Mysticism to some extent involves the concept of freeing oneself from the constraints of the mundane (viz the whole monastic tradition is a separation from the worldly).
Comparably, scientific theories or worldviews can sometimes become trapped in dead ends, which require a radical rethinking of core beliefs (paradigm shifts). Likewise individuals can become trapped in self-reinforcing frameworks of prejudiced beliefs.
So if mysticism aims explicitly at deconstructing mundane reality in order to work towards actualizing a more idealized version (as in the example of a monastic community) then I would say it absolutely does offer the possibility of something new, and potentially meaningful. Certainly at the very least as an exercise in self-discipline or introspective awareness. — Pantagruel
Indeed. The methods of mysticism are new but they lack credibility unless you want to take the mystics' words on it.
Those who have had mystical epiphanies should contribute more. Please do. — jgill
The methods are not new. Anyway, credibility is not important, rather an interest is what is important. I would point out though, that the laymans understanding of mysticism doesn't quite cover it. Rather like a laymans understanding of quantum theory as jgill pointed out. Pantagruel has got a handle on it, I think. — Punshhh
The methods are not new. — Punshhh
The point of the thread is to question how or why we should engage in any kind of rational analysis of mysticism in general and/or texts that have nysticsl attributes. — I like sushi
The idea of gaining insight minus the logical labor we usually think is necessary is new isn't it? — TheMadFool
Those who have had mystical epiphanies should contribute more. Please do. — jgill
I don't think mysticism and logic or reason should be separated. In fact, I think they should be inseparable.
An intuition or profound experience can form the basis of a concept that can (and should) then be tested by logic and reason. Of course, the genuineness of the experience can only be verified by the one who experienced it, which is why I think mysticism is first and foremost a personal endeavor — Tzeentch
Where is the focus of your mysticism? — Punshhh
If logic must eventually have a decisive role in mysticism then mysticism is redundant. Punshhh was quite clear, or so I think, as to how mysticism diverges from the mainstream view that rationality should be the preferred path to knowledge. — TheMadFool
Nice, I hadn't come across him. If I were to go down that route though, I would use contemplation as the primary means, although meditation would be some help in relaxing into mindfulness.Meditation aimed at inducing peak experiences a la Maslow.
Insight in mystical terms does not require logic, it does require a mind, but that is as an instrument of experience, the intellect is not necessarily involved in this.The idea of gaining insight minus the logical labor we usually think is necessary is new isn't it?
Do you mean a transcendence of meaning, as found in poetry, or a story?that’s why I mentioned literary theory as one such point that is perhaps easier to access?
I lost awareness of my body and experienced a feeling of timelessness, inner peace and omniscience — Tzeentch
This may be slightly off-topic, but I wonder if these experiences can be described as a combination of pronoia and derealization. To understand each other we surely must grasp something somewhere.I have had experiences like that too. They are so difficult to share through language. — Punshhh
No, rather that it can become an obstacle in discussing mystical experience, philosophy etc. I mentioned it because for me mysticism is primarily about the self, not religion, or God. This is not to deny anything about religion, or God, but rather they are not of importance within the practice. Others may disagree.Are you suggesting that there should not be secularization within mysticism? If so, why?
Yes, mysticism is one of those "proof is in the pudding" things. My perspective is that the primary results are personal, and that that personal growth then also tends to have inter-personal and social benefits. But that this all should take place, sotto voce, as it were.Indeed. The methods of mysticism are new but they lack credibility unless you want to take the mystics' words on it. — TheMadFool
Just replace every instance of "mysticism" with "god" in your OP and you are explaining the same problem. If the meaning of the word is subjective, what is the point in discussing it?Just spotted a post by someone commenting on the difficulty of engaging discussions about mysticism. — I like sushi
This is based on the assumption that knowledge of ultimate reality can be obtained by other means, and that those means would appealing.Personally speaking, the promise of knowledge of ultimate reality by means other than the slogging through the tedium of comprehending endless pages of logical argumentation is quite appealing to my nature and perhaps many others. — TheMadFool
If I were to go down that route though, I would use contemplation as the primary means, although meditation would be some help in relaxing into mindfulness. — Punshhh
This is based on the assumption that knowledge of ultimate reality can be obtained by other means, and that those means would appealing.
You pointed out that many others might find these other means quite appealing, but not everyone. The fact that not everyone finds the same means appealing needs to be explained in a way that doesn't contradict the explanation that many do find the same means appealing. This explanation would be objective in the sense that it would apply to all - the reason why there are many different means, and if there is a correct one. What do you think the means of providing this explanation would be? — Harry Hindu
Yes, mysticism is one of those "proof is in the pudding" things. My perspective is that the primary results are personal, and that that personal growth then also tends to have inter-personal and social benefits. But that this all should take place, sotto voce, as it were. — Pantagruel
Insight in mystical terms does not require logic, it does require a mind, but that is as an instrument of experience, the intellect is not necessarily involved in this. — Punshhh
Well, if understanding represents something in addition to what is explicitly presented in a proposition, then by definition it is "beyond words." So perhaps all understanding has this dimension; and it is just more evident in some types of claims than others. I am leaning in the direction of hermeneutics now.Have you ever "understood" anything that simply can't be worded? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.