A 'semantically correct' understanding of 'transrational experience', used to describe one level of spiritual contemplation; i.e., 'vision logic', could be translated into terms that for some might resonate more precisely and more favorably according to their own usage preferences. We must keep in mind the intent of the writer when the reader attempts to interpret what is written (what did Imus really mean when he said that about 'pacman'?). What is the context of what is written, and how trained is the 'eye of contemplation' of those who would apply critical thought to a subject that is often beyond the realm of mental speculation?
It never ceases to amaze me that a man or a woman can be wearing the finest clothing and be impeccably well-groomed when attending to the preparations required as a prospect whose interest it is to become employed in one profession or another, only to be rejected by the prospective employer because of a small spot on his tie or on her blouse.
The critical mind is a wonderful servant, but it is a terrible master.
How many babies have been tossed out with the bath only because of this very issue? The count, no doubt, is innumerable; which can lead one to wonder just how much of a brain-drain have certain countries suffered only because of an inablity on the part of those who are holding onto their positions of power and authority to dialogue first by finding what is right about the position of the other and then interject one's own views into the dialogue which are also akin to and compatible with those of the other?
In what is arguably one of the first classics describing transpersonal experiences, "The Varieties of Religious Experience," by William James, we have a document that is an exploration into the inner depths of the human psyche and written in such a way that every man or woman who has even an inkling of interest in the subject can understand. Granted, we have come a long way since its original publication, and many new understandings have evolved because of it.
I've sometimes wondered what William's brother, Henry, who was also a writer of human affairs, most occupied with telling what he saw as truth using fiction as his method of choice, said when he first read William's book. In fact, it could be one hoot of a theatrical play, just the two of them on stage having their own "Dinner with Andre."
Henry: Yes, William, what you have written here is quite remarkable, uncanny in many ways, and most timely to say the least. However, and please understand my true intent, dear brother, whatever were you thinking when you said that about...oh goodness sake, what was it...oh yes!, the "higamous hogamous" nonsense? What was that experiment all about?
William: Why, Henry, it never was about the words in the first place.
Henry: No? Then, pray tell, what was it about?
William: Henry, surely with your European experiences and all of the parlour talk you've no doubt had with the likes of Gertrude Stein, you know what it was about. Why are you importing those games into our conversation now?
Henry: Importing games?! On my honor, William, this is no game. I swear it isn't. Now I remember! During the experiment you wrote the words:
Higamous Hogamous, Women Monogamous;
Hogamous Higamous, Men are polygamous.
Henry: What, for heaven's sake, does that prove?
William: Well, one thing that it proves is, for someone with an imagination such as yours, you obviously never learned to contemplate.
Henry, still not satisfied with his brother's answer, pushed harder.
Henry: Oh please, William, what does it really prove, though?
That men are philanderers who have no ability to make commitments once the relationship is consummated? From that experiment, are you assuming this to be some 'universal given'?
William: Well, no, not exactly that ... And, yet, it is that as well.
Henry: You can't have it both ways, now. I can't let you have it both ways. You know it's got to be one or the other. Now which is it?
William: Obviously, Henry, you are adamantly opposed to the idea that indeed it CAN be one AND the other. It can be both a universal 'given' and yet remain within the context of its own historical and cultural framework. So, relatively speaking, we could declare such tendencies to be conditional laws of behaviour within the context of time, place, and circumstance.
And, as we know, the rest is indeed history. William James's contribution to the early beginnings of transpersonal psychology will forever be indelibly remembered as one that opened doors of perception for those of us who learned from his work and went on to do other things in a field that is forever evolving. And whether they ever made the distinction between a Higamous and a Hogamous will never really matter anyway.
Now please don't pigeon-hole William James as an early representative of the 'green meme'. Please don't bastardize him as someone who does not belong to the 'developmental elite'. In the name of that same elite we must forever remember the context within which they were born and the formidable forces with which they fought to get us to where we are today. Perhaps we are the one's who are stuck in our deluded cognitive minds while those who've come before laugh at our foolish games from a place that truly knows no boundaries.
The use of the non-sequitur is for comics, clowns, and marketing wizards. It has no place for a philosophy of Spirit. To establish a popular base from which one can then attack the views of those whose very support it depended on in the beginning, is tantamount to philosophical sophistry in its most outrageous form.
In an attempt to create a structural map that can analyze and synthesize information in such a way as to designate its 'proper' place within a holarchy by suggesting that one's own philosophy of life and the 'Kosmos' is the correct view, is likewise tantamount to the presumptuous view that a Neo-Faustian Revival is absolutely correct if only because it is epistemologically based in the teleological view of some absolute creative force of design, proving only that we are desperate to find a way out of this apparently inescapable trap that we've been in for milennia; and, thus, in our desperation, willing to accept one of many world-views upon which civilizations have been built so as to put our minds at ease that now, finally, we have the correct view. Why has Spirit, after all of this time, made us so special?
The yoga of light and sound is really only one event. It's the frequency of their vibrations that is different.