Mysticism

Topic: Mysticism (Read 34448 times)

Mysticism

2014-06-17, 18:39:37

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-17, 18:34:29

That's exactly what blessed Ruysbroek says. He puts a check on himself referring to church's authority. What's your reaction? I personally prefer uninhibited individual quest.

That's why a female mystic like Hadewijch is both literarily and mystically speaking more interesting than Ruusbroec. In fact Ruusbroec adopted several of her ideas without attribution, but that aside.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #1 – 2014-06-17, 19:13:29

This thread won't carry too far. It's impossible that anyone will be interested. Actually, now that I answer here, it's already more popular than my topic on Manjaro Netbook Edition. Amazing.

Anyway, to the topic. Apart from my disbelief that you have any genuine appreciation for mystical literature, Frenzie, I have other disagreements too. Among mystics, it's not considered a great sin to borrow concepts without attribution. This is firstly because it's the communication of the experience that matters, not the concepts. The communication is not about concepts, but about the experience, yet the communication necessarily occurs by means of concepts. Instead of reinventing the wheel, it's common sense to make use of pre-existing concepts that have proven workable before.

Secondly, devout mystics view their experience as one, even across religious divisions. This necessarily unifies the language too.

Thirdly, Ruysbroek was not a formal scholar, so the conventions applicable to academia did not bind him.

And lastly, even without attribution, he was distributing Hadewijch's concepts after all. I'm sure she's modest, forgiving, and silently grateful.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #2 – 2014-06-17, 19:17:42

I actually meant to pique your interest, not to admonish the man.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #3 – 2014-06-18, 15:25:36

Maybe you meant "pick" instead of "pique". Anyway, it worked. Here's a rational defence for mysticism, as brief as I can muster.

The external empirical world is perceived by means of the senses. The ordinary five senses present us with the ordinary three-dimensional picture of the world. This picture of the world is kept in the mind and the mind can make further operations with the picture, extrapolate based on sense-data, infer beyond sense-data, etc. For example time is the fourth physical dimension inferred by the mind from changes that occur in sense-data. The existence of the mind itself can also be inferred from the individual internal observation of the treatment of one's own picture of the world, observation of the operations of one's own senses and observation of self-directed changes in one's own psychology.

The empirical sense-data is apprehended by the senses, the logical truths by the mind or intellect. All this makes up the ordinary universe or the undeniable so-called reality. None of this - sense-data and the senses, logical truths and the mind - can be rationally excluded from the ontological picture. If any of these elements is missing from the ontological picture, any talk about epistemology is futile.

The senses work by means of contact with their objects (sense-data). This is called perception. The mind, tentatively for the lack of better explanation, can be said to work the same way: Intellect perceives or has contact with its objects. The mind is the internal organ that as if perceives the objects of intellect (or mental objects), similarly as the five senses perceive each their own objects. The similarity is analogical though, not univocal. Different from sense-data, the objects of intellect are not three-dimensional, but they exist as undeniably as empirical objects. For example time is not part of the three-dimensional world - it's its fourth dimension - and not perceptible by any of the ordinary five senses, but it's easily apprehended by the mind as an irreducible part of our ontological picture of the universe.

The above analysis supports the conclusion that philosophical metaphysical logical truths (correct inferences) trump empirical sense-data - and this is how it should be. These two, logical truths on one hand and empirical sense-data on the other, have a hierarchical order, the former taking priority over the latter. One of the immediate corollaries to this conclusion is that humans should rein in their senses by means of the mind or intellect. First think, then act. This is a basic tenet of ethics and morality. Insistence to prioritise the senses over intellect has had and always will have disastrous consequences.

This priority or hierarchy does not only apply to the individual psychology. It's not merely a psychologically useful consideration, it's not merely a metaphysical construct for intellectual amusement - it's an ontological fact. Again, time serves as the example that what the ontological materialist would wish to dismiss as a mere mind-construct can in fact be a correct inference to a necessary truth, i.e. apprehension of an essentially real object in that sense. Hence the mind-matter hierarchy applies to the whole universe, not only to human individuals.

Now a further inference. Matter is real. The senses and sense-data are real. The mind, intellect, and their objects are also real, and they have priority over the senses, sense-data and matter. Is this all there is to the ontological picture of the universe? The answer of the mystics is that there's another ontological layer of as-if objects and that there's another as-if internal organ that apprehends that layer. Moreover, that next internal organ - let's call it the mystical organ - has similarly crucial priority over the mind as the mind has over the senses. As an aside, the ethical corollary at this stage becomes: Obey your conscience! (Conscience is a function of that organ. Just take my word for it for now.)

This inference is a valid logical deduction. The insight into the actual truth of this inference, the perception of its reality is reserved for those who have awakened the mystical organ to apprehend the corresponding layer. Since this ontology is hierarchical, it's indispensable to awaken the mind first, affirm the reality of intellect and its objects and learn to apprehend them, and then some day the time will come for the mystical organ to be illumined too - the obstacles must be cleared away so the light can shine through. Those without the mystical organ, much more those with untrained intellect, have nothing valid to say about these things. It's quite understandable that they deny these insights, because they don't have the appropriate organ to apprehend them, but it should be equally understandable that an argument from ignorance is fallacious. The same way as the colour-blind don't have much interesting to say about colours, those who deny the reality of the mind have nothing valid to say about the laws of reasoning, and those without conscience have no say on ethics.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #4 – 2014-06-18, 15:38:56

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-18, 15:25:36

Maybe you meant "pick" instead of "pique".

I most certainly meant "pique". To be precise, I meant to pique your interest in reading Hadewijch if you like Ruusbroec.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #5 – 2014-06-18, 16:34:07

Yeah, I know the word "pique". I tend to associate it with the meaning "pick on someone"

Re: Mysticism

Reply #6 – 2014-06-18, 17:36:59

Sure, you could be piqued that I tried to pique your interest and that wouldn't be a good thing. But it's a fairly regular expression, although you'll find plenty of people online who don't know how to spell it. So if you ever see someone talking about peeking or peaking someone's interest, you'll know what they mean.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #7 – 2014-06-18, 17:52:30

Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-06-18, 17:36:59

Sure, you could be piqued that I tried to pique your interest and that wouldn't be a good thing. But it's a fairly regular expression, although you'll find plenty of people online who don't know how to spell it. So if you ever see someone talking about peeking or peaking someone's interest, you'll know what they mean.

Especially native speakers

Re: Mysticism

Reply #8 – 2014-06-18, 18:00:10

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-18, 15:25:36

Insistence to prioritise the senses over intellect has had and always will have disastrous consequences.

If I think about getting out of the way of a speeding bus instead of just believing my eyes and moving, the consequences could be more than just disastrous.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #9 – 2014-06-18, 19:02:40

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-18, 15:25:36

The answer of the mystics is that there's another ontological layer of as-if objects and that there's another as-if internal organ that apprehends that layer. Moreover, that next internal organ - let's call it the mystical organ - has similarly crucial priority over the mind as the mind has over the senses. As an aside, the ethical corollary at this stage becomes: Obey your conscience! (Conscience is a function of that organ. Just take my word for it for now.)

This inference is a valid logical deduction. The insight into the actual truth of this inference, the perception of its reality is reserved for those who have awakened the mystical organ to apprehend the corresponding layer. Since this ontology is hierarchical, it's indispensable to awaken the mind first, affirm the reality of intellect and its objects and learn to apprehend them, and then some day the time will come for the mystical organ to be illumined too - the obstacles must be cleared away so the light can shine through. Those without the mystical organ, much more those with untrained intellect, have nothing valid to say about these things. It's quite understandable that they deny these insights, because they don't have the appropriate organ to apprehend them, but it should be equally understandable that an argument from ignorance is fallacious. The same way as the colour-blind don't have much interesting to say about colours, those who deny the reality of the mind have nothing valid to say about the laws of reasoning, and those without conscience have no say on ethics.

How can a logical person take so much 'as-if' stuff as factual reality. All of what you say could be true, but don't you see that there are then an infinite number of such things that you can believe in if you convince yourself there is a hint of logic in it? You are taking one maybe (as-if objects), based on another maybe (as-if organ), and saying that's how it's logical ("This inference is a valid logical deduction")--which is the antithesis of being logical.

Maybe believing this kind of stuff is recreational for you, in which case, knock yourself out, but don't pawn it off here as reality--it makes you look like you've missed taking your medication or something. I'm quite serious, this could be the onset of delusions because there is no intellectual logic coming from a man who claims to be the epitome of logic and intellect. (I'm sure you'll say it's because I don't have an 'as-if' spleen or something.)

Re: Mysticism

Reply #10 – 2014-06-18, 20:15:08

How does materialism accommodate the existence of qualia? How is the interaction problem a problem for Cartesian dualism? Is the contents of the mind a reflection from the world or is the world a projection from the mind? Does the answer to the easy problem of consciousness also answer the hard problem? Is "What is the meaning of life?" a scientifically meaningful question? Do you have answers, James?

Here's an easy one: What is the physical nature of time?

You should stay away from this thread. It's bad for your spleen, liver, parasympathetic nervous system, etc. And I don't mean no as if.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #11 – 2014-06-18, 22:48:03

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-18, 20:15:08

Is "What is the meaning of life?" a scientifically meaningful question? Do you have answers, James?

If you're asking 'Is there an ultimate purpose for our existence?', the answer is no. We are a random but inevitable by-product of energy and the laws of physics that govern this universe--we couldn't help but be any more than our sun could. Nature instilled in us the wish to survive and reproduce and not much else, however, even as a lifeform we (including our minds), still have an umbilical cord attachment to the laws of physics just like everything else. It comes as rather a shock to us that we might not have free will, especially for those of us with the biggest egos, but the only way we could possibly have free will is if another force is at work in the universe, but that just leads us back to God and the supernatural which science has shown couldn't possibly exist. Free will is the biggest and best con job ever!

I only have a personally perceived meaning of life for myself and it is necessarily different from anyone else's.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #12 – 2014-06-19, 05:13:18

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-18, 22:48:03

I only have a personally perceived meaning of life for myself and it is necessarily different from anyone else's.

Nice of you to acknowledge that your answer is not applicable anywhere beyond yourself and that you are a humble modest man with the smallest ego, with no need for God, with no claim to superiority of your views about science, and that your act of typing is just a con job each and every time. That's all very nice.

Edit: And thanks for sharing your impressions on the book by Hawking and Mlodinow. It's a flawed book philosophically (not just my opinion), but nice that you are enjoying it. Probably it's bad due to Mlodinow, because A Brief History of Time, authored by Hawking alone, was philosophically sound. It's always nice to share our impressions. That's how the world works.

As for mysticism, as a modest man with no claim to knowledge, you may want to inform yourself about it cautiously. Mysticism has always been part of Christianity, ever since the Desert Fathers effectively formulated Christian practices, so I don't even have to recommend anything directly, you can find stuff for yourself. In Islam, it took Al-Ghazali's authority to accommodate Sufism into Islamic orthodoxy. That's a start. But a further warning is in order: It's bad for your sex life too.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #13 – 2014-06-19, 10:46:50

Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism should be required reading, for everybody…

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-18, 14:48:03

[…] the only way we could possibly have free will is if another force is at work in the universe, but that just leads us back to God and the supernatural which science has shown couldn't possibly exist.

Your argument is flawed, James:

First, because its (unstated) crucial premise is not unassailable. To wit, absolute determinism is not something that can be shown to be true by science… Nor by logic!
But also because the existence of "another force" is both possible and not necessarily "super-natural" — put differently, science has not ended yet!

An interesting book I'd recommend is Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. (See here for a taste.)
While I have no great taste for mystical "explanation," the history of Man's various belief systems requires more explanation than "primitive" guesses or psychopathology. No?
————————————————————
Actually (sort-of) on topic: <a href="http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf14_16/pdf/1967/ICS/01Mar67/10456484.pdf?EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80Sep7c4yOvsOLCmr0yep69Ssqa4SLCWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGrr0qwrrRJuePfgeyx43zx1%2B6B&T=P&P=AN&S=R&D=sih&K=10456484">Here[/url]'s a readable pdf of Francis L. K. Hsu's "Christianity and the Anthropologist", a short article that sheds some light on the mystic impulse — and the various reactions to it!

Re: Mysticism

Reply #14 – 2014-06-20, 17:11:08

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-19, 10:46:50

An interesting book I'd recommend is Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

A very plausible theory actually. Environmental stressors trigger adaptation in all species of course and with humans, our brains have been shown before to be rapidly adaptive. The last ice age triggered hominid brains to grow by 300% in a relatively short evolutionary time span in order to survive during those harsh times. A bicameral mind prior to the time period circa 2000 BC explains a lot about how the idea of gods and religion may have arisen. Moreover, it is a tribute to the industrial machine that religion became that it has lasted into today's modern technological world.

(Anybody else experiencing problems with pop up advertising sites here?)

Re: Mysticism

Reply #15 – 2014-06-20, 17:28:57

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-20, 18:11:08

(Anybody else experiencing problems with pop up advertising sites here?)

No. There's no ads on here.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #16 – 2014-06-20, 17:32:36

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-20, 18:11:08

(Anybody else experiencing problems with pop up advertising sites here?)

You might want to take a closer look at your extensions?

Quote from: Luxor on 2014-06-20, 17:28:57

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-20, 18:11:08
(Anybody else experiencing problems with pop up advertising sites here?)

No. There's no ads on here.

And if there were, they certainly wouldn't be pop-ups.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #17 – 2014-06-20, 18:35:39

Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-06-20, 17:32:36

You might want to take a closer look at your extensions?

That's the 1st place I looked and I see nothing new in my programs either. There is an empty ad box at the top of each screen here (and only here), that says 'Ads by OffersWizard'. I'll just keep looking.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #18 – 2014-06-20, 18:40:40

You best check for malware I think.
See this Remove OffersWizard ads (Virus Removal Guide)

Re: Mysticism

Reply #19 – 2014-06-20, 19:47:25

Quote from: Luxor on 2014-06-20, 18:40:40

You best check for malware I think.

Thank you kindly sir. I thought the 'Network System Driver' addition to my programs looked suspicious, but I had a virus removal tool searching my system. I can shut it off now that I have removed that adware, thanks again.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #20 – 2014-06-20, 19:52:13

Re: Mysticism

Reply #21 – 2014-06-20, 21:35:36

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-19, 10:46:50

An interesting book I'd recommend is Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. (See here for a taste.)

Bullshit. The right hemisphere gives orders to the left hemisphere, the poor savage listens to voices into his head and starts running to create gods.
Never heard such an imbecility.

There were extremely important physiological changes, that still are to explain, and were decisive for mankind evolution as for example the moment women started to be sexually available all time instead just at a narrow period of time as it happens with all female animals.
Not needing to constantly fight between themselves for the few available females men could start occupying with other things. Including stable social organization that leads directly to after life concerns.
It happened, at least, 100,000 years ago.

Re: Mysticism

Reply #22 – 2014-06-21, 08:20:28

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-06-20, 13:35:36

It happened, at least, 100,000 years ago.

Your evidence for this is…what?

Adding sound to movies would be like putting lipstick on the Venus de Milo - Mary Pickford.
Or arms, Mary?
People often have peculiar and quite visceral reactions to new ideas. I can readily understand your being unconvinced by a mere gloss of Jaynes' thesis. But saying Bullshit, followed by "Never heard such an imbecility" hardly qualifies as a rebuttal to his arguments.
It must be the proposed origin of god-talk that offends you, and makes you so unreceptive to what, after all, is an empirical question.

(BTW: I think you misunderstand that proposed origin story's import…)
As I said above (to James, mind you!) — While I have no great taste for mystical "explanation," the history of Man's various belief systems requires more explanation than "primitive" guesses or psychopathology. No?
If you prefer an actual God, you still have to explain the great variety of extent and long-gone beliefs, and haphazard attitudes to many of them…
Or maybe not: You might just ignore what aggravates you. All Just So stories are not created equal!

Re: Mysticism

Reply #23 – 2014-06-21, 10:07:27

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-21, 08:20:28

Your evidence for this is…what?

Burials with flowers. Think about it.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-21, 08:20:28

People often have peculiar and quite visceral reactions to new ideas. I can readily understand your being unconvinced by a mere gloss of Jaynes' thesis. But saying Bullshit! followed by "Never heard such an imbecility" hardly qualifies as a rebuttal to his arguments.
It must be the proposed origin of gods that offends you, and makes you so unreceptive to what, after all, is an empirical question.

Nope, not at all.
I tell you what can only trigger the kind or reaction you saw, the 3000 years ago together with the childish approach.

If an evolution of conscience is to be connected with religious concerns then we have to go much much earlier when, eventually, men had the so called "pre-logic" mentality meaning the incapacity for creating abstract concepts of definitions. (I suppose that at Anglo Saxon cultures you have a different term than pre-logic, I don't remember it).

There was no concept of "tree" but the conscience of that particular tree, that one, that other one, etc. So goes for rivers, mountains or whatever.
But even so and admitting that men passed by such a phase, which is not a certain thing at all, we could barely "explain" but a rudimentary and embryonic form of proto-paganism, basically an expression of fear from nature, nothing a bit more elaborated that we could call religion.

..................................
(I have misunderstand nothing, you'll agree that my vivid reaction gave a lot of realm to an otherwise too subtle criticism of yours... who cares about psychopathology?

)

Re: Mysticism

Reply #24 – 2014-06-21, 10:24:11

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-06-21, 10:07:27

If an evolution of conscience is to be connected with religious concerns then we have to go much much earlier when, eventually, men had the so called "pre-logic" mentality meaning the incapacity for creating abstract concepts of definitions. (I suppose that at Anglo Saxon cultures you have a different term than pre-logic, I don't remember it).

I presume you're talking about archaic-primitive cultures with their logic of ambiguity (a can also be -a). I too don't know what it's called in English.