Being No One with Thomas Metzinger
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2008
- Thomas Metzinger is the Director of the Philosophy Group at the Department of Philosophy at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz. His research focuses on philosophy of mind, especially on consciousness and the nature of the self. In this lecture he develops a representationalist theory of phenomenal self-consciousness. A Foerster Lectures on the Immortality of the Soul presented by the UC Berkeley Graudate Council. [2/2005] [Show ID: 9181]
More from: UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures
(www.uctv.tv/gradcouncil)
Explore More Humanities on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/humanities)
The humanities encourage us to think creatively and explore questions about our world. UCTV explores human culture through literature, history, ethics, philosophy, cinema and religion so we can better understand the human experience.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - อ้ายกินดอง น้องลาบงัว ft. สแน็ก อัจฉรีย์ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-OK--KaSPcI/mqdefault.jpg)
"I will come back to the question of the immortality of the soul (drinks water)"
After 2500 years western philosophy finally catches up to Buddhist dhamma. Thomas Metzinger exactly describes the process of knowing the arising and falling of phenomena (annica) and non-self (annatta) developed in Theravada and Vipassana meditation. He is a worthy and wise thinker.
An illusion that is no one's illusion.
The self is not a thing, but a process - and no one is ever born, and no one ever dies, because no one ever IS in the egotistic sense of self.
A great way to end a great talk.
Forget dying, the scary truth is that no one or anything has ever been "alive".
Alive, really means "a particular structure that wards off entropy via means of a metabolism."
The arts and personal sentiments try to distract us from the truth that we are biological robots.
Pythagorean Illumifuck You tripped out hippie, DMT trips and NDE's prove nothing. They are simply neurological experiences. End of story.
There is no dualism, just material in motion. What whack jobs like you call "alive" is just material in motion fighting entropy.
But let's assume I'm wrong and a God exists and/or dualism is correct. Well guess what, who freaking cares. If science can't show evidence of these things, then you are just guessing. And no one has or will ever be praised for guessing correctly.
What if I guessed that unicorns and leprechauns are the be all of reality and happened to be correct? Would this impress you? Well it shouldn't because my methods were nothing more than empty conjecture.
Kinda like your DMT and NDE horse manure....which you call "evidence".
Lol, never ever join a science department. But I'm guessing there's a slim chance of that occurring.
Pythagorean Illumifuck You are an idiot. Of course blind children can dream or hallucinate etc etc.
The structure of the mind is vast and complex and creates similar thoughts and patterns amongst all members of a particular species. We are not "tabula rasa" or blank slates. We have a collective consciousness due to structure....nothing more.
The same way birds want to fly south for the winter, we should expect neurological activity for all humans to have similarity. Guess what, this is observed and supports materialism, not dualism.
Obviously everyone cares whether dualism is correct or incorrect and whether God or not exists.
Also, obviously one one advances arguments one is not merely guessing.
Noah Namey Well said!
I’ve watched this video probably 10 times over the past couple of years since I’ve found it. So dang cool.
same here
im reading the book the ego tunnel by metzinger. its from 2009 XD very interesting
World's NOISIEST lecture hall.
Great lecture.
Long story short: "neurologically supported Buddhism" :-)
@jayarava Yes, he's a philosopher working in a tradition that's very much alive at the moment, another great philosopher along similar lines is Dan Dennett, another is Ricardo Manzotti. This is a fairly new tradition, the mark of which is that it's interdisciplinary - it's philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, etc., etc. Interdisciplinary research is becoming more and more prominent in science nowadays, as the various specialisms come together and pool results.
Actually, Peter Watts's "Blindsight" novel brought me to Thomas Metzinger.
Same here! Great one...
Thomas Metzinger brought me to Peter Watts's Blindsight
As regard the question about whether the soul is immortal Thomas ends by saying : "Strictly speaking noone is ever born and no-one every dies". Hows that for profundity - and even that is a massive understatement.
pretty interesting..., but there is a dog barking in background
To anyone who finds this talk too jargon-filled or otherwise obscure, I highly suggest Metzinger's more recent book The Ego Tunnel. It is much more accessible, but treats the same concepts with more clarity and neither does it treat the reader like a dunce. I was once skeptical of Metzinger (not just for my lack of a developed feeling for neuroscience, but concerns about overzealous reductivism which Metzinger is quick to clear up in the newer book, Zizek's critique of Metzinger, etc.), but after reading Ego Tunnel I am much more convinced of the related ideas, impressed by the integration of theory and relatable empirical experiments, and Metzinger's importance as an individual strengthening the connections between continental & analytic philosophies, and neuroscience.
+TristanDeCunha Check out Bernardo Kastrup on TH-cam especially his small theory of everything. I would be interested what you think.
I'll give it a watch, thanks!
I wish TH-cam was full of comments like this.
Dude, this shit trippy when you’re high! 😂😂😂
Shit I thought I was the only high person here lmao
It's even more so when you're sober. But what does sober even mean you know ;)
I'm thinking about this loooooooong introduction!
Brilliant!
Awesome reply.
I know what you mean man, I had a class in 2011 where for once in the so called Educational system I went to, i found some guys that i can talk true Philosophy with. Share ideas and topics others could barely comprehend.
Anybody here from Wisecrack the nihilism video?
Yup. Only way I would've heard of him
Watched it, didn't remember him until after I read conspiracy against the human race which mentions him a lot then rewatched it and noticed him
Wisecrack is okay. Used to watch them a lot, lectures are much better to watch though.
Very good!!
Powerful stuff!
No one is ever born and no one ever dies... My dad says that ALL the time.
Professor Metzinger gives an excellent discription of the perception of self by conscious entity. This is not an explanation of consciouness: in his hypothesis consciouness is the state of mental activity that creates and entertains the self model.
@jayarava I agree on the superficial resemblance. I meant more that the catching up aspect of much cognitive science, even to the use of terms such as "mindfulness." As to transparency and the possibility of introspection I would suggest a reading of the suttas on emptiness implies exactly what Metzinger is reaching for, namely a way to comprehend the transparent.
Applauding at 37:30 "Selfless experience ... debate that cannot shut it's eyes in that direction."
philosophy doesn't need a community!
Bingo! Someone gets it. Have you read Schopenhauer?
well said
Good point, but I think he basically explains that when he later discusses the evolutionary disadvantages of the higher metabolic load and "diminishing returns" on progressive "meta-representations", which are mediated anyway (for example, imagine all the auditory stimuli we routinely filter out in a crowd). But still the idea of the conscious self (the "I am") as a moment-by-moment "process" is fascinating, and some very provocative ideas!
@jayarava The Dhamma difference is one of strategic purpose, namely to eliminate suffering, rather than merely to take a position or view. Thanissaro Bikkhu explains this emptiness concept better than I could. accesstoinsight.
the intro music is great
Of course!
Lacan would be pleased with the phantom limb experiment.
@Bassotronics : that is odd. Also, I've never fully pictured, though I understand the reasons, I think, is the reason pigments have different primary colors than light...
Thomas Metzinger at 4:23. :)
Slavoj Zizek occasionally references Metzinger's works.
Zizek is a hack
Is there a gym class going on in the background?! Holy shit and some fire Sirens too!
39:55
Ronald Melzack, who claims that there's a hardwired partition of the neural matrix underlying
40:01
the spatial model of one's own body which is independent of external input,
40:06
and that becomes the center. That is, you have a part of your body image
40:12
which is autonomously active, and 50 times a second tells you, this is me.
The Self is that which is aware of No-one.
My question is: if we are self modeling systems, that is systems that model and emulate themselves, doesn't that lead to infinite recursion? It sounds, if I can use a simplistic analogy, like a computer function whose job is to call itself.
Reading his book now (The Ego Tunnel), I came to the same conclusion.
It's reminiscent not just of Buddhism but more generally of many mystical systems that involve some moment of "ego dissolution" or abeyance of the ordinary sense of self. No matter their metaphsyics, they all seem to be built on top of that kind of direct experience of the virtuality of the ordinary sense of self. At last we are getting to a stage where we can understand these experiences (and possibly benefit from them) without the religious rubble that's covered them (a la Sam Harris).
Ah - so you're just playing. Very good :))
I wanna do techno dust with this guy
is the PMIR "non-conceptual" as well?
@gurugeorge
you can benefit from these experiences right now no need to first understand them.
43:00 There is nothing surprising in not feeling every part of a phantom limb as vividly. Almost no one senses every part of an intact physical limb as vividly as "the next part".
I was thinking that very thing.
very interesting approach to cognition... My non existent self is curious to read one of his books. I see the "Ego tunnel" is less than half the size of "being no one", and also it seems to have better reviews. Has anyone read those books? Any opinions?
thanx!
Is Being no one much different than the Ego Tunnel? I thought the Ego Tunnel is a newer version of Being no one 🤔
This comment of yours reminds me of Eckhart Tolle in "The Flowering of Human Consciousness"
I like listening. I give . Ive seen through my arm..to see a clear frame with blue energy defining like glass, in Omniverse. Maybe the matter isnt bonded to my body..mayne the matter is the make believe part?
My question is: what are the consequences of this knowledge in the practical everyday life? I'm intrigued by this quite a lot and will certainly read Metzinger's book so maybe I'll get the answer then when I read it?
Did you find your answer? My thought is we are all characters dreaming in the mind of the dreamer. But who is the dreamer?
You can show off your knowledge of the philosophy of consciousness to chicks at parties.
@robopsychology 'Ego Tunnel' is *way* easier to understand than 'Being No One'. Definitely a better place to start.
(Unfortunately for me, it was too introductory, so I'm stuck - I can't understand BNO and ET is too easy.)
He sounds like a Logical Positivist Buddha. Great stuff - thanks for sharing
I'll get the books now.
"I am a brain construction" But why am I this brain's construction and not that brains construction?
The rubber hand illusion becomes even more intriguing, if you finally manage to lift the rubber hand. :-)
On lsd I felt my conscious getting signals from different parts of my brain, telling me how I should feel, which was based off my surroundings and my emotional embodiment,Which is ever so changing If I allow it too, Or not.
That's interesting. I never noticed that when tripping and I did it a lot for over 40 years. Now I'm what they call a burn out . I think better now then I did back then however lol. What I think is pretty grim these days.
@@johnmiller7453 what do you think?
This lecture is all fine and good, but does this really answer anything?
Here's a bit of Damasio.
43:32
Of course, he says, and he tries to go deeper. The brain does represent muscles and joints and bones,
43:39
but before it ever gets to the muscles and bones, there are other aspects of the body to consider,
43:44
namely the viscera and the internal milieu. The internal milieu corresponds to the chemistries
43:51
of the fluids in which all of our living tissues are immersed. Not only must the body model and the brain include
43:58
the latter aspect of the organism, it is likely that the model is anchored on those aspects because they are indispensable
44:06
for the maintenance of life. The dynamic structure and operation of internal milieu
44:12
and viscera are the beginning of the body-minded brain. And he points out that it is the first division,
44:20
the one concerned with the organism's interior, which is permanently active, that's my persistent
44:26
functional link, permanently signaling the state of the most internal aspects of the body proper to the brain.
44:33
The brain is truly the body's captive audience. For a philosopher's point of view, my friend Tony's theory
44:43
has many conceptual problems. It's not entirely coherent. But I think he's got a very good point there,
44:50
because he can explain how self-modeling, the process of becoming self-aware, is actually anchored
44:58
in molecular level dynamics, in autonomous self regulation of body fluids
45:05
around the brain stem. And you can see also how far that is
45:11
from what any artificial system can do today. The time by which we have robots with body fluids
45:20
and that ultra fine-grained emotional background state we have is I guess is a distant point in time.
@Bassotronics : the thing is as material phenomenon all black light is white, white is black... that is, both are actually 'grey", and grey the color you get when you have all the wavelengths mixed. That is... there is no black, just grey below our sensitivity and no white, just -saturated- grey... thus black is also a mixture of all the colors.
what do you think?
Darepyrrho314
I have nothing to say. May I listen?
there are philosophy communities on google plus, and you could always start a philosophy meetup in your area if there aren't already some going.
I'd do that but there is no one that would stoop to my level of discourse.
I don't know if time is discrete or continuous. But I do believe human thought is continuous with the rest of the unverse. It just doesn't make either common or logical sense for it to be separate, IMO. Moments of consciousness are different because we may never understand the relationship between consciousness and the rest of the universe. The nature of the connection is a mystery.Whereas thought, ignoring associated consciousness, is a set of mechanical & quantum processes like everything else
During the past years I have really seen the changing faces of my ego. I have come to see that my ego/the human part is just a part of a bigger process. I now see myself as a part of a whole and not as a separate thing. And the self that I thought was mine/my ego's isn't really, but instead it is something more universal. It really seems that we are the life itself playing the human part in the process of life. Being no one is to say to much. I prefer just Being not being this or being that. :)
@manjunathpaih well, he works as a philosopher. it is his job an he has published as one.
This is a Buddhist view as shown by Buddha about two thousand years ago .Now of course people all over the world are finding a great satisfaction in knowing there is no tyrant ruling over them with it's egocentric goals and woes.Incidently there is a fairly old book by the name Being Nobody Going Nowhere by a lady Buddhist.No doubt the speaker has drawn inspiration from the title.
I think he disproves Kant easily from 39:20-40:18. The "continuing consciousness" that Kant noted has an identical underlying quality across time (in fact, there's no way of knowing if past experiences felt at the time the same as when recreated as memories, and the self-sense attributed to memories might merely be the present moment's own sense of self, not a memory of a past one), needs not be anymore truly continuous than a stream of photons with the appearance of a unified, stable beam.
Hey, we're out there. Set your intention to do just that, and it will be so. ;)
45:51
Somebody like Dave could come along and say all this could take conceivably place
45:56
without the emergence of a genuine phenomenal self or a subjectively experienced first-person perspective.
46:04
We can imagine biological information processing systems which develop and use centered representational spaces
46:11
without the emergence of true self-consciousness. Somebody could say, Thomas, you're cheating
46:17
with the word self. A self model is not a self, but only an internal
46:23
representation of the system itself as a whole. It is a system model.
46:29
So the question becomes, how does one get from the functional property of centeredness
46:36
and the representational property of self-modeling to the phenomenal property of selfhood?
46:45
Here's my answer. The transparency of the data structures
46:50
used by the brain. What is phenomenal transparency?
46:59
A standard philosophical definition will say that only content properties of certain
47:04
representational structures used by the brain are available to introspection.
47:10
The vehicles, as philosophers say themselves, the physical states employed by the system
47:15
are transparent, that is, they do not represent the fact that they are representations
47:22
on the level of their content. This is an old philosophical notion.
47:27
Goes back to G.E. Moore, 1903. Just look at these flowers here.
47:33
We would say as philosophers, this is a phenomenally transparent representation
47:38
because you introspect your perceptual processing as hard as you want to, you cannot recognize the fact
47:46
that this is all a state in your visual system. You cannot see the representational state itself,
47:52
and that is why you are a naive realist. You have the feeling you are in direct and immediate contact with reality.
48:00
We are systems that so to speak look through their own representational structures as if they were
48:08
in direct and immediate contact with their content. Now what you have to do, now let me give you
48:15
two empirical hypotheses,
Have you seen the ego tunnel Dr. Metzinger?
First of all, awesome finisher. "Nobody is born and so nobody dies" Stunning conclusion to his model. I'm not sure I buy it in its entirety. I mean, yes... the ego is a tragic thing, for sure. But it isn't random and arbitrary, we are born with certain characteristics and these become part of the model. Also, we attempt to know the world in a more direct way through science for instance. Just because the system has flaws, doesn't mean it isn't meaningful. I'm WAY out of my depth here though!
How is it meaningful? Do you mean that subjectively? If so I take your point otherwise not so much.
This is very difficult to articulate, but I'll try. There are no real separate "things". There's just one complex process that's been going on since the beginning, and because we can't perceive it all, as a unified whole, we break it down into cognitively manageable, pattern and prediction-based sub-processes we call "things". Alan Watts (whose explanations of this are the best I've seen, I recommend his lectures) points out that the word "thing" is related to the word "think" in many languages.
To go into your argument here. But what if we were to perceive it all? How would that be? Would we perceive just (the) one thing (as in universe) or would be able to perceive every detail of it?
As far as I know, information is only able to exist by difference. And so if you want to perceive the whole universe and make sense of it/understand it, you are still in need of distinctions, creating particular "things".
I might be flipping your description on the head here, but I don't think that the need for creating "things" is because of that we can't perceive it all. It rather is the functional requirement for epistemology in general.
@@jasoncrow6048 Biological processes like human beings can't do that because of the computing power required. Evolutionary pressure has been towards ways of perceiving that help us survive, not that make us all-knowing. I might be missing the real point of your comment though.
@@optifog haha love to read your answer. Your first comment also is so old, amazing!
I'm right with you, with what you said. But you are also right that it barely tackled my comment. I'll try to summarize. You postulated the idea that humans need to create distinct objects BECAUSE humans can't perceive the universe at once. I tackled that argument by saying that even if humans were able to perceive the universe at once, there would still be a need of creating distinct objects because it's the only way of having information and understanding through thought. Epistemology requires functional Distinctions! Thus disproving your argument that humans create distinct objects because we can't perceive it all, since even if we were to perceive It all, we would still be in need to create distinct objects in order to understand it. I hope that cleared things up!
@@jasoncrow6048 Thanks, I understand your point now. I think that if we perceived all, holistically, we would understand all holistically too. The only time we would need to conceive of things in the way that humans ordinarily do, would be to communicate with non-omniscient beings, drawing their attention to specific locations or patterns in spacetime. Everything would immediately make sense and we could predict everything that would happen, so we wouldn't need to learn anything or analyse the whole by breaking it down to understand it, it would all just be there in our minds. I might be wrong, of course.
What is going on outside?
because objective reality is a useful fiction to help us survive and avoid pedators, it doesn't really exist! But really, isn't all experience subjective? In fact, we can have the subjective experience of having a self! It is objective reality that seems real (but in fact isn't) because it is so useful, especially in science, in helping us conduct our lives...
My question is always why do we need to conduct lives in the first place? I wish I'd been asked for my permission. I wouldn't have given it seeing that it appears pointless.
Get yourself to a university, combine in depth discussion and as much alcohol as anyone could want. Win at life.
I really love the material, but must confess I need it in a more exciting package. I keep tuning out.
Too much internet surfing. I'll bet it's very hard for you to read a book.
It’s ok to tune out if it is about the same subject. There are likely gaps in your knowledge and day dreaming can be used to process the new information. You will, however, need to listen to this several times until you’ve absorbed it fully.
Also remember that the more difficult something is to process, the more your brain will have to work, which helps you understand difficult ideas. This has been observed.
Mind is not physical it is mental, so it is nonphysical.
But being mind, it can still experience the physical.
And when it does, it is personal knowledge, not that of "no one".
"Muscular Scope"
4:17
they are super hard to find, but they exist... too bad you probably live far if not we could have interesting discussion :)
There’s nothing more I wish than to erase every decision I made that lead me to question existence.
@Bassotronics : that's one answer in an internet answer database. Some consider them colors, some don't... if you define color cognitively, as in having it's own color sensation, then yes black and white and grey are colors.
The answer you linked too was inane, but there are others more accurate, that "technically" black is not a color (because it's absence of color) and white is all the colors.
But also no. Colors are things our mind can concieve in color space, and white and black are.
18:44
Surely there is some intellectual slight of hand going on here. It may be correct that no one is ever born or ever dies in the respect metzinger means it here, but the process that produces individual models begins and ends, which is what birth and death and the soul ultimately refer to.
There is no soul.
@@vexaris1890 thanks for showing your proofs.
@@johnmiller7453 What is assert without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. I can assert that our lives are ruled by Qwert Zuiopü, our God, and he has animated us with his Breath of Life, which one may call a soul, but it doesn't make it true unless I can show evidence to support that fact.
@@vexaris1890 Point taken, how about we do the correct thing and say we don't know if there is a soul or not? Would that work for you?
@@johnmiller7453 Since there isn't any evidence for a soul, and since etymologically it's based on breathing ('breath of life'), I'd say that it's safe to assume that there is no soul. That's what people thought a soul was: the breath of life given by the gods (or god). Example: spiritus in latin can mean 'breath' and 'soul' (or 'spirit').
There's really no reason to believe in anything like a soul, especially since we know where the concept comes from based on etymology and comparable mythology.
His theory doesn't negate the possibility of human will; it only shows that the notion of a "free" will is specious.
goad
@pyrrho314 /wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_black_and_white_not_considered_colors
23:40 How can representations be centered on a model? A model is again a representation, so what is the center of that other representation? And if there is no center for it, why doesn't the whole thing appear ultimately uncentered? Putting representations as centers of representations arises the threat of infinite regress.
If you substitute representations (of objects) for the subject you will never hit the subject, i.e. you will never be able to explain it.
He's not saying there's no such thing as subjective experience. Self, yes, at least as we ordinarily understand it, but not subjective experience.
There is no paradox in showing how the mind is projected. He doesn't say the mind doesn't exist, merely that it's identification with the body as a self is technically false.
@theprophet20 the self-referential symbol
1:11
Sorry I've been a long time replying. I don't know what you mean that there must be no times. I'm not well-versed in modern theories about time, but as far as I understand it, time isn't the same at all places in the universe. But whatever time is, I don't really see the relevance. Everything in space, all matter and forces, are in constant flux either way, and the sense of there being independently existing things is based on the fact that some of that flux is hidden to us, and some isn't.
Bruh this is one of the most hard things I've ever watch.
I guess i kinda grasped the crucial thing.
It does make sense, we are machines. This conscious experience is a model lookin through model whatever
...some famous dudes david Walsh i think and other guys use the term virtual reality same shit
I did find this dude through the Chapel of sacred mirrors cosm -> afterskool channel
Anyway, okay, nobody ever is born or or dies because we don't exist. Even tho i found very hard to follow the whole talk it did make sense in the end hahahahah
It left me wondering then; what in tarnation are ghosts aliens another dimensions beings etc etc
Many of this entities people can be atribbuted i think to thoughtforms, but many don't
My head, man, i need sone orange juice to chill geezzz
@pyrrho314 Black and white are called shades..not colors.
Covet.
So there's no experiencer of my experiences, i.e. no _ME?_ Experiences don't need to be experienceD? _I_ (as such) don't exist? Crazy talk!
I think someone's in the dogmatic grip of a metaphysical worldview known as "physicalism" or "materialism" (or, I guess, it could be a certain interpretation of Buddhism).
IMHO.
Interesting talk, but I'm not sure the conclusion follows from the premises. I recently watched a very similar talk in which the speaker argued on the basis that human brains make errors that there is no such thing as consciousness. Here he's making a very similar argument except that he's claiming that because the self is "hard-wired" there's no such thing as the self or subjective experience. Personally I'm more suspicious of objective knowledge. And you can make the exact same argument:
Why can't your body just be considered your self? Isn't his argument really just making the case that there's no such thing as a soul?
You don't have to be Buddhist to realize this. Only bodies are born and die - we are not that - we use that. What we are can't really be spoken - but consciousness or awareness comes close.
I don't believe that the subjective Self exists.
But who is this "I" that asks the question...?
An illusion you tell yourself in order to ask that question.
@@user-sb9ml1ef4q why ?
@@waleedmahmoud722 It is evolutionary advantageous for a brain to have a model of itself.
@@waleedmahmoud722 It can and will live the very same way as it did up to now.
What's with the dogs barking in the distant background between about the 11 to 14 min mark? Made my cat go crazy. lol
Well for awhile there I had a dog in the fight. Then I changed my mind.
@pyrrho314 I agree! White is the king of all colors. Black is the king of no colors at all...funny thing is that in "paint", (not light)... Black is the mixture of all colors. Its the opposite. lol
Is that a dog barking in the background? It's really distracting :-(
@colloredbrothers oh sure, but I think the benefits would reach more people without the religious encrustations and trappings. Those are fine for those who like them, but not everyone likes them, and may be put off from delving into the experiential aspect because of them. Anyway, I hope we can all agree that Metzinger's work (right or perhaps ultimately wrong) is quite important, and friendly to a revisionist, rationalist experiential approach to mysticism, etc. :)