Some say ... the self is like a drop of water in the ocean. When it sees itself, it realizes, "I am a drop of water." But when it looks at the vast ocean, it realizes, "I am the ocean."
- 👉 But God is not the ocean because the ocean is within the reach of water, while God's Essence is beyond reach.
Some say ... when they see their small body, they realize, "I am human," and when they become aware that they are part of the universe, they say, "I am the universe."
- 👉 But God is not the universe because the universe is within the reach of the body, while God's Essence is beyond reach.
A person who embarks on a Sufi path, with an ego like ice shaped into a human, full of arrogance.
Then, as they engage in spiritual struggles (riyadah), their ego diminishes (melts) to the extent that they see themselves as nothing but water everywhere. There is no longer ice (awareness of their ego), only water that stretches far beyond the reach of their melted ego. BUT THEY FORGET, THEY ARE NOT METICULOUS (cognitive bias - perception failure).
- 👉 But God is not water because water is within the reach of ice, while God's Essence is beyond reach.
This is what I repeatedly say here, that even mystics can misunderstand their own mystical experiences and then contextually convert their mystical experiences into intellectual language.
Logical Fallacy
AND PEOPLE CANNOT UNDERSTAND. EVEN IF IT IS A PHILOSOPHER WHO EXPERIENCES A MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE. WHY?
Because, between any dimensions, be they hidden or whatever term is used, they are interconnected. One dimension has a broader perspective (encompassing) than a narrower one (not separate).
Therefore, there is no such thing as Shari'a contradicting Haqiqa (truth). Mysticism contradicting non-mysticism. Rather, it's just a different point of view.
Because of the different context (territory) that is broader, the perspective is also broader.
NOW THOSE WHO EXPERIENCE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES FIND IT DIFFICULT TO TRANSLATE THEIR EXPERIENCES BECAUSE THE CONVERSION IS FROM A BROAD PERSPECTIVE TO AN INTELLECTUAL LANGUAGE THAT HAS A NARROWER PERSPECTIVE, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE CONTEXTUAL CONVERSION.
Fallacy of Composition
If forced, it results in reducing their broad experience to narrow knowledge (logical error - fallacy of composition), which only causes more confusion.
Scale Reasoning
Those who experience mystical experiences have not yet been equipped with scale reasoning (understanding from a broad perspective - large scale, through a small perspective).
Reasoning about the universe or any dimension is understood through miniature examples - universal verses - small scale without reduction (without falling into logical fallacy). Atheists love to bring up the fallacy of composition against theists by saying, "You (theists) want to understand God, who is said to be INFINITELY GREAT AND BEYOND REACH, by studying His limited creation❓" This is called the fallacy of composition (reducing reality).
Atheists say, "It doesn't make sense to understand something on a large scale by understanding it on a small scale," it doesn't connect, it's not symmetrical, not congruent, not equivalent, wrong composition (wrongly making comparative compositions - fallacy of composition).
Quantum Physics
That was the past era❗️Classical physics.
In the contemporary era of physics - quantum physics, experts understand life, consciousness, or cosmic phenomena on a large scale by studying on a small scale (quantum scale) without falling into the fallacy of composition. Why do they accept this principle (scale reasoning - understanding the large scale through the small scale)❓
Because even though they reason using a small scale to understand the large scale, the small scale is CROSS-SCALE.
CROSS-SCALE
Cross-scale reasoning means that reasoning from any direction must involve absolute universal truth, so that even in the form of mathematical calculations and physics formulas, it can be used to understand the pattern of universal laws at work, even if it involves small dimensions (quantum).
THE DIFFICULTY OF CROSS-SCALE REASONING
It is challenging to find absolute universal truths (mathematical or non-mathematical axioms) because, as quantum physicists have begun to realize, there are obstacles such as cognitive biases.
An Overview of Cognitive Biases
This is not a logical error but a perceptual error that can also lead to logical errors. Philosophers who focus on logical errors tend to overlook perception, resulting in misperceptions that lead to conclusions that are illogical yet accepted. It's akin to watching a magic show, where logic is deceived by the illusion of a single glass of water becoming two, leading to incorrect conclusions.
FORMULATING TRUTH: The observer should learn the magician’s trick and then formulate it into an axiomatic statement:
After discovering that "a liquid was hidden," making it seem like "the small amount could multiply," there was actually an addition from a hidden source.
Then it's formulated as: "Something (a cup of water) cannot increase beyond itself (cannot become more than one cup) unless it receives an addition from outside itself (taken from a hidden place)."
"Something cannot increase beyond itself unless it receives an addition from outside itself."
This is the kind of formulation that can be used for cross-scale reasoning.
Here, we need to ensure that we do not fall into misperception by equipping ourselves with cross-scale knowledge.
What initially stems from observing something on a small scale (such as just a cup of tea) can then lead to the formulation of non-mathematical, cross-scale axiomatic truth.
APPLICATION OF CROSS-SCALE REASONING: This can then be applied on any scale… whether on the scale of particles, mathematics, or the large scale of the universe, where "cross-scale knowledge" remains valid, such as "there cannot be an effect on Earth that, after limited observation, is impossible to happen unless there is an additional influence from outside the cosmos," and so on.
Self-Awareness
That is why mystics who wish to explain their mystical experiences to the layperson, if they do not understand cross-scale reasoning (which involves absolute universal truths), should remain silent. They should not assume that they have objectively explained their mystical experience, only to resort to saying, "You don’t understand; this is high-level knowledge that is beyond explanation," when challenged by the layperson.
YES, THERE ARE INDEED LIMITATIONS IN UNDERSTANDING MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES. However, it's not because the layperson is incapable, but because the mystic themselves is unable to logically explain their experience in an objective intellectual language (because they do not understand cross-scale reasoning).
LIMITATIONS OF CROSS-SCALE REASONING
It must also be remembered that there needs to be synergy between understanding "logical fallacies" without undermining "cognitive biases" so that logic does not fall into the illusion that the universe is playing tricks (illusion), allowing the absolute universal truth to be revealed.
However, it must be acknowledged that there are limitations when "cross-scale reasoning" only reaches broad outlines (not details)—this depends on how much data can be obtained through closer (empirical) observation.
From Certainty to Probability
Even if mystical experiences cannot always be fully understood due to the limitation of not experiencing them firsthand, at the very least, the broad outlines, the common thread, can be found from the complexity. So, even if not everything is answered or experienced, it can still be concluded with absolute universality in certain aspects, thereby increasing the value of truth with higher probability.
Reasonable Probability Measures
After recognizing how far a probability value can be accepted by calculating how much certainty supports it, the critical question arises: How far can its consistency be accepted—given that it might change direction next year, or in 1000 years?
SIMPLE... Consider "Expectation" (Lifespan), "Fact" (Consistency) & "Belief" (Probability)
👉 Lifespan, Consistency & Belief (Probability)
Maximum Life Expectancy = Around 100 years
Belief = Probability + Certainty = 70%
Consistency (Belief) Lasts For = 300 years
If a truth maintains consistency for several times the length of a human lifespan, then the belief is reasonably strong to be considered.
NARROW DIFFERENCE
If there's a narrow difference or a dilemma, then decide to balance and synergize the pragmatic, realistic, and idealistic values, depending on where they are leading.
Even if there are 1000 subjective perspectives, decide quickly to make it objective, even if only on a personal level.
LIMITATIONS OF NON-REDUCTIVE CONVERSION
So, to contextually translate mystical experiences into the intellectual realm, cross-scale reasoning is required so that, even if the experience comes from a broad context, it can be scaled down to a smaller context where the perspectives of the large and small scales align within the same pattern.
- This way, even though it might seem like narrowing down (reducing) the context of a broad experience into limited knowledge, the broad outline that connects to a larger (transcendent) dimension can still be obtained.
✅ Avoid falling into the fallacy of composition (reducing knowledge), but rather, recognize the difference between experiencing and knowing (where the knowledge remains intact according to the degree of the experience).
Top comments (0)