Critique of Mystical Validation

Ian Goddard (
Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:59:14 -0500

Was: The Futility of Rationalized Agnosticism

On 01/27/98 Doug Bailey wrote:

>The general flaw in any attempt to "explain" mystical or spiritual
>aspects (in the general meaning of such terms) is that invariably
>such discussions involve "leaps" (of faith, perhaps) where the
>argument is disjointed. I find the same leaps in the various
>essays contained at the Goddard Metaphysics site.

IAN: Sorry that I missed your reply. I looked
in the archive but did not see it before. I
thank you for your critique but at the same
time I believe it's not representative of my

>The most glaring leap I observed is the "necessity of divinity"
>as I like to call it. It is the assertion that something about the
>universe "just has to be" spiritual or mystical. This statement is
>never explained or rationalized.

IAN: I think that misrepresent what I say.
I've never said some part of the universe
"just has to be spiritual or mystical."

Most explicity, what I've done here

is to carefully define what aspects of the
mystical experience are 100% unique from
normal experience, then refine those experi-
ences to a mathematical claim about reality,
and then test that claim with the physical
reality that we can all observe. I point
out that if the mystical claim cannot pass
that test, then it must be false. I conclude
that the mystical claim is valid, and is an
expression of a universal conservation law.

One need not address anything unknown, as
you suggest, to determine if my analysis
is right or wrong. All features of my
analytical test of the mystical claim
are within the set of the known.

If anything, this should be called a de-
mystification of the mystical. Indeed, the
run-of-the mill mystic attacks what I say,
claiming logic is antithetic to anything
that the mystical experience reveals.

I make no claim, or "leap," as you suggest
that I do, of any "necessity of divinity."
I fail to see how that critique accurately
applies to my analysis.

>The general defense to this lack of rationalization is that
>such divine affairs defy our abilities to rationalize them.

IAN: But that's the opposite of what I say.
It seems to me that your addressing a stereo-
typical variety of mystic oriented claim, a
set of which my analysis is not a member.

>If this is the case then they fit securely in the realm of
>Agnosticism, the unknowable. By "knowable" I mean phenomena
>of the universe (multiverse) that can be independently verified
>by a variety of observers. To me, it does not make sense to
>construct elaborate "proofs" of something that is by its very
>nature unprovable. Furthermore, is it not a paradox to assert
>that one can use logic to prove the existence of something
>that is allegedly transcendental?

IAN: Again, I think this simply misses entirely
what I've presented. The application of what
your saying to my work would be that we cannot
arrive at a sum from our measurement of physical
phenomena that equals zero. Now for the sake of
argument maybe we can't, but if we refine the
case of "is the mystical experience true or
false" to "does everything equal zero," which
is what I've done, then there are none of the
"transcendental" or "divine" aspects of the
analysis that you suggest there are.

>Additional Note on Wiley's "The Nothing that is Everything"
>I do not believe that Wiley's argument successfully proves
>that infinity equals zero. What he has shown is that infinity
>minus infinity equals zero, which I believe is an uncontended
>point. I am probably reading more meaning into Wiley's paper
>than prudence would dictate, but technically the universe is a
>zero sum game in that (at least according to theory) there is
>an equal amount of positive energy (matter, mc^2, and so forth)
>and negative energy (antimatter, gravitational energy, etc.)
>What evades me is how the zero sum aspect of the universe can
>be construed to prove that something about the universe is

IAN: I think that I explain (as does Wiley) why
zero is the cornerstone of the mystical experience:

The point is what is "mystical" what is "divine."
It's an experience of integration with the universe,
an experience of the dissolution of the normal
finite boundaries that define our egoic mind.

Why is this so "mystical," so "antiscientific"?
I believe that that experience is not a halluci-
nation but is the perfection of intelligence,
and this super-intelligence has been locked
away in a closet of ignorance and it's time
to let it out and hear what it has to say.

I've listened to it says, and what it says is
that the entire universe is an expression of
equalibrium and universal conservation law.
I think this understanding it key to breaking
down barriers of space-time that will eventually
allow for faster-than-light travel - zero travel.
I don't begin to know how that would be achieved,
but understanding the zero sum of space-time is
an inherent prerequisite to such possibilities.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard --->
-----------------| The basis of logic is identity (ID). The
1 2 3 | basis of ID is difference. Degrees of dif-
_________ | ference can be quantified as ID units. The
1 | 0 1 2 | | ID Matrix shows the ID units of three num-
| | | bers, and may do so unto infinity. The ID
2 |-1 0 1 | | units of each number are derived from the
| | | others, and therefore ID is holistic not
3 |-2 -1 0 | | atomistic. As the sum of all ID units unto
----------- | infinity equals 0, identity is conserved.