Definition of Mysticism

[Questioner]

• • In my own reading experience, it is quite the opposite. They usually often suggest that the "Mystical Experience" is an awareness that is fundamentally non-rational/non-conceptual.
    • Some modern proponents of "Unitive/Non-Dual Experience" suggest the alternative — an awareness that is fundamentally trans-rational/trans-conceptual, as opposed to pre-, post-, and/or non-.
  • Of course, "Mystics" use rationality and/or conceptuality to describe their experience when they write about it. Presumably and not surprisingly, this results in a fair degree of confusion about what they are describing.

 

Here, I mean "rational"/"rationality" mainly in the sense that Rand has when she states:

• "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action" (VOS, pg. 25).
  • In particular, I should note that I do mean to include "Reason" within "Rationality" as Rand suggests.
    • Here, I mean "reason" mainly in the sense that Rand has when she states:
      • "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses" (VOS, pg. 25).

Edited August 8, 2013 by Questioner

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Sure, if your only learning about mysticism from Rand and your friends.

Excuse me!

That almost seems like the old accusation, that "objectivism is anti-religion," which irrational people have been so fond of for so long!

 

 I think that is pretty good working definition.  It takes into account "apersonal" type gods, and thinking of the "eternity of the moment" type stuff.

 

 

For me I was focused on BOTH this kind of reification and specifically the reification of mental contents.

Thank you.

And no, it wouldn't really apply to Plato or general intrinsicism; sorry.  I was primarily focused on finding the difference between "spiritual" forms of mysticism and all other Primacies of Consciousness.

But reification alone would do the trick for that school of thought.

 

I agree that it is more reasonable to identify "erroneous reification," generally, with "insanity," generally.

But there's one massively crucial difference between mysticism and insanity.

Insanity isn't voluntary; a lunatic isn't guilty for his own falsehoods.  A pastor or bishop, especially an intelligent one, carries every ounce of the guilt for his own evasions.

 

FIRST, this statement, taken at face value, is just nonsense.

Give Buddha my regards, when you see Him. 

[Questioner]

Excuse me!

My apologies. My comment was unfair.

 

 

A pastor or bishop, especially an intelligent one, carries every ounce of the guilt for his own evasions.

So too the Objectivist who validates their own position with straw man arguments.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

FIRST, this statement, taken at face value, is just nonsense.

 

At the very least, it should be qualified with the adverbial clause, "According to some Objectivists."

Um- no?

I'll not castrate my thoughts for the sake of some mystic who can't otherwise stomach them.

 

In general, ‘mysticism’ would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions.

• [mysticism] is also defined as:
  • ​1 belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
  • 2 belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, esp. when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

That isn't a definition; it's a list of attributes.

When you define man you say 'rational animal,' not 'speaks, walks upright, builds jet engines and sometimes goes to war'- right?  So why the Hell would you define anything else that way?

 

Accordingly, mysticism, generally, covers a much larger spectrum than just the purported, "reification of a contradiction."

Name it.

Name one belief in any sort of supernatural ANYTHING, which isn't also the reification of a contradiction, and I'll scrap the definition.

 

Thus, if we are going to talk about "Mystical Experience" (or "Unity Experience" or "Non-Dual Experience"), then we have to refer to it as such and not confuse the terms [Mystical Experience] with the much larger category of [Mysticism] which includes a great variety of things that are neither [Mystical Experiences] nor the purported, "reification of a contradiction."

Mysticism is the reification of a contradiction.

Now, if I have a vision tonight which involves electric guitars and beautiful women, that's a dream- which is a form of introspection.  If I consider my vision to be a sign from God then we could call it a Mystical Experience- but that belief would make me a mystic.

 

Your objection was worth exactly ninety seconds of my time.  Moving on. . .

 

SECOND, assuming of course that we are actually talking about "Mystical Experience" and not "Mysticism," as such, then: 

• the phrase, "reification of a contradiction," implicitly suggests that rationality and/or conceptuality is fundamentally and actively at work constructing a unitive mystical experience. From my own readings of "mainstream" mystics, I have never seen a "Mystic" indicate that rationality and/or conceptuality is fundamentally and actively at work constructing a unitive mystical experience.

If you look at a car, what do you see?  Do you see a long, sleek object with glossy paint and funny circular blurs on the bottom?

No; you see a freaking CAR.  You immediately know what it is, as soon as you look at it- because of your conceptual faculty (which is active whenever you're functionally conscious).

As for constructing this entire experience: if I saw a burning bush in the desert, I would think it was a burning bush- end of story.  It would take an incurable case of mysticism, and most likely some serious dehydration, to make God speak to me through the bush. 

 

Never underestimate that conceptual faculty you seem so eager to toss out; it allows you to interpret the entire world around you (accurately- or not).

 

 

• In my own reading experience, it is quite the opposite. They usually often suggest that the "Mystical Experience" is an awareness that is fundamentally non-rational/non-conceptual.
  • Some modern proponents of "Unitive/Non-Dual Experience" suggest the alternative — an awareness that is fundamentally trans-rational/trans-conceptual, as opposed to pre-, post-, and/or non-.

What, exactly, does a nonrational experience look like?  You've successfully defined it; please describe it for me.

 

 

"Reification," uncritically suggests that these "Mystics" — whoever they are, regard some phenomena as having the same independent, self-sufficient ontological status that Objectivists — whoever they are, give to them. This is clearly not the case — for example, Japanese Zen Buddhists. Traditionally, they do not assert that any phenomena anywhere have an independent, self-sufficient ontological status — even their Ultimate - Suchness, has no independent, self-sufficient ontological status. They also have logical arguments as to why they assert that NO phenomena anywhere have an independent, self-sufficient ontological status. Consequently, it makes no sense for them to reify anything, as that would necessarily suggest that that phenomenon, whatever it was, had some sort of independent, self-sufficient ontological status.

If I have no self-sufficient ontological status then I don't exist in my own right, correct?  So Japanese Zen Buddhists say that their God doesn't exist; in fact nothing exists? 

That's nice.  I bet they would flinch if they experienced the sight of an approaching baseball bat, whether or not it exists; funny how much time they spend worshipping nothing, isn't it?

That's a nifty little maneuver. 

But if you accept your need for food and your fear of baseball bats then you reify those physical objects, whether or not you admit it out loud.  So why shouldn't they put Buddha into the same category?  It's not as if that means anything on such terms.

 

Nonetheless and as opposed to our arm-chair mystical friends, its just a weak argument to superficially and uncritically claim that "Professional" mystics who are part of a "mystical tradition" are just generally wrong without ever actually investigating and/or demonstrating and/or providing examples of how and why the claims and arguments of those "Professional" mystics are actually wrong.  

Would you like my arguments?  Because you've just made the claim that I have none and I've never done the independent research, myself.

 

 

 

Name your religion, sir.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

So too the Objectivist who validates their own position with straw man arguments.

 

Would you like to elaborate?

[Questioner]

Um- no?

I'll not castrate my thoughts for the sake of some mystic who can't otherwise stomach them.

 

First, by "some mystic," I assume that you are referring to me — an ad hominem response? Let's both try to do better than that...seriously. Also, I never identified myself as a mystic and never would. 

 

Second, the only thing that I can't stomach is that your statement about mysticism is just simply not an accurate one. This is not because I don't like it but because it just has little bearing on what is generally understood as mysticism in the larger world - hence, my subsequent references from fairly non-controversial sources about mysticism.

 

That isn't a definition; it's a list of attributes.

When you define man you say 'rational animal,' not 'speaks, walks upright, builds jet engines and sometimes goes to war'- right?  So why the Hell would you define anything else that way?

 

Ummm...If you had paid closer attention, you would have noticed that the quotation — “In general, ‘mysticism’ would best be thought of as...,” was prefaced by me saying, “As mentioned previously.” What was it that I said previously? Let’s take a look. I said:

 

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) has an excellent ENTRY on mysticism where it echoes more precisely what the dictionary definition says. The SEP says:

 

In general, ‘mysticism’ would best be thought of as...

 

So, YOU ARE CORRECT in identifying the fact that it was not a definition. This is because it was an excerpt from an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about mysticism.

 

As for the portion that you quoted from me where I said, “[mysticism] is also defined as: ‘1 belief that... 2 belief characterized by...’” Those actually were definitions. This is because they came from a dictionary, albeit the one that came preloaded on my computer. That aside, I would happily and unhesitatingly substitute those definitions for the definitions found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online.

 

"mysticism, generally, covers a much larger spectrum than just the purported, 'reification of a contradiction.'"

Name it.

“‘Mysticism’ would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions...” 

 

I choose “text.” A text is not a reification of a contradiction, it is a text. The words in the text may attempt to reify what you identify as a contradiction, but the text itself is just a simple, ordinary phenomenon.

 

Or, let’s be a bit bolder and choose “distinctive practice.” Zen Buddhism, as well as non-religious meditators, utilize a meditation practice wherein the meditator is encouraged to count ten breaths in a row without becoming distracted. I don’t see any reification of a contradiction here. This practice simply and only includes focusing on counting ten breaths and absolutely nothing else. There is absolutely no contradiction in the doing of this practice - it is just a simple mental exercise.

 

Name one belief in any sort of supernatural ANYTHING, which isn't also the reification of a contradiction, and I'll scrap the definition.

 

I am not sure why you are insisting that something “supernatural” is necessarily part of the equation. I am also uncertain what exactly you mean by supernatural. Furthermore, I would argue that non-religious mystics exist and that thus, not every mystic is necessarily a religious practitioner or a believer in the supernatural (whatever it is that you mean by that term).

 

Mysticism is the reification of a contradiction.

Now, if I have a vision tonight which involves electric guitars and beautiful women, that's a dream- which is a form of introspection.  If I consider my vision to be a sign from God then we could call it a Mystical Experience- but that belief would make me a mystic.

 

Your objection was worth exactly ninety seconds of my time.  Moving on. . .

 

Sure, that particular example would be [mysticism] just as the dictionary indicated in that that belief is a “belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, esp. when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.”

 

But...just because you have correctly identified an example of mysticism does not mean that that proves the veracity of your claim. It just means that you found an example of mysticism. Kudos.

 

If you look at a car, what do you see?  Do you see a long, sleek object with glossy paint and funny circular blurs on the bottom?

No; you see a freaking CAR.  You immediately know what it is, as soon as you look at it- because of your conceptual faculty (which is active whenever you're functionally conscious).

As for constructing this entire experience: if I saw a burning bush in the desert, I would think it was a burning bush- end of story.  It would take an incurable case of mysticism, and most likely some serious dehydration, to make God speak to me through the bush. 

 

Never underestimate that conceptual faculty you seem so eager to toss out; it allows you to interpret the entire world around you (accurately- or not).

 

#1 I would argue that you don’t immediately know what a CAR is when you look at it? Why, you ask? 

 

Well, let me pull out my trusty conceptual faculty that I use to interpret the world around me and I will tell you.

 

It is because first, my visual sense must register sensations caused by me looking at the CAR before my faculty of rationality can retain and integrate those sensations into percepts. Only after those sensations are retained and integrated into percepts is it possible for my conceptual faculty to identify those percepts as a [CAR]. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a cause and effect relationship does not exist between sensations, percepts, and the conceptual faculty. Likewise, it would be equally ridiculous to suggest that the conceptual faculty could identify that [CAR] at the exactly the same, simultaneous moment that the visual sense registers sensations caused by me looking at the [CAR]. This would mean that the conceptual faculty that identified [CAR] could do so without having had anything - like sensations or percepts, cause it to do so in the preceding moments - it is obviously not possible for an effect to arise without a cause.

 

Consequently, through the use of my conceptual faculty, I can only conclude that you do not immediately know that a “a long, sleek object with glossy paint and funny circular blurs on the bottom” is a CAR, it just feels that way.

 

#2 I never said you should throw out the conceptual faculty. Instead, I actually said:

 

"I have never seen a 'Mystic' indicate that rationality and/or conceptuality is fundamentally and actively at work constructing a unitive mystical experience."

 

From what I understand and along the lines with what you were saying, this merely suggests that rationality and/or conceptuality is not the entirety of consciousness when you are functionally conscious.

 

Additionally, I would like to point out that non-theistic mystical experiences are one of the kinds of mystical experiences that is identified in the literature about mysticism. It is simply not the case that all mystics are theists or that they all believe in something supernatural.

 

Also, you said:

 

“your conceptual faculty...is active whenever you're functionally conscious.”

 

Like I asked StrictlyLogical:

 

What exists in the mind after one thought ends and the next one begins?

 

At the very least, if you accept that there is not some third magical thought that exists in the mind after one thought ends and the next one begins, then perhaps you will concede that the conceptual faculty is not the entirety of consciousness when you are functionally conscious. Beyond this, I will have to point to sensations to firmly indicate that the conceptual faculty is not the entirety of consciousness when you are functionally conscious.

 

What, exactly, does a nonrational experience look like?  You've successfully defined it; please describe it for me.

Well, I have never experienced it, so I don’t think that I am actually qualified to accurately describe it. If you are interested in learning about it, then I would suggest finding some good books on the topic that appeal to you and seeing what those authors say about it.

 

 

If I have no self-sufficient ontological status then I don't exist in my own right, correct?

 

According to the Buddhist position generally, that would incur the fallacy of taking the extreme of nihilism to be true.

 

 

So Japanese Zen Buddhists say that their God doesn't exist; in fact nothing exists? 

That's nice.  I bet they would flinch if they experienced the sight of an approaching baseball bat, whether or not it exists; funny how much time they spend worshipping nothing, isn't it?

That's a nifty little maneuver. 

But if you accept your need for food and your fear of baseball bats then you reify those physical objects, whether or not you admit it out loud.  So why shouldn't they put Buddha into the same category?  It's not as if that means anything on such terms.

This statement sort of proves my point that you don’t really know what your talking about.

 

Contrary to what you say:

 

• Japanese Zen Buddhists do not have a God
• Buddha is not God or a God
• Japanese Zen Buddhists are not theists

If you would actually like to learn something about Buddhism or Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy - both of which can be very interesting even if you disagree with them, I would recommend reading the entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Buddha and/or Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy or picking up a book at the library or at the bookstore.

 

Now, with regard to the baseball bat, flinching, and the implied violence...ummm...never mind.

 

In general, the comments in this section just suggest that you don’t actually understand the Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophical position.

 

Would you like my arguments?  Because you've just made the claim that I have none and I've never done the independent research, myself.

 

I’ve been waiting this whole time for you to actually lay out a coherent argument, but I think that I am coming to the end of my input for this forum topic.

 

Name your religion, sir.

 

No thank you.

 

My religion or non-religion, as the case may be, is not relevant to this discussion and I don't want to pull one out of a hat.

Also, I need a break for a while.

 

Thank you for the time you took to respond my posts - it made things very fun.

There is so much to learn and never enough time.

there is always the path of no-more-learning.. 

Edited August 9, 2013 by Questioner

[Questioner]

Would you like to elaborate?

not at this time...

[Harrison Danneskjold]

1-  I am specifically referring to a belief in the supernatural because, contrary to Rand, when I say "mystic" I think "religion" and nothing else.  I know it's used interchangeable for many other things but that isn't what I mean by it, nor what I've been trying to define on this thread.

If you like, you could change the definition I gave to: "religion is the reification of a contradiction."

 

2-  Neither a text nor a practice, in and of itself, indicates anything mystical.  You're right.  Neither does either of them indicate any sort of belief in the supernatural.

You've completely missed the point.

 

3-  You thought we needed to distinguish between "mysticism" and "mystical experiences" for the sake of clarity.  In my example about dreams, the point was that one necessitates the other.

 

And frankly, the fact that you would even consider a "mystical experience" to be something separate from the conceptual frameworks which perpetuate them, heavily suggests that you may be a mystic.

And this leads us to:

 

4-  No; you don't recognize the identity of your perceptions at the exact instant you sense them.  Good job.  It does only seem immediate and that's all I meant.

 

#2 I never said you should throw out the conceptual faculty. Instead, I actually said:

 

"I have never seen a 'Mystic' indicate that rationality and/or conceptuality is fundamentally and actively at work constructing a unitive mystical experience."

My point is that your conceptual framework is the only reason ANY of the colors and shapes you see on a daily basis have any sort of meaning.  If your ideas are screwed up then your perspective of the world will be equally screwed up.

 

Hence my burning bush example.

 

 

Additionally, I would like to point out that non-theistic mystical experiences are one of the kinds of mystical experiences that is identified in the literature about mysticism. It is simply not the case that all mystics are theists or that they all believe in something supernatural.

 

I'm sorry about the ad hominem.

 

I just don't get how my definition is gibberish, and the above isn't.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

And I do know about Buddhism; I really just don't care enough to be specific about it.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Questioner]

1-  I am specifically referring to a belief in the supernatural because, contrary to Rand, when I say "mystic" I think "religion" and nothing else.  I know it's used interchangeable for many other things but that isn't what I mean by it, nor what I've been trying to define on this thread.

If you like, you could change the definition I gave to: "religion is the reification of a contradiction."

If what you actually mean is "religion is the reification of a contradiction," then I would again be uncertain what exactly this means.

 

As an example, I would point to Japanese Zen Buddhism and ask you:

1. Is it a religion?
2. If so, what specifically is the contradiction that is reified in the religion of Japanese Zen Buddhism that you are referring too?

2-  Neither a text nor a practice, in and of itself, indicates anything mystical.  You're right.  Neither does either of them indicate any sort of belief in the supernatural.

You've completely missed the point.

What is the point?

 

3-  You thought we needed to distinguish between "mysticism" and "mystical experiences" for the sake of clarity.  In my example about dreams, the point was that one necessitates the other.

 

And frankly, the fact that you would even consider a "mystical experience" to be something separate from the conceptual frameworks which perpetuate them, heavily suggests that you may be a mystic.

I agree that whatever was the belief about the mystical experience in your example is necessarily mysticism.

 

However, whatever is mysticism is not necessarily the belief about the mystical experience in your example.

 

I suppose I just don't understand what you mean when you say, "one necessitates the other."

 

Are you saying that a definiendum and the definition of that definiendum are mutually inclusive? — I accept.

 

4-  No; you don't recognize the identity of your perceptions at the exact instant you sense them.  Good job.  It does only seem immediate and that's all I meant.

 

My point is that your conceptual framework is the only reason ANY of the colors and shapes you see on a daily basis have any sort of meaning.  If your ideas are screwed up then your perspective of the world will be equally screwed up.

 

Hence my burning bush example.

When you say, "If your ideas are screwed up then your perspective of the world will be equally screwed up," I accept that.

 

However, I would like to suggest that some mystics argue that some mystical experiences are not necessarily of a conceptual/thought/rational/reason-based experience.

 

I would like to further suggest that some mystics argue that some mystical experiences contain absolutely no thoughts/conceptuality/rationality/reason and that therefore, there is no perspective of the world to be screwed up in the first place. This is because a perspective on anything is itself a thought and therefore necessarily relies on other thoughts/conceptuality/rationality/reason to exist. Accordingly, if the cause, which is "other" thoughts/concepts/rationality/reason, does not arise, then the effect, which is a perspective on the world, does not arise.

 

Whether they are correct or not about the possibility of a non-conceptual experience, this is something you will have to investigate on your own.

 

I'm sorry about the ad hominem.

appreciated.

 

I just don't get how my definition is gibberish, and the above isn't.

This is the remark that I made to which you are referring:

 

Additionally, I would like to point out that non-theistic mystical experiences are one of the kinds of mystical experiences that is identified in the literature about mysticism. It is simply not the case that all mystics are theists or that they all believe in something supernatural.

 

With regard to non-theistic mystical experiences, the SEP entry on mysticism says:

• 2.2 Theistic and non-theistic

A favorite distinction of Western philosophers is between theistic experiences, which are purportedly of God, and non-theistic ones. Non-theistic experiences can be allegedly of an ultimate reality other than God or of no reality at all [emphasis added]. Numinous theistic experiences are dualistic, where God and the subject remain clearly distinct, while theistic mysticism pertains to some sort of union or else identity with God.

 

With regard to non-theistic mystics who do not believe in the supernatural, I would suggest Jiddu Krishnamurti.

 

Personally, I tend to think of him as both a philosopher, of a kind, and a mystic. 

 

It is probably likely that other people would not accept my assertion that he is a mystic and I am sure that even more would reject any suggestion that he is a philosopher, at least in the traditional Western sense of the word (i.e. — he never discusses ontology, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, etc. in any kind of explicit way). In fact, he himself would probably deny that he was a mystic and I am fairly certain that he would also agree that he was not a philosopher in the traditional Western sense of the word. Nonetheless, I do think of him as a non-theistic mystic, as well as a mystic who does not believe in the supernatural.

 

I think of him this way because he is a non-theistic, non-religious, person who explicitly and/or implicitly suggests, at least superficially, that "union with or absorption into the absolute...may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender," and/or that "spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender" (quotations taken from my dictionaries definition of mysticism).

 

From a deeper perspective, he might even suggest that the notions of contemplation, self-surrender, spiritual apprehension of knowledge, and union with/absorption into the absolute are all also total nonsense. Nonetheless, I contend that what he is pointing to may in fact be quite similar to what many mystics are pointing to.

 

There is a ton of information, writings, and videos on, about, and by Krishnamurti available on the internet:

1. Krishnamurti Online
2. Krishnamurti's Wikipedia Entry
3. YouTube Video with Krishnamurti & David Bohm on Thought, Non-Thought, Meditation, & Attention
4. YouTube Video: Krishnamurti & David Bohm Discussion: Is There an Action Not Touched by Thought — Part I

With regard to the essential distinction that I would like to make between your definition and what I am suggesting is that your definition necessarily entails the use and activity of thoughts and conceptuality in the mystical experience, while I am suggesting — in a very rough way, that non-thought and non-conceptuality are the essential feature of some types of the mystical experiences.

 

And I do know about Buddhism; I really just don't care enough to be specific about it.

That's fine. It just doesn't work very well when you are trying to develop a coherent argument.

 

Also, when you said:

 

"Funny how much time they spend worshipping nothing, isn't it?"

 

I would like to repeat myself and also point out that according to the Buddhist position generally, that would incur the fallacy of taking the extreme of nihilism to be true.

 

I would also like to say that while Buddhists, in some contexts, assert something called Emptiness as the Ultimate Truth, this Emptiness is not the same as the nothingness that I think you are meaning as a total lack/absence of existence in contrast to your very self-sufficient, independently real existence. Again, that type of nothingness would be a form of nihilism and they completely reject nihilism as being true.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Questioner