"What is 'High' about?"

[Dr. Robert Klass]

sking1981, Hey, I think that interpretation thing works up to a point, but, in my experience, it does not completely cover what some of us are talking about, which is "high" or "higher" creative states. I'm sorry to tell you...actually I'm quite happy...that it doesn't explain Mozart, Einstein, Picasso and lots of others who are obviously much more creative than the rest of us.

[Thinkagain]

elroywillis, You bet you ass that sex should be on the list! In fact, that orgasmic state we experience appears, to me, to be a very high state. Of course, it could just be a matter of interpretation. St. Hildgarde probably used the line "Not tonight, dear, I have a headache" quite often.

Yeh, sorry I missed the obvious.
The thing is, too much of the good thing, when one becomes 'high' on the pleasurable hormones released can, like the use of drugs or alcohol, result in a corresponding low when the hormones subside.
That might just be a woman thing, though.

[Onlyhuman]

Vielen dank OH. I already abdicated on the "higher" characterization. I'm all about discovering differences and reveling in experiences. Not something that can be adroitly nailed down or adequately described let alone defined.

Even so, if I can increase the clarity of my thinking I'm all for it. Your willingness to engage and challenge me is much appreciated.

Tell me though, what am I right about?

Well, this for example: "The experience of pleasure from a thing subjectively valued is one of the perks of being alive."

[sking1981]

In the case of motzart etc isn't it just a case of being more adept? Nothing spiritual, no higher state, just simply better than most. The make music part of his brain may just be bigger, or more efficient. Maybe you'd call it a more efficient state of (musical) conciousness

I don't think why you're saying is any different to an athlete being the best runner, acieving a higher state of physicality maybe, but it's not spiritual, not a gift from god, just a good set of genes and regular training.

Why should the mind be any different?

[Onlyhuman]

In the case of motzart etc isn't it just a case of being more adept? Nothing spiritual, no higher state, just simply better than most. The make music part of his brain may just be bigger, or more efficient. Maybe you'd call it a more efficient state of (musical) conciousness

I don't think why you're saying is any different to an athlete being the best runner, acieving a higher state of physicality maybe, but it's not spiritual, not a gift from god, just a good set of genes and regular training.

Of course that's right sking, but some people have a psychological need for hero/god/guru/guide figures to look up to. And many hero/god/guru/guide figures need their naive adherents, and need them to believe that the guru is "on a different plane" to the rest of us.

Not a problem really, that's just the way people are. But it makes for fucking useless philosophising, as you see from the incoherent, sick-making drivel in this thread.

[NonErgodic]

it makes for fucking useless philosophising, as you see from the incoherent, sick-making drivel in this thread.

Ain't that the truth, OH! I look up to you now, almost as an acolyte looks up to a gerbil guru. But only because I appreciate the conciseness of your analysis. You're my guru in the practice of conciseness.

[Onlyhuman]

it makes for fucking useless philosophising, as you see from the incoherent, sick-making drivel in this thread.

Ain't that the truth, OH! I look up to you now, almost as an acolyte looks up to a gerbil guru. But only because I appreciate the conciseness of your analysis. You're my guru in the practice of conciseness.

That's cool NonErgodic.

I started a religion once. It was called "the New Religion", and it had its own website and everything. And people somehow found their way to it, and wanted to join.

[NonErgodic]

I started a religion once. It was called "the New Religion", and it had its own website and everything. And people somehow found their way to it, and wanted to join.

But I dare say that the attraction of your invented religion was not merely that it was "concise".

[Onlyhuman]

I started a religion once. It was called "the New Religion", and it had its own website and everything. And people somehow found their way to it, and wanted to join.

But I dare say that the attraction of your invented religion was not merely that it was "concise".

It was pretty concise. Thinking back, I can't remember that we had much of a liturgy at all, there wasn't a holy book. I attracted members by telling them this was a unique opportunity to get in at the start of a new religion, and shape its fundamental beliefs and practices.

[sking1981]

Hehe

[Googaw]

In the case of motzart etc isn't it just a case of being more adept? Nothing spiritual, no higher state, just simply better than most. The make music part of his brain may just be bigger, or more efficient. Maybe you'd call it a more efficient state of (musical) conciousness

I don't think why you're saying is any different to an athlete being the best runner, acieving a higher state of physicality maybe, but it's not spiritual, not a gift from god, just a good set of genes and regular training.

Of course that's right sking, but some people have a psychological need for hero/god/guru/guide figures to look up to. And many hero/god/guru/guide figures need their naive adherents, and need them to believe that the guru is "on a different plane" to the rest of us.

Not a problem really, that's just the way people are. But it makes for fucking useless philosophising, as you see from the incoherent, sick-making drivel in this thread.

Interesting. I've said nothing different than what sking1981 said here. You assume way too much.

[sking1981]

?

[Googaw]

?

I don't understand.

[sking1981]

I did not understand either

I just jumped in with my opinion, didn't mean to muscle in.

[Thinkagain]

We could try getting back on the original subject that had nothing to do with gods, idol worship or religion.
Its about 'high', remember?

[sking1981]

I think I gave a godless assessment of "high"

[Onlyhuman]

Hey guys, do you think we're digging a bit too deep here?
Could we just summarise with a few points of agreement?

Some people occasionally experience a different state of mind that feels like a 'high'
Some are either unaware of this ability or are unable to reach that state of mind
Some regularly experience this feeling
Some have this experience but would rather not identify with it
The 'high' sensation is reached either spontaneously, with use of drugs or alchohol, via meditation or through episodes of mental illness
Everyone is different

Whadyareckon?

I reckon you should try to live up to your name. This is the philosophy forum. We are supposed to dig deep. It's not a social discussion, we're not trying to smooth over our differences.

You have to at least try to be clear in what you say.

You have to think about what the people who disagree with you are saying, you have to think hard about it.

You say people experience a different state of mind that feels like a "high". Think again about that statement. You have put it forward as something you think we should all agree about, but all the way through the discussion people have been pointing out problems with that way of looking at things. In what way can people experience a "different" state of mind? What is a "state of mind"? What about the fact that one person's high is another person's low, or the fact that something can make the same person feel low at one time and high at another?

And yes, everyone is different, but we are also all the same.

[Dr. Robert Klass]

Onlyhuman, Excuse me, but just when did "one person's high is another one's low" become a fact? Do you have any evidence to support that? Some of those things that you think are facts may not be so factual. The technique you are using is something that positively reeks of woo. Your last line smacks of woo. I recognize it, because I happen to be fluent in that language.

[Onlyhuman]

Onlyhuman, Excuse me, but just when did "one person's high is another one's low" become a fact? Do you have any evidence to support that?

Of course I do, I've been providing it for you throughout this discussion. Isn't it glaringly fucking obvious that what makes one person high can make another low? Are you telling us you've grown to adulthood without discovering that?

[Thinkagain]

Hey guys, do you think we're digging a bit too deep here?
Could we just summarise with a few points of agreement?

Some people occasionally experience a different state of mind that feels like a 'high'
Some are either unaware of this ability or are unable to reach that state of mind
Some regularly experience this feeling
Some have this experience but would rather not identify with it
The 'high' sensation is reached either spontaneously, with use of drugs or alchohol, via meditation or through episodes of mental illness
Everyone is different

Whadyareckon?

I reckon you should try to live up to your name. This is the philosophy forum. We are supposed to dig deep. It's not a social discussion, we're not trying to smooth over our differences.

You have to at least try to be clear in what you say.

You have to think about what the people who disagree with you are saying, you have to think hard about it.

You say people experience a different state of mind that feels like a "high". Think again about that statement. You have put it forward as something you think we should all agree about, but all the way through the discussion people have been pointing out problems with that way of looking at things. In what way can people experience a "different" state of mind? What is a "state of mind"? What about the fact that one person's high is another person's low, or the fact that something can make the same person feel low at one time and high at another?

And yes, everyone is different, but we are also all the same.

Ok, Onlyhuman, I will attempt to match the criteria for a philosophical forum.
Earlier we touched on the subject of sex and orgasm as a type of high, so I will use that as an example.
We know there are variations on that experience such as length and intesity or even the difference between that of a man and a woman. As I understand it, a man's orgasm is a brief but ecstatic experience. On the other hand a woman can experience multiple orgasms, a sequence of which can last for many minutes. However we know for a fact that not all people are able to experience that 'high'.
Orgasm itself influences the way one feels, usually elevating the mood to a higher state, and we know that physical stimulation and the release of hormonal chemicals is responsible for that sensation.
Would that not relate to various experiences regarding state of mind?
I suggest that a higher state of mind is the makings of a chemical action, coupled with physical and/or mental stimulation or even learning, but, like multiple orgasms, its not for everyone.

[Dr. Robert Klass]

Onlyhuman, No, it is not glaringly obvious. Maybe the glare is coming from those bright lights you've been seeing. What you've admitted to is that is that what makes one person high can make another low, and you've attempted to sell that as a fact. So, what you're saying is that high and low do exist'; so far you've failed to sell that other statement as a fact. Or, should we just take your word for it.

Yes, somehow I've grown to adulthood without discovering that. Gee, maybe I've led a sheltered life. Or, would you rather be a duck?

[Gallstones]

Vielen dank OH. I already abdicated on the "higher" characterization. I'm all about discovering differences and reveling in experiences. Not something that can be adroitly nailed down or adequately described let alone defined.

Even so, if I can increase the clarity of my thinking I'm all for it. Your willingness to engage and challenge me is much appreciated.

Tell me though, what am I right about?

Well, this for example: "The experience of pleasure from a thing subjectively valued is one of the perks of being alive."

Yay!

[Gallstones]

Onlyhuman, No, it is not glaringly obvious. Maybe the glare is coming from those bright lights you've been seeing. What you've admitted to is that is that what makes one person high can make another low, and you've attempted to sell that as a fact. So, what you're saying is that high and low do exist'; so far you've failed to sell that other statement as a fact. Or, should we just take your word for it.

Yes, somehow I've grown to adulthood without discovering that. Gee, maybe I've led a sheltered life. Or, would you rather be a duck?

Dr Bob, let's see if this will work for an example.

Video games. There are multitudes of people who get really excited playing video games and will occupy themselves for hours doing it, and get really stimulated when they do well. Me, they bore the hell out of me. I can't imagine a more dull afternoon than spending it playing video games. If I had to do that I'd end up lethargic.

The aroused state that video game lovers get to when they are enjoying the game is not something that I can not attain doing what pleases me. The state of lethargy that I get to if forced to play video games is not unique to me. Gamers would probably be lethargic and bored if they had to spend a few hours grooming horses. Being with horses and having hands on elevates my mood.

BTW, when spell checker didn't find any misspelling in this post, I got a little thrill from that.

[Dr. Robert Klass]

Gallstones, I get what you're saying, and, in some cases, it's just a matter of preference. I prefer watching football to other sports, but I'm not saying that watching football gets me into what seems like the kind of high, creative state of being that some of us think we've experienced. I get it that some people get into some kind of zone or whatever when they're playing video games...not my thing either, but I'm far from convinced that they're in that state we've talked about. It could be that some of these people are just really focused, kind of like extreme tunnel vision. Over and out...

[Thinkagain]

I have similar feelings about games and horses. All that electrical stuff just doesn't have the same delicious smell and warmth as a horse! One of my kids is equally excited by games or horses whereas another would go for games every time. I don't know if they are aware of their altered states of mind but I can see the difference after they have indulged in their favourite activity. The gamer is agitated, the one who tends horses is contented and calm, but I reckon both are in higher states of mind.