While I can understand that some understanding of the jargon and background may be useful, is Sufi mysticism (or indeed, any mysticism) useful in any objective way? Do Sufi mystics live longer, heal faster, catch fewer diseases, and such? If such a question is not recognized as valid, are any questions about objective effect so recognized?
I know virtually nothing about Sufism except that it parallels other forms of religious mysticism. As to its specific beliefs and principles, I have no idea.
But to ask if mysticism has any useful purpose is sort of a non sequitur. Mysticism isn’t concerned with the physical body or material realm. The last thing they would be concerned with is being useful.
I would say that mystics employ physicality to transcend it. Hence, the practices of meditation, prayer and forgiveness. I suppose that remembering who we are and the peace of mind which must accompany it are beyond “utility”.
You mean our bizarre insistence that words have actual meanings and that when you string them together they should be comprehensible?
Sorry about that.
Well… how convenient for them.
I’m a little surprised that **kanicbird **hasn’t stopped by yet.
Maybe he has… in spirit.
I just want to make sure I’m understanding your argument.
You’re saying that, hypothetically, prayer and/or psychotherapy can fix a broken leg? And you’re proposing that either of these two would be preferable to a medical route of setting bone and placing the leg in a cast?
What he asked. But if that’s not it, it seems to me that your argument is not that broken legs can be cured by psychotherapy, but that since broken legs cannot be cured by psychotherapy, a broken leg is not a problem - IOW, one should just ignore a broken leg.
How any of that can be said to be “sound conjecture” instead of “mere solipsism” is beyond me, though.
See, you’re thinking that “leg” means, like, an actual “leg”, man, when really he’s just talking about, like, sort of a “leg” that’s not really a “leg”, you know? And anyway, what does it mean for a “leg” to be “broken”, anyway?! How can something that comes from nature be broken, huh?
Transcendence is a lie.
We’re all in the soup. There are different ways of living in the soup, but there’s no getting out of the pot.
And what do you mean by “fix”? If the leg is broken, that is it’s natural state. It is supposed to be broken. How do you fix something that is already in a perfect state of one-ness with the universe?
I believe any change in perception is possible. That’s all a “miracle” is.
My perceptions of “myself” in relation to “everything else” perfectly reflect my belief system and, like all belief systems, mine is based on one of two possible assumptions as derived as follows.
Cogito ergo sum. We all start here.
Alright, I exist. What am I? I don’t remember creating myself yet, putatively, I am here. Here’s where I started assuming.
The finite mind is by definition self-referential and dies without moral compass.
Bummer! But oh! dem autumn leaves.
For easy reference, let’s call our source, and or not, “x”. “x” is responsible 
Atheists, "x"ers and other quibblers, how about “X” for all?
What’s “X” in your particular perception?
ETA Here’s mine, as if you give a shit.wtf, sue me for it, easy terms pleaseI will respond. Enough about me. Forever, I hope.
Paging Samuel Johnson … Bishop Berkeley is on the white courtesy telephone.
ANY change of perception is NOT possible. You can’t think yourself out of a bullet to the head.
Seems to working for you.
ETA and me, hypothetically
You realize that this is all complete gibberish, right? I mean, surely you understand that putting these words together in this order conveys absolutely no intelligible ideas.
By Jove, I think you’ve got it!
I’ve had better “debates” with ELIZA
We were discussing you, not me.
In a recent thread, someone mentioned the impossibility of teaching natural language to artificial intelligence.
I suspect this might be an example of that.
And …