And when I speak I say even less.

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.

And when I speak I say even less.

I noticed, I didn't want to speak (say anything), but maybe I should have.

Indeed. The methods of mysticism are new but they lack credibility unless you want to take the mystics' words on it.

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.

Those who have had mystical epiphanies should contribute more. Please do. — jgill

I’d rather they go somewhere else and do that. 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.

Clearly Plato, as well as many others, throughout philosophical history have exhibited attitudes that appear ‘mystical’. I’m pretty sure you’ll find a large number of people interested in philosophy as equally dismissive of anything tagged as metaphysics as they are anything tagged mysticism.

The funny thing is the very idea of such delineations is a clear sign of something metaphysical at work - meaning a cognitive distinction of knowledge whose mechanisms we are unable to fully appreciate (that’s why I mentioned literary theory as one such point that is perhaps easier to access?)

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

I would call a method credible when it is known to produce desired results. The problem I see in mysticism is that the desired results, some articles refer to it as insight, aren't easily expressed in words. There's another occasion where we may fail to express our understanding, and mysticism is about understanding of some kind, and that's when we're confused. How am I to know whether the mystic has truly achieved a valuable insight or that the mystic is just confused?

The methods are not new. — Punshhh

The idea of gaining insight minus the logical labor we usually think is necessary is new isn't it?

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

Mysticism doesn't lend itself very well to rational analysis, because it is often based on intuitions and personal experience. While both can be great sources of wisdom, they're hard to convey to someone who hasn't experienced the same things.

A constructive discussion about mysticism would require all parties to be aware of this. Proponents of mysticism should not expect their words to be taken for truth. Critics should appreciate the possibility of genuine intuitive understanding and the great (inter)personal wisdom it may lead to.

It's worth noting that many famous intellectuals and scientists expressed mystical views. Perhaps that is reason to consider at least the plausibility of some of these views. Without the latter, a constructive discussion is impossible.

The idea of gaining insight minus the logical labor we usually think is necessary is new isn't it? — TheMadFool

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.

Those who have had mystical epiphanies should contribute more. Please do. — jgill

When I was young I used to have these profound experiences, which were separated by months or even years. I must've had somewhere between 6 and 12 of these.

During these experiences I lost awareness of my body and experienced a feeling of timelessness, inner peace and omniscience (though, I never gained any tangible knowledge from these experiences). While the experience was profound and timeless, they seemed to last no more than a second. My relatives never noticed anything peculiar. The experiences always occurred at seemingly random moments, on a sober mind. Additionally, as a child/young adult I was an outspoken atheist.

When I tried to explain to my parents what I had experienced, they did not seem to understand me, so as a child I took these experiences for granted.

It was later in life when I started hearing the echoes of what I had experienced in works of philosophical literature I read. Uncovering the meaning of these experiences, if any, has since been a pursuit of mine.

I rarely share these experiences with anyone, for obvious reasons. I'm all too aware that words do a poor job at describing something that is so alien to anything else I have ever experienced. It is more likely to lead to misunderstanding, distrust and ridicule, but alas.

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

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.

Where is the focus of your mysticism? — Punshhh

Meditation aimed at inducing peak experiences a la Maslow.

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

Anything that seeks to describe reality ultimately aims to be rational, so I don't see why one should consider the two as separate. I certainly don't. Then again, "mysticism" is used to describe such a broad array of different practices and views that it is rather unwieldy. I may be arguing with a very different image of mysticism in mind than you.

Meditation aimed at inducing peak experiences a la Maslow.

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.

My focus would be the assimilation, or synthesis of the self with nature, which is rather like Maslow's actualisation, but not only actualising the person, but also the something beyond the self which could be described as something within nature, which is also in the self. The goal being in some sense a transfiguration of the self into a part of nature while also an actualised self.

I have had experiences like that too. They are so difficult to share through language.

The idea of gaining insight minus the logical labor we usually think is necessary is new isn't it?

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.

I don't think mysticism and logic or reason should be separated. In fact, I think they should be inseparable. — Tzeentch

I wonder what you mean by this, particularly after relating experiences that you still pursue the meaning of.

I don’t see how you need a mystical experience to appreciate the Tao Te Ching

that’s why I mentioned literary theory as one such point that is perhaps easier to access?

Do you mean a transcendence of meaning, as found in poetry, or a story?

I agree about the Tao Te Ching (I'm a bit rusty on that one)

Also there is secularisation within mysticism, which I am about to get embroiled in I expect with a couple of other posters. — Punshhh

Are you suggesting that there should not be secularization within mysticism? If so, why?

I lost awareness of my body and experienced a feeling of timelessness, inner peace and omniscience — Tzeentch

I have had experiences like that too. They are so difficult to share through language. — Punshhh

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.

Are you suggesting that there should not be secularization within mysticism? If so, why?

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.

Indeed. The methods of mysticism are new but they lack credibility unless you want to take the mystics' words on it. — TheMadFool

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.

I meant more in lines of trying to appreciate/consider individual perspectives and the general narrative function embedded in communication.

It’s only an obstacle if you don’t belong to the same tribe. :razz:

I agree with you though.

Just spotted a post by someone commenting on the difficulty of engaging discussions about mysticism. — I like sushi

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?

Is this problem evidence that we do have private languages that we translate into public language for communicating with others in a shared, causal world?

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

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?

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

I've used a kind of invigorating mantric meditation to induce a pentacostal experience - something I connect to Maslow's peak experience.

Here's one I made earlier.

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

Don't take what appeals to me or anyone for that matter as bearing any significance other than indicating my (our) failure to use logic in the proper way. People like us are then naturally drawn to what is presented to the public as an alternative - mystical insight. We feel better about ourselves when we see that what we're not good at is claimed not to matter. However, this is all a smoke and mirrors: there is no alternative route to knowledge other than by the application of rigorous rules of thinking - logic.

By the way, are we talking about the same thing? :chin:

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

Indeed it is exactly that and if the pudding has to be eaten by all who wish to understand what a pudding is then it means, perforce, that the pudding can't be put into words. Have you ever "understood" anything that simply can't be worded? Is ultimate truth like feelings, not the common garden variety kind for which we have words like sadness, happiness, etc. but the more complex kind that are ineffable.

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

Ok.

Have you ever "understood" anything that simply can't be worded? — TheMadFool

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.