I think that today genuine mysticism is more difficult than in the past, because it cannot escape the challenges coming from radical criticism — Angelo Cannata
Today we have to admit that too radical mysticism is equivalent to fanaticism or naivety, unless it takes seriously the challenges I have talked about. But a mysticism that is not radical and not deep is just not mysticism: what makes mysticism is exactly radicality and depth. — Angelo Cannata
.say the same thing about the mystical as a non-theistic Taoist — Fire Ologist
I think that mysticism in inherently radical because I conceive mysticism as a spiritual experience that connects with its content with an intimacy, depth, strength, superior to any other kind of spiritual experience. So, for example, a Roman Catholic mystic experiences the content of his/her religion in such a way that these things become to them like daily food, emotional fulfillment, the source of each moment of their life. This way, a dogma like the doctrine of the Trinity could be something exposed to many perspectives to a theologian, or to a normal believer, but to a mystic it becomes something so strong, so deep, that can be compared, emotionally, to a sexual intercourse. This means that the mystic will experience the dogma of Trinity in an extreme radical way, not in ways so open to discuss different perspectives.why do you think mysticism is inherently radical? — Tzeentch
Mysticism according to Bernard McGinn concerns itself with "the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of a direct and transformative presence of God." — Dermot Griffin
Mystical union is experienced via a recognition of the continual awareness of the presence of God in the here and now. — Dermot Griffin
I truly believe that genuine mysticism is a middle ground between rationalism and religion. — Dermot Griffin
Whithout these things, a mystic can be a mystic, but not a Roman Catholic mystic. In this situation he cannot, as you said,
say the same thing about the mystical as a non-theistic Taoist
— Fire Ologist — Angelo Cannata
In contrast to the philosopher who reflectively contemplates (i.e. unlearns 'learned denials of') how every presence conceals absence, I think the mystic meditates (i.e. unreasons (paradoxically / dialectically) 'inferential reasoning') in order to encounter, or surrender to, (the) absence that encompasses and dis/en-closes (un/en-folds) every presence. In other words, simplistically, they seem the opposite ends of a telescope or like complementary photo negatives of one another.I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? — Outlander
It is only upon re-entry into the constructed atmosphere that variations start to project. — ENOAH
and could easily make no sense to somebody. — Fire Ologist
I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say? — Outlander
simplistically, they seem the opposite ends of a telescope or like complementary photo negatives of one another. — 180 Proof
I think in many ways a philosopher is somewhat of a mystic, wouldn't you say?
— Outlander
simplistically, they seem the opposite ends of a telescope or like complementary photo negatives of one another.
— 180 Proof
I do agree with both of you — ENOAH
And, imo, this "object" conceals (its) absence. In broad strokes, I think religion (to worship) idolatrizes-fetishizes-mystifies '(the) absence' and mysticism (to meditate) denies – negates – 'whatever conceals absence' in order to "experience" absence as such whereas philosophy (to inferentially contemplate) describes – makes explicit – 'presence concealing absence' and science (to testably map-model) observes 'only fact-patterns (i.e. states-of-affairs concealing absence) in order to explain dynamics.There is ... One object of experience. — Fire Ologist
And, imo, this "object" conceals (its) absence. In broad strokes, I think religion (to worship) idolatrizes-fetishizes-mystifies '(the) absence' and mysticism (to meditate) denies – negates – 'whatever conceals absence' in order to "experience" absence as such whereas philosophy (to inferentially contemplate) describes – makes explicit – 'presence concealing absence' and science (to testably map-model) observes 'only fact-patterns (i.e. states-of-affairs concealing absence) in order to explain dynamics. — 180 Proof
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. — Wittgenstein
He starts off by comparing two views of mysticism, William James' influential modern view and that of Jean Gerson writing in the 14th century. With this comparison he is able to tease out the problem with James' focus on peak experiences, and as many of the case studies show, many "mystics" focus on a great deal aside from there experiences. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is not only an opener on mysticism and a criticism of Strict Observance Thomism. I truly believe that genuine mysticism is a middle ground between rationalism and religion. — Dermot Griffin
Often, after waking up to myself from the body, that is, externalizing myself in relation to all other things, while entering into myself, I behold a beauty of wondrous quality, and believe then that I am most to be identified with my better part, that I enjoy the best quality of life, and have become united with the divine and situated within it, actualizing myself at that level, and situating myself above all else in the intelligible world. — Plotinus, Ennead 4.8.1
The perennialist search for commonalities isn't necessarily misguided, because there are commonalities. However, it becomes misguided when it tries to flatten everything out, and one of the ways it does this is to try to look solely at "ineffable experience," and then to ignore the surrounding religious context as mere "interpretation" of that experience. — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.