Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
But do most religious people experience it? Is it a requirement for salvation? Can one grow faith gently and slowly, without a transformative moment or threshold crossed?
I don't really discuss my faith here but to answer you as well as I can mine grew slowly, I didnt really have the transformative moment till long after I believed and there is no salvation.
In the greater Seattle area, some homeless have an instructive solution to the shortage of affordable housing: RVs. Which may or may not be able to run. Some, it turns out, are actually rented to the occupants.
Whatever one may think of that solution to our problems, I do think that RVs are worth thinking about for some people here in the US, for example, seasonal agrcultural workers.
And I think in parts of the US, we should be thinking hard about manufactured housing that can be moved easily from one site to another. The Boxabl ADU that can be set up in a few hours might be suitable for a family with a nanny, and then sold when the children grow up, the family moves, or whatever. https://www.boxabl.com/casita/
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Can well remember, back in the day, getting drunk as a lord (or was it high as a loon?) and enjoying the late, great Frankie Yankovic performing on his discordian!
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
Are there any non-cranky books where stories of personal religious revelation are collected? It seems like something that would be hard to understand without experiencing it, and one can hardly conjure that up.
There are plenty. Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich for example.
But rather like listening to people's tales of drug experiences it generally doesn't help. The experience is beyond words and has to be firsthand. Inevitably all written works are second or third hand, or seen through a glass darkly.
Pretty much all religions are based on a trilogy of theology, liturgy and mysticism, but without the mystical experience the others are just words and rituals.
So whether a Catholic retreat, the fasting of Ramadan or the meditations of Buddhism, it is the mystical experience that needs to be sought.
Of all the arts, poetry probably comes the closest to describing the mystical
St John of the Cross translated by Roy Campbell is particularly good
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Can well remember, back in the day, getting drunk as a lord (or was it high as a loon?) and enjoying the late, great Frankie Yankovic performing on his discordian!
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Wise words. Your post made me Wiki them. Superb stuff.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
Are there any non-cranky books where stories of personal religious revelation are collected? It seems like something that would be hard to understand without experiencing it, and one can hardly conjure that up.
I think you might find that one certainly can conjure it up.
When we financially support first time buyers we lift the entire housing market. It’s unhelpful.
Definitely a societal problem, and the only way to shift policy is through moral conviction / ethical argument. Sharing horror stories makes us all insecure and selfish.
Policy designed to hold house prices below wage growth and reducing the need for private renters to own by improving their lot would help.
Homeowners need to take responsibility for their choices.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
Are there any non-cranky books where stories of personal religious revelation are collected? It seems like something that would be hard to understand without experiencing it, and one can hardly conjure that up.
I think you might find that one certainly can conjure it up.
For the benefit of another yes. For oneself? Only by delusion.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Wise words. Your post made me Wiki them. Superb stuff.
They are a strange lot. Is it a religion masquerading as a joke, or a joke masquerading as a religion. I have met a lot that fell on both sides of that fence and the former are really interesting to talk to, they have a take on the spiritual that is interesting
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Can well remember, back in the day, getting drunk as a lord (or was it high as a loon?) and enjoying the late, great Frankie Yankovic performing on his discordian!
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Wise words. Your post made me Wiki them. Superb stuff.
In turn yours made me. And in just two hyperlinks (via ergodic literature) I got to ‘choose your own adventure’ books.
On that basis alone I am considering becoming a Discordian pope.
ETA: and with that, to bed. Some of us have work in the morning.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
But do most religious people experience it? Is it a requirement for salvation? Can one grow faith gently and slowly, without a transformative moment or threshold crossed?
I think many do experience it, but not all.
Faith does grow slowly, but even then a transformative experience may well occur that changes everything. Saul on his way to Damascus, Muhammed getting the Koran, Buddha under the tree. All were seekers before the events.
Or even Jake Blues, in this scene which I was watching earlier on ITV4, possibly the best cinematic representation ever:
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Wise words. Your post made me Wiki them. Superb stuff.
In turn yours made me. And in just two hyperlinks (via ergodic literature) I got to ‘choose your own adventure’ books.
On that basis alone I am considering becoming a Discordian pope.
Chuckles a lot of the philosophy they have is interesting if you dive down into their discussion forums and makes you think, that alone can make it worthwhile
For avoidance of doubt I am not a discordian I just find them interesting
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
TRY AYAHUASCA
Seriously. Try it. If you do it with reliable good people you should be fine - the worst that can likely happen is that you shit yourself, puke your guts up, and have zero hallucinations and no religious insights. It happens. For some it just doesn’t work (again, we don’t know why)
At the best you will end up with a profound religious belief and your fear of death will be greatly diminished
I think that’s worth a roll of the dice? Must be approached with respect, however. Do the “dieta”. Don’t fuck about mixing it with other intoxicants. Have some benzos on hand if it all goes badly wrong and you need to come down fast
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
Are there any non-cranky books where stories of personal religious revelation are collected? It seems like something that would be hard to understand without experiencing it, and one can hardly conjure that up.
There are plenty. Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich for example.
But rather like listening to people's tales of drug experiences it generally doesn't help. The experience is beyond words and has to be firsthand. Inevitably all written works are second or third hand, or seen through a glass darkly.
Pretty much all religions are based on a trilogy of theology, liturgy and mysticism, but without the mystical experience the others are just words and rituals.
So whether a Catholic retreat, the fasting of Ramadan or the meditations of Buddhism, it is the mystical experience that needs to be sought.
Of all the arts, poetry probably comes the closest to describing the mystical
St John of the Cross translated by Roy Campbell is particularly good
“What is god?”
“Nada, nada, nada” - “nothing, nothing, nothing”
Thought-provoking stuff that recalls the work of Haddaway.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
Are there any non-cranky books where stories of personal religious revelation are collected? It seems like something that would be hard to understand without experiencing it, and one can hardly conjure that up.
I think you might find that one certainly can conjure it up.
For the benefit of another yes. For oneself? Only by delusion.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Wise words. Your post made me Wiki them. Superb stuff.
They are a strange lot. Is it a religion masquerading as a joke, or a joke masquerading as a religion. I have met a lot that fell on both sides of that fence and the former are really interesting to talk to, they have a take on the spiritual that is interesting
I rather like that one can be a Discordian and observe other faiths, rather more inclusive than most religions.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
The discordians have a saying that is apposite "When not in doubt, get in doubt as quickly as possible"
Wise words. Your post made me Wiki them. Superb stuff.
They are a strange lot. Is it a religion masquerading as a joke, or a joke masquerading as a religion. I have met a lot that fell on both sides of that fence and the former are really interesting to talk to, they have a take on the spiritual that is interesting
I rather like that one can be a Discordian and observe other faiths, rather more inclusive than most religions.
It is one of their strengths certainly . They also think outside the boxes we shut each other into
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
Are there any non-cranky books where stories of personal religious revelation are collected? It seems like something that would be hard to understand without experiencing it, and one can hardly conjure that up.
There are plenty. Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich for example.
But rather like listening to people's tales of drug experiences it generally doesn't help. The experience is beyond words and has to be firsthand. Inevitably all written works are second or third hand, or seen through a glass darkly.
Pretty much all religions are based on a trilogy of theology, liturgy and mysticism, but without the mystical experience the others are just words and rituals.
So whether a Catholic retreat, the fasting of Ramadan or the meditations of Buddhism, it is the mystical experience that needs to be sought.
Of all the arts, poetry probably comes the closest to describing the mystical
St John of the Cross translated by Roy Campbell is particularly good
“What is god?”
“Nada, nada, nada” - “nothing, nothing, nothing”
Thought-provoking stuff that recalls the work of Haddaway.
“What is love?”
“Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.”
You say that facetiously but the famous power of that celebrated lyric derives from its religious inspiration, the repetitive incantation is a clear echo of “Elohim Elohim” AKA “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” = My God, My God, Why has thou forsaken me
The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.
There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.
We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.
Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.
1. It's not The Guardian saying we don't need more houses, it's a barrister writing in The Guardian, a paper which often publishes views outside the Overton window.
2. How do you answer the assertion in the article, supported by OECD data, that the UK has in fact about the average number of homes per capita when compared with the rest of the developed world?
Like you, my position has been that we need more housing, but now I wonder. It's not as if we have 10,000s of people on the streets or living in temporary camps. The vast majority of people are housed right now. Arguably, building more houses would just lead to more empty houses.
The issue seems to be our wealth inequality, particularly between the over-45s and the under-45s, which distorts the housing market.
So, I (living on a pension, 100% equity in a large house) could afford to buy a 3-bed house locally, without a mortgage (but I could easily get a competitive mortgage if needed which I can service with the rental income), whereas a young working family on low-pay cannot get a look-in because they can't save enough to get a deposit.
Thus, controlling rents would seem to be a way to go. At implementation fix the level at the rents being charged at the time the bill was published. Freeze rents for 10 years and allow inflation to do its work.
Of course the BLT landlords would squeal as would free-marketeers, but let them squeal - they can always sell up if they think they can more money elsewhere.
In time, lower real rents mean a lower cost to the taxpayer for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit too as an added fiscal benefit (and indeed every new home-owner is a potential future Housing Benefit claimant avoided).
It's certainly more complicated than national supply/demand.
The number of spare bedrooms in the UK has increased by 2 million over the last decade, even while the population has increased. So, at the very least, we're building the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place.
You could plaster Benbecula with homes and it isn't going to do anything for the housing crisis in Manchester.
Spare bedrooms is an irrelevant statistic.
It's the circle of life that people get a home they need, get a bit older, their kids leave home, then they continue living until they die and someone else moves into the home who may need all those rooms once more. Until their kids get older and the cycle continues.
Build more 3 plus bedroom homes and the problem is solved. Then young adults and migrants alike can have a home of their own, while existing homeowners can continue to live where they've put down roots.
Or should old people be forced to live 3 couples sharing a 3 bedroom house rather than each having their own home?
Plus of course studies where people work from home are classed as spare rooms.
The total number of bedrooms available in the UK is increasing faster than the population.
If your concern is solving the housing crisis, building lots of half empty or entirely empty homes is not very clever.
You might want to check your facts as they don't add up.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade. Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
I said total bedrooms, not spare bedrooms. Detail is important for some of us.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
The way I look at it, if I may get theological for a moment (those that dont want it please ignore). There is divinity in the world I think of it as a mountain. There are many ways to climb to the top...one path is called christianity, one called islam, one called hindu..etc . The point is each way leads to the summit
Which makes it an even more exotic mix. From left to right and from authoritarian to libertine, and all stations between
You absolutely could not predict that from our political opinions, I find that oddly heartening
Mystical experience is on a different plane to politics and I dont think they intersect.. Politics is about material things, whether capitalist or socialist, mysticism is about freeing oneself from the material.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
Are there any non-cranky books where stories of personal religious revelation are collected? It seems like something that would be hard to understand without experiencing it, and one can hardly conjure that up.
There are plenty. Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich for example.
But rather like listening to people's tales of drug experiences it generally doesn't help. The experience is beyond words and has to be firsthand. Inevitably all written works are second or third hand, or seen through a glass darkly.
Pretty much all religions are based on a trilogy of theology, liturgy and mysticism, but without the mystical experience the others are just words and rituals.
So whether a Catholic retreat, the fasting of Ramadan or the meditations of Buddhism, it is the mystical experience that needs to be sought.
Of all the arts, poetry probably comes the closest to describing the mystical
St John of the Cross translated by Roy Campbell is particularly good
“What is god?”
“Nada, nada, nada” - “nothing, nothing, nothing”
Thought-provoking stuff that recalls the work of Haddaway.
“What is love?”
“Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.”
You say that facetiously but the famous power of that celebrated lyric derives from its religious inspiration, the repetitive incantation is a clear echo of “Elohim Elohim” AKA “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” = My God, My God, Why has thou forsaken me
Which makes it an even more exotic mix. From left to right and from authoritarian to libertine, and all stations between
You absolutely could not predict that from our political opinions, I find that oddly heartening
Mystical experience is on a different plane to politics and I dont think they intersect.. Politics is about material things, whether capitalist or socialist, mysticism is about freeing oneself from the material.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
The way I look at it, if I may get theological for a moment (those that dont want it please ignore). There is divinity in the world I think of it as a mountain. There are many ways to climb to the top...one path is called christianity, one called islam, one called hindu..etc . The point is each way leads to the summit
I agree, there are many routes to the summit, but culture and family background mean that we all start from different areas around the mountain, meaning that not all routes are equally useful to a particular individual.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
The way I look at it, if I may get theological for a moment (those that dont want it please ignore). There is divinity in the world I think of it as a mountain. There are many ways to climb to the top...one path is called christianity, one called islam, one called hindu..etc . The point is each way leads to the summit
I agree, there are many routes to the summit, but culture and family background mean that we all start from different areas around the mountain, meaning that not all routes are equally useful to a particular individual.
Nods why I think all should be able to choose their own way of climbing the mountain....easier to walk round the base and pick your route
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
We disagree on almost everything, but I completely agree with this, and you’ve made me think
Taking ayahuasca alone would be intolerable. You would - as you say - tip quite terrifyingly into self-doubt and then breakdown. BECAUSE you are able, during the trip, to look up and join the singing or the chanting or just look in the fire like everyone else, you have a communal experience and that enables you to navigate the storm. I had good friends with me on that trip. I love them now, that sounds mad but I do, because they did that with me
You sometimes sneer at the psychedelic route to belief, you should not, all revelation is valid, if that is how it feels to anyone thus gifted. And for me my belief has been literally life saving when I was young, and now, as I get a lot nearer to dying, it is supremely valuable as it makes me so much less scared
New Labour of 2024 is more left wing than New Labour of 1997. Blair himself has said this.
Oh well that must be right then if the well know truth God Blair says so.
Not long ago you were arguing a Starmer weakness is he is no Blair. Make your mind up.
He is not Blair.
He is also not Labour.
He has literally said he is a Conservative this week. I know he is a liar but all evidence would suggest this is a rare truthful moment from Tel Aviv Keith
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
The way I look at it, if I may get theological for a moment (those that dont want it please ignore). There is divinity in the world I think of it as a mountain. There are many ways to climb to the top...one path is called christianity, one called islam, one called hindu..etc . The point is each way leads to the summit
Precisely right
When I was discussing my ayahuasca experience on here someone said “oh do shut up, it’s like hearing someone describe their dreams” and - unfortunately - that is true. A mystical experience is - probably by definition - ineffable, It cannot be explained and described, certainly not in a way that will easily “persuade” anyone else to try this or that route to God, whether it is psychedelics or fasting or intense meditation or spending 40 nights alone in the desert, or just “nearly dying”
But who cares. Love is where it falls. Just get there - if you can
Did you not read Leon's late night mare yesterday evening? Traversing dirt roads in his Suzuki Swift to procure cash to buy a bottle of Corona. He was a very brave boy.
The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.
There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.
We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.
Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.
1. It's not The Guardian saying we don't need more houses, it's a barrister writing in The Guardian, a paper which often publishes views outside the Overton window.
2. How do you answer the assertion in the article, supported by OECD data, that the UK has in fact about the average number of homes per capita when compared with the rest of the developed world?
Like you, my position has been that we need more housing, but now I wonder. It's not as if we have 10,000s of people on the streets or living in temporary camps. The vast majority of people are housed right now. Arguably, building more houses would just lead to more empty houses.
The issue seems to be our wealth inequality, particularly between the over-45s and the under-45s, which distorts the housing market.
So, I (living on a pension, 100% equity in a large house) could afford to buy a 3-bed house locally, without a mortgage (but I could easily get a competitive mortgage if needed which I can service with the rental income), whereas a young working family on low-pay cannot get a look-in because they can't save enough to get a deposit.
Thus, controlling rents would seem to be a way to go. At implementation fix the level at the rents being charged at the time the bill was published. Freeze rents for 10 years and allow inflation to do its work.
Of course the BLT landlords would squeal as would free-marketeers, but let them squeal - they can always sell up if they think they can more money elsewhere.
In time, lower real rents mean a lower cost to the taxpayer for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit too as an added fiscal benefit (and indeed every new home-owner is a potential future Housing Benefit claimant avoided).
It's certainly more complicated than national supply/demand.
The number of spare bedrooms in the UK has increased by 2 million over the last decade, even while the population has increased. So, at the very least, we're building the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place.
You could plaster Benbecula with homes and it isn't going to do anything for the housing crisis in Manchester.
Spare bedrooms is an irrelevant statistic.
It's the circle of life that people get a home they need, get a bit older, their kids leave home, then they continue living until they die and someone else moves into the home who may need all those rooms once more. Until their kids get older and the cycle continues.
Build more 3 plus bedroom homes and the problem is solved. Then young adults and migrants alike can have a home of their own, while existing homeowners can continue to live where they've put down roots.
Or should old people be forced to live 3 couples sharing a 3 bedroom house rather than each having their own home?
Plus of course studies where people work from home are classed as spare rooms.
The total number of bedrooms available in the UK is increasing faster than the population.
If your concern is solving the housing crisis, building lots of half empty or entirely empty homes is not very clever.
You might want to check your facts as they don't add up.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade. Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
I said total bedrooms, not spare bedrooms. Detail is important for some of us.
Total bedrooms is a complete red herring unless you are going to create a law that requires people with spare bedrooms to take in tenants...
New Labour of 2024 is more left wing than New Labour of 1997. Blair himself has said this.
Oh well that must be right then if the well know truth God Blair says so.
Not long ago you were arguing a Starmer weakness is he is no Blair. Make your mind up.
He is not Blair.
He is also not Labour.
He has literally said he is a Conservative this week. I know he is a liar but all evidence would suggest this is a rare truthful moment from Tel Aviv Keith
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
The way I look at it, if I may get theological for a moment (those that dont want it please ignore). There is divinity in the world I think of it as a mountain. There are many ways to climb to the top...one path is called christianity, one called islam, one called hindu..etc . The point is each way leads to the summit
Precisely right
When I was discussing my ayahuasca experience on here someone said “oh do shut up, it’s like hearing someone describe their dreams” and - unfortunately - that is true. A mystical experience is - probably by definition - ineffable, It cannot be explained and described, certainly not in a way that will easily “persuade” anyone else to try this or that route to God, whether it is psychedelics or fasting or intense meditation or spending 40 nights alone in the desert, or just “nearly dying”
But who cares. Love is where it falls. Just get there - if you can
While I often disagree with you on this we agree, doesnt matter how you climb the mountain the important thing is you did
The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.
There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.
We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.
Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.
1. It's not The Guardian saying we don't need more houses, it's a barrister writing in The Guardian, a paper which often publishes views outside the Overton window.
2. How do you answer the assertion in the article, supported by OECD data, that the UK has in fact about the average number of homes per capita when compared with the rest of the developed world?
Like you, my position has been that we need more housing, but now I wonder. It's not as if we have 10,000s of people on the streets or living in temporary camps. The vast majority of people are housed right now. Arguably, building more houses would just lead to more empty houses.
The issue seems to be our wealth inequality, particularly between the over-45s and the under-45s, which distorts the housing market.
So, I (living on a pension, 100% equity in a large house) could afford to buy a 3-bed house locally, without a mortgage (but I could easily get a competitive mortgage if needed which I can service with the rental income), whereas a young working family on low-pay cannot get a look-in because they can't save enough to get a deposit.
Thus, controlling rents would seem to be a way to go. At implementation fix the level at the rents being charged at the time the bill was published. Freeze rents for 10 years and allow inflation to do its work.
Of course the BLT landlords would squeal as would free-marketeers, but let them squeal - they can always sell up if they think they can more money elsewhere.
In time, lower real rents mean a lower cost to the taxpayer for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit too as an added fiscal benefit (and indeed every new home-owner is a potential future Housing Benefit claimant avoided).
It's certainly more complicated than national supply/demand.
The number of spare bedrooms in the UK has increased by 2 million over the last decade, even while the population has increased. So, at the very least, we're building the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place.
You could plaster Benbecula with homes and it isn't going to do anything for the housing crisis in Manchester.
Spare bedrooms is an irrelevant statistic.
It's the circle of life that people get a home they need, get a bit older, their kids leave home, then they continue living until they die and someone else moves into the home who may need all those rooms once more. Until their kids get older and the cycle continues.
Build more 3 plus bedroom homes and the problem is solved. Then young adults and migrants alike can have a home of their own, while existing homeowners can continue to live where they've put down roots.
Or should old people be forced to live 3 couples sharing a 3 bedroom house rather than each having their own home?
Plus of course studies where people work from home are classed as spare rooms.
The total number of bedrooms available in the UK is increasing faster than the population.
If your concern is solving the housing crisis, building lots of half empty or entirely empty homes is not very clever.
You might want to check your facts as they don't add up.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade. Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
I said total bedrooms, not spare bedrooms. Detail is important for some of us.
You were claiming spare bedrooms was the problem originally, so nice way to slip from one irrelevant statistic to another.
You're claiming that spare bedrooms are the problem, yet our spare bedrooms have grown by 2 million in the same time as our population (and our over 60s population) has grown by double that figure, which shows that actually proportionately it is falling.
That we're building more bedrooms is a good thing, we shouldn't build slums, but we aren't building enough of them still. We need millions more houses to make up for our population growth.
There always should be more bedrooms than people, as people get three bedroom homes as that's what they need, but then their kids move on and they still have their home but then their kids need a 3 bed and the circle of life goes on.
The fact my nan still lives in her home she brought her kids up in sixty years ago doesn't stop her grandchildren and greatgrandchildren from needing somewhere to live too.
She's not moved in the past sixty years, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren have.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
I am the opposite - a religious upbringing, and a confirmed sceptic.
The group experience (religious or secular) can be powerful, undoubtedly - but it's also non-rational, and I do not trust it.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
I am the opposite - a religious upbringing, and a confirmed sceptic.
The group experience (religious or secular) can be powerful, undoubtedly - but it's also non-rational, and I do not trust it.
Which doesn't make you a bad person at least in my view
Which makes it an even more exotic mix. From left to right and from authoritarian to libertine, and all stations between
You absolutely could not predict that from our political opinions, I find that oddly heartening
It came as a shock to me though, when I realised so many PBers don’t believe, I’d always assumed vast majority of people do believe, especially any large collection of intelligent people.
Did you mean libertine? 🥹
as in best libertinism feeling of all is out on the more in the rain, which is why it’s in so many old romantic books? Quite a few years ago I was out on the moor in the rain and starkers, which when I think about that now I get feeling of it as being a good thing, though I would think twice now about doing it.
As a socialist, I have no intention of voting Labour and will do everything I can to lose the party its vote share.
As for loyalty: rational people can be loyal to others and to principles. Loyalty to organisations is idiotic. Might as well be loyal to Tescos.
I will be voting Green as the most Socialist option available in GE 2024
So essentially you are tacitly supporting five more years of genuine reactionary Conservatism. Undernourished children, crumbling schools, burgeoning child poverty, a return to Victorian diseases, childhood tooth decay, inadequate housing, tax relief for the wealthy, fast track tendering for Conservative Party donors and under payment of NHS clinicians. My, my, can I call you Wolfie Smith?
Which makes it an even more exotic mix. From left to right and from authoritarian to libertine, and all stations between
You absolutely could not predict that from our political opinions, I find that oddly heartening
It came as a shock to me though, when I realised so many PBers don’t believe, I’d always assumed vast majority of people do believe, especially any large collection of intelligent people.
Did you mean libertine? 🥹
as in best libertinism feeling of all is out on the more in the rain, which is why it’s in so many old romantic books? Quite a few years ago I was out on the moor in the rain and starkers, which when I think about that now I get feeling of it as being a good thing, though I would think twice now about doing it.
I suspect they meant libertarian rather than maquis de sade style libertine
I had a bottle of soju tonight. It hasn't appreciably altered my religious perspective.
The important thing is not who you worship it is did you do more good than bad Any divinity worth worshipping takes that as the main thing
Ayahuasca, on my first go, taught me to stop beating myself up, and chill out, because I make people laugh
I may not be the most selfless person on earth (OK I am seriously selfish), I am skittish and I wander about and you wouldn’t trust me to park your car, but God said Fuck all that, I made you amusing, so go out and amuse yourself, and others
It came at quite a tough moment in my life, and it has been salutary. If you make people laugh, or you entertain them in some other way, you have made the world, in a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny microscopic form, a little bit better: you do more good than bad
As a socialist, I have no intention of voting Labour and will do everything I can to lose the party its vote share.
As for loyalty: rational people can be loyal to others and to principles. Loyalty to organisations is idiotic. Might as well be loyal to Tescos.
I will be voting Green as the most Socialist option available in GE 2024
So essentially you are tacitly supporting five more years of genuine reactionary Conservatism. Undernourished children, crumbling schools, burgeoning child poverty, a return to Victorian diseases, childhood tooth decay, inadequate housing, tax relief for the wealthy, fast track tendering for Conservative Party donors and under payment of NHS clinicians. My, my, can I call you Wolfie Smith?
Maybe I picked the wrong owl? 🙁
I can only imagine BJO as a little overweight and always in a jacket.
As a socialist, I have no intention of voting Labour and will do everything I can to lose the party its vote share.
As for loyalty: rational people can be loyal to others and to principles. Loyalty to organisations is idiotic. Might as well be loyal to Tescos.
I will be voting Green as the most Socialist option available in GE 2024
So essentially you are tacitly supporting five more years of genuine reactionary Conservatism. Undernourished children, crumbling schools, burgeoning child poverty, a return to Victorian diseases, childhood tooth decay, inadequate housing, tax relief for the wealthy, fast track tendering for Conservative Party donors and under payment of NHS clinicians. My, my, can I call you Wolfie Smith?
Maybe I picked the wrong owl? 🙁
I can only imagine BJO as a little overweight and always in a jacket.
I hypothesised way before MoonRabbit jumped on it, that June was a possibility assuming Rishi is forced into it after the local elections.
Failing that, I am more and more convinced he just won't go for an election at all.
I ruled out June and went May 2nd thinking the locals will be too bad to hold election in May or June.
2015 was doing both same day, it does save money.
But I now realise it’s impossible for the locals to be bad for Sunak - it’s not that type of locals - the very worst headline can be from two mayors, lost both. Even that worst case, it’s not even going to make the front pages and will soon be forgotten.
That buoyant Rishy had a good PMQs today on back of the inflation news, and new to me today is that week in May inflation falls below 2%, interest rate cut announced, AND economy comes out of recession - all announced in one week, maybe that’s the optimum moment of good news they have been waiting to fight on.
Thanks for the hat tip on Rishi's PMQs. I just had a watch. You sold me a pup, he wasn't very good at all, although neither was Starmer.
Rishi's six answers in a couple of sentences "I brought inflation down to 3.4% and this proves I have a plan and it is working. Labour have no plan, they just have a £28m black hole and will increase taxes to pay for it because the Honourable Gentleman is a lawyer who defends terrorists, whereas I am the God of Hell fire, and I bring you - fire!
Regarding god(s) that reward(s) good work(s), might be prudent/prayerful to ascertain WHAT is divine interpretation of "good"?
For example, White Nationalist Jesus may (emphasis on conditional) reward those who advance righteous bigotry on behalf of the Chosen Race, in order to keep cursed (also uppity) Blacks down on Earth and definitely OUT of Heaven.
ADDENDUM - Or Black Nationalist Buddha or Celtic Imperialist Neodruidism or . . .
There's something peculiar about Britain in that we can shy away from our strengths.
London and the South East is a strength. There are a huge number of highly productive sectors in the capital with some companies in satellite locations in the area. There are a large number of commuter towns with fast trains into London that are of a modest size and could be easily expanded if the political will existed.
Lots of people want to live in the region. Build and they shall come.
Build up too. It’s all very low density.
That too.
Though if you've passed through Vauxhall/Battersea in the last few years and also did so 10 years ago, you can see there are areas that have embraced high density housing.
I suspect the widespread appeal of that (buildings beyond 3-4 stories) is going to be limited to zones 1-3 and around local town centres, but if it went that far universally it'd be a huge improvement.
In some ways that's back to the Prescott at ODPM reforms of ~2004, which specified higher densities the close it was towards an urban centre.
Another area using high density is I think Edgware, or somewhere near by - urban towers, and notably Manchester.
The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.
There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.
We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.
Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.
1. It's not The Guardian saying we don't need more houses, it's a barrister writing in The Guardian, a paper which often publishes views outside the Overton window.
2. How do you answer the assertion in the article, supported by OECD data, that the UK has in fact about the average number of homes per capita when compared with the rest of the developed world?
Like you, my position has been that we need more housing, but now I wonder. It's not as if we have 10,000s of people on the streets or living in temporary camps. The vast majority of people are housed right now. Arguably, building more houses would just lead to more empty houses.
The issue seems to be our wealth inequality, particularly between the over-45s and the under-45s, which distorts the housing market.
So, I (living on a pension, 100% equity in a large house) could afford to buy a 3-bed house locally, without a mortgage (but I could easily get a competitive mortgage if needed which I can service with the rental income), whereas a young working family on low-pay cannot get a look-in because they can't save enough to get a deposit.
Thus, controlling rents would seem to be a way to go. At implementation fix the level at the rents being charged at the time the bill was published. Freeze rents for 10 years and allow inflation to do its work.
Of course the BLT landlords would squeal as would free-marketeers, but let them squeal - they can always sell up if they think they can more money elsewhere.
In time, lower real rents mean a lower cost to the taxpayer for Housing Benefit and Universal Credit too as an added fiscal benefit (and indeed every new home-owner is a potential future Housing Benefit claimant avoided).
It's certainly more complicated than national supply/demand.
The number of spare bedrooms in the UK has increased by 2 million over the last decade, even while the population has increased. So, at the very least, we're building the wrong kind of housing in the wrong place.
You could plaster Benbecula with homes and it isn't going to do anything for the housing crisis in Manchester.
Spare bedrooms is an irrelevant statistic.
It's the circle of life that people get a home they need, get a bit older, their kids leave home, then they continue living until they die and someone else moves into the home who may need all those rooms once more. Until their kids get older and the cycle continues.
Build more 3 plus bedroom homes and the problem is solved. Then young adults and migrants alike can have a home of their own, while existing homeowners can continue to live where they've put down roots.
Or should old people be forced to live 3 couples sharing a 3 bedroom house rather than each having their own home?
Plus of course studies where people work from home are classed as spare rooms.
The total number of bedrooms available in the UK is increasing faster than the population.
If your concern is solving the housing crisis, building lots of half empty or entirely empty homes is not very clever.
You might want to check your facts as they don't add up.
Spare bedrooms have risen by 2 million according to you in the last decade. Our population has grown by 4 million in the last decade.
How is 2 million more than 4 million? In what universe?
We aren't building lots of empty homes, we need more homes for young people, young people have kids, so we need to build three bedroom homes.
That old people remain where they already were is irrelevant.
I said total bedrooms, not spare bedrooms. Detail is important for some of us.
You were claiming spare bedrooms was the problem originally, so nice way to slip from one irrelevant statistic to another.
You're claiming that spare bedrooms are the problem, yet our spare bedrooms have grown by 2 million in the same time as our population (and our over 60s population) has grown by double that figure, which shows that actually proportionately it is falling.
That we're building more bedrooms is a good thing, we shouldn't build slums, but we aren't building enough of them still. We need millions more houses to make up for our population growth.
There always should be more bedrooms than people, as people get three bedroom homes as that's what they need, but then their kids move on and they still have their home but then their kids need a 3 bed and the circle of life goes on.
The fact my nan still lives in her home she brought her kids up in sixty years ago doesn't stop her grandchildren and greatgrandchildren from needing somewhere to live too.
She's not moved in the past sixty years, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren have.
I'm just pointing out that we're actually building housing faster than the population is growing. Nowt to do with your nan.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Certainly terms of seeing we don’t see reality with all the filters our DNA switched on, and things like those drugs mess with the brain filters for sure, but they probably mess with the sound filters too - there’s probably a background noise DNA switches off because we don’t need to constantly hear it, gets in tge way of hunting gathering and you subconsciously heard it and recognised it for what it was. The two strands of your own DNA singing tge song what made you.
Are you high? I’ve not seen this much drivel since I last marked first year exams…
I take it you’ve never taken these drugs that turn all the sensible filters off 🙄
Never heard the two strands of DNA singing the song what made you. And not be able to tell a self transforming machine elf from hyperspace from a gurangular subspace lizard/worm.
“I encountered one once, several years ago, while under the influence of Ayahuasca. It was the first time I felt my consciousness completely leave my body—I literally had no feeling whatsoever. My mind ended up in this space that was nothing but blackness. There was no concept of space or time. This creature popped into the space, out of nowhere. It looked like a mixture between an elf and a tree frog. It was green with big black eyes. It seemed very curious about and how I got there, and it realized I was just as curious about it. Its personality was very playful. It started creating neon blocks in the darkness as I watched. It created a few of them and (without words) told me, “Now you try.” I created some neon blocks and the elf seemed happy to have someone to play with. It began stretching the blocks horizontally into rectangles, extending them in my direction. I started stretching them too. I asked, “Can you change the colors?” We began changing the colors together. I then asked, “Do they have to be shapes?” Then the rectangles and blocks began to stretch upwards into an archway. Together we created a cathedral-like structure and the elf climbed onto a pillar and disappeared. As the elf disappeared, I came back to reality. A friend of mine explained that I had been motionless for 2 hours and the shaman had even stopped by to check if I was still breathing. I have had several more out of body experiences since this one, but never encountered another machine elf.”
That they exist is undeniable, cause so many have met them whilst flat out on a trip. Question is, where are they?
A figment of misfiring neurons. They exist only in your imagination.
Saying it's about "misfiring" is ridiculous. You might as well say the same about dreaming. We all dream, every night, probably increasingly much in later sleep bouts. We have about 5 bouts a night, each lasting about 90 minutes. The reason I say "probably" is because tying dream sleep to rapid eye-movement light sleep is a bit iffy. When people have been stopped from dreaming in REM sleep, they've shifted to dreaming in deeper sleep. So who knows what mentation goes on in deeper sleep? That's also of course when sleepwalking happens.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
But do most religious people experience it? Is it a requirement for salvation? Can one grow faith gently and slowly, without a transformative moment or threshold crossed?
I don't really discuss my faith here but to answer you as well as I can mine grew slowly, I didnt really have the transformative moment till long after I believed and there is no salvation.
That's interesting, thank-you. My late night thoughts.
I'd suggest both are usual, and that some have a big conversion, some a less sudden conversion, and all slow change that is not noticed until much (possibly many years or decades) later. There's also a concept around depth of conversion - in the capitalist West a provocative question is "has your wallet / bank account been converted?"
It's also as much about human psychology as it is about 'how God acts', and in Anglicanism (for example) there is room for a faith from full blown "God acts now" to "God as a mental construct through which to view life" and everything in between, combined with one of the best musical traditions in the world and 11,000 huge listed buildings.
There are also elements of big conversions or sudden impulses needing follow-up to sustain, and socialisation, because if we have a changed worldview we need to explore what it means and and think about it, and the implications. One relevant Gospel question might the young man who asked "What then must I do?".
Follow-up perhaps started being an emphasis as far back as Mission England back in 1984. There was a strong emphasis on "bring your friends to hear".
You can see follow-ons from that emphasis in process evangelism, setting the conversation in a social context facilitating consideration and allowing for conversion. Alpha is one example.
It's a pattern explored by even the British Humanist Association. And is not dissimilar amongst British who convert to Islam - an enquirer enquires, then converts by repeating the Shahada, then explores their new faith in a new social setting.
As one example, I had (now dead) older friend who was a confirmed atheist, who had a moment of conversion one day when he had agreed to accompany his wife to church. He came to some sort of realisation between starting to kneel down on the hassock, and actually getting there - his account. He then became a notably analytical evangelical for the next 30 years.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Certainly terms of seeing we don’t see reality with all the filters our DNA switched on, and things like those drugs mess with the brain filters for sure, but they probably mess with the sound filters too - there’s probably a background noise DNA switches off because we don’t need to constantly hear it, gets in tge way of hunting gathering and you subconsciously heard it and recognised it for what it was. The two strands of your own DNA singing tge song what made you.
Are you high? I’ve not seen this much drivel since I last marked first year exams…
I take it you’ve never taken these drugs that turn all the sensible filters off 🙄
Never heard the two strands of DNA singing the song what made you. And not be able to tell a self transforming machine elf from hyperspace from a gurangular subspace lizard/worm.
“I encountered one once, several years ago, while under the influence of Ayahuasca. It was the first time I felt my consciousness completely leave my body—I literally had no feeling whatsoever. My mind ended up in this space that was nothing but blackness. There was no concept of space or time. This creature popped into the space, out of nowhere. It looked like a mixture between an elf and a tree frog. It was green with big black eyes. It seemed very curious about and how I got there, and it realized I was just as curious about it. Its personality was very playful. It started creating neon blocks in the darkness as I watched. It created a few of them and (without words) told me, “Now you try.” I created some neon blocks and the elf seemed happy to have someone to play with. It began stretching the blocks horizontally into rectangles, extending them in my direction. I started stretching them too. I asked, “Can you change the colors?” We began changing the colors together. I then asked, “Do they have to be shapes?” Then the rectangles and blocks began to stretch upwards into an archway. Together we created a cathedral-like structure and the elf climbed onto a pillar and disappeared. As the elf disappeared, I came back to reality. A friend of mine explained that I had been motionless for 2 hours and the shaman had even stopped by to check if I was still breathing. I have had several more out of body experiences since this one, but never encountered another machine elf.”
That they exist is undeniable, cause so many have met them whilst flat out on a trip. Question is, where are they?
Drugs are not needed for such experiences.
Encountering entities while in an altered state that you know have their own consciousness, and which notice you but may or may not be particularly friendly, is a hallmark of an astral dream.
Not all dreams are astral.
Nobody has yet figured out "where" these entities are. Perhaps because that is the wrong question.
Nice account by McKenna though.
There are three or four top neuroscientists in the world investigating this exact phenomenon: the strangely shared hallucinations induced by ayahuasca - and especially its famous constituent alkaloid DMT
One of them was with me when I did ayahuasca in the jungle two weeks back
This is a matter of genuine scientific discovery. Indeed the whole field of psychedelics has exploded in recent years. What do they do, and why?
And what role have they played in human evolution generally and cultural evolution over the past ~10 millennia in particular?
I think I'm going to have to get into ayahuasca.
Re. DNA helixes and singing and hallucination, Crick and Watson's model was inspired by Watson's dream of walking up a spiral staircase.
And weirdly, Crick later theorised that dreaming wasn't really much to write home about and "we dream to forget".
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
And in the case of divine revelation do you think that transformation would be sustained without regular ‘topping up’ of the mysticism of collective worship? As a non-believer I see it as a sort of mild but continuous intoxication, but I am somewhat jealous of those who feel the certainty that follows a revelatory experience (even if their certainty were a false one).
Yes, that is a good point. The experience is transformative, but even vivid experiences fade in the memory.
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
We disagree on almost everything, but I completely agree with this, and you’ve made me think
Taking ayahuasca alone would be intolerable. You would - as you say - tip quite terrifyingly into self-doubt and then breakdown. BECAUSE you are able, during the trip, to look up and join the singing or the chanting or just look in the fire like everyone else, you have a communal experience and that enables you to navigate the storm. I had good friends with me on that trip. I love them now, that sounds mad but I do, because they did that with me
You sometimes sneer at the psychedelic route to belief, you should not, all revelation is valid, if that is how it feels to anyone thus gifted. And for me my belief has been literally life saving when I was young, and now, as I get a lot nearer to dying, it is supremely valuable as it makes me so much less scared
Sorry to miss the end of this discussion @foxy@leon@pagan2 fascinating points from each of you.
I agree with your point Leon - collective experience of the divine (whatever that may be - I err on the side of it being unknowable and indescribable but probably real) is essential.
I’d argue that we feel this in greater or lesser form any time we feel a significant number of human connections. Even in the classroom (albeit very rarely) I get a faint whiff of the divine from the communal human connection.
Drugs of any kind can reveal this, in my view, but can also obscure it (and perhaps can create a facsimile of it that is only in your own head, hence Foxy’s sneering, if that’s what it is). From what I know of ayahuasca I think it more likely that taking it reveals an insight into the divine rather than faking it.
I had a bottle of soju tonight. It hasn't appreciably altered my religious perspective.
The important thing is not who you worship it is did you do more good than bad Any divinity worth worshipping takes that as the main thing
Ayahuasca, on my first go, taught me to stop beating myself up, and chill out, because I make people laugh
I may not be the most selfless person on earth (OK I am seriously selfish), I am skittish and I wander about and you wouldn’t trust me to park your car, but God said Fuck all that, I made you amusing, so go out and amuse yourself, and others
It came at quite a tough moment in my life, and it has been salutary. If you make people laugh, or you entertain them in some other way, you have made the world, in a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny microscopic form, a little bit better: you do more good than bad
Derek Parfitt is dead now, but is/was a great philosopher. To paraphrase his ethics - we are all who we are and tend to make the best decisions we can based on the hand that God/gods/the universe/evolution/our parents/our village (delete as applicable) dealt us. Blame is therefore a fools game.
It’s a good philosophy and chimes with what you got from ayahuasca. The best we can do is be who we are and be considerate/understanding of others being who they are.
It’s tough to apply that philosophy to eg IS, though. Which is one reason why I have deep respect for what the Rojavans do with IS prisoners (seek to understand and rehabilitate rather than write them off as irredeemable).
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
“double helix”
Isn’t it scientifically proven the Strands of DNA entwine in certain way by singing song to each other?
If you are unaware of this science it’s spooky you used this phrase after ayahuasca
Certainly terms of seeing we don’t see reality with all the filters our DNA switched on, and things like those drugs mess with the brain filters for sure, but they probably mess with the sound filters too - there’s probably a background noise DNA switches off because we don’t need to constantly hear it, gets in tge way of hunting gathering and you subconsciously heard it and recognised it for what it was. The two strands of your own DNA singing tge song what made you.
Fascinating
I absolutely believe ayahuasca throws open the doors of perception. All the reality that is normally filtered out - because we don’t need it to survive as am omnivorous but vulnerable ape on the plains of Africa - suddenly surges in. It is a flood of super reality - magnificent but terrifying - and I can see how you could drown. I can see why we filter it out. It is unnecessary and REALLY distracting
You’d get eaten by a leopard if you saw all that all the time, standing there like a star struck dork under the acacia
Nope, it’s just drivel
Take ayahuasca and get back to me
Not you, her ridiculous drivel about DNA.
How do they know what to do then, Mr Smarty turbopants, if they are not communicating with each other.
And if you concede they communicate, why can’t it be musical? Did you click the links to see how scientific this is?
Hydrogen bonds, in the main. Rather well understood by science.
Labour just has to hope that for every BJO rejecting Labour for the Greens to retain personal ideological purity, there’s an equal and opposite voter at the other end of the horseshoe rejecting the Tories for Reform to retain personal ideological purity.
There will of course be people like me rejecting Labour for the Lib Dems out of loyalty to the yellow team, because our votes make zero difference in a huge Labour majority seat.
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
But do most religious people experience it? Is it a requirement for salvation? Can one grow faith gently and slowly, without a transformative moment or threshold crossed?
I don't really discuss my faith here but to answer you as well as I can mine grew slowly, I didnt really have the transformative moment till long after I believed and there is no salvation.
That's interesting, thank-you. My late night thoughts.
I'd suggest both are usual, and that some have a big conversion, some a less sudden conversion, and all slow change that is not noticed until much (possibly many years or decades) later. There's also a concept around depth of conversion - in the capitalist West a provocative question is "has your wallet / bank account been converted?"
It's also as much about human psychology as it is about 'how God acts', and in Anglicanism (for example) there is room for a faith from full blown "God acts now" to "God as a mental construct through which to view life" and everything in between, combined with one of the best musical traditions in the world and 11,000 huge listed buildings.
There are also elements of big conversions or sudden impulses needing follow-up to sustain, and socialisation, because if we have a changed worldview we need to explore what it means and and think about it, and the implications. One relevant Gospel question might the young man who asked "What then must I do?".
Follow-up perhaps started being an emphasis as far back as Mission England back in 1984. There was a strong emphasis on "bring your friends to hear".
You can see follow-ons from that emphasis in process evangelism, setting the conversation in a social context facilitating consideration and allowing for conversion. Alpha is one example.
It's a pattern explored by even the British Humanist Association. And is not dissimilar amongst British who convert to Islam - an enquirer enquires, then converts by repeating the Shahada, then explores their new faith in a new social setting.
As one example, I had (now dead) older friend who was a confirmed atheist, who had a moment of conversion one day when he had agreed to accompany his wife to church. He came to some sort of realisation between starting to kneel down on the hassock, and actually getting there - his account. He then became a notably analytical evangelical for the next 30 years.
Yes, conversion is like bankruptcy, it happens slowly then suddenly!
Having taken ayahuasca twice (and for other reasons) I am utterly convinced there is a much much deeper layer of reality; where consciousness entwines with the universe in some kind of divinely glittering double helix. A descending baroque staircase of beauty and meaning, made of the diamonds of time
Do I “know” this? Not in any scientific way. Do I believe this? No, it is more than “belief”
So what is the word? There isn’t one. But I have seen this and it is the case
It’s the same argument I had with my philosophy tutor at university. He was also the college chaplain and we were arguing about whether there are any good arguments for the existence of god.
He eventually relented that my agnosticism was rationally correct, but trumped it by saying ‘but I have had a direct revelation in which I talked to God.’
Do I believe he has talked to God? No. Otherwise I’d share his faith. But do I believe he believes wholeheartedly that he has spoken directly to his god? Yes.
The much more interesting question in my mind is whether we can trust our own certainties, be that under the influence of ayahuasca or having perceived a direct conversation with a god.
I’m minded not to trust my own certainties, but I would probably feel differently had I taken ayahuasca or had a religious revelation.
Religious revelation is an extraordinarily powerful phenomenon. The whole world changes.
God doesn't need intoxicants to be perceived though, it is our own minds that put up the barriers to revelation, so it does take a bit of discipline and exercise to overcome these.
I accept the intoxication is more extreme in the case of ayahuasca, but what is collective worship if not a form of mental intoxication?
I get the same dancing to techno music - with or without mdma it has at times been an almost religious experience.
Music, movement and collective action are common to many mystical experiences, but it isn't just about enjoying it while it lasts, it is about a transformation where nothing is the same again.
But do most religious people experience it? Is it a requirement for salvation? Can one grow faith gently and slowly, without a transformative moment or threshold crossed?
I don't really discuss my faith here but to answer you as well as I can mine grew slowly, I didnt really have the transformative moment till long after I believed and there is no salvation.
That's interesting, thank-you. My late night thoughts.
I'd suggest both are usual, and that some have a big conversion, some a less sudden conversion, and all slow change that is not noticed until much (possibly many years or decades) later. There's also a concept around depth of conversion - in the capitalist West a provocative question is "has your wallet / bank account been converted?"
It's also as much about human psychology as it is about 'how God acts', and in Anglicanism (for example) there is room for a faith from full blown "God acts now" to "God as a mental construct through which to view life" and everything in between, combined with one of the best musical traditions in the world and 11,000 huge listed buildings.
There are also elements of big conversions or sudden impulses needing follow-up to sustain, and socialisation, because if we have a changed worldview we need to explore what it means and and think about it, and the implications. One relevant Gospel question might the young man who asked "What then must I do?".
Follow-up perhaps started being an emphasis as far back as Mission England back in 1984. There was a strong emphasis on "bring your friends to hear".
You can see follow-ons from that emphasis in process evangelism, setting the conversation in a social context facilitating consideration and allowing for conversion. Alpha is one example.
It's a pattern explored by even the British Humanist Association. And is not dissimilar amongst British who convert to Islam - an enquirer enquires, then converts by repeating the Shahada, then explores their new faith in a new social setting.
As one example, I had (now dead) older friend who was a confirmed atheist, who had a moment of conversion one day when he had agreed to accompany his wife to church. He came to some sort of realisation between starting to kneel down on the hassock, and actually getting there - his account. He then became a notably analytical evangelical for the next 30 years.
Yes, conversion is like bankruptcy, it happens slowly then suddenly!
Great Post.
My conversion - in the other direction - happened quite slowly and gently. I was a fairly secure believer as a youngster, got confirmed, went to bible study lessons etc. Sang in a cathedral choir and loved the aesthetics of the whole thing, the smells, the wonderful music, the emptiness of the dark cathedral on a weekday evensong in January.
But I don’t think I have the God gene. I just couldn’t bring myself to believe what seemed obviously ludicrous biblical stories, but without the “spiritual” instinct (or ayahuasca) pushing me to some other religion I just gradually dropped the belief, without any moral falling out with the organised religion itself. I’d still describe myself as an Anglican, just one who doesn’t believe in God.
The brain is a wonderful thing but it’s ultimately just a big algorithm. One reason I’m a believer when it comes to AI. Give it time and it will replicate large swathes of the human brain and experience.
Comments
Whatever one may think of that solution to our problems, I do think that RVs are worth thinking about for some people here in the US, for example, seasonal agrcultural workers.
And I think in parts of the US, we should be thinking hard about manufactured housing that can be moved easily from one site to another. The Boxabl ADU that can be set up in a few hours might be suitable for a family with a nanny, and then sold when the children grow up, the family moves, or whatever.
https://www.boxabl.com/casita/
St John of the Cross translated by Roy Campbell is particularly good
“What is god?”
“Nada, nada, nada” - “nothing, nothing, nothing”
Definitely a societal problem, and the only way to shift policy is through moral conviction / ethical argument. Sharing horror stories makes us all insecure and selfish.
Policy designed to hold house prices below wage growth and reducing the need for private renters to own by improving their lot would help.
Homeowners need to take responsibility for their choices.
On one side - the religious/mystical - you have me, @Foxy, @Pagan2, @MoonRabbit, @Donkeys
I don’t think any other issue could ever unite such a disparate rabble
On that basis alone I am considering becoming a Discordian pope.
ETA: and with that, to bed. Some of us have work in the morning.
Faith does grow slowly, but even then a transformative experience may well occur that changes everything. Saul on his way to Damascus, Muhammed getting the Koran, Buddha under the tree. All were seekers before the events.
Or even Jake Blues, in this scene which I was watching earlier on ITV4, possibly the best cinematic representation ever:
https://youtu.be/WRgPi4VU_1M?feature=shared
For avoidance of doubt I am not a discordian I just find them interesting
Seriously. Try it. If you do it with reliable good people you should be fine - the worst that can likely happen is that you shit yourself, puke your guts up, and have zero hallucinations and no religious insights. It happens. For some it just doesn’t work (again, we don’t know why)
At the best you will end up with a profound religious belief and your fear of death will be greatly diminished
I think that’s worth a roll of the dice? Must be approached with respect, however. Do the “dieta”. Don’t fuck about mixing it with other intoxicants. Have some benzos on hand if it all goes badly wrong and you need to come down fast
The shadow chancellor outflanked the last Labour government from the left on workers’ rights, public ownership and investment.'
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2024/03/rachel-reeves-buries-new-labour-economics
work of Haddaway.
“What is love?”
“Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvMsp7s78Do
Which makes it an even more exotic mix. From left to right and from authoritarian to libertine, and all stations between
You absolutely could not predict that from our political opinions, I find that oddly heartening
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1770567089448771829?s=20
Collective experience is key too, as it is hard to tell what the meaning of the internal experience is, without a community of people with similar experience to compare with. A purely solitary experience would be hard to distinguish from psychosis.
This all came to me as a surprise. I was an atheist for 3 decades and by upbringing.
Voted Tory in 2017
Voted Tory in 2019
Planning to vote for Tory Starmer in 2024
I mean they couldn't be more open about it SKS, austerity Reeves and now Lammy praising Thatcher yet SKS fans are too thick blind to see it.
https://uquiz.com/Result/static/lite/HAHqMm/3917454/personality/720101?&s=7b425877-edfd-47ca-b2d0-8107821b0b36
https://uquiz.com/quiz/HAHqMm/what-kind-of-anglican-are-you
In Heaven There is No Beer - Frankie Yankovic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KZi9EtZHZM
Taking ayahuasca alone would be intolerable. You would - as you say - tip quite terrifyingly into self-doubt and then breakdown. BECAUSE you are able, during the trip, to look up and join the singing or the chanting or just look in the fire like everyone else, you have a communal experience and that enables you to navigate the storm. I had good friends with me on that trip. I love them now, that sounds mad but I do, because they did that with me
You sometimes sneer at the psychedelic route to belief, you should not, all revelation is valid, if that is how it feels to anyone thus gifted. And for me my belief has been literally life saving when I was young, and now, as I get a lot nearer to dying, it is supremely valuable as it makes me so much less scared
I support the last Labour Government we had. Yes, why would I be ashamed of that?
People of the book is jews, christians and islam
Only explanation. Midweek buzz crew.
He is also not Labour.
He has literally said he is a Conservative this week. I know he is a liar but all evidence would suggest this is a rare truthful moment from Tel Aviv Keith
When I was discussing my ayahuasca experience on here someone said “oh do shut up, it’s like hearing someone describe their dreams” and - unfortunately - that is true. A mystical experience is - probably by definition - ineffable, It cannot be explained and described, certainly not in a way that will easily “persuade” anyone else to try this or that route to God, whether it is psychedelics or fasting or intense meditation or spending 40 nights alone in the desert, or just “nearly dying”
But who cares. Love is where it falls. Just get there - if you can
Did you not read Leon's late night mare yesterday evening? Traversing dirt roads in his Suzuki Swift to procure cash to buy a bottle of Corona. He was a very brave boy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0atzea-mPY
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68618722
A splendid religion
I particularly love the austerities of Japanese Zen Buddhism. The more you take away, the better
It explains so much of Japanese culture and why it so compelling. The magic of abstraction, diminution and emptiness
You're claiming that spare bedrooms are the problem, yet our spare bedrooms have grown by 2 million in the same time as our population (and our over 60s population) has grown by double that figure, which shows that actually proportionately it is falling.
That we're building more bedrooms is a good thing, we shouldn't build slums, but we aren't building enough of them still. We need millions more houses to make up for our population growth.
There always should be more bedrooms than people, as people get three bedroom homes as that's what they need, but then their kids move on and they still have their home but then their kids need a 3 bed and the circle of life goes on.
The fact my nan still lives in her home she brought her kids up in sixty years ago doesn't stop her grandchildren and greatgrandchildren from needing somewhere to live too.
She's not moved in the past sixty years, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren have.
The group experience (religious or secular) can be powerful, undoubtedly - but it's also non-rational, and I do not trust it.
As for loyalty: rational people can be loyal to others and to principles. Loyalty to organisations is idiotic. Might as well be loyal to Tescos.
I will be voting Green as the most Socialist option available in GE 2024
It hasn't appreciably altered my religious perspective.
The rest seems a bit irrational.
Any divinity worth worshipping takes that as the main thing
Did you mean libertine? 🥹
as in best libertinism feeling of all is out on the more in the rain, which is why it’s in so many old romantic books? Quite a few years ago I was out on the moor in the rain and starkers, which when I think about that now I get feeling of it as being a good thing, though I would think twice now about doing it.
This is you, green owl with red tie.
As a “socialist” who do you bank with? And do you want your bank nationalised? 😏
I may not be the most selfless person on earth (OK I am seriously selfish), I am skittish and I wander about and you wouldn’t trust me to park your car, but God said Fuck all that, I made you amusing, so go out and amuse yourself, and others
It came at quite a tough moment in my life, and it has been salutary. If you make people laugh, or you entertain them in some other way, you have made the world, in a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny microscopic form, a little bit better: you do more good than bad
I can only imagine BJO as a little overweight and always in a jacket.
[do these owls come across as bullying] 🥺
"By their acts, ye shall know them."
Rishi's six answers in a couple of sentences "I brought inflation down to 3.4% and this proves I have a plan and it is working. Labour have no plan, they just have a £28m black hole and will increase taxes to pay for it because the Honourable Gentleman is a lawyer who defends terrorists, whereas I am the God of Hell fire, and I bring you - fire!
Talking of fire. Stephen Flynn was on fire.
For example, White Nationalist Jesus may (emphasis on conditional) reward those who advance righteous bigotry on behalf of the Chosen Race, in order to keep cursed (also uppity) Blacks down on Earth and definitely OUT of Heaven.
ADDENDUM - Or Black Nationalist Buddha or Celtic Imperialist Neodruidism or . . .
Another area using high density is I think Edgware, or somewhere near by - urban towers, and notably Manchester.
We all dream, every night, probably increasingly much in later sleep bouts. We have about 5 bouts a night, each lasting about 90 minutes. The reason I say "probably" is because tying dream sleep to rapid eye-movement light sleep is a bit iffy. When people have been stopped from dreaming in REM sleep, they've shifted to dreaming in deeper sleep. So who knows what mentation goes on in deeper sleep? That's also of course when sleepwalking happens.
I'd suggest both are usual, and that some have a big conversion, some a less sudden conversion, and all slow change that is not noticed until much (possibly many years or decades) later. There's also a concept around depth of conversion - in the capitalist West a provocative question is "has your wallet / bank account been converted?"
It's also as much about human psychology as it is about 'how God acts', and in Anglicanism (for example) there is room for a faith from full blown "God acts now" to "God as a mental construct through which to view life" and everything in between, combined with one of the best musical traditions in the world and 11,000 huge listed buildings.
There are also elements of big conversions or sudden impulses needing follow-up to sustain, and socialisation, because if we have a changed worldview we need to explore what it means and and think about it, and the implications. One relevant Gospel question might the young man who asked "What then must I do?".
Follow-up perhaps started being an emphasis as far back as Mission England back in 1984. There was a strong emphasis on "bring your friends to hear".
You can see follow-ons from that emphasis in process evangelism, setting the conversation in a social context facilitating consideration and allowing for conversion. Alpha is one example.
It's a pattern explored by even the British Humanist Association. And is not dissimilar amongst British who convert to Islam - an enquirer enquires, then converts by repeating the Shahada, then explores their new faith in a new social setting.
As one example, I had (now dead) older friend who was a confirmed atheist, who had a moment of conversion one day when he had agreed to accompany his wife to church. He came to some sort of realisation between starting to kneel down on the hassock, and actually getting there - his account. He then became a notably analytical evangelical for the next 30 years.
I think I'm going to have to get into ayahuasca.
Re. DNA helixes and singing and hallucination, Crick and Watson's model was inspired by Watson's dream of walking up a spiral staircase.
And weirdly, Crick later theorised that dreaming wasn't really much to write home about and "we dream to forget".
I agree with your point Leon - collective experience of the divine (whatever that may be - I err on the side of it being unknowable and indescribable but probably real) is essential.
I’d argue that we feel this in greater or lesser form any time we feel a significant number of human connections. Even in the classroom (albeit very rarely) I get a faint whiff of the divine from the communal human connection.
Drugs of any kind can reveal this, in my view, but can also obscure it (and perhaps can create a facsimile of it that is only in your own head, hence Foxy’s sneering, if that’s what it is). From what I know of ayahuasca I think it more likely that taking it reveals an insight into the divine rather than faking it.
It’s a good philosophy and chimes with what you got from ayahuasca. The best we can do is be who we are and be considerate/understanding of others being who they are.
It’s tough to apply that philosophy to eg IS, though. Which is one reason why I have deep respect for what the Rojavans do with IS prisoners (seek to understand and rehabilitate rather than write them off as irredeemable).
Labour just has to hope that for every BJO rejecting Labour for the Greens to retain personal ideological purity, there’s an equal and opposite voter at the other end of the horseshoe rejecting the Tories for Reform to retain personal ideological purity.
There will of course be people like me rejecting Labour for the Lib Dems out of loyalty to the yellow team, because our votes make zero difference in a huge Labour majority seat.
Great Post.
But I don’t think I have the God gene. I just couldn’t bring myself to believe what seemed obviously ludicrous biblical stories, but without the “spiritual” instinct (or ayahuasca) pushing me to some other religion I just gradually dropped the belief, without any moral falling out with the organised religion itself. I’d still describe myself as an Anglican, just one who doesn’t believe in God.
The brain is a wonderful thing but it’s ultimately just a big algorithm. One reason I’m a believer when it comes to AI. Give it time and it will replicate large swathes of the human brain and experience.