This is perhaps going to be one of the most controversial of topics I've covered so far in as much at the core of the discussion will be the beliefs of the individual and the sense that what is being said will be a direct challenge to their personal experience.
There will be those who will be quick to stop reading, to discount either the rational or the mystical argument as it runs counter to what they want to believe.
From my perspective we are firmly in the grasp of Rational Mysticism when we start talking about the nature of consciousness.
From the rational point of view we have the information which science brings to the fore.
The workings of the brain, the functions of the senses and the way neural processes create experience.
From this 'functional' perspective consciousness is the product of neural activity.
The 'self' a reflection of cognitive, emotional, social and biological correlates which form the backdrop to personal awareness.
From the mystical point of view we have the reported experiences of others and our subjective understanding of the world.
We sense that there are varied modes of awareness and multiple ways of knowing.
From this perspective we see the need to ask questions about 'who' is having the experience; the possible sense of 'other selves' which may or may not fit within some personal religious or spiritual paradigm.
This dichotomy gives rise to opposing world views in which rationalists defend the proposition of non-duality and mystics maintain the view that there is a spirit, a 'ghost in the machine'.
Standing back from the bitter, often vitriolic exchanges between those holding opposing views, it is easy to see how both may have been caught up in their own rhetoric and, dare I say, the boxes they have created for themselves.
Those who have self-professed and self-proclaimed experience of 'other realities' have, perhaps, bought into their own neural constructs - their personal realities.
Those who take a functional, pragmatic approach to the study of human experience do so within the framework of scientific method wherein assertions or hypotheses which cannot be falsified cannot be tested.
Conscious experience, and by extension spiritual, trans-personal, mystical experience, is subjective and whilst there may well be identifiable neural and behavioural markers for and in that experience, it is the apparent sense that the 'whole' is more than the sum of the 'parts'.
It is in this space that dualists make reference to 'spirit' or 'soul', non-dualists refer to 'emergent properties of neural processes'.
Adherents to the differing perspectives defend their positions, fall out and then refuse to consider any point from the other side.
There are perhaps four key players in this debate...
Those versed in New Thought, post modern spiritual movements who either refuse to read the ideas and thinking of others as they have a notion that all they need is 'that which comes from within or from some spiritual source.
Which in and of itself all well and good, but actually negates the possibility of any meaningful debate as their 'trump card' Those versed in New Thought, post modern spiritual movements whose reading and research is self-referential and restricted to those sources which support their point of view.
They are able to quote a whole host of references, some academic (often from non-peer reviewed sources), which add credence to their argument.
Those versed in Scientific Method and the search for objectivity who find discussions of mystical experience interesting, but which can be ultimately reduced to psychological and neurological processes.
They are able to quote from academic (more generally from peer-reviewed sources) which continue to redefine and reshape questions for further exploration Those versed in Scientific Method and the search for objectivity who find discussions of mystical experience irrelevant to their search for a set of principles, models or patterns which underlie human experience.
They are able to quote from peer reviewed academic sources which emphasise the difficulty,if not folly, in pursuing what are considered to be questions of metaphysics.
There will be those who will be quick to stop reading, to discount either the rational or the mystical argument as it runs counter to what they want to believe.
From my perspective we are firmly in the grasp of Rational Mysticism when we start talking about the nature of consciousness.
From the rational point of view we have the information which science brings to the fore.
The workings of the brain, the functions of the senses and the way neural processes create experience.
From this 'functional' perspective consciousness is the product of neural activity.
The 'self' a reflection of cognitive, emotional, social and biological correlates which form the backdrop to personal awareness.
From the mystical point of view we have the reported experiences of others and our subjective understanding of the world.
We sense that there are varied modes of awareness and multiple ways of knowing.
From this perspective we see the need to ask questions about 'who' is having the experience; the possible sense of 'other selves' which may or may not fit within some personal religious or spiritual paradigm.
This dichotomy gives rise to opposing world views in which rationalists defend the proposition of non-duality and mystics maintain the view that there is a spirit, a 'ghost in the machine'.
Standing back from the bitter, often vitriolic exchanges between those holding opposing views, it is easy to see how both may have been caught up in their own rhetoric and, dare I say, the boxes they have created for themselves.
Those who have self-professed and self-proclaimed experience of 'other realities' have, perhaps, bought into their own neural constructs - their personal realities.
Those who take a functional, pragmatic approach to the study of human experience do so within the framework of scientific method wherein assertions or hypotheses which cannot be falsified cannot be tested.
Conscious experience, and by extension spiritual, trans-personal, mystical experience, is subjective and whilst there may well be identifiable neural and behavioural markers for and in that experience, it is the apparent sense that the 'whole' is more than the sum of the 'parts'.
It is in this space that dualists make reference to 'spirit' or 'soul', non-dualists refer to 'emergent properties of neural processes'.
Adherents to the differing perspectives defend their positions, fall out and then refuse to consider any point from the other side.
There are perhaps four key players in this debate...
Those versed in New Thought, post modern spiritual movements who either refuse to read the ideas and thinking of others as they have a notion that all they need is 'that which comes from within or from some spiritual source.
Which in and of itself all well and good, but actually negates the possibility of any meaningful debate as their 'trump card' Those versed in New Thought, post modern spiritual movements whose reading and research is self-referential and restricted to those sources which support their point of view.
They are able to quote a whole host of references, some academic (often from non-peer reviewed sources), which add credence to their argument.
Those versed in Scientific Method and the search for objectivity who find discussions of mystical experience interesting, but which can be ultimately reduced to psychological and neurological processes.
They are able to quote from academic (more generally from peer-reviewed sources) which continue to redefine and reshape questions for further exploration Those versed in Scientific Method and the search for objectivity who find discussions of mystical experience irrelevant to their search for a set of principles, models or patterns which underlie human experience.
They are able to quote from peer reviewed academic sources which emphasise the difficulty,if not folly, in pursuing what are considered to be questions of metaphysics.