I just logged onto the 'Forgotten Books' website which you mentioned. I found it to be fascinating, as a way of gaining access to reading many rare books, and I have downloaded a few. It has some interesting esoteric ones. The philosophy ones are useful too. The only thing which I struggle with is working out which are dated and those which are relevant for all times. What I mean is the some aspects of psychology and philosophy seem to be based on models which are out of line with current science, whereas others seem to have ideas which are applicable universally. However, I do think that certain ideas which have a forgotten may still be worthwhile exploring.

One area which I think is relevant to your debate is the idea of the law of attraction. It is not simply about mind over matter, because the two are not easy to separate. However, what does come into the picture is intentionality, and of the role of our consciousness. The idea of the law of attraction, as advocated by Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and many other writers is of intention, on a conscious and subconscious level, having a determining effect in what becomes manifest in our external lives.

I just feel drawn to these areas of thought, and mainly read about them. I think that it is best to avoid using hallucinogenics, as far as possible. I have known people who have become extremely unwell mentally as a result of doing so. I read a lot about shamanism and mostly find that music is about the safest way of conjuring altered states of consciousness. I do believe that meditation is important too, and read writers, such as Gopi Krishna, on kundalini awakenings.

I find the whole exploration of the unfamiliar to be fascinating as part of the quest for creativity and healing. I keep an open mind towards all the many explorations of others, ranging from those of the religious mystics to those from diverse cultures, such as the vision quests of the North American Indians.

It is a while since I read Zaehner's book. However, I think it raises the question of whether one should seek certain states of consciousness, and how. It is also about potential dangers. Even though he was not writing about drugs specifically, Rudolf Steiner said, 'He who imagines that he can violently and forcibly climb into the higher worlds is greatly mistaken.' I also remember reading in Castaneda' s writings, the suggestion that the voyages to otherworlds come with potential dangers, especially of becoming lost, and unable to return to the ordinary world.

I think that the question is really how genuine the ones on hallucinogenics are? But, I am not sure that there are any absolute answers. However, in reading on the topic of mysticism, it does seem that the two contexts are different. One writer who explored this whole area was Aldous Huxley, especially in, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell'. However, his writings do lead to interesting questions about consciousness. He drew upon Bergson's idea of the brain being a 'reducing valve'. From that perspective, the mystic is able to see beyond the ordinary world, into the infinite. In shamanic cultures, this was often seen as voyages to the lower and upper worlds, as part of the quest for healing wisdom.

One important area is raised by an author Zaehner, in, 'Sacred and Profane Mysticism', is to what extent should the mystical states arrived at naturally, especially in a religious context, be distinguished from those achieved through the use of hallucinogenics? Can they be viewed as having a similar or completely different nature? The complexity of this is the way in which certain states have a chemical basis, but as Zaehner points out, the context is so different, with 'the profane' one occurring artificially, as opposed to naturally.

I have just spent about an hour on your link and will go back to it again as I think that it is excellent. You have put so much hard effort into it and I am very impressed.

I do some meditation but a bit haphazardly. I may go out and find a group when life begins again, because most things have been closed throughout the time I have use this site.

I have just been reading a book which I think is relevant to the thread: ' Perennial Philosophy, ' by Arthur Versluis. The author suggests that,
' Perennial philosophy points to individual spiritual experiences; and Platonism, Vedanta and Buddhism are based on direct individual realisations, on the experiential transformation and illumination of the individual.'

I think that the mystical experience can often be understood within such a framework.

I have read a few books by Carlos Castaneda and found them helpful, although I am not sure to what extent they are fictitious, as I have read some debate on this. Generally, I am interested in shamanism, which does involve exploring states of consciousness.

Even though I suggested to you that I am not a pragmatist, I think that this is not strictly true. I was really meaning more in a literal practical sense. However, my whole interest is in the idea of healing oneself and others, which definitely is about what works. I am interested in exploring ideas beyond conventional ones, but not just as abstract ones, so my own interest in mysticism and the esoteric is in that context. Also, I do believe that people who have accessed higher states of consciousness, such as many described by Bucke, which @Wayfarer referred to, did not stop at the mystical. The mystical experience is often a source for bringing some kind of healing vision to share with others.

I first began reading books on the mind, and philosophy, in early adolescence, because I was aware of so many questions and unexplored areas. I used to stop off in a local library on the way home from school, and my parents used to be worried where I was. Reading in corners in libraries and other places has become my mode of being. It is probably also about thinking about the corners of life, which are less remote from the main territories which we ordinarily inhabit.

I think that you are correct to suggest that philosophy is an attempt to make life less strange. While I have been going on about embracing the 'strange', it is important to recognise that philosophy can be a demystifying process, and a search for some clarity, amidst confusion. It can be about making the strange seem less puzzling.

The relationship between psychology and philosophy is complex, because some of the founding figures, such as William James were exploring both. It was during the twentieth anniversary that the two branches off separately. I think that behaviorism, and the development of experimental psychology played an important part in this.

I have always been drawn to read books on both psychology and philosophy. Generally, psychology is more concerned with ways of understanding how the mind works and improving techniques for helping us cope with our own mental states. Philosophy is more about questions about existence and how we can construct a picture of how reality works

Having always being interested in both psychology and philosophy, especially the way in which the two overlap, I have been thinking recently that the whole philosophy of mind is such an interesting area in this respect. I am also aware of vast areas arising in between the two disciplines during the time I have been using the site, especially phenomenology.

I have looked at the introduction to the thread and think that my own interest in mysticism is probably in the sense of category number 7, of hidden truths. One of the books which I am reading currently is 'Secret Teachers of my Western Tradition,' by Gary Lachman. In it, he does look at mystical ideas, such as those of Blake and Goethe. Lachman, who was also drummer in the pop band Blondie, is one of my favourite writers, and also wrote, 'Jung the Mystic', as well as others, including one on the ideas of Rudolf Steiner.

I spend a lot of time reading these books, but I do see it more as a process of gaining wisdom rather than declaring definitive truths. At times in my life I have almost felt 'beaten up' psychologically by people from religious or secular backgrounds who have tried to enforce their ideas. So, when I write on this site, I approach it with a view to meaningful exchange of ideas, but with a certain point of caution. I think that it is a problem if people claim to know more, or have the correct way of seeing than others.

However, that is not to say that there are not methods of analysis or certain knowledge which can be shared. However, I think that the quest which underlies the questions underlying the mystic quest goes beyond the actual ideas. Lachman says,
'Reading is simply more than simply looking at the pages and reflecting them. I have to make the mental effort of absorbing the words, connecting them, and assimilating them to my experience'.
I think that he is capturing the way in which ideas are not independent from our lives. They have to be absorbed subjectively, in order to become insights, rather than just remain as philosophical arguments. I am not saying that philosophical discussion is not an important aspect of this process, but it goes deeper and beyond the surface of the actual arguments, in the development of meaningful insight.

Yes, I think that it is a matter of perspective. I often find that some people think that philosophy is strange. But that is their perspective.

I have an interest in philosophy because it is a discipline which enables me to look at questions which are not talked about otherwise. Personally, I read a lot on areas covering philosophy, psychology and related areas. Until I found this forum I used to read the books but only ever discuss the ideas with other people occasionally. Even within philosophy there are popular books and ones which are not. I am often drawn to ones which are less popular, because they resonate with me.

But I don't really care if I am go into strangelands.I have been there for a long time and I am used to it. But I don't think that one has to just see philosophy as strange because I think that it does have a place in the mainstream academic world, and I do believe that more people are interested in it than those who talk about it. I have found sometimes that I get into conversations with people about it who say they have not ever found people to talk about it before. Really, it is the pursuit of questioning aspects of life and existence. So, when approaching philosophy, it is a matter of what you wish to find or explore by doing so.

I will have a look at the beginning again tomorrow, because sometimes when several pages have been written it is easy to lose sight of how it began. I also think that T Clark has arrived at a conclusion, so further exploration of the initial debate is probably more for the open discussion between others.

I am interested in that kind of discussion but it just doesn't seem to be what T Clark is wishing to have. The other thing is that there are so many potential discussions going on that it tthe thread may become really fragmented. So, I am inclined to think that certain areas are best explored as separate threads rather than in this particular one.

Having just written a long entry here, I am wondering if we discuss Jung any further perhaps it would be best if we resuscitate the 'Jung and God' thread. I don't wish to derail the discussion on mysticism. The reason why it fizzled out was probably because I was struggling to give it as much attention as I wanted because I was staying with my mother for Easter. She wanted me to talk to her rather than sit reading and writing constantly.

One of the complexities which I see with trying to evaluate Jung's perspective is that he is drawing upon his own dreams and visionary experience and interpretations of various writers. The effect which I believe that has it makes his writing rich to read and certain ideas stand out.

However, it seems to me that it makes it difficult to analyse them in the exact way which is often done within philosophy. Also, he compresses so much detail and has written so much that it would be a lifetime's work trying to analyse it. But, I still wish to explore his writings, and I found reading 'The Red Book' very interesting. Also, I did manage to have brief access to a very rare book of his, 'The Visions Seminars' and that showed more of his personal visionary experience.

His personal experience of the numinous is so much more evident in writings which were outside of his 'Collected Works'. But, 'Answer to Job' seems to be more on that level, and I believe that he was in a fairly intense state of mind as he wrote it. But I do think that in many ways, his writings fall in the category of 'supernatural' revelations, although outside of the mainstream Christian tradition.

It may be that some aspects of certain experiences are beyond speech. However, I think that there is a danger of even taking Lao Tzu too literally, and Taoism is only one perspective. Please don't think I am wishing to undervalue the wisdom of Lao Tzu, or your view. It may be that at some stage in my life I have some experience which will lead me to agree with you.

I think that you are correct to see the term mysticism as a term which can be applied and interpreted in different ways. No one has exclusive claim on the term, or right to say whether or not the term should be used.

There is the whole question of whether Jung was or wasn't a mystic. He was specifically interested in Taoism, but also in many other esoteric ideas. He did not like the term mystic, but was often labelled as one. I think that it is partly a problem of labels and choice of words.

Generally, I think that the use of the word, mystic, itself only matters for ideas being communicated clearly. It goes beyond word categorisation really and is about the ideas stemming and underlying the words. However, it is such a complex area because it is about experiential reality and probably every person has their own unique understanding. No wonder people often speak of the ineffable. Perhaps the people who choose not to describe it know intuitively that they would get tangled up in knots trying to put it all into words and concepts. It may be that the poets and other creative writers were the most accomplished in translating it into language which could be grasped by others.

But, aren't most aspects of life a bit strange. I am coming from the perspective of seeing absurdity in life generally. However, I also come with a bias towards the arts and from my viewpoint people who are only interested in sport, cooking, and the mundane aspects of existence are really strange. It"s a bit like the quote from the Doors' song, ' People are strange when you're a stranger.'

Okay, so I probably come from a completely different perspective because I am particularly interested in peak experiences. I may start a thread on this, but I may wait a bit because it may not be too great if it was running at the same time as yours. But I am definitely not into pragmatism. I do not find that 'meat and potatoes' philosophy makes much sense to me.

I have just thought that one of my favourite books, 'The Outsider' by Colin Wilson is relevant to your discussion because it looks at those on the edge or in the margins, including some existential philosophers, such as Camus and Nietzsche. It also includes many other famous creative individuals. The main theme is that the outsider sees differently.

This has special bearing on philosophy because it is likely that those who pursue philosophy may see life a bit differently as a result. Of course, there are so many different thinkers within philosophy and some are more within conventional perspective than others. Conventions change, as well. One other aspect, is that any perception of strangeness is dependent on how 'normality' is defined.

I am also aware that your introduction is also about war. I'm thinking that this may tie in with the way in which people who are seen as 'different' , or may be seen as the enemies. This may give rise to war. We may even have war within ourselves, between clashing aspects of our personalities.

I think that Freud has some bearing, but of course he was a psychoanalyst primarily and was writing a long time ago. I think that your topic is interesting but I will leave it for now, as I am waiting for a bus. I may join in again at some point. But welcome to the forum and hope you have some fun in exploring strangeness and its relationship with philosophy.

It is interesting to hear that you do art because I draw and paint. I don't compose but I love music and the more alternative it is the better, including metal and punk.

However, I have thought of a book relevant to what your debate, 'The Origins of the Uncanny' by Freud, which looks at the unfamiliar and taboos. Of course, many people regard Freud as strange...

My own understanding of strangeness comes down to that which is unusual or outside the mainstream. On that basis, I see strangeness as an exciting area, especially within art. It may be that what is now commonplace was perceived as shocking or strange by many when first conceived.

Reading through your post, your whole question comes down to strange. How do you perceive strangeness? Is being strange necessarily a negative attribute? Or, perhaps it is more interesting than conformity?

I know that you find Taoism useful, and think that mysticism can have too much baggage. However, don't you wish to go beyond a 'meat and potatoes' philosophy as you put it ? I am thinking about Maslow's highest stage on the hierarchy of needs, self actualization? I would say that it may be possible to cope without some of the lower needs being met, although there are limits, through some peak experiences. But, I do agree that the word mysticism can be problematic in some ways.

I remember when you spoke of the 'creative nothing' you saw it as a starting point for creativity. So, nothing may be like a void of potential and possibilities.Perhaps it is the unconscious.

I am not sure that such animosity is particularly helpful. However, I do believe that people do need to speak out against social evils rather than just accept them as the norm.

I think that you are speaking of the horrors of life, which is a little different from finding truth, philosophically, or is it? We have moved into an era of post truth, especially after post modernism, as suggested by Michael Kakutani in, 'The Denial of Truth',(2018). He suggests that some individuals tried to 'whitewash entire chapters of history' alongside exploiting 'the postmodernist argument that all truths are partial.'

I do agree that access to food, medicine and electricity are essential. I would add housing because we are talking about Maslow's basics on the hierarchy of needs. Once those go, for so many people, we are talking about a very dire situation.

I am also wary of the collective, especially the destructive capacity of the herd. The only reason why I chose the word collective is because we are talking about global and national issues. Perhaps we need some truly inspiring individuals to arise in the midst. I am probably talking about prophets or visionaries, who are able to go deeper and beyond the surface of political agendas.

Yes, I sometimes wonder what could happen and it is hard to see through the political cracks in the pavement. It is sometimes just hard to know what is going on beneath the surface of news headlines, because as the sociologists have stressed, news is manufactured. We may not know what is going on behind the scenes exactly. It seems that there is a lot of confusion, but there may be aspects which are not revealed too.

I hadn't come across that quote from Gramsci and I wrote a thread on pessimism vs optimism. So thanks for the great insight offered by Gramsci:
'Pessimism of the intellect. Optimism of the will.'

I think that there is a danger of trying to make mysticism into a neat and tidy term. For some people this may work, but the problem is that the mystical experiences of individuals vary so much as well as the attempts to understand them.Some of those who have experienced mystical states have been those who explored philosophies which are obscure. Also, some of the literature is not easy to read. One book which I have, but not managed to read, is W B Yeats" 'A Vision', but I am determined to do so, at some point.

It was brave of you to share your experience. Your experience must have been just before you found this site I do believe that it is often the harshest things in life which bring about transformation. I have seen some literature on mysticism which seems to ignore this, and almost treat mystical states as if they were add on extras to the comforts of life. However, there is the tradition of mysticism which sees it in the context of 'the dark night of the soul.'

But, of course, I would not be wishing to denigrate the mystical experience of anyone, but do think that as your testimony suggest, the mystical experience arising from suffering is important.

Your detailed discussion of the many potential facets of totalitarianism is useful because it is a complex area and not just one idea. While it is possible to see potential threats, let's just hope that the threats are only that. Let's just hope that the good of many is protected and that systems which emerge do not bring too much suffering.

I think really that I would rather worry rather than become indifferent. It's also about balancing the personal worries and the wider collective ones. It is sometimes easier to see our own little world under the microscope and probably the turbulence of our time is a wake up for most of us. Rather than just hearing of historical atrocities and ones in far away countries, so many throughout the world have been shaken up by life being so dramatically. I realise that the leaders must be struggling and are probably just trying to think of all options.

Okay, I will have a read of The Tao te Ching tomorrow evening. It is true that there are not that many philosophies or religions which can be read in an hour. So, it is strange that I have missed this little one, considering all the piles of books I accumulated from an esoteric bookshop in Central London a few years ago.