Religious experience as core existential metacognition

I submit that profound religious experience can be adequately defined as “awareness or experience of core existential metacognition.”

I make this definition in order to have a way of speaking about the fundamental importance and rough sameness of deep states of prayer, meditation, grace, awareness of God or the Buddha mind, being moved by the Holy Spirit, “practicing the presence of God,” knowing God’s will, being drawn to the Tathagata, samadhi, dhyana, satori, chan, enlightenment, and many more.

These states can and do happen “randomly” with no prior conscious input from the experiencer of them, but they most often happen to people who do some or all of the religious practices mentioned above.

These states are very powerful. They are life-changing and life-enhancing every time they occur. They are different from ordinary conscious states because they involve what might be called in the words of today “core existential metacognition.”

As such, it is difficult even impossible to maintain these states at all times. Few of us have the brainpower or divine grace to do that. We achieve these states through religious practice.

If you are Buddhist you will call them by Buddhist names. If you are Christian or some other religion, you will use other names.

I for one believe you are much better off if you engage in practices that induce “core existential metacognition” than if you don’t engage in any practices like that.

The science-induced wonder of the hard atheist is not the same.

Religious practice is fundamentally the use of disciplined methods to achieve “core existential metacognition.”

The words we use to describe this state(s) and what we are able to see within it should be more beautiful and more in keeping with whatever practice gets you there than “core existential metacognition.” But it is good to have some words to describe what is common to all of these practice and that explain in simple modern terms what people get from their religions and why they do them.

Child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church: an interpretive review of the literature and public inquiry reports

13 Sep 2017

Centre for Global Research (RMIT)
CREATORS
Desmond Cahill, Peter J. Wilkinson

This research was designed to review the literature concerning child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in Australia and elsewhere, and included 26 key international and Australian inquiry reports.

Download available here.

I have not even looked at the report yet but news articles say celibacy and a culture of secrecy are major causes of the problem. ABN

 

‘I am not your goy’ — chaos at a liberal Zionist conference

by Philip Weis

There was chaos in messaging from start to finish of the conference, and if I can extract any lesson from it, it is that older establishment liberal Jews aren’t ready for the new discourse of Israel and they are freaked out about what young Jews are saying. Peter Beinart’s crisis of Zionism of 2013 is now four years old, and we are starting in on the chaos of American Zionism. (It couldn’t come a minute too soon, but I will try not to editorialize.) (Source)

Free will: its locus is the mind

Action in the physical world is a smaller set of options than action within the mind.

Thus, the locus of free will is the mind not the body or its actions.

We always have many options in the mind. Many choices are available for what we choose to think or how we choose to frame something.

A related idea that is not necessarily part of the above is if God or Dharma Protectors or some other being in a higher realm wanted to influence us, they would be most likely to do so by influencing our minds.

This influence could be a subtle guiding of our thoughts, actual channeling of their thoughts, or even a vision when we are alone.

When we are alone because in those moments the influence will be primarily on our minds not our bodies. Our eyes may see and our ears hear, but if no one else is there the influence will ultimately occur in our minds and remain in our minds as memory.

When we are alone because if another person is present and they see or hear the same thing, the influence will impact the physical world to a much greater extent.

It will not be contained within one human mind. Two people will be astounded by it, talk about it, share it with others. This extends the influence well into physical reality causing it to have a much wider impact.

Visions influencing more than one person have happened, but these should not be the standard of proof that events of that type do happen.

Indeed, it makes sense to assume that interventions into human affairs from higher realms happen to individuals far more often than to pairs or groups of people.

This also makes sense from the point of view that the locus of free will is in the mind.

A higher being can influence the mind and the will in this way without causing major distortions in the physical world.

Raw tribal emotions

Raw emotions of ethnic and religious difference boil over in this video.

Notice the power of religious signs and symbols (semiotics) in stoking the flames.

These displays of emotion are fundamental to human nature. Even when you train them away through “education,” you only end up with more of the same.

PC culture was the result of anti-tribal education in schools. Yet it succeeded only in producing another “tribe.” This one rigidly organized around non-negotiable PC ideals.

If you question those ideals you are an enemy of that tribe.

The PC tribe is not centered on the signs and symbols of ethnicity. Rather, it is centered on a tribal use of the neocortex, where we process the semiotics of allegiance to a group.

The intolerance of PC culture and the violence of its bastard child Antifa show how powerful and irreducible tribal emotions can be.

Ashley Judd’s diatribe and the pink pussy hats that appeared after the election are another example of the raw emotions of tribal allegiance. Note the pink hats as semiotic identifiers.

You have to be intelligent to overcome a tribe, maybe in the top 10-20 percent of any population. But then, how do you deal with the other 80 percent?

Should you lead them?

No, you really shouldn’t and certainly not without their input. An ideological tribe is unstable and often capable of even worse violence than an ethnic tribe.

Example one: Communism, which shows how low human nature can be across many different cultures.

Example two: Our sorry intellectual “leaders” in academia who have led American society nowhere good.

Indeed, academia has “succeeded” mostly in forming only one thing—a $elf-aggrandizing tribe of its own, which is overwhelmingly leftist and intolerant of anyone who dares disagree.

Academia, of course, acts as backup to our equally tribal media and political elite.

Only a recluse can escape tribal reality. Only fools play “intellectual” games with it.

A Jewish perspective you may never have thought about

I post a fair amount of Jewish related material because I grew up in a large Jewish community and see them in a much more complex way than most non-Jews do and because they are very interesting people.

One thing I can tell you for sure is if you only read Jews about Jews, you will be missing pretty much the entire story of Jewishness.

That said, this article by a Jewish author—“Then they came for … me?” The SJW Frankenstein monster turns against its creator at Evergreen State—describes what I believe may be the beginning of a sea change in Jewish attitudes towards the Western nations they live in (not including Israel).

From the article by Marcus Alethia:

Like Weinstein I am also a Jewish, White-looking college professor. But unlike him I am not a leftist or a progressive. When or if The Mob comes for me, my Jewishness, such as it is, will be even less protection than his was. And his was no protection at all.

I think of events such as this as an ideological sorting opportunity. Weinstein thought he was a reasonable leftist, and possibly does to this day.  But as The Mob turned on him, Weinstein must have noticed that suddenly he was on the same page as people on the opposite side of the political spectrum. This wasn’t a deliberate choice, but a side effect of his willingness to stand up for his White students.

Whatever Weinstein concludes from his experiences, Alethia’s position is one that many formerly liberal whites were forced into years ago.

“The Mob” Alethia refers to doesn’t care what you think or what you have done for them. It only cares that you are not them and therefore fair game.

I might add that this line of self-centered reasoning was and is common among a certain fairly common type of Jew toward whites. You think it’s bad when “The Mob” sees you as fair game? Try having The Tribe see you that way.

I hope that Alethia’s “ideological sorting opportunity” is happening right now within world Jewry.

There are very few Jewish authors like Alethia who are willing to deviate from the false Jewish narrative of victimhood and consider the very significant violent and negative influences Jews have had and still have on the West.

By the way, that’s also why you need to read books by non-Jews like The Culture of Critique and Mountebank’s Monster and His Mom.