Yes, I would agree with that.

The source of these prods stem in part from the subject of the majority of posts being about personal experiences as well as this quote,

“… And this, I think, is the point. Intense experiences transcendence or mystical union can help us live life more fully. But if we stop there, then we risk these experiences becoming just another stimulant in a world of empty stimulation.”

Which can read two different meanings depending on how its read, i.e. “you shouldn’t stop at having these experiences.” one impression was of always chasing new or better transcendent and mystical experiences to avoid empty stimulation, the other was suggesting going beyond just having these experiences as to do so would be empty stimulation. The prod was to determine which in this quote and why the subject of experiences out weights other subjects being presented here. So that should answer your question Brandon of, “But what makes you think this is only about “chasing a good feeling”?”

“If you don’t think that falling in love is transcendent, then I honestly don’t know what to say. The fact that the feeling is transitory (mystical experiences are by definition) does not diminish the importance of these experiences. … These experiences expand our vision of what is possible. I agree we can’t live our lives seeking after the high of these transcendent moments, just like an individual’s love life would be a wreck if they were constantly seeking after the rush of falling in love for the first time, but that doesn’t make the experience less significant. They are defining moments. We can’t live in them, but they are definitive nonetheless.”

I admit that the post you’re referring to here was not as well framed as it could have been, but you’ve made the same point I was trying to make. I often come across individuals who feel like they’ve lost ‘the flame’ in the relationship and end up leaving it in attempt to find ‘that fire’ again thinking that without ‘that flame’ there must be a problem in the relationship. The same sort of thing happens in belief systems too and wouldn’t want that to happen here either.

I didn’t intend to suggest that ‘the flame’ of ‘falling in love’ was not transcendent (I’ve finally come to understand why this word ‘transcendent’ works well in what is being described, as I can’t think of a better one) or is bad in anyway. Yes, it is wonderful and as John said, transitory. The point I was trying to make was that the experience of the mystical and transcendence is exactly that – transitory. But what comes after that? I argue that it is a changed worldview, and I don’t mean just intellectual even though that changes too. I mean a person who has been through that transcendence, you do change and do look at the world differently. How can you not? It becomes very difficult to see from other perspectives, even the ones you may have grown up with – the longer you’ve been from it, the harder it becomes to relate because of having a different world view. The experience of transcendence, I argue, is a time of transition to that world view. Just like that experience of ‘the flame’ in romantic relationships is a transition to your world revolving around it (meaning that you can’t see the future without that person somewhere in it – it becomes difficult to see it as otherwise). And perhaps these mystical or transcendent experiences fade into the background as time goes on, just like ‘the flame’ in romantic relations fades as time goes on into the phase past the ‘honeymoon’.

So, yes, I agree with your responses, I feel the same. Perhaps to better phrase would be to say, “could not these transcendent/mystical experiences simply be transitory and the end of it be a shift in world view? And by world view meaning a different way of looking at and experiencing the world?”

Well put!

Yes. Exactly!

Well, yes. No argument here. But what makes you think this is only about “chasing a good feeling”?

While I don’t want to downplay the value of improving quality of life by an enriched subjective experience, that is only one small part of what’s going on here. Action is being motivated by transforming identity through experience (“changes who and what you are”).

What must be grasped here is that behavior doesn’t come out of the blue, it’s motivated. And motivations don’t come out of the blue. They are the result of complex layers of genetic predispositions, cultural conditioning, and personal experiences. All these come together to form an identity with specific values and behavioral tendencies. When you have an experience of being part of something greater than yourself, you are modifying that identity, thereby modifying its motivations, and thereby modifying all further action. It is a deep, systemic approach to action that goes to the root instead of slashing at the branches.

The sense of self is malleable – we know that. When you use a tool, that tool temporarily becomes an extension of your self, for example. From there, it is but a short step to recognize that when you work in a team, the self may also extend in some sense to include the rest of the group. Look at behavior during any team sport, and you can see how a slight against a team member becomes a slight against yourself – because the self has been extended in this sense. Imagine next extending the self to include the environment: animals, trees, etc. How many have said of a long-cherished landscape: “it’s become a part of me”? So the sense of self can be extended toward something greater than oneself.

Now, what is crucial about all this is that the self *cares* about itself. At its least extended, it cares only about numero uno, but when it is extended beyond the individual skin bag, to include other people, the environment, etc., suddenly it cares what happens to these others, and is motivated to action to support them.

The more experiences of transcendence we have, the more the sense of self is conditioned to include others in its sphere of care, and the more it motivates action toward the flourishing of others.

In some cases, such action can be motivated to the detriment of the individual, as in Buber’s “collective.” But in the best cases most worthy of intentionally seeking transcendence, action is motivated in ways that’s good for everybody, including the individual, as in Buber’s “community” or in fostering a healthy environment.

Now is it clear why naturalistic transcendence can go considerably beyond “chasing a good feeling”?

“they may determine attitudes though they cannot furnish formulas and open a region though they fail to give a map. At any rate they forbid a premature closing of our accounts with reality.”

I’m not sure what you mean by a “different worldview”. If you are talking about an intellectual point of view, I would disagree. It’s more than that. It’s a change of consciousness. That affects how we see the world, but it’s not like changing your mind about an intellectual proposition.

These experiences expand our vision of what is possible. I agree we can’t live our lives seeking after the high of these transcendent moments, just like an individual’s love life would be a wreck if they were constantly seeking after the rush of falling in love for the first time, but that doesn’t make the experience less significant. They are defining moments. We can’t live in them, but they are definitive nonetheless.