, which is his own intellectual interpretation of the scriptures which risk being filtered through his own biases. So, instead of interpreting something like "timelessness" as something to be access within their own consciousness, they instead anthropomorphize this aspect of the mystical experience to a "deity" that's "outside of space and time," an abstraction that takes various forms. The mystic, instead, resonates with the scripture, because they realize it's a potential within one's self. So, within the context of the research, these mystical experiences are defined in accordance with the Perennial philosophy.

Just kept repeating vague wishy washy claims about all religions pointing to the existence of a deity. Neither Matt Dillahunty nor anyone else has to be familiar with these claims for peer reviewed research, scientific claims are validated by science, and these claims have not been. The claims are no different than the claims creationists make for scientific credibility for their beliefs.

Well, I'm not talking about creationism, but if you're really interested in all of this, like I said, I've been following this research for a while. I'm very interested in discussing all these topics. I recommend reviewing some of the links I've left here before you decide to respond. And you don't have to respond immediately. Wait a week. I've had forums where the interactions would take weeks, not just days or hours or minutes. There's some people who prefer this format because you can really draw out your thoughts. I've tons of bookmarks on this stuff relative to the science, the lectures, and all things related to altered states of consciousness of various sorts, not simply psychedelics, but states of lucid dreams, fugue states, hypnopompic/hypnagogic, seizures or syndromes; it's simply that the more modern research focuses on psychedelics, but there's a reason for this. It's not easy to study people who can do this naturally, such as the Tibetan monks or the Carmelite nuns which have been studied with EEG and fMRI. The naturally occurring mystical states of consciousness are not very predictable or repeatable, they seem to be much more spontaneous. That's where psychedelics come in, they can reproduce this experience on-demand. That's why they've been so useful to the scientific research. Researchers can't wait around for a monk to finally enter this state via contemplation. So there's a certain logistics involved, but this research at Hopkins has prompted very interesting research all around the world. Here's one example of a study I'd be scared to volunteer.