Maybe this:

• Intuition concerns mere thatness (haecceity, e.g. that X is) and not whatness (quiddity e.g. what X is).

• Mysticism concerns attention to – encounters with – ineffable / sublime thatness (haecceity).

The concept 'of the fundamental reality underlying our own existence' is ... — Jack Cummins

Incoherent (e.g. realer reality, reality behind / beneath / beyond reality, etc).

Are waves on the surface of the ocean any less the ocean than the deepest extent of the ocean?

Is this a difference in kind or just a difference in degree?

Is the horizon any less "fundamental" than the ground beneath us or sky above? If so, tell me how so.

Like ocean waves, life paths are existents – ripples of reality, no?

To say something is "hidden" says something about us and nothing much about the so-called "hidden" X. "Perennial wisdom?" – or rather just developmental, vestigial biases / naïvetes at work with "ancient sages & mystics" like
• change blindness
• confirmation bias
• cognitive dissonce
• status quo bias
etc ... which they had intuitively guessimated have distorted perceptions-conceptions of nature? :chin:

Philosophers have always speculated on the causes and extent of these perceptual-conceptual distortions, and mostly compounded them with additional, extravagantly speculative projections which, in some notable cases, they've developed proto-psychological conjectures to account for "seeing things as we are" instead of "seeing things as things themselves are" (e.g. Democritus' "atomic combinations", Plato's "shadows in the cave", Descartes' "secondary qualities", Spinoza's "modes" (natura naturata), Kant's "phenomena", etc).

Re: contra gnosis, "fundamental"( or "hidden") "reality" ...

How the “True World” Finally Became a Fable. The History of an Error

1. The true world — attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.

(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, “I, Plato, am the truth.”)

2. The true world — unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man (“for the sinner who repents”).

(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes female, it becomes Christian. )

3. The true world — unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it — a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.

(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian.)

4. The true world — unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?

(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)

5.The “true” world — an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating — an idea which has become useless and superfluous — consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!

(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato’s embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)

6. The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.) — Twilight of the Idols

:fire:

In epistemology there isn't room for another source of knowledge besides empirical observation and rational thought, for those concepts are considered exhaustive by definition. So to relate mysticism to epistemology requires translating the methods, premises and conclusions of mysticism into the standard epistemological concepts people are already familiar with.

In epistemology there isn't room for another source of knowledge besides empirical observation and rational thought, for those concepts are considered exhaustive by definition. So to relate mysticism to epistemology requires translating the methods, premises and conclusions of mysticism into the standard epistemological concepts people are already familiar with. — sime

Ok. But yours is the first mention of epistemology in the thread. Are you suggesting the mysticism isn't rational?

As I see it, spirituality/mysticism involves assigning significance to something that transcends what is generally experienced as empirical. Now, not to put to fine a point upon it, but consciousness itself meets this criterion. Which is a pretty common theme of spirituality. Consciousness is a bridge.

Ok. But yours is the first mention of epistemology in the thread. Are you suggesting the mysticism isn't rational? — Pantagruel

I'm saying that empiricism and rationalism are sufficiently broad churches so as to accommodate anything that might be called 'mystical'. There is no room for 'mysticism' in philosophy as a distinct third form of epistemological inquiry.

A mystic is just another person who theorises in response to sense data towards the same epistemic ends as a non-mystic. Even if we grant the mystic extrasensory perception and super-powers of reason, his process of inquiry isn't categorically different from the ordinary philosopher.

Ok, so in a sense you want to de-mystify mysticism without denying or contradicting it? That works for me as it is consistent with a naturalistic philosophy also.

I definitely recall your thread on mysticism and how you have more of a 'meat and potatoes' approach and question tbe idea of the 'hidden'. I am not sure that there is a literal hidden reality of the mystics but feel that perception varies, with some people being more attuned to the mundane and others to more alternative ways of seeing. However, I would not elevate the mystical ones, because that would be putting the mystics as having superior insight, which may be an extreme generalisation and a far too black and white value judgement. — Jack Cummins

I won't clutter up this thread with more of my personal view on this. I don't think my way of seeing things is very helpful in this particular context. I would like to say that I think this kind of thinking, whatever you want to call it, is the primary way that all of us "know" things. People just tend to focus on more self-aware kinds of knowing. You can take credit for that I guess, but less so for intuition. It's as if the parts of us that we are not as aware of are not really "us."

Mysticism played a role in the revival of philosophy in Europe, when humanists like Ficino were trying to assemble a Christian Kabbalah. Traces of alchemical thinking remain foundational in thinkers like Hegel. To this day, Marxist and post-Marxist "philosophers" like Zizek have kept this Continental tradition alive.

Zizek tries to interpret Marxist class struggle through the Hermetic principle of "as above, so below". His formulation is: "Your alienation from the absolute is the alienation of the absolute from itself." He interprets this to mean that if you feel alienated from society, that is because society is itself split into mutually antagonistic classes, and this political split pervades all levels of discourse. The ones who find themselves outside the central club should unite in a para-Christian (yet atheist) Communist party.

I alsi think some aspects of esoteticism can have applications in a philosophical theory of the emotions. For example, the Tarot cards compile a vast range of emotional snapshots. You could use those to make sure a theory of human emotions like Spinoza's hasn't been oversimplified. I believe there's a free Android app and website called Labyrinthos that describes each of the 78 cards in 3 or 4 keywords and a brief paragraph if you don't have the time to wade through long-winded mysticism. Note that the Tarot deck is not a comprehensive compilation of emotional postures. It needs to be supplemented by modern cognitive science as well as amateur collections like the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows.

de-mystify mysticism without denying or contradicting it? That works for me as it is consistent with a naturalistic philosophy also. — Pantagruel

:up:

However, states of consciousness may be also compatible with the sublime, as being those of deep intersubjectivity, such as in core understanding of ethics, intelligence and wisdom which can be applied in human affairs in life. — Jack Cummins

I see the core of ethics consisting in compassion, in fellow feeling and a practical sense of fairness and justice. Insofar as this is in the dimension of affect it is in common with the aesthetical and mystical, however I think it has essentially communal dimensions that don't necessarily belong to aesthetic and mystic experience.