Hi friends:
Thanx for the responses so far. For what it's worth, or to see where I'm
coming from, David T's quoted definition best fit my 'preconceived'
understanding of the subject of mysticism. I point here to the vessel by
which I aim at gaining a fuller knowledge of this and other subjects. This
vessel, 'raft', is none other but Dynamic integration and sharing of similar
intellectual value patterns relating to the MOQ through the miracle of the
internet.
I'm convinced that the gulf between different interpretations of the subject
is not too large to be bridged. One can only adhere to those notions which
value you. And, never knowing where the next 'truth' might issue from, it is
probably wise to withhold from drawing strict boundaries around one's
freedom to explore new alleys.
One point that I think might be valuably addressed is the very different
"vocabularies" used by mystics in different places, in different times, with
different social and intellectual patterns at hand, or in the outlying
culture. Pirsig mentions Meister Eckhart as one of his favorite mystics.
What I've read of Eckhart, I've liked. Now, if the Upanishads of India may
be considered mystic literature, at least in part, a contrast and comparison
between western and eastern practices, or 'expressions' of that
'unexpressable' experience yields much fruit for thought, "gumption for
dhyana". Because, regardless of the actual (transcendental) experience/s of
the mystic (once, continuing, scattered...), the literature by which we come
to hear of said eternal linkings has most often quite different ends,
nonetheless means. I read some of a book by a quite peppery, polemical
R.C.Zaehner, called "Concordant Discord". As the title suggests, it deals
with the (according to Zaehner), very different and unrelated experiences
which are so commonly vulgarly grouped under the title of "mysticism". It
was recommended to me by my religious studies professor in his reply to an
essay I wrote. It concerned the possible unification of what I
consider(ed)(?) to be essentially similar, nay - metaphysically identical -
wisdom teachings of all cultures known to me. As you may guess, I centered
my presentation on the static/Dynamic split of One, Eternal,
Undifferentiated Aesthetic Continuum - "Quality" (=morality). Anyways, now
that I am done my exams (wrote my last one today!!!-philosophy), I am able
to turn my attention to a greater degree to this subject of mysticism I have
for so long been grappling with. The strings of posts here coincide quite
perfectly (value me), and so this is why I asked for "clear, concise"
definitions of mysticism. This, with an eye to "starting at the start", and
receiving intellectual input on the nature of this mysterious phenomena
(nouomena?) Most definitely and absolutely NOT as a sarcastic jab at any
one. (though perhaps that may not have been too far out of line)
A continuing thorn here is the relation of people's different views on the
subject. Rather than infantile and counter-productive rhetorical whining
about one's own credentials, and the obsession with bringing to such
forwarding light other's perceived "lack" of said knowledge, it seems that
progress might best be achieved in an atmosphere whereby it is understood
that we all are imperfect, and have more or less quality in differing
aspects. If this waste of electricity:
"They do not forward mysticism, but a half-baked, woolly, semi- mystical,
westernised, pseudo-intellectual bastardisation of a proud and worthy series
of traditions. And it stinks."
-is deemed productive or tending towards a rational, positive, unified
agreement on metaphysical matters (which I assume we all value), then a
platypus just jumped over a blue moon. It seems to me that one aspect of
mysticism is missed, that of love. Is intuition always right? or good?
Relax, man. Roll a doobie and ask:
"if (such and such a person) currently holds what I consider to be false,
irrational, offbase, repugnant opinions/ideas on a certain matter of human
understanding, is it best for me to:
a) be an asshole and roll up my sleeves with the intent of imposing
my personal belief (the 'truth') on the other party, regardless
of their whole view/platform/value-patterns, which I refuse to
take the time to answer sympathetically, and instead insist on
blowing a demeaning, argumentative conclusion in their ears?
b) look first in another's post, ideas, patterns of intellectual
value, for those Qualities which match or come close to mine,
and, using these as a base for constructive criticism (means for
the ends of good knowledge, brotherly love), attempt to engage
the other's mind along a path of thought which I believe he/she
will ultimately discover to be valuable, with proper time and
study taken
Anyways, Struan wrote:
>Rich (ignoring the sarcasm): Mysticism is best described using the
>Wittgensteinian notion of family
>resemblances rather than a discrete definition. As such we can say that it
>is characterised by:
>1) A belief in a world of reality different to that which manifests itself
>to the natural senses.
>2) A belief in the unity of all things.
>3) A denial of the reality of time.
>4) A denial of the reality of evil
>5) A belief in the value of intuition over reason.
>A mystic is one who subscribes to the above and a mystical practice is one
>which attempts to promote
>any of the above.
Right. This is valuable, you see? The more input, the more Dynamic potential
for a Good, allaround understanding - I now have one more printed concept of
mysticism, (this is sincere) - and from a professor of philosophy, no less.
(sarcasm intended here).
Wittgenstein? (Logical Positivist - early) To explain mysticism? Nope.
Bertrand Russell and friends may think their poo doesn't smell, but I don't
buy it.
Metaphysics is FUN. Degenerate? YES - from a mystical point of view. But -
unless you profess yourself to be a mystic - obviously our only recourse to
explanation of the profound mysteries of transcendental/spiritual
unification is bound to reason. And we all know that reason proceeds
creatively by intuition. (Ah - ha! And then reasoned explanation of light
bulb)
But Listen:
"ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a form of degeneracy
itself" - P
Struan wrote:
"The mystic will not try to establish a position using logic because, as I
wrote before, an argument cannot be modally stronger than its modally
weakest point. No amount of bluster by Kevin or David
will change that simple fact."
First - I don't know in what sense you use the term 'modal', and what its
intended effect is.
Second - Neither Kevin nor David, to my knowledge (intuition) proclaims
himself a mystic. They, I, and other mere armchair mortals are for the time
being confined to logical and reasoned analysis and exposition in the
clarification of our ideas, creative or stale.
Third - Do mystics think in terms of 'modally strong/weak arguments'?
Fourth - The state of education in ALL countries should be of concern to all
other countries. You ought to reread Pirsig's views on European and American
cultural value differences, as your British Calligraphic Wordsmanshipness
clearly exemplifies in contrast to those utterly vulgar Yankee
Pencil-Scratches. (Canadian humourly jest at both degenerate forms of the
English language - facetiousness and sarcasm both intended.)
So - "won't you be my neighbo(u)r" - Mr.Rogers
hehheh
rich
where's finnigan?
at the wake.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
