Definition of Mysticism

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

Hello all:

 

I’ve been thinking about mysticism for quite some time.  I am trying to develop a sort of working definition (not merely a classification) which is based on an identification of it’s causes or central properties.

 

I have identified one major cause/symptom which seem common to Platonism, Communism, Religion, etc. and it is this:

 

 

“The misidentification of mental contents with external existents, or generally a state of confusion between mental contents and external existents.”

 

 

This covers widely what errors are made by mystics.  Attributing to the universe, forms, gods, moral dangling truth written in the stars, collective will, etc. when in fact all of these are mere imaginings of a consciousness which to whatever degree are useful or useless interesting or uninteresting… etc.  The point is that these do not exist “out there” but reside “in the mind”.

 

This misidentification or confusion I think is necessary for assessing if someone is engaging in mysticism, but I do not think it is sufficient as a definition.  People who have hallucinations are simply incorrect in their judgements of reality, and are not engaging in mysticism.  In some sense if there is a “good reason” or “honest mistake” for holding the misidentification or being confused, mysticism does not adhere.  I do not think evasion MUST be part of the definition… faulty thinking of a person somehow incapable of seeing the errors does not make them any less of a mystic just because the mistake is beyond his or her capacity.  Even though a modern day philosopher who believes in the platonic forms or ascribes to the universe an existent morality written in the stars or written in our hearts… really should know better… (and here evasion is central) this does not mean they are MORE mystical than the person who is ignorant.

 

Maybe if the mysticism is beyond the capacity to detect the person is simply crazy, whereas if the person should know better there definitely is evasion so in a sense… a sane person is a mystic because they are exhibiting evasion and they are making the misidentification or are confused as above.

 

Hmm, this may be the missing second ingredient?

 

What are your opinions?  What is a good foundational (not based on classification or reference to particulars) definition of mysticism?

 

Please note I also want this definition to cover “weak mysticism” which is simply sloppy logic…asserting abstractions ACTUALLY exist now in reality… like shapes, equations, numbers, moral truth, possibilities, the future etc. but suffers the same “out there” - “in here” confusion.

 

cheers

2

This is actually a subject of interest to me, and I’m glad you posted it.  A sane person is a mystic because they are confused?  I’ll be interested in seeing some initial takes on that from the perspective of an Objectivist…

 

Are you proposing some revision of the definition of mysticism as, "… Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.” ~ ARL ??

3

This is actually a subject of interest to me, and I’m glad you posted it.  A sane person is a mystic because they are confused?  I’ll be interested in seeing some initial takes on that from the perspective of an Objectivist…

 

Are you proposing some revision of the definition of mysticism as, "… Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.” ~ ARL ??

 

A sane person is a mystic because they are confused?

 

Also the sane person is “evading” which opens them up to the confusion!!

 

As for the ARL definition of Mysticism:

I see here some aspects of Mysticism.  One is second hand or external: “acceptance of allegations” is about trusting what others say and not one’s own reason (if one has it).  The other aspect deals with “allegations” uttered by those with Mystical “thoughts” (I put it in quotes because its status as a thought is questionable).  But where does it come from in the first place?  Wouldn’t a sane animal that evolved the capacity to think NEVER create a mystical thought.  How could such a thing even be possible?

 

I am trying to get at the origin of Mysticism in the mind.  What is the human mind indulging in when the germ of a mystical “thought” is formed.  From where does it spring and what typifies it?  Essentially why in the hell did one cave man look at the sky and instead of thinking “cool looking bright dots I would like to find out what they are” ended up thinking “who is the nameless power that lives in the sky and makes all things and takes me when I die”.  No lizard ever looked up and asked this insanity…

 

I keep coming back to the idea that if humans did not confuse reality with mental contents, if humans did not have the ability to imagine and fabricate mental contents and experience them with such profound realism ( humans are quite good at imagining and visualising things such that they can almost experience things that never took place, or indeed things that are impossible), no one would never have formed any thoughts which were not as a necessity within the bounds of our actual experience in reality.

 

Imagine a Lizard with its limited understanding of the world, quite pre-conceptual but there are “constructs” of reality in a lizard’s mind which it utilizes to act in the world.  Could a lizard ever come up with a “construct” such as a pink polka dot elephant floating in another universe?  I would say no… but not just because it has no conceptual faculty, but more importantly because it has no “fabrication” faculty.  It has no ability to imagine things outside of what it deals with.  Interpolation guarantees it must remain “sane” in its “constructs” and how it deals with life on its own terms.

 

As humans we have the ability to “fabricate” conceptual mental content, we can image things.  We have the ability to predict, imagine, visualize, and indeed to extrapolate well beyond what is warranted by reality.  We also have the ability to experience memories, visualizations, imaginings in a way that “feels” like experiencing reality.  These tools I think can lead to Mysticism when humans mistake how compelling they seem (visualization, imagination, extrapolations) with how probable they should be in reality… how probable they are in fact real.  In a sense we experience an imagining or a thought so vividly we think the imagined or the thought about exists out there in reality. 

 

Our imagination is SO GOOD that we can imagine that the useful mental contents of our mind, our tools of understanding reality, our concepts and abstractions, are themselves external existents, out there independent of us!

 

 

Imagination, visualization and abstraction are NOT bad… starting to feel that “the imagined”, “the concept”, “the abstraction” are “the REAL” is disastrously erroneous… and I tend to see this as the core of Mysticism of every kind.

 

 

In a way, without diligent careful understanding of imagination and mental contents as not being out there, humans are potentially the only insane animal… the only animal capable (or incapable enough) to become a Mystic.

 

 

 

I may be hung up on an error of thought which necessarily leads to mysticism but which is not itself a definition of it…

4

SL,

 

I have written some about mysticism here at Objectivism Online. I know you don’t have time to dig into this work at this time, but I thought you might like to have the links here in this thread for future easy reference.

 

Mysticism – Kant and Rand
Reason / Intuition / Feeling

 

Concerning your ruminations so far, I’m inclined to keep reification of abstractions as an error that enters into mysticism at times, but enters in non-mystical error as well. A certain feeling of tremendous luminance and simplicity seems to be a necessary element of mysticism. Also, a sense of an external supersensible intelligent presence seems pretty common to it.

 

-S

5

SL,

 

I have written some about mysticism here at Objectivism Online. I know you don’t have time to dig into this work at this time, but I thought you might like to have the links here in this thread for future easy reference.

 

Mysticism – Kant and Rand

Reason / Intuition / Feeling

 

Concerning your ruminations so far, I’m inclined to keep reification of abstractions as an error that enters into mysticism at times, but enters in non-mystical error as well. A certain feeling of tremendous luminance and simplicity seems to be a necessary element of mysticism. Also, a sense of an external supersensible intelligent presence seems pretty common to it.

 

-S

 

Thank you for your post… I will definitely take a look at your work when I need a break from packing.

 

Pointing out the existence of “non-mystical” error caused by reification of abstractions … is probably technically correct.  I may be little sensitive to these errors… I am a former Catholic, and took a graduate degree in theoretical particle physics… and I know how the mistakes are different and yet… I would still point at my former selves with the same alarm… and point to the same error.

 

If not Mysticism proper… I wonder if the reification of abstractions is a broader, under-identified, more insidious problem leading to all kinds of nonsense…

 

SL

6

Well, I think you’re on exactly the right track.

In ITOE, Ayn Rand said:

A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept. . . When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from

other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.

So, for example, man is properly defined as a “rational animal,” not because he is completely or always rational, but because it is his rational faculty that causes the most differences between himself and other animals (such as technology and language- both of which are popular definitions of man in today’s culture, but which themselves depend on reason).

And, yes- I would have to put the defining characteristic of mysticism as “the package-dealing of existence and consciousness” [of WHO sees something and WHAT they see] because, were it not for that trait, mysticism would not be what it is.

I’m going to give it some more thought and come back again but, for the moment, I’d like to point out that a blurring of existence and consciousness into each other would negate any sort of concept of reason (since rationality requires the recognition that existence exists- independent of you), place “visions” and parables on epistemologically equal validity with science, lead one to project one’s own mind onto the universe at large- and consequently imply that one can change the universe by wishing for it.

Yeah; I think you’re onto something.

7

PS: 

This is actually a subject of interest to me, and I’m glad you posted it.  A sane person is a mystic because they are confused?  I’ll be interested in seeing some initial takes on that from the perspective of an Objectivist…

 

Are you proposing some revision of the definition of mysticism as, "… Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.” ~ ARL ??

 “A sane person is a mystic because they’re confused” is wrong; confusion is not mysticism.  But the distinction between insanity and mysticism is crucial.

 

A schitzophrenic may hallucinate on a regular basis but, whatever they experience, if they are truly after truth and reality then they’ll find it.  (coincidentally, insanity isn’t the smudging of existence/consciousness; it’s experiencing the latter as if it were the former)

 

As for the other definition, it’s accurate but I think it’s superficial; what causes such acceptance? 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25748&page=2

8

SL,

 

I have written some about mysticism here at Objectivism Online. I know you don’t have time to dig into this work at this time, but I thought you might like to have the links here in this thread for future easy reference.

 

Mysticism – Kant and Rand

Reason / Intuition / Feeling

 

Concerning your ruminations so far, I’m inclined to keep reification of abstractions as an error that enters into mysticism at times, but enters in non-mystical error as well. A certain feeling of tremendous luminance and simplicity seems to be a necessary element of mysticism. Also, a sense of an external supersensible intelligent presence seems pretty common to it.

 

-S

 

I tend to think of Platonism - in respect of the forms and the first reality - as an instance, alone and in and of itself, of pure mysticism.  As a former theoretical physics graduate student I know what it “feels” like to believe abstractions are somehow REAL, that the perfect circle “exists”, the entire Mandelbrot set, the Koch curve, are somehow things in themselves, “somewhere”.  It is as if solely by virtue of the fact I could CONCEIVE of them they WERE, and this was validated by how I FELT not by what I thought or saw in reality. 

 

This to me now IS mysticism, albeit of a very personal and abstract nature. 

 

Confusing, feeling, believing the imagined with/is the real due to a feeling for no rationale (no reasonable excuse) -> IS Mysticism (not just its cause).

9

SL said:

"I tend to think of Platonism - in respect of the forms and the first reality - as an instance, alone and in and of itself, of pure mysticism. As a former theoretical physics graduate student I know what it “feels” like to believe abstractions are somehow REAL, that the perfect circle “exists”, the entire Mandelbrot set, the Koch curve, are somehow things in themselves, “somewhere”. It is as if solely by virtue of the fact I could CONCEIVE of them they WERE, and this was validated by how I FELT not by what I thought or saw in reality.

This to me now IS mysticism, albeit of a very personal and abstract nature.

Confusing, feeling, believing the imagined with/is the real due to a feeling for no rationale (no reasonable excuse) -> IS Mysticism (not just its cause)."

This is the basic tenet of mysticism. Taking feelings as tools of cognition, as an indication of justification. As a former minister I restrospectively see this the major aspect of continuance in mystical tenets. Understanding the foundational nature of perception in justification is the other half the puzzle.

Edit:

Dr Peikoff explicated the feeling-mysticism relationship in his 1976 lectures The Philosophy Of Objectivism

10

Plasmatic:

 

 

I could not agree more.

 

 

That’s a few times now I’ve heard of the 1976 lecture series… I will have to get those someday.

11

I am just going to throw some thoughts out there. Things to think about.

 

From personal readings, I have noticed that “mysticism” is frequently used to refer to a wide array of beliefs, perspectives, and activities, etc. and that, as you suggest, these uses of “mysticism” make it seem like it is a vaguely defined term that refers to that wide spectrum of beliefs, perspectives, and activities, etc.

 

Personally, I like the dictionary definition that I have which says:

 

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.

 

Also, 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 a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions.

 

[A mystical experience refers to] a (purportedly) super sense-perceptual or sub sense-perceptual unitive experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of sense-perception, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection.

 

Both are very helpful to me.

 

Now, with regard to (what I think) you are calling the cause/symptom/error that mystics make:

 

“The misidentification of mental contents with external existents, or generally a state of confusion between mental contents and external existents.”

 

First, mystics, at least many of the ones commonly/canonically accepted as proper “Mystics,” often write in code, metaphor, paradox, etc. So, it doesn’t always make sense to literally take them at their word.

 

For example, if a mystic says something like:

  • “I am one with the table.”

This is their attempt to put into words a (purportedly) ineffable experience. I don’t think that they mean it in the literal sense that I think you might be taking it. If they meant it literally, then they would also be thinking things like: 

  • “If the table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If the table is destroyed, then I will be destroyed.”
  • “If my sensation of the table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If my perception of the table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If my experience of the table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If my mental content of the external table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If my thought/concept, [That Table], ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”

-OR-

  • “​My sensation of the table is the table and vice versa.”
  • “​My perception of the table is the table and vice versa.”
  • ​"My experience of the table is the table and vice versa."
  • “My mental content of the table is the external table and vice versa.”
  • ​"My thought/concept of [That Table] is the table and vice versa."

In my own reading experience, this is never the impression that I have gotten. Mystics are people too and go through many of the same things that regular people do, it is their perspective on those experiences that is different.

 

For me, it seems more accurate to think, at least from a certain vantage point, that they are paradoxically saying about the mystical experience something like: 

  • “Phenomena are not different from me, but phenomena are also not the same as me.”

Of course, that doesn’t make much literal sense, but I think that that is a way of trying to get at what they are trying to express. Also, of course, there are a great variety of mystic traditions and each one will naturally present their interpretation of what we are calling mysticism in slightly different ways. Nonetheless, I contend that the statement about “phenomena” still may have some base level interpretive usefulness.

 

I would also like to add that just because you can’t find a way to verify something, that doesn’t mean that no one can verify it (e.g. - heliocentrism vs. geocentrism). This is not to say that mystical experience is necessarily verifiable, especially in a more objectively popular sense, as it is fundamentally a subjective experience that is not necessarily immediately available to everyone.

 

Additionally, though you might disagree, the claims of mystical experience by mystics seems, in some ways, comparable to the claims about falling in love by people who have fallen in love. If you have never fallen in love, then you don’t know what it is like, but you probably correctly assume that actually falling in love is a real, possible experience. Furthermore, if you do experience falling in love, you might then recognize that the words that you heard about what it is like to fall in love can never fully convey what it actually, really means or feels like to fall in love; perhaps a mystical experience is something like this.

 

A few final thoughts:

  • If I have a thought about [A] and then I next, immediately have a thought about , is there a space between the two thoughts, thus allowing them to remain separate from one another?

  • If there is a space between thoughts, what  _ is _  the space between two thoughts?

  • Is it a thought about [C]?

  • Is there then a space between the thoughts [A], , and [C] and, if so, what is the space between those three thoughts?

  • Can there even be a space between two (or three) thoughts?

  • Can there even be a space between two (or three) thoughts that is not another thought?

  • If there is no space, then are those two (or three) thoughts inextricably intermingled and non-distinct from one another?

  • Is it possible for thoughts to have no space between each other and yet remain distinct?

  • What  _ is _  the space between two thoughts?

 

12

 

I am just going to throw some thoughts out there. Things to think about.

 

From personal readings, I have noticed that “mysticism” is frequently used to refer to a wide array of beliefs, perspectives, and activities, etc. and that, as you suggest, these uses of “mysticism” make it seem like it is a vaguely defined term that refers to that wide spectrum of beliefs, perspectives, and activities, etc.

 

Personally, I like the dictionary definition that I have which says:

 

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.

 

Also, 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 a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions.

 

[A mystical experience refers to] a (purportedly) super sense-perceptual or sub sense-perceptual unitive experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of sense-perception, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection.

 

Both are very helpful to me.

 

Now, with regard to (what I think) you are calling the cause/symptom/error that mystics make:

 

“The misidentification of mental contents with external existents, or generally a state of confusion between mental contents and external existents.”

 

First, mystics, at least many of the ones commonly/canonically accepted as proper “Mystics,” often write in code, metaphor, paradox, etc. So, it doesn’t always make sense to literally take them at their word.

 

For example, if a mystic says something like:

  • “I am one with the table.”

This is their attempt to put into words a (purportedly) ineffable experience. I don’t think that they mean it in the literal sense that I think you might be taking it. If they meant it literally, then they would also be thinking things like: 

  • “If the table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If the table is destroyed, then I will be destroyed.”
  • “If my sensation of the table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If my perception of the table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If my experience of the table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If my mental content of the external table ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”
  • “If my thought/concept, [That Table], ceases to exist, then I cease to exist.”

-OR-

  • “​My sensation of the table is the table and vice versa.”
  • “​My perception of the table is the table and vice versa.”
  • ​"My experience of the table is the table and vice versa."
  • “My mental content of the table is the external table and vice versa.”
  • ​"My thought/concept of [That Table] is the table and vice versa."

In my own reading experience, this is never the impression that I have gotten. Mystics are people too and go through many of the same things that regular people do, it is their perspective on those experiences that is different.

 

For me, it seems more accurate to think, at least from a certain vantage point, that they are paradoxically saying about the mystical experience something like: 

  • “Phenomena are not different from me, but phenomena are also not the same as me.”

Of course, that doesn’t make much literal sense, but I think that that is a way of trying to get at what they are trying to express. Also, of course, there are a great variety of mystic traditions and each one will naturally present their interpretation of what we are calling mysticism in slightly different ways. Nonetheless, I contend that the statement about “phenomena” still may have some base level interpretive usefulness.

 

I would also like to add that just because you can’t find a way to verify something, that doesn’t mean that no one can verify it (e.g. - heliocentrism vs. geocentrism). This is not to say that mystical experience is necessarily verifiable, especially in a more objectively popular sense, as it is fundamentally a subjective experience that is not necessarily immediately available to everyone.

 

Additionally, though you might disagree, the claims of mystical experience by mystics seems, in some ways, comparable to the claims about falling in love by people who have fallen in love. If you have never fallen in love, then you don’t know what it is like, but you probably correctly assume that actually falling in love is a real, possible experience. Furthermore, if you do experience falling in love, you might then recognize that the words that you heard about what it is like to fall in love can never fully convey what it actually, really means or feels like to fall in love; perhaps a mystical experience is something like this.

 

A few final thoughts:

  • If I have a thought about [A] and then I next, immediately have a thought about , is there a space between the two thoughts, thus allowing them to remain separate from one another?

  • If there is a space between thoughts, what  _ is _  the space between two thoughts?

  • Is it a thought about [C]?

  • Is there then a space between the thoughts [A], , and [C] and, if so, what is the space between those three thoughts?

  • Can there even be a space between two (or three) thoughts?

  • Can there even be a space between two (or three) thoughts that is not another thought?

  • If there is no space, then are those two (or three) thoughts inextricably intermingled and non-distinct from one another?

  • Is it possible for thoughts to have no space between each other and yet remain distinct?

  • What  _ is _  the space between two thoughts?

 

 

 

“Experiencing a table” is to be distinguished from “Experiencing my imaginings or my thoughts in connection with the table”

 

The object of the experience in the former is an actual existent (the table), whereas the object of the experience in the latter is mental contents, albeit mental contents which were caused by a chain of causation by the actual existent (the table).

 

When a person says “I am one with the table”, they are indulging in an imagination, what of? Of a connection with a table which does not exist.  An experience which feels like a “direct” (as through revelation perhaps) access or knowledge of the thing’s being… I don’t know exactly the “experience” but the confusion is in the person’s not recognizing that the table is not the object of this relationship… the table can only be perceived… it is the wild hallucinations, imaginings, emotions, etc. that the person is experiencing. 

 

(As a complete aside, “oneness with a table” may not be something one can properly imagine the way one can imagine falling down or eating a burger because oneness with a table is impossible.  What IS it like to BE ONE with a table?  Such a question is meaningless. )

 

All of these things: imagination, emotion, experience, are wonderful but being confused about their origins (the table versus the mind) is the problem.

 

So, someone who says, or thinks “I can (think I can?) imagine what it would be like to be one with a table.” or “I can put myself into a mental state I will equate with what it is like to be one with a table” is not making an error as long as they recognize the relationship with the table is NOT oneness.  Flying may make you feel like you are “infinite”.  Believe me when I say you have NOT experienced “THE infinite”, THAT does not exist.

 

In conclusion: a mystic IS having an experience is feeling something, it can be called “mystical” (based on various definitions) but WHAT is being experienced is primarily mental contents, or a feeling, NOT the universe.

 

 

You asked:

 

If there is X, what IS X.

 

X is undefined, so I cannot speculate, if there is X what it is.  X could be nothing or meaningless.

 

Space and thought are not in the same “realm”.  If you could explain what you mean in another way, perhaps I could try to answer you.

 

If you mean time, I think it is possible for time to pass between thoughts.  I am no neurologist but I do not know that thoughts themselves are something that can be measured as having discrete sharp discontinuities between them or even if they are things that can be strictly enumerated.  Thinking, mental activity or mental content is probably less problematic when discussing the phenomenological activity of the brain.

13

You asked:

 

If there is X, what IS X.

 

X is undefined, so I cannot speculate, if there is X what it is.  X could be nothing or meaningless.

 

Space and thought are not in the same “realm”.  If you could explain what you mean in another way, perhaps I could try to answer you.

 

If you mean time, I think it is possible for time to pass between thoughts.  I am no neurologist but I do not know that thoughts themselves are something that can be measured as having discrete sharp discontinuities between them or even if they are things that can be strictly enumerated.  Thinking, mental activity or mental content is probably less problematic when discussing the phenomenological activity of the brain.

 

I disagree when you say, “I do not know that thoughts themselves are something that can be measured as having discrete sharp discontinuities between them.” [A] is [A] is it not. [P] is not [Q] is it not — [thought P]/[concept P]/[unit P]/[percept P]/[sensation P] is necessarily not  [thought Q/[concept Q]/[unit Q]/[percept Q]/[sensation Q]. If there are no discrete sharp discontinuities between thoughts, then how is it possible to even be reasonable — thoughts in the mind would be like mud in a muddy puddle…muddy, constantly pervading each other, and unable to be discriminated.

 

Let’s put that aside for the moment and assume that the thought of [that cup] immediately follows the thought of [that tree]. 

  • Does anything exist in the mind after the thought [that tree] stops and before the thought [that cup] begins?
  • Is it another thought, a discriminated perception, a discriminated sensation?
  • What exists in the mind after any one of those starts and another begins?
  • What exists between any one of them?
  • If nothing exists between any one of them, what is that nothingness?

 

 

“Experiencing a table” is to be distinguished from “Experiencing my imaginings or my thoughts in connection with the table”

 

The object of the experience in the former is an actual existent (the table), whereas the object of the experience in the latter is mental contents, albeit mental contents which were caused by a chain of causation by the actual existent (the table).

 

When a person says “I am one with the table”, they are indulging in an imagination, what of? Of a connection with a table which does not exist.  An experience which feels like a “direct” (as through revelation perhaps) access or knowledge of the thing’s being… I don’t know exactly the “experience” but the confusion is in the person’s not recognizing that the table is not the object of this relationship… the table can only be perceived… it is the wild hallucinations, imaginings, emotions, etc. that the person is experiencing. 

 

(As a complete aside, “oneness with a table” may not be something one can properly imagine the way one can imagine falling down or eating a burger because oneness with a table is impossible.  What IS it like to BE ONE with a table?  Such a question is meaningless. )

 

All of these things: imagination, emotion, experience, are wonderful but being confused about their origins (the table versus the mind) is the problem.

 

So, someone who says, or thinks “I can (think I can?) imagine what it would be like to be one with a table.” or “I can put myself into a mental state I will equate with what it is like to be one with a table” is not making an error as long as they recognize the relationship with the table is NOT oneness.  Flying may make you feel like you are “infinite”.  Believe me when I say you have NOT experienced “THE infinite”, THAT does not exist.

 

In conclusion: a mystic IS having an experience is feeling something, it can be called “mystical” (based on various definitions) but WHAT is being experienced is primarily mental contents, or a feeling, NOT the universe.

 

Although we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement about “actual existents,” which I refuse to get into, what you are saying comes close to my point, at least from a certain vantage point.

 

My point is that most of the “mainstream” mystics that I have read write about an ineffable experience in poetic, metaphorical language. You can’t contain with language an experience that fundamentally can’t be contained with language.

 

In other words, it makes no sense to read poetic, metaphorical language about an ineffable experience in a literal way!

 

If I write (some horrible poetry and say):

 

The love of my wife

Is the sun.

It lights my life.

 

It seems pretty obvious that her love is not actually, literally The Sun. If I really thought that it was, I would be totally crazy.

 

Another thought:

  • Is it even possible to have an actual experience of something that is not your own experience?
  • Isn’t your experience of the table just your experience of your experience of something that you call “table”?

 

If you are actually interested in mysticism, I would also recommend reading the Tao Te Ching — its a beautiful text and it might give you more of a feel for “Mysticism.”

14

Also, even though I did it as well, its a little unfair to lump all “Mystics” into one pot. “Mysticism” includes a pretty wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. It is after all, “a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions.”

 

I do think that there appear to be a lot of similarities in some areas, especially in terms of “unity experiences,” which is what I think we are mainly talking about here.

 

Nonetheless, its not really fair to say, “This mystic said and they literally mean what they said about . Therefore, the way that that mystic thinks is exactly the same way that all other mystics think.” It should be patently obvious that this is not the case.

15

One more thing,

 

If you are interested in discussing the validity of “unity experiences,” then I suggest reading about unity experiences and/or non-dual experiences (e.g. — SEP non-dual search & SEP entry on Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy).

16

One more thing,

 

If you are interested in discussing the validity of “unity experiences,” then I suggest reading about unity experiences and/or non-dual experiences (e.g. — SEP non-dual search & SEP entry on Japanese Zen Buddhist Philosophy).

 

I have never said anything about the “validity” of a subjective experience, emotional, mystical, wondrous, macabre or otherwise.  Subjective experiences occur.  I merely point out that it is incorrect to identify a subjective experience of ones own imagination with the objective experience of reality.  These are very separate things, the confusion of which LEADS to things like religion, superstition, Platonism and the like.

 

 

As for what the mind is doing between what could possibly be defined as separate thoughts, I do not know.  This is a question of objective fact which may be answerable by neurologists, if not presently perhaps at some point in the future.  Mental passivity may be involved but it may have some “noise floor” of minimal chaotic behaviour.  Perhaps cyclic feedback currents, signals or whatnot… maybe subconscious musings… what does the mass of grey matter do when it is between thoughts?  I have not the slightest clue… and this is unanswerable through introspection since the act of determining requires thinking, determining (introspectively) what is happening when you aren’t thinking is simply impossible. 

 

 

I find it inexplicable you “disagree” with my not knowing the detailed nature of the phenomena of “thoughts”.  I find it presumptuous of you to claim to know that I know what I actually do not know.  I daresay many years of research and millions of dollars are likely being “wasted” right now on niceties of human cognition and brain function, “wasted” since you already have that knowledge.  Others do not have your “insight”… I include myself among the “ignorant”. 

17

I’ve been discussing the Primacy of Existence lately, with several mystic friends of mine, and I’ve noticed something interesting.

At some point throughout the conversation they will, invariably, raise an objection along the lines of:

“But what about [this supernatural phenomenon] or [that supernatural phenomenon]?  Don’t you think there’s more to reality than we know about?”

 

To which I have answered, each and every time, that IF said supernatural phenomenon is ever proven to exist, THEN it is part of reality which is bound by the same laws as everything else.

For instance:

 

Imagine, for a moment, what it would mean if prescience was possible and some people, somewhere in the world, actually knew the future in advance.

First of all, this would be measurable; one could record their predictions and later compare them to reality.  This is theoretically being done presently, but in my opinion, there has yet to be a single test of “psi-phenomena” which holds it to a realistic standard.

If anyone in the world could see the future in advance, I would expect them to consistently predict winning lottery numbers with at least 75% accuracy, et cetera.

Second of all, there would be causes for this; perhaps some quirk of quantum mechanics or our understanding of time would be involved.  I’m pressed to think of a single plausible explanation but, IF prescience were real, THEN there would be a perfectly good reason for it.

Thirdly, it would be alterable.  If we understood its causes then we could stifle or enhance it, or even rearrange its underlying mechanisms into something completely different.

 

I could go on but I think the principle is clear enough: everything in the universe has a specific and finite identity.

This is actually what I thought when I was Christian; I spent an incalculable amount of time trying to reconcile God with the known laws of physics and, well, you can see where that process ultimately leads.

 

But, surprisingly, this simplest little thing (which I originally thought to be the most tactful response I could give them without outright dishonesty) is the thing they have rejected with more vitriol than anything else I mentioned.  Which brings me to this fascinating correlation:

Whatever they consider to be Supernatural (be it God, ghosts, psychics or the Earth-Mother) they also consider to be unmeasurable, undefinable and incomprehensible.

 

Mysticism is a blurring of consciousness and existence.  However, this definition is insufficient; many other things also smear the two together.

But there is a distinguishing characteristic which separates religious mysticism from the rest of the Primacy of Consciousness: it blurs consciousness into existence and then deliberately removes logic from the entire thing.

 

I think it actually would be ideally defined as the reification of a contradiction.

Once you convince yourself that a contradiction exists out there, in reality (which requires the Primacy of Consciousness, in the first place), every other attribute of mysticism will logically follow.

18

Mysticism is the reification of a contradiction.

1 Like
19

I have never said anything about the “validity” of a subjective experience, emotional, mystical, wondrous, macabre or otherwise.  Subjective experiences occur.  I merely point out that it is incorrect to identify a subjective experience of ones own imagination with the objective experience of reality. 

 

 

 

 

 

If you say so and I get your point, but…

  • We should note that [Validity] is the noun form of the adjective [VALID].

    • [VALID] is variously defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as:

      • 2.a — well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>
      • 2.b — logically correct <a valid argument><valid inference>
      • 3 — appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>

    • [VALID] as defined in the dictionary on my computer:

      • actually supporting the intended point or claim; acceptable as cogent

Based on these definitions, I would very much say that you did in fact comment on the validity of subjective mystical experiences in that you indicated that it is “incorrect to identify a subjective experience of ones own imagination with the objective experience of reality.”

 

By saying “incorrect,” I am of course presuming - forgive me, that you also mean at least one of these: NOT well-grounded, NOT justifiable, NOT relevant and meaningful, NOT logically correct, NOT appropriate to the end in view, NOT effective, NOT actually supporting the intended point or claim, and NOT acceptable as cogent. 

 

Also, i presume that if a person “[identifies] a subjective experience of [their] own imagination with the objective experience of reality,” then that act of identifying a subjective experience is itself a subjective experience for that person.

 

Again, I would very much say that you did in fact comment on the validity of subjective mystical experiences.

 

On the other hand, you also said…

 

I have identified one major cause/symptom which seem common to Platonism, Communism, Religion, etc. and it is this:

 

“The misidentification of mental contents with external existents, or generally a state of confusion between mental contents and external existents.”

 

This covers widely what errors are made by mystics.

 

  • So, you’re saying, “[There is a cause/symptom which is] the misidentification of mental contents with external existents, or generally a state of confusion between mental contents and external existents…This covers widely what errors are made by mystics.”

    • Thus, as far as I can tell, you are saying, in part, that mystics misidentify their own mental contents with external existents and that this is an error.
      • When a mystic misidentifies their own mental contents, is this not a subjective experience for the mystic?
      • If not, are you suggesting that it is an objective experience for a mystic when they misidentify their own mental contents?

  • Thus, when you said that you never said anything about the validity of a subjective mystical experience, including the time when you indicated that a mystic who misidentifies their own mental contents is in error — it must be because a mystic who misidentifies their own mental contents and is in error is having an objective experience of their own mental contents and not a subjective one…

  • …Right?

Anyway, enough fun.

 

 

As for what the mind is doing between what could possibly be defined as separate thoughts, I do not know.  This is a question of objective fact which may be answerable by neurologists, if not presently perhaps at some point in the future.  Mental passivity may be involved but it may have some “noise floor” of minimal chaotic behaviour.  Perhaps cyclic feedback currents, signals or whatnot… maybe subconscious musings… what does the mass of grey matter do when it is between thoughts?  I have not the slightest clue… and this is unanswerable through introspection since the act of determining requires thinking, determining (introspectively) what is happening when you aren’t thinking is simply impossible. 

 

I would argue that you can observe your thoughts and perhaps even what exists in the mind before and after thoughts. The faculty in your mind that observes is not itself a thought. It is the observer of thoughts and discriminations, it has thoughts and discriminations, but it is none of them. If the faculty in your mind that observes can observe one thought, then it can observe a second thought.

 

 

I find it inexplicable you “disagree” with my not knowing the detailed nature of the phenomena of “thoughts”.  I find it presumptuous of you to claim to know that I know what I actually do not know.  I daresay many years of research and millions of dollars are likely being “wasted” right now on niceties of human cognition and brain function, “wasted” since you already have that knowledge.  Others do not have your “insight”… I include myself among the “ignorant”. 

 

 

This completely misses the point I was making when I disagreed with you. I don’t claim to know that you know what you don’t know or that I have some special “insight.” I am however claiming, merely on the basis of the fact that you are able to correctly formulate a sentence, that you are in fact able to distinguish one thought from another because of the discrete sharp discontinuities between them. Otherwise, you would just be posting a bunch of gibberish that no one, perhaps other than yourself, could read. 

 

Also, there is nothing particularly detailed about observing thoughts, or even a group of thoughts that are present to your awareness. You just observe them…there is one…there is another…no problem. Or, just listen to the sounds in your room…there is one…there is another…no problem. What exists between the sounds? What exists between what exists between the sounds?

 

The thought of [this cup] and the thought of [that tree] are two distinct, discrete thoughts are they not? One thought does not pervade the other thought in any way whatsoever does it? The thought of [P] is not the thought of [Q]…right?

20

Mysticism is the reification of a contradiction.

 

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