I couldn't call it disordered or psychosis... I'm not a physician, and even their criteria isn't always right.
One hermit who looked upon God, supposedly, found it very difficult to picture the aesthetics. His name was Nicholas of Flüe, and some of his visions only came after several years of asceticism. He left his family behind to service a chantry, but also left a legacy.If their behaviour is otherwise disordered or disruptive, and particularly if they are unable to fend for themselves or are a danger to others, this raises new questions about whether they are sane or socially functional by comon consent or establised criteria for trying to determine sanity and healthy functioning, of course.
Now, this wasn't exactly beneficial for his family, was it? Was this lunacy? Was his experience only stabilized by the dogma which assured him that he was healthy? Is this sort of psychological manifestation only the result of a thinning of the barrier between the pole of his consciousness that categorized the world, and the antipode which was more vague and caught up in the collective unconscious?
His conception of the event was only accepted because it fit the guidelines of what the teachings of the time said. It depicted a trinity. But what if it was something different; and what if Lark somehow did this and got something different? It would certainly change his outlook on life.
Well, gah...Yet some people have claimed to, when in states of variously altered consciousness, which may be interpreted either pathologically OR as a sign of divine favour, depending on one's perspective. The difficulty in finding words to effectively describe it perhaps can be taken as reflecting the supernormal nature of the experience, one for which everyday life has not equipped us with an adequate vocabulary to communicate the understanding of the experiencer on the one hand, and for the person who has not had the experience to form an adeqate understanding of what is being described on the other.
What's your take on this? Does the impossibility of comprehending these experiences fully without having experienced them oneself constitute a reason for dismissing their plausibility and concentrating on understanding faith at a more rational level, in terms of what can be directly percieved? Or is it as the various mystical and contemplative streams of faith suggest, a reason to develop one's own consciousness in order to try to access the experiences of which others speak and form your own unique understanding based on this?
Some people form psychosis and believe they are, quite literally, God. Am I supposed to believe that they've reached a divine pinnacle? There are people out there who have debilitating mental illnesses, and who's beliefs are far from the consensual reality that everyone else is accustomed to. Are people just supposed to say "Well, they've just developed a higher form of consciousness, or they're just a different kind of consciousness". Something cannot be separate and still equal. I would like to believe that we all have equal interpretations of reality, but obviously the differences reveal themselves in how successful one is in life, even one's own standards.
But, I guess since I haven't been there myself, I can't place judgement. I can only make a forecast.
This topic confuses me on the most unearthly levels.
I have heard that these experiences can be quite helpful and healthy. Aldous Huxley had similar ones when he took mescaline and perceived reality as a "unified whole", unfettered by normal understanding. Afterwards, he advocated the Perennial Philosophy. I would call this a mystical experience, though it was different from the more conventional things.
Everyone finds their own meaning in life. :confused: