William
James final thoughts
To me William James strongly stood
for relatability, regardless of one's temperament James generally can find a
strong subjective relatability with a vast variety of temperaments in his
readings. By that I find his, The Varieties of Religious Experience highly personally
influential and that I would encourage others I know to analyze it if their
curiosity aspires. If one is a subjective seeker of any kind James gives one a
place to rest their head. By that I continue to be reminded by how lacking
general contemporary people, even academics like myself, are in understanding
the human psyche. With such, further inspiring my passion for James as he
argues for pragmatism, and that we ought be pragmatic of realities with
practical value. To me this is a defense of one’s right to take advantage of
the vague rationalistic methods openly available rather than ‘let life pass us
by’ feeling. As James strongly defends, ancient ancestors used vague
approximations in the name of the divine. Their cause and effect prove
effective a vast majority enough to establish it as truth, thus James pushes
for a reevaluation of truth, a deconstruction. Thus, which truth is actually
true? Or truer? However, it must be mentioned that such certainly there still
has determinants and necessities, such as things actually argued as true, ie., approved
through verification process.
However, such questions,
seeking the essence of truth, certainly invoke subjective realities; one that
typically transcends the individual immediately. I find this relatable within
particular eastern ideology; as within meditation then vanishes all the
mountains, rivers, and trees, and extends a flat clear plane of conscious
understanding and, upon returning, realities mountains, rivers, and trees
return leaving it generally hard to accept conception the same as one did
before, typically feeling an entirely changed composition. Even by James's
mystical experiences he recognized such as a special consciousness forcing the
redefining of his general consciousness. There is certainly a vast number of
practical values possible within this even to the extreme of people uprooting
their entire lives. Thus, the revaluation of truth at a true subjective and
visceral level. However, by all this I personally thought of a more modern take
on the conception of methodology.
Let us call spiritual
consciousness, as it is transcendental, one’s ‘vertical reality’ and one’s normal
consciousness as their ‘horizontal reality’. Reduce the dimensionality of one’s
horizontal reality, ie., the mountains, rivers, and trees, or those also
representing one's family, friends, and life commitments. Such reduction
inhibits furthering such dimensionalities, or that it is too many distractions.
As, limiting in general isolates reality, putting one's focus on isolated
factors and singularities. Such lowering of horizontal dimensionality is the
essence of yoga; with a focus on closed eyes, darkness, nothingness, or mere
breathing, one is able to heighten focus on a singular mental conception and
experience factors necessitating from such experience, such is a subjective
relationship; a spiritual relationship.
One factor I always
personally find odd is that by the vast number of mystical experience examples
that James shares, often the truth feels so viscerally pronounced to many
individuals. And numerous times they come back even admitting the feeling but
with a lack of understanding of it lasting. Thus, unless one's memories are
failing them it feels as a truth alternate to logic and to many such individuals,
it feels beyond or supra to it. And to me that is bizarre as I suppose I felt
logic and truth to be rather synonymous or rather, that truth at least required
logic. And, for the individual coming back to reality, it may require logic but,
for a moment it did not. It feels inspiring, as an individual’s curiosity to
seek the core of such a reality. Thus, an infinite quest of the unattainable,
maybe God, but better said as Berkeley’s Matter. If we do not understand such a
conceptual regard then one may act in absolutes; however, with understanding it
one can act in relativities and experience the subjective beauty of living, the
forming of identity, and the journey of understanding. Many find it uninspiring
to reduce back to identity, however I look at it more as an umbrella term
connecting lines of understanding of the factors that comprise us and what we
personally call reality. Now to be a bit critical; from my personal experience
of mystical experiences, entheogen derived, one typically returns with
something immediately diminishing, the subjectivity of their experience, until
it feels as an ambiguous subjective feeling that one is attached to in a
personal solidarity. Just like James with anesthetics. With such a strong
optimistic feeling but also so ambiguous to halt any action forward, one is at
least left grasping conceptual factors, with the primary one being how amazed
they are at life now. By that, with an inhibition on actions forward one may
feel the only way to express it is to inspire others. One saw the light at the
end but, too many that truly halts action forward and one is left able only to
give such a beautiful gift to others. As is a correlation I personally connect
between James's mystical entheogenic experiences and his dedication to the
defense of human experiences, one’s with practical value. Certainly, not the
prime factors in James motivation at all, but one that comes to find by general
correlative feelings.
Now, by such articulations,
of sharing life’s beauty, in The Varieties of Religious Experience we
certainly saw a vast number of subjectivities enraptured in ecstasy still
within the secular realm. However, they seem more few in number then those of
religious influence. The feeling of life as a beautiful gift to others strongly
contrasts much of a moralist reality. Although they do wish for a beautiful
world, they rather live in will and the physical reality. Certainly, we see
many secular counter examples, such as poets. However, through a the very
heightened spiritual nature of poetry, poets compare strongly with religious
temperaments, both generally tender minded. However, one can also argue that
many secular poets were inspired by religious individuals or religious poets,
or religion in general, or even in spite of it. By James, we saw religions
influence is disturbingly loud and prevalent especially in that we map out many
extreme natures by religious extremes. While moralists and secularists can be
rather strongly spiritual, it is tough to know if they would be the same and
inspiring depth without religion ever existing. As by a secularist, they may
think they can understand but surely no one can be in the exact same experience
as another; to many experiences, belief is necessary and obviously cannot be
faked. However, in relating to earlier, logic detaches from belief; often we
say it must be believed like it is a choice. However, I would argue that belief
is far from a choice. Rather, it is such an ineffable phenomenal experience
that individuals would nearly like to give up their life instead of denying its
truth and reality. Thus, if those are the stakes things start to feel more
clear. Maybe we should not question one's beliefs, and maybe that causes all of
us more problems to do so in the first place. However, by James, they certainly
do not exude authority on me or others.
Now that definitely
starts to define James's rather hyper-individual reality on personal mystical
experiences, and even general life experiences. Certainly I cannot know my red
is your red and not a blue. However, we do not typically live by critical facts
rather, by folk psychology and a general feel of common sense. Critical science
says time is not linear; well common sense strongly contends differently; such
critical science holds no practical value in our lives. Thus, everyday we
disregard it and rather live by the common sense feel of linear time, or that a
rock will always fall, or that your red is probably the same as my red. By this
I feel James missed the commonsense regard of ‘group’ mystical experiences.
However, he does have a point in mention the Eucharist in conceptual regards of
Berkeley's matter and what the unattainable reality of such conceptual
realities like the Eucharist is. However, concerning further group mysticism,
in a common sense regard, he talks a bit short. Certainly, pushing me to want
to study experiences of phenomenon witnessed by more than one individual,
obviously rather rare in occurrence but also highly useful in historical
contextualization. Did groups of humans truly see a battle of the gods? Did
contextual factors cause illusionary reactions on heroes and kings? Certainly,
there is a sublime fascination, however this moreso concerns wearing the ‘hats’
of past cultures to better grasp the bounds of human psyche, experience, or
spiritual potentials.
Now, diverting back to
mystical experiences; as we saw, mystical experiences generally leave as
ambiguous and certainly such people are craving the unambiguous of it, but
maybe that is stored in the subliminal with triggers possible to release it. In
the craving of unambiguity people find and install new meanings according to
how their new experiences find themselves as truths. Thus, we distort and
mystify such mystical experiences in an attempt to match up to the intensity we
expect or chase. And, to state once more, if one could access their subliminal
memories they may feel, ‘oh yeah I remember’. Thus, it seems there is a
temporal memory concerning an individual's subliminal, commonly near a déjà vu.
And, once entered upon things are clear, then becoming familiar, then both
increasing in such a rapid intensity that one feels a strong ecstasy that makes
them almost plead for it to stop. Certainly, very religiously comparable.
Thus, to me, to remember
is a very small word for the subjectivity it brings. I find remembrance similar
to religious regards or prayer. It connects one with the infinite, reduces
one's dimensionality of their horizontal reality, of which one is always
fleeing but comes back to; so, come back to reality and use such remembrance to
continue life, an attitude generally often accompanied with a melioristic
spirit. Such a way to live life in a finite reality with feelings of the
infinite of the vertical reality. Versus what? A moralist reality? Even by the
science of James's time it was rather bleak and existentially dreadful, sure
that may not bother one today, or next week, or next month, but when it does
depression is common. Remembrance promotes the opposite of this, it gives drive
in love or in spite of life; one is able, not crippled.
Now, to combine such
remembrance with common sense. By general human psyche we certainly see some
weirdness with mystical experiences. Some individuals meet with ancient
ancestors, or even otherworldly life like angels or aliens; such foreign
creatures generally acting like they know what's going on and saying that ‘one
is doing a good job’ and just to ‘keep at it’. By this and other factors, there
often becomes an excitement concerning post-life, commonly with the feeling as
if there must be an afterlife. Certainly, many significant practical values are
held within this; such a valuable experience that can motivate and drive. However,
to restate, people do not want to believe these as relativities as it often
inhibits their actions forward, they want to believe them as absolutes to
reality, making it easier to instill belief. But certainly this contains many
problems often bound to a second birth, even if in a deconversion now believing
all to be ridiculous. However, individuals become fascinated in their temps at
uncovering life secrets, not particularly of their own secrets. Certainly, life
here could be synonymous with the universe, God, or ‘All’. However, I defend the
protection of such beliefs, as they were not first beliefs but rather
experiences, and experiences certainly feel of common sense such as the sun
setting or as time being linear. And, as we chose not to question linear time,
as nonlinear time has no practical human value, then should we question
relations with ancestors? With aliens/angles? Afterlifes? My take is no, we
should let beliefs just be as they are. And such conceptions, if even just by
general evolutionary human common-sense regard, certainly seemed to many
individuals nearly as real as linear time. I argue that we ought not fight natural
instincts. Thus, by that I declare from my own quite tender minded temperament
that I do not know that there is not an afterlife. Choosing agnostic here significantly
serves me more practical value. And, by James, if another day it inhibits me
then I shall disregard it. Thus, the feeling of suffering via attachment of
conceptions. So clearly, while in pragmatic philosophy, I certainly find
mystical experience’s truths as probable to live by, so long as their fruits
are worthwhile. And many fail at this, but hey, I'd argue that at least they
were preoccupied with life than not.
I certainly like James's
moment on mysticism and music, noting that music has always had roots in
mysticism and its practices. Philosophy wise we certainly also see it with Camus
in that, music concerts create illusions of the sublime, conceptions, and
subjectivities in not one, two, but too many ways to count that one then
disconnects from typical reality into a mystical or near phenomenal experience;
to be playing with Maya/the cerebral hologram/human psyche’s spiritual/God/religious
projection. And thus, appears near absolute and possibly even as a real as
nature. Thus, forcing beliefs, the same as if we saw the rainfall and instilled
belief in such a process. Thus, inspiring ritualistic behaviors. When such
regards arose via musical concerts many times the same music can trigger
spiritual springs that are immediately transcendental, reconnecting a person’s
subjectivity to a prior phenomenal experience. Thus, building a strong
spiritual subliminal psyche.
With such transcendence,
often, all feels generally amazing, and life feels very clear, so clear that
one immediately feels retired of questions and concerns; that prior behaviors
must have been an attempt to fill this void that now feels of completeness. But
with once prior human life such a collection of an adaptation towards a finite
and less immortal life already, than such transcendental ontology is scary and
persecuting. As earlier I mentioned, enraptured in ecstasy that feels of too
much often pushes people to want to turn off such clarity. Thus, the similarity
and power of remembrance, something generally transcendental. I could go on
about remembrance, however objectively; an experience gives an individual an
optimistic outlook afterwards. Then they come back, forgetting most of it but
remember that motivating feeling, such as a fuel of divine level lubricating
life factors until running out. Remembrance replenishes that. Thus, one should
remember but, how often? Say if I did it a week ago I may still hear the words
and thoughts in my own head thus it is still rather clear and such ecstasy possible
may be too overpowering to seek out further clarity. Such remembrance submits
one closer to the line of divinity and further facing away from human
moralities; one becomes rather divine in ontology, with a strong subliminal. So
again, how often to remember? That would be up to the individual. However, it
should at least be known the spiritual potential that one has. They may still
depend upon a moralist structure of finite spiritual potential rather than the infiniteness
of spirit from remembrance. Me personally, I cannot say I still seek out such
remembrance intensely. Generally, things feel a bit more clear than I would
prefer, thus I enjoy casting a veil of illusion as certainly there is bliss in
ignorance. And certainly, many times, it is not optimal to remember but mostly
because I can remember that I have not forgotten. Thus, remembrance becomes a
symbolic word of reference connecting human subjectivity, common sense, and
even transcendental potential.
Now, I was a big fan of
James's chains argument in The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life. Certainly,
there are factors and objects connected by chains, with many even connecting to
transcendental natures. Such feel supra, or beyond, life’s factors thus supra
to the chains, detaching from them. I find that by the nature of habit, our
compulsory ritualistic behavior, we become addicted to particularities in life.
Many saints aim to identify factors strong with God and to relate with those
and not others, ones of no godly relation at all. And by an addiction to habits
of low links of chains in connecting the floor of reality to the ceiling, they
may never know universal subjectivity connecting with totality, or a relation
with God. Thus, some chains may have such a short length, so much to reduce us
rather narrow minded and sick in subjectivity and spirit that one ought to
release those and grab different ones. In many ways, such is conversion, a
recentering of one's consciousness. Of course, by James, moralism’s chains only
go so far, and as with religions, often, connecting to the ceiling and going
beyond. A moralist may never ‘see the top of the mountain’ often exuding the
conception ‘I guess that's just how the world is’. Another note, navigating the
world chains for those that are transcendental or not gives strong honest
debate for God's ‘lure’. Certainly, James gives satisfactory connection to the
secular, and thus we get many practical values to extract. Even by many mystics,
such is by correctly tuning one's mind.
Now concerning chains, I
have an interesting example in mind, say John thinks it's 11:11, looks at his
watch and sees that it actually is and feels that was odd, then follow one to
two more odd coincidental factors that occur. Thus, in this conceptual regard two
to four chains have linked have of odd occurrences, generally this is far more
than enough to cross the threshold into superstition. This is debatable as being
within a divine realm; logic has been suspended and individual subjectivity is
massively heightened, and suggestibility is added near max even if merely, ‘it
was probably nothing’, by that generally John will agree that ‘yes, that's
probably right’. Thus, it becomes clear it is about noticing the factors of
reality connecting with proper chains. Or as I assumed that to be the purpose that
the word ‘spring’ serves. Noticing factors to spring one spirits to near
transcendental. And, upon noting, even if stored in the subliminal, one
certainly gains strong spiritual potential.
Finally, as I am still
not entirely finished with The Varieties of Religious Experience’s last
section of Philosophy, I am still connecting thoughts. Now, prior in the book,
James mentioned a Christian theologian that found the ineffable divinity in a
mystical experience and compared this as ‘the highest feeling’ and, to them, is
seen even at the best points in love or even politics. Thus, to me I find it
much more clear to abstract the divine; However I find many contemporary
Christians would aim to disagree and hold God more secret in finding. But of
course, I do feel many Christians would also still agree. And by this theologian’s
ideology, the divine certainly feels more clear in understanding; that
greatness in all things, feeling transcendental. Thus, by this I could see God
in all things. My music may be transcendental to me and yours to you but not to
each other in reverse. Thus, God wears different styles, clothes, vibes, all
according to the individual's styling. Thus, is individuality and expression of
spirit. But beneath each outfit of divinity is the same divinity underneath, a
neutral God. One that certainly could be synonymous with the personification of
absolute goodness. Thus, by this definition it is certainly not hard to see God
in everything and naturally, seeing so, feels transcendental. But understanding
the chapter a little more I see God as argued as the absoluteness of truth
floating in the air of reality; a veil of truth permeating the world that
people often convert and readjust their lives to, often gaining meaning and
purpose as pragmatism, by James, is merely old ideas reconsidered. I cannot
express my, ineffable, gratitude of James bringing forward such a collective
ideology, such a veil of truth. Certainly James, by this, is one that can bring
the gift of God (or universe, or spirituality, or the ‘all’, or human
subjectivity) to the people. With James truly as a connector of divinity in the
tender minded subjective existence of being human on this place called earth.
Wonderful
course, very life changing, thank you so much!
--Seth
Graves-Huffman
