The Egodeath Theory Is for Mystics, Applies to Mystics, & Explains Mystics

Contents:

• The Egodeath Theory Explains How All Minds Work when Exposed to the Loose Cognitive Association Binding State, Including the Minds of Normal People and the Minds of Mystics
• Where People Are Hearing that the Egodeath Theory Excludes Professional Mystics
• Interesting Points to Maybe Cover More, in Podcasts/ Website
• Comment on Podcast Page
• Conversation Around the Word ‘Everyone’

The Egodeath Theory Explains How All Minds Work when Exposed to the Loose Cognitive Association Binding State, Including the Minds of Normal People and the Minds of Mystics

The Magic Word Mystics of Egodeath

Definition of ‘Everyone’, ‘Ordinary People’, and ‘Mystics’
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Definition-of-Everyone
stable reference definitions of the magic word mystics 🪄

The Egodeath theory applies to everyone, including non-mystics and mystics.

The Egodeath theory is for everyone, including non-mystics and mystics.

The Egodeath theory explains how all minds work in the altered state (loose cognitive binding), including non-mystics and mystics.

The Egodeath theory understands all minds that are exposed to loosecog, including the minds of non-mystics and mystics.

The Egodeath theory explains how all minds work, per entheogenic World Religion, including non-mystics in all religions, and mystics in all religions.

Where People Are Hearing that the Egodeath Theory Excludes Professional Mystics

People are hearing the following assertions:

“The Egodeath theory does not apply to mystics.

The Egodeath theory is not for mystics.

The Egodeath theory does not explain how the minds of professional mystics work.

The Egodeath theory can never understand mystics.

The Egodeath theory apples to regular people.

Regular people are different and alien compared to mystics.

The Egodeath theory is for regular people.

The Egodeath theory explains how the minds of regular people work.”

Here is where they are picking up assertions similar to the above:

[1:01:15]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ-xfMkHyuQ&t=3665s

Max says “The Egodeath theory in that sense applies to us, it doesn’t apply to any special class of people; it applies to how Joe Average experiences … at some point in their life, but normally it’s like after age 15 or so between age 18 to 25ish roughly, most people first encounter … in a certain way and they may or may not be transformed in a certain way, and what I’m saying is the Egodeath theory is about that, it’s not about any special class of people who you might refer to as ‘mystics’”

Kafei: “Yeah sure I mean I figured that maybe like it could at least comment on it, from the vantage point of the Egodeath theory how would it describe mystics, or something like that.”

Max: “He doesn’t, he doesn’t, forget about mystics, forget about mystics, bracket them off, for this part of the conversation, we’re talking about how people like us would [explore], because that’s what’s relevant to us, because we are not mystics, why would we be so interested in a theory about people who we are never going to be like, who we can never know what it’s like to be those people, we can only know what it’s like to be ordinary regular everyday people. And so the Egodeath theory is for us. Cyberdisciple used the word ‘democratizing’; I think that’s a crucial point here: it’s a democratic theory, it’s not a theory for some ultra special elite who we can never hope to understand.”

Kafei: “Ok, I do consider myself an aspiring mystic.”

It seems like the above is striving to construct a bad, pseudo-definition of ‘mystic’, that’s a non-definition definition, and then stating the now-made-confusing words “the egodeath theory doesn’t apply to mystics”, after having erected a bad, non-definition defintion of mystics that everyone rejects — but still uttering the now undefined & meanlingless but bad-sounding words, “the egodeath theory doesn’t apply to mystics, where the word ‘mystics’ is defined as undefined.”

A very unpopular definition of the word mystics – who holds that “undefined defined” position?

This is not an effective way to proceed, defining an undefined pseudo-definition of the word ‘mystics’ that everyone rejects, that violates Webster’s definition, and then saying the (now meaningless) words “the Egodeath theory doesn’t address mystics” — when ‘mystics‘ has been mis-defined (as undefined), in a way that no one accepts and no one holds.

None of the Great Mystics of Egodeath agree to that non-definition, quasi-definition of the word ‘mystics’. So it really amounts to nothing, meanlingless, the words “the egodeath theory doesn’t address mystics” — so long as that non-def def’n of ‘mystics’ is used.

The statement is meaningless, but it’s misleading, it sounds as if you’re saying “the Egodeath theory doesn’t address mystics” – where now, the word ‘mystics’ is taken in the common, reasonable sense like my definition of ‘mystics’, which is an actual definition.
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Definition-of-Everyone

When you say “the egodeath theory doesn’t address mystics“, are you using the word ‘mystics’ in an undefined, non-standard way, that no one accepts, that no one holds? If so, then the statement
“the Egodeath theory doesn’t address mystics“,
where ‘mystics’ is used in that mis-defined way, is both an irrelevant statement, and a meaningless statement.

We’re off in the weeds, relating the Egodeath theory to a position that no one holds and no one likes. Why bother saying “the Egodeath theory doesn’t apply to mystics”, when ‘mystics’ is mis-defined as undefined and no one accepts that definition?

Not Meaningful

The statement sounds meaningful, but it’s not, since the definition of ‘mystics’ used in that statement is bunk; a non-definition pseudo-definition.

Not Relevant

The statement sounds relevant, but it’s not, since no one holds that position, that (non-definition) “definition” of ‘mystics’ – not Webster, and not
the Grea🍄 Mys🍄ics of Egodea🍄h

The Theory Is Aimed for Everybody, Not Ultra-Special Class of People

Episode 26, 1:03:30

Max: “I’m just trying to point out the democratic nature of the Egodeath theory. It’s aimed for everybody; it’s not aimed for some ultra-special class of people.“

The above is potentially self-contradictory, if the (here undefined) word ‘everybody’ is allowed to covertly shift meaning from inclusive to exclusive; from universal set to partial subset.

Same w/ ‘democratic’: is that supposed to include elites, or not?

Undefined terms.

Contrast Max’s hyperbole statement elsewhere in this podcast that sounds as if the Egodeath theory fails to cover mystics.

PLACE YOUR BETS ON THIS GUESSING GAME: DOES THE AMBIGUOUS WORD ‘EVERYBODY’ MEAN THE UNIVERSAL SET, OR JUST A SUBSET, THAT EXCLUDES MYSTICS?

It’s unclear how he’s defining ‘everybody’.

Here is how I am defining ‘everyone’ in a stable, consistent way, to mean the universal set; not a subset:

https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Definition-of-Everyone

Interesting Points to Maybe Cover More, in Podcasts/ Website

• Is the Egodeath theory for everyone, or only for professional mysticism-writers, or only for ordinary people?
• Jimmy’s pull toward namedropping [ie, discussing] book titles & authors (vs. talking in terms of core concepts of the Egodeath theory) — is it unbalanced?  
  • % focus on the Egodeath theory’s Core theory/core concepts. 
  • % focus on history of scholarship and books/authors writing about mystic stuff.
• Max mentioned more discussion of Mythemes & mytheme decoding, in podcast.

Comment on Podcast Page

There is a related Comment at:
https://cyberdisciple.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/transcendent-knowledge-podcast-ep-26/ – wrmspirit (an Egodeath Yahoo Group contributor since the 2001 start) wrote:

“Regarding the distinction of common people with that of special mystics, may be missing the point of what the phenomenology within the Egodeath Theory reveals.

The body and mind are common to all living people. This includes people living in the ordinary world of possibilism, the ordinary state of consciousness, and people who take psychedelics and experience the altered state of consciousness, the mystic altered state, loose cognition.

Possibilism is experienced by everyone.

The altered state of consciousness into eternalism is experienced by everyone (anyone) who takes psychedelics.

How the experience of the mystic altered state becomes interpreted by people, without the Egodeath theory as a reference, results in all the multitude of various writings such as those that Jimmy reads.

If all the many descriptions of loose cognition experience were discussed in a detailed worldwide conference, all the experiences would be broken down into what the Egodeath Theory reveals, just as water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen.

And which everyone would be able to clearly see. Which is precisely why the Egodeath Theory is a major discovery for the world.

Now, what occurs with people after experiencing the mystic altered state loose cognition, and when back into the ordinary world of possibilism[-consciousness/ experiencing], does not alter the phenomenology of The Egodeath theory [ie the “eternalism/pre-existence” altered state] one bit.

Some people may develop spiritual egos.

Some may become highly religious, some may become atheists, and some may do nothing different.

And none of that alters the Egodeath Theory at all, as none of that changes
the basic, underlying commonality of experience of human life when in the mystic altered state.”

/ end of Comment

Conversation Around the Word ‘Everyone’

Interesting point to be clarified by everyone involved – not sure I understood the intended point:

“Max in the podcast with Jimmy made the Egodeath Theory separate from some people, by excluding the mystics.”

I also heard the opposite-sounding:

“Jimmy is into idolatry of those guru fellows“.

Excluding mystics is bad, but idolizing gurus (or, professional specialist mystics) is bad too.

One could depict Max & Cyb as “too professional & specialized; not representative of normal people”.  They are post-doc academics with PhD degrees, not just ordinary people with Bachelor degrees.

Max and Cyberdisciple, what I focused on (what I heard) in the podcast, they were trying to include “everyone“ (as Cyberdisciple literally said), rather than only including the mystics.

Max says in Episode 26, 1:03:30: “the democratic nature of the Egodeath theory. It’s aimed for everybody; it’s not aimed for some ultra-special class of people.””

Objectively, I can support this by quotes & podcast timestamps — one could perhaps make the case that Jimmy is trying (so to speak) to make enlightenment exclusive, but Max & Cyb are trying to make enlightenment inclusive.  

If there’s someone who (seemingly) tends to push-away enlightenment and put it out of reach and make it difficult and restricted to a small elite exclusive group, it’s Jimmy, not Max & Cyb.

It was most interesting in the podcast, how Jimmy seems to think in terms of “enlightenment is for the very few, the professionals, the specialists.”

I have at least one timestamp for that in the below page.

This subject could have additional interesting discussion, since there seem to be different perspectives not aligning.  

I wrote about the subject in my podcast commentary:

In this section, Find ‘everyone’:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Psychedelics-Make-You-Have-Good-Moral-Values

And see the subsequent entire 2 sections:
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#Professional-Mystics-vs-Completed-Mystery-Religion-Initiates
https://egodeaththeory.wordpress.com/2020/12/06/tk-podcasts-commentary/#The-Egodeath-Theory-Is-Designed-for-Use-by-Normal-People

Jimmy tends to exclude non-mystics from the Egodeath theory and enlightenment.

I’m against excluding anyone.  

I’m against only mystics having enlightenment and the Egodeath theory; I want everyone — the mystics AND the non-mystics — to have metaphysical enlightenment and the Egodeath theory.

I’m getting the impression that some people believe someone has to be excluded.  I don’t follow the reasoning behind that.  

The word ‘everyone’, by definition, means everyone; it means not excluding anyone.

I’m against excluding normal people; and I’m against excluding mystics.  

The Egodeath theory is written to be quickly readable for everyone, not only for mystics.  

Saying that, is not excluding mystics; it’s including both mystics and nonmystics; thus the word ‘everyone’.