I’m baffled, again you duck and weave the questions I have raised. No, I’m not an escapist in the context of the question, I don’t buy the mysticism or religion side of things. I’m sure I am on other things, but not this one. Neither are all others who view these subjects in the same way as I do, and there are a lot of us out there.
So, we’re not all escapists, are we?
Have you been reading my posts?
Well, just for you, here it is again, posted 01/01/04 further to something I’d said in my very first reply:
The thing is I don’t have to offer an alternative, I am discussing whether mysticism is escpaism, I feel like you keep trying to drag this discussion out of the context of the question.
I had said I wasn’t really willing to go into the “atheism gives no meaning” argument, but as you insist that it’s needed for my arguments, so be it.
I wish I was paid a penny for each time someone comes into the forums saying that we need religion as without it we have no X, X being hope, need to be moral, sense of meaning, and on and on and on.
Why? There are so many atheists out there now and do you see them all commiting suicide every day? Do you see them constantly depressed? Do you see them acting as anarchists?
Your view is wrong, plain and simple, it is at odds with the real world. All these athesits out there prove you and all the others before you who have claimed this great ‘need’ for religion wrong. They prove you wrong every second of every day. I am proving you wrong by not sitting here sobbing at my keyboard at the hopelessness of it all. I have lots of hopes and dreams and desires and all that while believing there’s ultimately no real reason why we are here, we just are. And we should enjoy it and be thankful that this happy accident happened!
dictionary.com gives this definition of Mysticism (thanks Marshall!):
This is what Mysticism is considered in the various uses of the word. It gives us a variance because a dictionary only displays what a word can mean. There isn’t even any heirarchy in the numeration.
The question was, whether Mysticism is Escapism. The conclusion that I arrived at was, if we want to use the term Escapism, then we would have to use it in the sense of
“The tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment”
as it is defined by http://www.dictionary.com.
By doing this we immediately see that Escapism, if we’re honest, is something that we are into daily. Using this definition, there isn’t anybody on the planet that doesn’t “escape” on a regular basis. What we should then ask is whether Mysticism is a “form” of escapism. Is it a kind of “daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment”?
Do Mystics indulge in a “dreamlike musing or fantasy while awake, especially of the fulfillment of wishes or hopes.” I could accept that, yes, Mystics probably do indulge in dreamlike musings. Whether anything worse emanates from these musings than from any of our musings would have to be proven. When I read what (selected) Mystics have written, then I find that it is quite the opposite. You may have a different opinion.
Do Mystics indulge in fantasy? Yes, I am quiet certain they do, for how else would they transport an experience of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension? The human mind is dependant upon fantasy to understand at all. Metaphers are the use of fantasy to explain things otherwise inexplicable.
Do Mystics indulge in entertainmant? I can’t rule it out, but most of the revered Mystic lived in times when entertainment wasn’t readily available.
But the question ist, did Mystics wish to “escape from daily reality or routine” when they saw what they saw, and is it to be referred to as an indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment? To this I would say no! I believe that they were trying to fathom their daily reality, they tried to understand the things that occurred around them. In that sense, they weren’t escaping (although I’m sure they did that too) but they were occupying themselves with their experience of reality and the problems that arose from it.
Yes Pax, but science serves mainly to describe a thing, not state what it is.
Polemarchus repied to a fellow poster in the philosophy forum , philosophy thread:
Pax continued:
Who was it who said, “philosophy is a question looking for an answer and religion is an answer looking for a question.”? I remain skeptical as to whether philosophy can inherently provide meaning and value in and of itself. As has been stated in this thread numerous times by many posters in different ways, it is important to perceive things from within a balanced framework of ideas (reason, intuition, feelings / philosophy, religion, science). If you look at something for too long from only one spot you begin to think that that one perspective is all that exists of that object. Philosophy, for example, finds it hard to rationally demonstrate ethics. You yourself resort to the Golden Rule to do so.
If as you say in your post, truth is a criteria in the search for meaning, and life needs supporting illusions from myth then the only alternative to me seems to be to accept the myth as myth, accept the illusion as illusion, similiar to the way that art does. The fact that billions of people are unable to do this is no refutation to the cohesive, integrating power of myth in our lives.
Bob,
you said
Son of a gun! You’re right! no heirarchy! As it says in the below named dictionary’s introduction, “no fixed, arbitrary arrangement of the senses within a given entry has been attempted.” I once had someone in a thread tell me that the most common usage comes first and i believed them. damn unwarranted assumption.
My 1983 Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines mysticism thusly:
“1.) doctrines or beliefs of mystics; specifically, the doctrine that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation and love without the medium of human reason.
2.) any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge of spiritual truths through intuition acquired by fixed meditation.
3.) vague or obscure thinking or belief.”
this parallels that above. I pretty much disagree with the God part of number 1, and 3, but i fail to see any objections to #2. Note that #3 could refer to anyone, including philosophers, and charges of mysticism have been made about Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and others. Maybe you are mainly talking about 1.
Yup, that’s where I am - and if you think about it, it’s quite an ecumenical position. At the same time it very often annoys those who need written Religion or Dogmen. That is why I can cope as an “Elder” of the church, as long as I don’t have to play my hand. I believe myself to be in line with Christ and that is what matters to me.
To quote Matthew Fox, the director of the “Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality” in California:
I deeply believe that the abilities of Mankind have reduced since we became reliant upon technology and that is why we have difficulty in communicating. I don’t know whether it is completely correct, but my experience supports the theory that the left hemisphere of the brain is responsible for verbal, abstract, symbolic activities. The right hemisphere serves for synthetic, holistic, intuitive perception and information processing. I believe our teaching pushes people towards using the left half and leaves the right hemisphere of the brain underdeveloped.
That is why people distrust people who are primarily holistic and intuitive - especially if you are a man. In the sixties and seventies a man couldn’t cultivate these abilities without getting abuse. I believe a few have gone overboard, but most of us are using the right hemisphere more - but not enough. To some degree, that is why there are some extreme views on the subject here. Mystics aren’t people who are solely using the right hemisphere, indeed most have the ability to use both effectively.
Even though strictly speaking many recent specialists think this distinction somewhat antiquated the left/right brain scenario is an important tool for understanding how people deal with information. Many people in education, for example, use it. When i was a corporate trainer, i found it useful to know if people were left brain (detail oriented) or right brain (holistic) oriented. I think age may be a critical factor too. It takes time to assess the many parts and learn how they congeal and interact as a whole. I used to be very detail oriented, but i think the latter half of my life (God or Nature willing) will be more right brain oriented. I’m currently 38.
That’s what I’ve been saying. You need Religion and you need Philosophy, but the idea I’m trying to get across is that no matter what you would like to believe, what we do believe comes initially from our intuition. Then we can use either Faith or Reason to hold on to that belief once it comes into question. Some people don’t like the idea of Faith and others Reason, but that doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong, each person is the measure of truth, their own truth. There is no universal truth! That’s the big lie!
The mystic believes that he has a special insight into God, to him he does, and maybe there will be others who like what he has to say. But there’s also going to be people who will reject his beliefs, as it doesn’t seem right to them or it conflicts with what they already believe in. Their faith or reason will stop them from accepting this new so-called truth. To them it’s just the ramblings of a madman, while they are more then willing to listen to another madman, the madman that gave them the belief they are now defending.
I apologise for being away for a while - had a lot of work. I keep on reading the word “special” when referred to the kind of spirituality that I’m into. What does special mean?
If I judge my experience to be exceptional, in other words uncommon and unusual, is that a problem for other people? If a Mystic speaks of his insight, is he any more of a problem in doing that than anyone else with a view? And if people have the insights of Mystics passed on and eventually printed, which leads to them being read and held to be something special, where is the problem?
Is there a general requirement for people with a different approach to life to dispute their insights as the work of madmen? Nobody has yet told us the name of a Mystic that ranted and raved to the point of being a danger to others, or of a Mystic that forced his view upon other people. Quite the opposite is the case, most Mystics were heretics because they didn’t conform.
I get the feeling that some people tend to argue from the “stomach†than from the head. They have a “gut-feeling†about Mystics and start pouring their wrath upon anybody who dares to associate with them. This all occurs although we are writing in a Forum dedicated to Religion. It seems in keeping with what Mystics experienced in long-gone days when the churches tried to burn them at the stake.
All the time Mystics are the silent admirers of a mysterious God, who they believe created this universe and life therein. They remain silent to hear the one voice that we otherwise can’t hear, to understand what is happening in the world and marvel at the wisdom that can be found if we could only hear above all of the noises and voices that this world has to offer.
If a Mystic describes his experience as distinct amongst other experiences: a special kind of experience, why should others who clearly haven’t had the experience disagree? If his experience is peculiar to his experience with God, something that he doesn’t experience with other aspects of life, who is to disagree? And if a Mystic regards these experiences with particular affection, who can wish to dissent?
The insight of Mystics may well be “special†for a whole range of reasons – but who’s bothered about it? If we concede that much of what we speak comes from our vanity, or is spoken because we overestimate our importance, then we can only welcome people who want their judgement to be compassionate, their decisions careful and their answers balanced. Mystics achieve this only because their word is spoken out of the silence.
Mystics want their words to be equitable, they want to cleanse, the want to be peace-makers and give others strength to cope in the world. They can only achieve this, if they don’t speak everything that comes to mind. The real worthwhile things that people should hear aren’t the things that readily come to mind, but those that have been heard from a distance. That is why it pays to be silent, to gain time by waiting until the worthwhile things come to us from a distance. It is learning to discern our words from His that takes up most of our time and makes His word something special.
I would say everybody that talks about God is a Mystic. But what do you mean by the word Mystic and not dictionary.com! All languages are living and as such words meaning and usage change over the years, just look at English 200 years ago. Would all Catholics Priests be Mystics because they talk about God, or must they have some other from for connection that is beyond their Ordination?
I have! Here’s one of many: David Karesh (Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas). If you would like I could find more, as there have been plenty. Or would your definition of a Mystic exclude Mr Karesh?
I’m not saying Mystics are Madmen, just that some would perceive them that way.
This is my main point, ‘Gut-Feeling’ is just another way of saying Instinct! People will act from Instinct about what they believe. Some will rant others will take a more structured approach, yet there goal is the same, to defend their point of view.
‘God is all things to all people,’ everybody has their own unique way of relating to and understanding God. There is no one right way, only our own private way. In essence we all need to be mystics if we want to have a relationship with God. Another person’s experiences might be similar but they won’t be identical.
Right Pax Vitae, there is no universal truth, that is why i have the “Truth is a pathless land.” quote from Krishnamurti (whom some would call a mystic) below.
The still small voice. Something rarely heard amidst the hustle and bustle of modern civilization. Do you meditate Bob?
Interesting part of that long quote Pax Vitae. “There is no way one story could encompass a complete understanding of the fullness of God and all His many glories, as it would require everybody’s personal story to be complete.” Nietzsche once said the same kind of thing in (the will too Power i believe) something like you could never define something because you would have to know all of it’s interactions with everything else.
None of these people saw themselves as a davidian Leader and heaped up arms to overthrow the Government. I really though you had something more to offer. You can’t just say “I don’t like Mystics and I didn’t like Koresh either, so Koresh is a Mystic.”
Are you paraphrasing me or do you really think that I am saying anything different? If I have a special kind of experience that others have difficulties with, who has a problem? It isn’t me. If we all have “our” spiritual experiences, then fine. Nobody on my side of the fence is complaining - we were sparked off by someone who asked a question.
Marshall asked:
Probably not enough, but yes, it is silence and meditation that helps in my struggle with a stressful vocation. What also helps is using time instead of “killing” it. Time is a precious gift and the art is in using it effectively. Of course I’m not talking about working overtime or performance, but using time for me, so that I can find strength for others.
Mysticism is all about giving ones life a direction and being resolute on the chosen path. You can call it loyalty, being faithful, being steady or constant. It all amounts to remaining unperturbed on the path. Not always very easy…
Where does the path lead? It leads inwards, into our inmost being and again it leads to other people. The inward path is necessary to prepare for our task in this world, helping people to catch their breath again, to disencumber the tired, to heal, to help people on their feet, to open the eyes, enable people to take hold of their lives again, to forgive and to set free. In fact I quite imagine Jesus in the Synagogue smiling as he is given the Scripture he is required to translate into everyday life:
That is what it is about, and Jesus must of thought: that’s easy! He said: this prophecy has just been fulfilled! Of course people didn’t understand straight away - that is nearly always the case with Mystics.
Why do you keep referring to mystics so wistfully Bob?
A satanic priest can be a mystic, according to the definitions of dictionary.com
You particular perception of what a mystic is is irrelevant, the list you give is just a list of respectable mystics. You can’t just say “Only people I respect can be mystics, so Koresh isn’t a mystic”.
I think you keep missing my main point! It’s not only what you believe, as you have judged a mystic to teach either a Good or Bad message. But it’s only fair you respect everybody else’s freedom to make that same choice. You might think somebody is a Good mystic; I might disagree, why is your opinion more correct then mine? Each person will judge a mystic and it will be up to them to believe if the mystic is true or not. ‘Man is the measure of all thinks,’ the individual is the measure of the Mystic. You’re an individual; I’m an individual. We both have the same decision to make and to ourselves we will each have chosen the correct choice.
But we haven’t discussed individuals - I have named and quoted those people who I respect and leave myself open for other opinions. And pardon me, but if you expect me to even consider people like Koresh, then we’re wasting our time here.
Remember the first Posting?
Those were world Religions and respected persons who were named, if you want to bring in Fanatics, then perhaps you should mention the fact that you see Mystics in two categories. I could communicate on that. But the first time a Critic is asked to name someone, he brings up a real nutter!
That isn’t a basis for discussion. To be quite honest its just a pub crawl at that level.
Look at it from the other perspective, name all the philosophers that have been utterly wrong and had many follow their philosophies, who now have nothing to offer us.
I can’t think of any of the top of my head. It’s not easy, they stop being documented, new writers ignore them, no-one cares about them. Even in recent times virtually every neo-Hegelian is unknown apart from Kant. Why? Because Hegel was so far off track it astounds, the only reason he’s still known is that he had such an influence on that most enigmatic of people Kant.
The well documented ancient mystics are going to be the ones who had something useful to offer.
Bob. Please correct me if i’m wrong, but at one point you alluded to mystics shunning authority; and now we are to accept mystics only from established religions?
No, but if someone is talking about a subject as openly as I have done, naming and quoting sources and very clearly not meaning the likes of David Koresh or Jim Jones or other maniacs, and my opposite discusses with me without stating the kind of people they have in mind, where does this all lead to?
Had we at the outset been talking about this kind of person, then I would have interjected with my examples to show that Mysticism can also have a respectable face. This is what I would expect from others vice versa. After all Matt can state:
Which well documents my attempts to be clear about what I’m talking about. Where else would Maslow have come from, if not from a discussion that is not talking about Koresh and Jones?
I fail to miss the point. Those Mystics that I have mentioned talk to us today from a long time ago and haven’t failed to be a source of enlightenment to me. My own mystical experience is again enlightening - for me. Who is going to have a problem with it? Some have answered my posting by saying they enjoyed my insights or those of the quoted Mystics. That has made it worth the while.
I think that whilst we can talk about these things, ask questions, state that we are not impressed or come up with some point of view that opposes the hypothesis presented, we can’t dispute when someone say’s he has been enlightend by something. You can ask them to explain, give alternative explanations or parallel experiences, but simply to dispute for the sake of it without backing it up seems somewhat blunt to me.
Matt stated:
If you are referring to the “occult rites and practices”, occult means “hidden” as used in medicine. “Occult bleeding” means inner bleeding that no-one can see and is symptomised by an anaemic condition. By that, occult practices could also be used to describe a private party.
I think the good and the bad exist within any religion, philosophy, or ideology and i clearly understand your desire to acquaint us with the ‘good’ mystics. I have had many useful insights from this dialogue.
I found this dialogue nearly twenty years ago in the spirit of ILP as we discovered it, and surprisingly, I haven’t changed much in my attitude, although since then I have been through a lot professionally and since retired.
I am also returning to the path I was on back then, which confirms my feeling that we move in circles in life.