Recent orders
Mystical Pathways to the Governing Body of consciousness
Mystical Pathways to the Governing Body of consciousness
William James submits to us the notion that “personal religious experience has its root and centre in mystical states of consciousness. ” Stating that mystical states of consciousness must have the characteristics of ineffability, Noetic quality, transiency, and passivity , James ascribes four marks to mystical states of consciousness, clearly defining them from our normal state of consciousness (what James calls “rational consciousness ”). These four marks provide reason for the existence of a supreme governing body over mystical states of consciousness, which will be established as G-d. Furthermore, G-d’s existence in these mystical states provides reason for G-d’s existence in rational consciousness.
In dissecting James’ four marks of mystical states of consciousness, we find that the very nature of them either implies or makes reference to some form of supreme governing being over their existence. Primarily, James states that there are two main qualities which every mystical state must have: Ineffability, and Noetic quality. The ineffability of mystical states provides a link to the ineffability of G-d. James quotes, “whoso calls the Absolute anything in particular, or says that it is this, seems implicitly to shut it off from being that – it is as if he lessened it. ” This is to say that not only is anything we use to describe G-d by no means of the level of divine quality, it also limits G-d and detracts from anything else that G-d may be. This raises a pondering question: If G-d is ineffable, how may we know of G-d’s existence? The preeminent means of addressing this problem is to compare this issue to the ineffability of mystical states of consciousness. While it is true that these states of consciousness are inexplicable, we do not deny the validity of their existence. Rather, we acknowledge that only the one experiencing them may know the true meaning of them. The same can be said of G-d. While it is true that G-d is ineffable, we must not deny G-d’s existence. Rather, we must accept that only G-d may know the true meaning of G-dself. As Søren Kierkegaard puts it, “the works of G-d are such that only G-d may understand them ”
James’ statement that Mystical states must possess a Noetic quality provides for a much more direct approach to establishing the existence of G-d. James stipulates that mystical states plunge the experiencer into an insightful state of truth and knowledge. This poses the question: from where is this knowledge gained? There only two options. It is either a prior or a posteriori. Let us for a moment assume that the knowledge gained in mystical states of consciousness is a priori. If this is so, then knowledge is, as Plato puts it, “simply recollection .” The mystic is merely accessing knowledge in parts of his/her mind which could not be accessed while in a rational state of consciousness. This statement, however disposes of the concept of a governing body over mystical states of consciousness. If the Noetic quality of mystical states of consciousness is approached with the conjecture that the knowledge gained is a posteriori, then one can clearly state that the governing body – G-d – is that source of that knowledge. And while the mystical state and the source of knowledge in that mystical state are both ineffable, we do not deny the validity of their existence.
Secondly, James submits that there are two more characteristics which, though “less sharply marked, ” are commonly applied to most mystical states of consciousness. The first is transiency. James proposes that:
Mystical states cannot be sustained for long. Except in rare instances, half an hour, or at most an hour or two, seems to be the limit beyond which they fade into the light of common day.
With this in mind, we must now address a prevailing question which has followed us throughout this critique. If other states of consciousness exist – which they do – what is it that allows us to move back and forth between these states, and what is it that holds us in our rational state usually and prevents us from entering others involuntarily? If it were a biological or physiological reason, that would then all but nullify any spiritual significance these mystical experiences would have in the first place. Being mystical experiences, there must be a spiritual foundation in them. The answer to our question must therefore be a spiritual one. Keeping in mind the divine nature of mystical states of consciousness which we have been exploring, the justification for what governs our state in and of consciousness can be said to be G-d.
Lastly, James asserts that mystical states of consciousness are passive. This is the most convincing argument for the validity of G-d’s place in mystical states of consciousness. If “the mystic feels as if his own free will (is in) abeyance ” during mystical states of consciousness, then there are four ensuing explanations for the events that occur during these states: 1. the events that transpire and the knowledge and insight that is gained is influenced by G-d. 2. The events that transpire and the knowledge and insight that is gained is due to fate. 3. The events that transpire and the knowledge and insight that is gained is merely chance. 4. The mystic only perceives his/her free will to be nonexistent – in reality, it does exist and the mystical state of consciousness is merely shrouding it. Explanations three and four deny the existence of a divine governing body, and are thus not compatible with this elucidation of James’ four marks. Explanations one and two both present the possibility of mystical states of consciousness being governed by an external body of some sort. Whether that body is G-d or fate is irrelevant. If it is G-d, the very ineffable nature of G-d will cause us to view the explanation as fate – Kierkegaard’s postulation holds true: “the works of G-d are such that only G-d may understand them ” If it is fate, there is still the possibility that it may be G-d – we are just unable to perceive it as such. Additionally, seeing as G-d’s influence on mystical states is evident, if the external body is perceived by the mystic as having control over his/her autonomy, the simple question to ask would be: “Why wouldn’t G-d be the one controlling my fate? Who else would?”
Underlying James’ four marks are the foundations of G-d’s presence and influence in mystical states of consciousness. With G-d’s presence established in the mystical state of mind, we turn to the rational state of mind and the question of God’s presence here. As the mystical states of consciousness which we have been exploring are not consciousnesses different than the one in which we regularly exist – they are merely mystical states of this consciousness – it stands to reason that due to the monotheistic values which Judeo-Christian society upholds, whatever being governs the altered states of awareness will also govern the unaltered state of awareness . We can therefore establish G-d’s presence in our rational daily state of consciousness.
The question of the function of G-d in rational consciousness is answered in two ways: 1. while we humans transcend to a different level of consciousness during mystical experiences, G-d does not. G-d remains the same, constant being – we merely alter our relationship with G-d during mystical states of mind. Consequently, G-d’s function in our rational state of consciousness is the same as G-d’s function in our mystical state of consciousness. What is that function? To be the governing body over consciousness as a whole. Bearing this in mind, we find that, 2. G-d is ineffable – we cannot describe G-d’s function. Seemingly at first a paradox, one must realize that stating that G-d is the governing body over consciousness is not a description of G-d. We have already established that there must be some form of governing body – it just so happens that the governing body is G-d. One would not say that a description of G-d is that G-d is a god . That is implied when we speak of G-d. So too is it implied that G-d is the governing body over all consciousness.
Thus, we find that G-d’s existence includes being the governing body over all states of consciousness – both mystical and rational. But in keeping with this rationalization of James’ marks of mystical states of consciousness, G-d is also ineffable.
A final realization of James’ treatise is that “mystical states wield no authority (over others) due simply to their being mystical states. ” While James maintains this to be true and while no one person can claim that their mystical experiences are of just cause to be considered dogmatic principles over all others, it must be supplemented that the governing nature of G-d over consciousness that is revealed through mystical experiences does indeed wield an unwavering form of authority that must not be questioned.
Bibliography:
Hick, John, ed. Philosophy of Religion. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.
Mystic River
Mystic River
1
The first victim was Jimmy whose daughter Katie had been killed. When he arrives at the scene we see the agony and he is hell bent on going to the scene to see if the body was really his daughter. This portrays denial, he does not want to believe that her daughter has been a victim of an attack. If only he gets to see the body, then he can really believe it. He is also quite sad and wails loudly without care. This may depict the length of pain that he was in. During the interrogation with Sean who was the state trooper, his sadness can be felt in his voice. He talks in a low tone and shaky voice. Jimmy is also left with anger and is determined to ensure the person who killed his daughter pays for it. It is because of this anger he acts irrational towards Dave and demands that he admits to killing her daughter. Eventually Jimmy kills Dave. Most homicide survivors especially loved ones will often bear hatred and anger towards the perpetrator and may be driven to kill them as an act of seeking revenge which may be satisfactory to them
Another homicide victim is Celste, Dave’s wife. On learning about Kate’s she sobs loudly and she is filled with sadness. She is actually afraid of the fact that Dave might have committed the crime because the same day Dave came home with blood was the same day that Katie was killed. We can see her nervousness which seems like a natural personality. Celste had a relationship with Katie because Jimmy was married to her cousin and she had known Jimmy and his family for years. Celste emotions are caught up between two parties, trying to protect Dave but also wanting ensure that Katie’s victim gets justice.
2.
When a child is sexually abused, the scars can last for a life time. In Mystic River, Dave is abducted and locked in a basement for four days where he is abused and raped although he eventually escapes. This however marks a turning point of his life because he distances himself from his friends. Most people who have been sexually assaulted are likely to alienate themselves from people because they may feel that no one really understands them. He believes that his adult life has been shaped by his experience as a child. In a conversation with his wife, he states “Dave’s dead. I don’t know who came out of that cellar, but it sure as s**t wasn’t Dave! The thing is…once it’s in you, it stays”. The cellar he was talking about was the basement where he was being held for the four days. Dave believes that who he was before he was kidnapped is no longer who he currently is. To most people who are sexually assaulted they become different people often their change of behavior to mostly keeping to themselves.
Child trauma as the one Dave experienced can be viewed as a post-traumatic stress disorder and a characteristic is recalling of the event. When Dave and his son passes where they used to hand out with his two friends, he gets remembers when he was asked to get into the car. As his son asks him to retrieve a baseball, he refuses because it’s triggering him and he hurriedly leaves the location. In light with what happened to him, Dave developed a passion to ensure that he protected other kids. On the night that Katie is killed he also kills a man he claims he was molesting a child in his car and he beat him to death. However, because of his character as he had become a soft-spoken man, he became a prime suspect especially because he was the last to be seen with Katie. Because of him keeping too much to himself because of the trauma, results in his death as he is killed by Jimmy.
3.
I would perceive treatment by investigating officer insensitive. When investigating Jimmy who is Katie’s father they are not considerate that he has lost his daughter and are grilling him as if he is a suspect. The even bring up about his time in prison which Jimmy does not feel as if is necessary. The treatment by the police officers would make me feel as if I’m being more victimized by the system. Instead of one being left to mourn their daughter, they are already being grilled as potential victims. Families of the bereaved often needs support after losing a loved one especially to the fact that they may take law in their own hand. The police system in Mystic River does not seem to reassure Jimmy that they were going to do enough to catch the victim. This leads into Jimmy taking laws into his own hands.
Cleanliness Reduces the Severity of Moral Judgments Study Critic
Cleanliness Reduces the Severity of Moral Judgments: Study Critic
Name
Institution Affiliation
Cleanliness Reduces the Severity of Moral Judgments: Study Critic
Replication of studies has created questions over certain conclusions and generated considerable conflict between psychologists. Replication, which, as the name suggests, is the repeating of previously conducted studies has been a key concept of science for a long time and useful in detecting the occasional cases of swindle. Because the science of psychology does give room for findings to go unquestioned, replication guides against the recognition of findings that were essentially accidental false positives with criticism. By doing so, it allows researchers to refine the techniques applied in various studies and uphold the presence of new facts that scientific theories must expound. Several articles have not produced the same findings after replication raising conflict across the psychology field.
One issue that has raised controversy in the field of psychology is the idea of cleanliness influencing moral judgments. Schnall et al. (2008), in their article With a clean conscience: cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments, Recounted that triggering the idea of bodily purity resulted in less severe decent judgment. Johnson et al., 2014 replicated the study using the same sample sizes but did not achieve the same outcome. In their article, Schnall et al. (2008) used two experiments to quantify the impact of people’s thoughts or perceptions of hygiene on the severity of their moral judgments. The first experiment included 40 undergraduate students who were given the directive to decipher sentences with 20 of them allotted words that were affiliated to cleanliness (such as pristine or pure), and the other half was given neutral words (Schnall et al., 2008a). The second experiment used 43 undergraduates who were asked to watch the truly horrendous restroom section from the Danny Boyle movie, Trainspotting (Schnall et al., 2008b). After viewing the scene, half of this number was requested to clean their hands while the others were not. All the participants from both tests were given six hypothetical scenarios and asked to rate the ethical wrongness of each.
Those that washed hands and those that scrambled the sentences with words linked to hygiene considered the situations less immoral than the rest of the group. The investigators established that priming participants to have a thought about cleanliness “significantly” impacted on their moral judgment. The implication was that people that had a sense of purity about themselves are unconsciously less concerned by the impurities of others. David Johnson, Felix Cheung, and Brent Donnellan reported that they were incapable of replicating the study findings. At least five years later, Jonson et al. (2014) did a fairly direct replication with a considerably larger number of subjects.
The notion of cleanliness having an effect on morality is an interesting topic since it has a connection to the personification literature and the study on the instinctive and nonrational backers to a moral conclusion. There is a huge possibility that these findings may have moral judgments. Johnson et al. (2014) after replicating the study with 731 subjects, they found that those who washed hands after an experience did not show any difference in their moral judgments from those that did not wash their hands. The study did not find any support for the assumption that cleansing behaviors impacted on moral judgments. Johnson et al. (2014) also reported that their findings did not just contrast with those generated by Schnall et al. (2014) but also with possibly contradictory expectations that being clean physically should result in more austere moral judgments. There was also a hint that individual body awareness curbed the effect of the cleanliness manipulation.
Many psychologists and Schnall et al., (2008) themselves, criticized this replication. They termed this replication an attack with some calling Johnson et al., (2014) “replication bullies,” “data detectives,” and “false positive law enforcement.” They suggested that the replication was not aimed to find the truth but was vendetta by people that were not able to make their own novel contribution to science (Meyer & Chabris, 2014). To illustrate just how heated this debate went, those that supported the replication were threatened with legal action by suggesting researchers like Schnall, whose work failed a replication applied questionable research practices in order to create desirable and publishable findings.
But here is a critic, academic analysis of the two studies and evaluation of the ground for the findings presented by Johnson et al. One difference between the studies was the setting where the sink was outside where the subjects finished the moral piece. The possibility of this change of setting upsetting the effects to a certain extent cannot be ignored. However, the primary focus of the study is the act of cleansing and not the location of the washing bay. In the initial study, all participants were in one conference hall where the sink was located, meaning those that did not wash their hands were also exposed to the sink. But still, the original study recorded a difference between those who washed hands and the control group. If the location of the sink were enough to affect prime cleanliness, then Schnall would have recorded a reduced margin in the difference between those who washed their hands and the control group. If the presence of the sink had an effect on the behavior of the subjects, then the absence of the sink from the conference room would debatably reinforce the replication manipulate. Moreover, if the effects of the original experiment depended on the perceptibility of the sink, then the notion that a decently embodied process propels the cleansing effects would be significantly undermined.
The results generated by the replication point to the effect size estimates from studies of the same manner are considerably smaller than those generated by the original studies. One point that may expound on this phenomenon is the presence of unknown moderators that explain these clear discrepancies. The subjects used in the replication were undergraduates from the United States, and the original study was from the United Kingdom. There is a possibility that the differences in culture may mean the difference in moral judgment or the significance of cleanliness, which may, in turn, explain the discrepancies. However, the authors of the original SBH studies contended that the association between disgust and bodily consciousness is an evolved alteration, and they did not suggest there being a possibility of discrepancies in results across samples selected from different cultures.
Also, the US and the UK have an extensive similarity in terms of language and culture, with several studies in the past indicating a similarity between disgust and moral judgment in subjects from the UK and the US. This creates clear uncertainty as to whether the difference in samples is a feasible explanation for the difference in results.
Another article revisits this debate. Huang (2014), in his article, studies the likelihood that only non-conscious triggering of the purity idea, as realized in subjects with low reaction determination on priming tools, can generate the projected consequence. Huang (2014) did an online duplication with a population of 214 and found out that, when the study subjects applied low (yet accepted) intensities of reaction effort to the investigational material, cleanliness priming resulted in more tolerant moral judgments in comparison to neutral priming. The article also did a second experiment, as did Schnall et al., using a population of 440 influencing participant’s effort on the priming undertaking sustained the hypothesized device. Precisely, participants in the low response effort category were required to finish the task with speed while avoiding concentrating or paying too much thoughtfulness and the consequences of the cleanliness priming were less severe ethical verdicts than the neutral moral judgments as it was anticipated.
Contrary to the above, the high effort category were required to perform as quickly as they could on the priming task, but there was no significant discrepancy in the decent ratings between cleanliness and the control conditions. Hang (2014) sought to sort out the controversy surrounding the cleanliness hypothesis in addition to this, the article sought to draw attention to the role played by the response effort in effecting and replicating priming studies.
Although replication is key to the science of psychology, the field does not provide much incentive to encourage duplication studies. The success or failure of a replication study does not change the fact that such kind of studies improves the accuracy of effect size approximations for the field of psychology. Replication emphasizes the need for additional work and provides additional information for a pertinent idea. The studies replicating Schnall et al., (2008) advocate that the effect sizes surrounding the consequence of cleanliness on ethical verdict may be lesser than the approximations delivered by the original studies.
References
Huang, J. L. (2014). Does cleanliness influence moral judgments? Response effort moderates the effect of cleanliness priming on moral judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1276.
Johnson, D. J., Cheung, F., & Donnellan, M. B. (2014). Does cleanliness influence moral judgments?. Social Psychology.
Meyer, M., & Chabris, C. (2014). Psychologists? Food Fight Over Replication of ‘Important Findings? Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/replication-controversy-in-psychology-bullying-file-drawer-effect-blog-posts-repligate.htmlSchnall S., Benton J., Harvey S. (2008a). With a clean conscience cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychol. Sci. 19 1219–1222 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x
Schnall S., Haidt J., Clore G. L., Jordan A. H. (2008b). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 1096–1109 10.1177/0146167208317771