This doesn’t make sense to me:

So let us see what the mystics, which are uniformly in agreement upon an answer to this question, say. They state: truth is ultimate and objective, and determined by various factors which are not empirical (probabilistic inferred causal laws of experience, which I would like to refer to as something like “applied mathematics,” which is ultimately vague like logic) or logical (categorical abstractions), so not applicable to the experimental, or proof-design. In other words, they claim to a truth which is real universally (through our minds’ interface), but which is only knowable when a certain specific set of causal factors is in place.

You seem to be saying mystics are logisticians. That is simply not the case as they operate with contrary terms and conflations of metaphor, analogy, experience and frame them as ‘truths’, or as there being multiple species of ‘truth’ thus conflating the pure logic with applied logic.

Why do you conclude this?
The basic premise of mysticism (take vedanta or sufism) is that there are infinite paths to the truth, and all are equally valid. This is, as far as logic goes, nonsensical, but what they mean (to encapsulate quite a lot of information) is that everybody is unique. Not that everything is a blob. I see applied logic as having more emphasis when it comes to mysticism, so I don't really see the problem. Let me give an example: the stories contained in scripture (which is how they all share their information) is not meant to be empirical, obviously, being mystical. They fall outside the norm and the possibilities of experimental design, as far as I know. So, when I look at this story (the literal syntax or transmission), I am trying to understand what it meant to them and what it should mean to me. Basically the message of all the stories is to overcome a very wide ranging psycho-pathology called the "ego" (not as it is meant in Western psychology). If you can grasp what the story taught the person in the story (being that it *is a story*) you have grasped the meaning, and just have to apply it to yourself. People read the stories and interpret them differently (the religious), but when doesn't that happen. The reason I would guess story is the way these things are communicated is because, take that thought experiment into consideration - if I said that in logic would that make any sense to you? Would the morality, the psycho-pathology make any sense? Would commoners be motivated to believe and be good? I don't think so. A big part of the nuts and bolts is dreams. Read the stories. Dreams, they say, give information about the future. This is shared through stories. Then it happens to you, or it did and you sought help. Etc. The stories are actually pretty funny and cool once you can relate. There are Buddhist stories about philosophers who got kicked out of academia, tried to quit their practice but couldn't. There are so many stories, and you do have to exert a certain amount of effort to get results without belief to get results, due to being born in a monastery or being like the Buddha or whatever, but take dreams. There are so many books and whatnot about dream interpretation out there. Who to trust? Your teacher? As I hopefully implied, it's all quite vague, but I just go by my experience as far as that stuff goes.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but as I'm interested in both comparative religion and mysticism, I feel I should respond.

I think you're extrapolating or theorising about mysticism without any illustrative examples. There have been efforts to compare various schools and forms of mysticism, such as W T Stace who wrote volumes on philosophy and mysticism in the mid-twentieth century. There have been many other comparative studies that cover mysticism and also other aspects of philosophy and religion. One thing that does become evident through many of these anthologies are that there are universal themes or motifs or ideas that appear in a very diverse range of literature across cultures and historical periods. Space and time doesn't permit delving into the details, but the above-mentioned sources have many examples.

Let us look at two topics often demarcated as pillars of knowledge within the religious, and even mystical spheres: miracles and scripture. Let me state bluntly that scripture is interpreted upon one’s historical context, and if one’s logic is right, one’s subjective experience is the main deciding factor as to the interpretation of the (hopefully accurately transmitted) symbols contained therein. — Nasir Shuja

A point you're missing here is the notion of 'higher knowledge' or refined cognition, or what have you. From very ancient, in fact pre-historic times, there are accounts of individuals generally classified as seers or sages, who are possessed of knowledge. What kind of knowledge? might be the response - well, specifically, something like gnosis, (which is a word that appears in Eastern traditions as jnana). Such gnostic seers or sages might insist that, for example, the world of the common man, even in a technologically-advanced culture such as ours, might be in some fundamental sense illusory. This in fact was one of the original sources of science itself, as well as medicine however in modern times due to the influence of overall materialistic or naturalistic philosophies, the notion of higher knowledge is generally deprecated.

Another point is that in for instance Eastern religions, there is the idea of lineage and transmission. The lineage represents the line of authorised teachers going back to the Buddha or the Vedic seers, and 'transmission' to the idea that knowledge (jnana) is something transmitted through these lines. And this isn't at all haphazard or fortuitous, the standards for assessing the claims of aspirants in these lineages can be extremely exacting (for example in Tibetan Buddhism there is a whole academic system culminating in the degree of Geshe).

The basic premise of mysticism (take vedanta or sufism) is that there are infinite paths to the truth, and all are equally valid — Nasir Shuja

Actually, that is more characteristic of neo-vedanta, neo-sufism and new-age movements that are loosely based on the original traditions.

Anyway much more could be said but I'll leave it at that for now.

Read any mystical text. The Tao Te Ching? From the outset it is riddled with analogy and metaphor presented in a contrary manner.

Proverbs used such as “too many cooks spoil the broth” have to sit alongside proverbs like “many hands make light work”.

Mysticism flies in the face of the basic laws of logic. It is still useful as a creative medium though; I’d never deny that. Logic’s relation to aesthetics is dubious. That is another matter though and it is usually in such spaces that the mystic claims some kind of authority.

By scripture, I meant it as a potential transmission of higher knowledge through the proposed lineage and whatnot, yes. I agree with that the first parts.

As far as there being one or some or infinite paths to that knowledge, when I look at my references, yes I can see that trend. But I feel that perhaps they are referring more to method than fruition.

I don't see why apparent contraries make it untrue. How do you know you are interpreting it correctly? Context applies there. You have to know the whole to know the part. Do you read Shakespeare, see something that seems contradictory, and assume it is nonsensical? As I stated, it is about the inner meaning. I could take any two phrases from the most logical proof ever, jumble them up, and make it seem nonsensical if I wanted to..

I see a fundamental problem with mysticism presented here as an alternative path to knowledge vis-a-vis logic. It's self-contradictory to be precise.

Let's say x is a mystic and he acquires some kind of ''knowledge''(*1) y in a way that doesn't require the rigorous application of logic. Somewhat like the seer @Wayfarer described. How does x know that y is true? He obviously, and here's the self-contradiction, justifies the knowledge y to himself. Otherwise x would never accept y as true. In other words logic (justification) is essential even to the mystic's claims of knowledge.

Why then should another person z not question x's justificatory system (logic/evidence)? If x claims that such questioning is forbidden then x is being illogical and don't forget he justified the knowledge y to himself.

*1 knowledge is justified true belief and so, technically speaking, a mystic can't really claim any knowledge if s/he doesn't justifiy it even if it's only to himself.

Well in the initial post I outlined that I came to a different definition of knowledge, one that is, yes, founded upon belief in belief (I guess, to give it that horrid name). Knowledge, can only be that, which is why it is mystical. I never said it could be logically justified or communicated through logic. That's not how it works. It's a way, way bigger thing than being able to do a proof and .. what exactly would that accomplish, again? Proofs aren't truth, and neither are empirical statements. Truth is absolute, but can only be accessed through systematically deconstructing the illusion of logic and experience, and knowing that truth is absolute, and here now.

You’ve just proven my point. I know you cannot see it because you’ve obviously adopted a very ambiguous use of the term ‘true’.

What is true in pure logic isn’t a matter of opinion. Truths do not consist of bunches of maybes. If that doesn’t help you explain why.

I could take any two phrases from the most logical proof ever, jumble them up, and make it seem nonsensical if I wanted to..

You could do many pointless things and claim anything you wish. I wouldn’t really care.

I don’t think there is much more to be said from me here.

Well, I have no idea why any sound minded person would adopt such a hard line stance to the word true when trying to do actual epistemology. I can only say that mindframe would not take you far in a court of law, or anywhere emotionally! Yes, I am not a believer of the idea we are computers or that we should treat truth and life as a big deduction. We exist in contexts, and so I try to understand what they are. Not a good response on so many levels.

Well in the initial post I outlined that I came to a different definition of knowledge, one that is, yes, founded upon belief in belief (I guess, to give it that horrid name). Knowledge, can only be that, which is why it is mystical. I never said it could be logically justified or communicated through logic. That's not how it works. It's a way, way bigger thing than being able to do a proof and .. what exactly would that accomplish, again? Proofs aren't truth, and neither are empirical statements. Truth is absolute, but can only be accessed through systematically deconstructing the illusion of logic and experience, and knowing that truth is absolute, and here now. — Nasir Shuja

The point is you're trying to justify the mystic i.e. you're to prove that proof isn't necessary. Isn't this cutting off the very branch you're sitting on?

Yes. It is tautological. I know. Why prove something to tell yourself you already know, and which only people who know will not need, and the rest whom will deny, and benefit a few who seek? I think philosophy in this sense is nonsense at its peak, as in it does nothing for anybody in its most abstract form. Which is why knowing everything in logic has nothing to do with anything.

There are many important questions that science and logic cannot answer. Still people require answers to these questions and thus have to use different means to come to an answer, like emotion and intuition. Are these valuable sources of knowledge? I'd argue that on a personal level it is in fact indispensable and that most people in one way or another practice this method. However, the knowledge gained is perhaps strictly knowlegde about oneself and therefore I consider it questionable when such knowledge is presented as universal truth. On the other hand, knowledge one gains about oneself can be used to help or guide others, but one should tread with caution and wisdom in such matters.

No questions are answered by logic or science. That is not what science and logic are about tom.

If a universal truth is questionable then it isn’t a universal truth or it isn’t a cogent question that you think you’re asking. Appeals to ignorance as a sooth sayer are just that.

And that is the point, my friends, that ultimately it seems, even in language, to me, that knowledge is ultimately about me believing that I believe truly. And that is it. — Nasir Shuja

Some of your earlier comments were interesting...and I might consider them more fully at some point. BUT...this last sentence was an abomination...and I think you ought to consider what you suppose you said more carefully.

If you are telling me that you "believe" that you "believe truly" (ergo knowledge)...what in hell are you actually telling me?

What do you suppose that means?

Put the thought you suppose you were transmitting to us...into other words. I'd love to have a better sense of what you are selling here.

That's not literally what I mean of course, I just translated it into what came to mind, which is why I said it sounded horrid.

Yes, what it seems I meant is not what I meant. I mean something more abstract. In one sense, I reject the conventional, objectified version of knowledge and see something that is more about mind, yes. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in universal truths, just that they are ultimately epistemically confined to a continual process of (at times largely psychological and not logical) evaluation within the probabilistic sphere, which is where that faith (sources from direct "jnana" or whatever, eg the thought experiment) comes into play (which is a real emotion not available to the skeptics or inexperienced, which carries its own weight to the subject in a moment of despair or gratitude). Empiricism could agree with what that unknown messenger tells me after all, so it's not like I'm rejecting one for the other either, just presenting it in a more refined, realistic sense. I see truth, knowledge, and belief in the context of reasoning, whether in the context of a poem or a legal argument as being obviously infinitely up to interpretation (any rhetorician can make a convenient argument about a fallacy back and forth, or whatever fits the situation), and as I indicated - to know what anything means you have to know what everything means because everything is infinitely related in a whole, so I try to distance myself from all this, take a step back, abstract, and see what this all means. Okay, so now from there, if we see somebody who has gone through that thought experiment (which is many peoples claimed reality through the anthologies of mysticism, which is why I described it that way), and see that ultimately they arrive, when after some relationship with that mysterious source of knowledge and help which nobody can do an experiment on or reason to, back at a point where they somewhat accept there is something that seems to be beyond logic and physicality which seems to have valid knowledge of what is going on. It could all be coincidence, perhaps, but in that sense, all empiricism and logicizations are coincidence, too. So, if that person realizes that all analysis of reality (whether analyzing the mysterious messenger or doing an experiment on a pea plant) is what leads to this ambiguity and confusion, the person would see that not only can logic not quantify the source of the mysterious seeming-knowledge, but that true knowledge of what is going on would only be possible by discarding all this analysis and contextual nonsense and finding some way to cut through phenomenae and connect to anything real if it is there. So one would obviously have to realize that all their beliefs are basically nothing, of no importance to the reality they perceive. If you perceive and believe that belief is irrelevant, that's at least one layer cut through; perhaps you can make some psychological progress with others and empty your mind too (experience what it really is to just be in empty unison with phenomenae.. peacefully). But obviously this is not that abstract and is not the point. The point we are trying to make, the jnana, the truth (I guess I shouldn't have called it believing I believe - that's more like what I'd name faith) would be much more than that. How would I connect to the inner, unified, dimension of physical and subjective reality, what is within that nothingness? It seems by altering the way our brain or our psyche perceives our self, or our "ego", in its relation to the subconscious/the memory, etc. If I find a way for my mind to perceive, but perceive without boundary and limitation, then I can cut through that phenomenal veil or illusion (or know directly). How do I do that? That is essentially what *all mysticism is devoted to.* Mysticism has to do with every facet of Western intellectual knowledge, and this is where western psychology has sort of learned a little from the East and wherever. The egoic self, is obviously in flux, not definable in logic as anything in particular because everybody has their perspective on who they and you are (etc), and is largely composed of an unhealthy complex of defense mechanisms and tendencies like anger, judgment, lack of acceptance, pride, selfish tendencies, denial, etc with many sourced from fear and pain. We all go through suffering then create even more problems for ourselves because of it, etc. We are also immature and don't realize we have screwed up until we suffer the consequences, but then it is often too late. There is so much to say on this, but once you see the polarities of life like pain and pleasure, victory and loss, pride and slavehood, attachment and aversion, etc are always in flux, and unhelpful, we find an internal awareness and compass for ourselves which is beyond these trivial things. We win by not fighting. We accept who we are, we accept others as they are; we don't worry about what others think. We learn to see others perspectives. We accept our flaws, We become stronger. We find an internal motivation compass. We develop compassion. Etc on and on on psychology. Basically, somebody matures. When you do this, and do it fully (which is *extremely difficult* at times as far as I can see, and takes time), one comes to see that the "I" they used to walk around thinking they were is still there as a body, as a thinker, but it has also evolved to encompass all other living beings, and is rooted in something quite good, as in beneficial for the whole (though not really ever easy to do). This is not a superficial transition; it happens on the deepest levels of the subconscious and the brain's emotional memory, and is overall guided by something quite rational and transpersonal (a moral imperative one finds within themselves through life experience) as you can see. So what I can say about that state, the state where you perceive-know directly because you have come to see things as *they actually are,* then you have moved past phenomenae and analysis and have unified with whatever there is in and beyond the mental emptiness, the pure compassion and wisdom of the enlightened ones. Anybody who has truly suffered at the hands of illusion or who has seen the suffering of others realizes the only thing their heart, their deepest self, wants is to benefit other beings - it's built into our brains empathically; all the rest is just bumps in the road. Unfortunately the things the mystics try to warn people in illusion about cannot be empirically or logically discovered! But it is no problem, since the only way to even have a chance to help anybody else is to help yourself first. These aren't just theories to us mystics (I am transmitted to in a lineage but cannot say more than that), they living facts for us. Most everybody has compassion to some degree, but it is mixed with nonsense too. You have the example story of Buddha Gautama, chaitanya, Krishna, sages, various Pirs, prophets, etc who all followed these principles. The psychology is not the psychology of an angry teenager I am describing here. Many mystics were supposedly born free of any of these imperfections. As for me, since I feel I should say a little of this in my context, I had a very bad (let's say) experience and came down with PTSD. I am now almost it seems over it through a bit of intense psychology, but it made me angry, afraid, judgemental, couldnt accept others who couldn't get me, couldn't think from others perspectives, so on and so forth. I saw that, looked at the mysticism I was already into, and saw I had an opportunity to grow. I'm not at personal perfection yet, but I am slowly doing better. As I get away from those nonsensical things, I find I am able to connect more to life like how it used to be before, but much better now, and hopefully will get somewhere with this quest for final truth. I have tasted it here and there, but it doesn't come quick or easy, by anybody's account.

Experience in the context of anything is valid knowledge.
That's the thing off of which claims are based.
If you have no experience, you have nothing to base claims off of.

• Scientific experiments produce experience.
• Mystical events produce experience.
• The experience of the former is not different from the experience of the latter.
• The proposed difference between the two is artificial segregation, which hinges on feelings of either.

Nasir,

so much to consider in your last post. I will read it again later and attempt to understand it. (The golf course beacons right now.)

I thank you for the time you put into it...and for the emotion.

Be back later or tomorrow.

The basic premise of mysticism (take vedanta or sufism) is that there are infinite paths to the truth, and all are equally valid. This is, as far as logic goes, nonsensical... — Nasir Shuja

Is it? Consider a hill, with a rock on the top. There are an infinite number of paths from the bottom of the hill to the top, but all of them lead to the rock. Perhaps the point is the simple and obvious one: that, if your path leads to the rock, it's as good as any other path, because the destination is the object of interest? I don't know.

I don't know either. Is the rock the same rock? Is it in a sense but not in another sense? I've wondered about that for a while, but can't really conclude anything. The age old question I guess.

I suppose experience in the context of anything is valid as knowledge in a sense, at least for me. Is a schizophrenic hallucination going to give me information about trends to with the objective seeming aspect of reality? Probably not. Is simple love? Is the color I see? Etc. I don't think so. That's why I focused on the aspect of experience in the context of mysticism, because it has certain aspects to what it defines as direct knowledge, as in it blends the objective and subjective spheres more effectively.

Hey, Nasir,

First…sorry about that “golf course beacons me”. Obviously I meant to write “beckons me.”

Now…considering all that you wrote in response to my request for you to clarify your use of the word “believe”…I came away from the response not less confused.

The words “believe” and “belief” have been savaged by over-use. Neither has any significant meaning…and often context does not illuminate.

Here is a list of “believe or belief” being used. I’ll ask you to inform me which is the closest to what you were trying to say in your two uses in question.

1) I “believe” I’ll cook hamburgers for dinner tonight. (Hamburgers are going to be on the table tonight.)

2) I “believe” Tacitus will win the Belmont Stakes next Saturday. (Tacitus may win…or may come in last. But I have done the handicapping…and I am going with Tacitus.)

3) I “believe” (in) God. (Much better stated, “It is my blind guess that a GOD exists.”)

4) I “believe” there are no gods. (Much better stated, “It is my blind guess that there are no gods.)

5) I “believe” Aquinas makes more sense than Augustine. (Better stated, “the teachings of Aquinas make more sense to me than those of Augustine.”)

6) I “believe” a single-payer system is our best bet. (Better stated, “It is my opinion that a single-payer system is better than any other idea proposed.”)

7) I “believe” we can do it in two weeks. (Better stated, “I estimate we will take three weeks to fix that problem, but I want to get the job, so I am going to shave the completion time a bit.”

So…when you wrote, “…that knowledge is ultimately about me believing that I believe truly”…which of the above most describes how you were using it the first time…and which the second time?

If you would rather not discuss this aspect of the issue here...let me know. I can ask you privately...or just drop the question.

Honestly I tried to avoid saying this since it basically rejects objective logical knowledge, which many don't like, but one part of what I meant is that ultimately all there is is me and my belief, which I need to some degree, but which I also recognize is limited and superficial, simply that it's a process for all of us.

The consequence of that is what I was trying to get to (and which I must say is not described by what I wrote in that sentence - I only meant the above paragraph by that sentence), taking what I've said above in the last post, it leads to me being able to see reasoning and experience from a non-dichotomy perspective where I see them as necessarily related to each other and limited. I see my mind and my reality for what it actually is through the non-dual state. I, through direct connection to what is there via the state of consciousness, am able to abstract from reasoning and experience and get to their inner metaphysical dimension, or the true relation of epistemically logical and phenomenal worlds. We usually jump around seeing reality from the outside (what is a physical proton really? Is it inert math or substance? Is it alive?) because we do not see the mind must be able to cut through all of that to know anything. Delete the illusion of subjectivity, and the illusion of objectivity, and what's left is the truth. It can't be nothing, since it's a state of consciousness, and it is within life. The best way I would synopsize that would be to call it "knowing knowing" or "understanding understanding" - the mind knows itself as it truly is, inseparable from everything else. That's what I would define as jnana, knowing the knower, knowing the other, knowing reality, all together. A lot of philosophers have talked about this as a theoretical entity in the West I think, as part of the cognitive aspect of epistemology and the mind. It fits with the last post in that it is rational, but also emotional, it entails a system of ethics, etc. It is quite complete. Importantly also, this is also in line with the ever evolving trends of empiricism. Look at what we are starting to see in modern physics, neuroscience, moral philosophy, etc. This is all talked about in all the various traditions. Jnana yoga, dependent origination, Bindu and samadhis, monotheist arguments for a simple one, the concept of the absolute reality which is all things possible in dzogchen, etc.

Good luck with this, Nasir. Not my cup of tea.

My guess is there is a lot more to the true nature of the REALITY of existence than we humans KNOW...and probably a lot more to it than we humans can KNOW.

I KNOW, however, that lots and lots and lots of humans haves guesses about the unknown...and present them as something more that just guesses.

Often (perhaps, always) they get past this by using the words "believe" to substitute for "guess."

You seem to be doing that here...although I will acknowledge you are doing a much more complex job of it. (I actually appreciate the way you are doing it more than I appreciate most theistic or atheistic approaches to the issue.)

The question I would ask myself if I were you is, "How do I know I am not deluding myself?"

(Unfortunately, there is no honest answer to that question other than, "I cannot know.")

I never said in logic or analysis I can know this for sure. Honestly I like that. It keeps me in the right mindset.