OK, you have developed a technique that allegedly allows you to experience unconcpetualized reality. So what? I like concepts. Without concepts I wouldn't be able to know anything and I like knowledge.

You are claiming one of the following about your experiences of unconceptualized reality:

1) They give you some kind of secret knowledge other than the knowledge-by-acquaintance of what it is like to do what you do

2) They give you some special powers (beyond the power to relieve stress)

3) They give you an experience that you find intrinsically rewarding

I think that you have denied 1) and 2), which leaves 3). I have no problem with 3). I think that people like you try to pose as "reasonable" mystics. You pretend you're not making any outsized claims like 1) and 2) yet you hint broadly that you are getting something like 1) and 2).

I have meditated. I have quieted my mind. I found it boring. I'd much rather achieve an experience of flow by playing music. My mind will be totally quiet when I'm dead. Until then my policy is "go with the flow".

Why have I spent so much time in these comments? Because I have seen so many people with delusional ideas. Not just mystics but nearly everyone who has religious beliefs. I have seen hard core acid casualties who took all the ideas and suspicions they had while tripping as literally true. I feel sorry for those people. I'd like to help them.

There is a great human need for understanding and salvation. People will latch onto almost anything that promises to deliver those things. Unfortunately I think salvation is simply not in the cards. That sux but there isn't anything I can do about it.

However, I do believe that a certain amount of understanding is possible. But it takes hard work -- and I'm talking about hitting the books, not doing breathing exercises and having unconceptualized sensory experiences.

You will complain that I'm not really getting it, there's more to it, I'm being reductionist etc. That's the same thing I used to hear from the priests my parents follow.

Sadly, no.

They seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between magical consciousness, like a drug phenomenon, and a transpersonal phenomenon, like a satori experience, though most spiritual teachers will tell you there is a difference.

But Shepa, as I said earlier, I had a mystical experience once that revealed that all mystical experiences, including those of Wilber and Ash and all other spiritual teachers, are produced by the brain when stimulated by certain chemicals. If you haven't had this experience, you can't possibly understand it.

You got a problem with that? Well then you have a problem with Wilber and Ash and GW and all other spiritual teachers too, although you may not understand it.

For more on this see Joel Grant's enlightening post on Page 18 about lepra-reality.

As I say, my policy is go with the flow until I die, at which point I will begin an intensive program of no-thought.

OK, so Lieberputz votes with us on everything except war, international relations, civil liberties, and presidential elections. Gosh, we can't get hung up on little things like that!

This just shows how completely unprincipled the Democratic leadership is. Look, I understand politics and the art of compromise etc. etc. But if you don't take a stand on an illegal war that got a million Iraqis and thousands of Americans killed based on a despicable WMD hoax, then you don't have any principles AT ALL. It is not hopeless romanticism to expect politicians to display some degree of principled behavior, but we're simply not getting it from the current crop of losers who run our party.

IF greatness is taken as the opposite of sucking AND IF greatness is measured by influence than, yes, Reagan, like Hitler and Osama bin Laden was great and hence, by definition, didn't suck. But that conclusion depends on both a tendentious definition as well as an equivocation on the word "great".

In reality, Reagan was a stupid, petty man, who massively increased our debt. What's more he set the template for all of the lying, thieving, hypocritical, death-dealing, Republican scum who have followed him. Reagan set the precedent in Iran-Contra that has lead to the normalization of presidential deceit, supported by a fawning media. And that precedent has rapidly lead to the deep corruption of the American political system under Bush.

Reagan should have been impeached for the lies he told about Iran-Contra. Far from being a great man, Reagan was a very bad man who committed war crimes and crimes against democracy.

Glenn said, "The war they unleashed resulted in the complete devastation of another country for no good reason. It has led to the death of 100,000 innocent human beings -- at the very least."

100,000 is far less than the survey estimates which have come up with numbers closer to 1,000,000. I assume Glenn is just trying to avoid controversy but how did you arrive at the 100,000 number, Glenn?