I maintain that any ambiguity is in our interpretation, not in the structure, of the TTC. The mystery, in my mind, is the difference. Because they are NOT the same, and yet we have no way of distinguishing between them, because we cannot BE the unity, nor describe it, we can only qualitatively experience or relate to it as an embodiment of Te. — Possibility

I can't tell if we're disagreeing or not. I don't think I understand the difference between interpretation and the structure of the TTC.

My understanding of this doesn’t come from the TTC, but from the rest of my philosophical journey - trying to make sense of a ToE. — Possibility

Is "ToE" theory of everything? For me, the TTC is a theory of everything. You know, the Tao and all. The everything that can be named is not the eternal everything. Please stop me.

I guess the way I see it, at some point thinking and waiting in hope just isn’t enough. We’re capable of more than that. We can look beyond the metaphorical language and piece together the rational structure on which our qualitative experience hangs. Either that, or stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind. — Possibility

Thinking and waiting in hope - bad. Stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind - good.

For me, playing with the metaphorical language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. — Possibility

I think any use of language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. Or maybe I don't think that.

It can be a barrier, sure. But I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself. — Possibility

Let's try this out - there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. I don't know if I believe that or not.

Rationality is what the TTC is, in itself, prior to any relation to it. Isolated, it is nothing. Only when we embody its structure can we relate to the Tao. — Possibility

I don't see this. The TTC is not rational or irrational. It's non-rational. There is no structure. The structure that can be structured is not the eternal structure. Sorry.

But it does tempt us to exclude affect and focus on the 10,000 things in isolation — Possibility

But affect is one of the 10,000 things.

Interesting. We have essentially the exact same "hard problem". I frame it in terms of "things in themselves", but it's the same problem, in essence. — Manuel

If you mean what I think you mean when you say "things in themselves," I think we are talking about different issues. To me, the nature of "things in themselves" is dependent on the structure of our minds. I am involved in two discussions right now, one on Taoism and one on mysticism, which try to address "things in themselves." Taoism and other forms of mysticism are fundamentally human and don't get us beyond the limits I am talking about.

I think I've gone off on a tangent from the subject of the opening post.

The need to exclaim virtues is neither an effort to replace the natural with conventional virtues nor a conflict within families made necessary by dire circumstances. — Valentinus

This is not how I see it. There is a natural, sincere, spontaneous way of behaving in accordance with our inner natures, wu wei. When we lose that capacity because of fear, socialization, whatever; conventional behavior - benevolence, etiquette - replaces it. That's a bad thing.

The loss came from not being able to talk about it as a loss when it was happening. That idea had not been minted yet. — Valentinus

I don't understand.

I tend to agree very much with that view. — Manuel

It seemed to me that McFadden's article and your explication were both based on the idea that we need some sort of special explanation for consciousness. That, for me, is just another way of describing the "hard problem." Maybe I misunderstood.

You don't have a personal "hard problem" in philosophy, meaning a question that is particularly difficult that you'd like to understand? — Manuel

I believe that reality is a function of an external universe of some sort processed through our particular human bodies and minds. If that's true, is it possible for us to know, understand, perceive anything outside those limits?

I think the question of whether one person perceives red the same way another one does exposes a vast, monstrous, unfathomable oversimplification of how experience works. But, I'm not interested in discussing that. I have a couple of questions.

If I did magnetic resonance or positron emission testing of brain function and found that my brain reacts similarly when I see something I call "red" as yours does when you do, would that answer the question? What if the testing showed significantly different brain response?

I think that the mystical experience can often be understood within such a framework. — Jack Cummins

I think you and I are on the same page.

I can give you a reference that a poster at this forum pointed me towards, written by a very well-respected science author, Johnjoe McFadden: — Enrique

I found the article very unconvincing, but it is at least a source to back up your ideas and give them some credibility. I must admit, it don't get the whole "hard problem of consciousness" thing. For me, consciousness appears to be an emergent phenomena that arises through the interaction of physical and biological processes in the same way that life arises from chemistry. What's the big deal?

I keep getting so far behind. Did you notice I responded to one of your posts twice?

The way I see it, te is the self-conscious process by which our relation to the Tao produces action/wu-wei/moral behaviour; — Possibility

Is te self-conscious? I haven't figured that out for myself. I am certainly aware of an experience I interpret as wu wei arising from within me. I've described that before - I feel a well of wordless intention bubbling up within me from beneath the conscious surface.

interpreting the TTC as a moral code of behaviour, instead of as a relational structure for experiencing the Tao. — Possibility

If you are implying I interpret the TTC as a moral code, that's not true. It's one of the ambiguities of the TTC. The moral code that can be spoken is not the eternal moral code. Lao Tzu says "Hey, you guys, there is no good or bad, but you know, etiquette sucks."

I think the idea is that when we embody Te, we can directly experience the Tao. — Possibility

As I've noted, I'm still working on this.

I try not to give myself permission to articulate judgements, or to interpret the TTC for others in this way...I think you’re putting judgements in Lao Tzu’s mouth by interpreting the TTC in this way. — Possibility

I am not interpreting the TTC for others and we're all putting judgements in Lao Tzu's mouth. When you come down to it, we're discussing a book that starts out "This book is about something that can't be talked about," and then proceeds to talk about it for 81 verses. We're all allowed some leeway.

Also, I do believe that people who have accessed higher states of consciousness, such as many described by Bucke, which Wayfarer referred to, did not stop at the mystical. The mystical experience is often a source for bringing some kind of healing vision to share with others. — Jack Cummins

Maybe you've mentioned this before - do you follow any meditative practice? It seems like it might be a fruitful direction for you.

Excerpt from an anonymous, first-person account provided to Richard Bucke and published in his 1901 book, Cosmic Consciousness. — Wayfarer

But I have a hard time believing that even this minority has never felt, at least one time, a feeling that this moment here is extraordinary. One aspect of mysticism would be those situations which can be put in words (inadequately) and made manifest, such as being in nature and suddenly feeling how sublime and impactful the world around may be. — Manuel

Others, including @Jack Cummins, have noted that, in my search for the meaning of "mysticism" I left something out. I talked about non-rational ways of knowing and about the occult, but I left out discussion of higher states of consciousness. That oversight is probably an expression of bias on my part. I've always thought of those higher states as an expression of a non-rational, intuitive, spontaneous way of knowing and acting like what Lao Tzu describes in the Tao Te Ching. I think that is probably true, but I should have put it on the table with the other possibilities. I did read and enjoy several books by Carlos Castaneda in my youth, although I never saw the experiences described as relevant to my life.

In exactly what way consciousness emerged via evolution is a mystery, but we can be fairly certain about what had to obtain in order for it to be possible. — Enrique

I think the mechanisms for consciousness presented in this post are highly unlikely. To tell the truth, I don't understand what the descriptions mean. I doubt that quantum mechanics has anything special to do with consciousness beyond it's influence on all small scale phenomena. If you are going to provide novel theories of mental phenomena, you should provide references that support your beliefs.

I would say that this IS what the text is referring to. Even if your immediate family are in conflict, then you are still required to uphold filial pity - seen not as a choice in Chinese culture but an obligation between parent and child, the most basic and important tenet of society, at one point punishable by beheading. — Possibility

I think it's the other way around - when the natural relationships among family members break down, then you get filial piety. Filial piety is seen as inferior to natural relations.

Confucius refers to both filial piety and loyal ministers as the same basic foundation of society. When the nation or society is in entire disarray, these basic virtues must still exist. — Possibility

Again, I think it's the other way around. When natural relationships are in disarray, inferior, conventional relations fill their place.

I am interested in that kind of discussion but it just doesn't seem to be what T Clark is wishing to have. — Jack Cummins

T Clark opened this up with a specific alignment to being on board with scientific models as part of the good thing. — Valentinus

I also think that T Clark has arrived at a conclusion, so further exploration of the initial debate is probably more for the open discussion between others. — Jack Cummins

In the OP I tried to make it clear that this would be an open-ended discussion about mysticism. I had my own agenda, which worked out better than I expected. Please go ahead and use the thread as you see fit.

It may be that some aspects of certain experiences are beyond speech. However, I think that there is a danger of even taking Lao Tzu too literally, and Taoism is only one perspective. Please don't think I am wishing to undervalue the wisdom of Lao Tzu, or your view. It may be that at some stage in my life I have some experience which will lead me to agree with you. — Jack Cummins

My natural intellectual instinct is to simplify, boil down, condense. That can lead me to toss out some of the subtleties and nuances. But I do recognize that being too literal can be misleading.

No wonder people often speak of the ineffable. Perhaps the people who choose not to describe it know intuitively that they would get tangled up in knots trying to put it all into words and concepts. — Jack Cummins

People don't choose not to talk about the ineffable. The ineffable cannot be talked about. As Lao Tzu says - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. If you talk about it, it's not ineffable, it's something else. Something effable.

What you are describing reminds me of Susan Haack's "Innocent Realism", it's very interesting. — Manuel

I'll take a look. Thanks.

I don't think there is a simple way to separate the philosophical from the religious when dealing with texts that would venture to address reality as itself. — Valentinus

I draw the line between what is real and what is not at magic, the occult, the supernatural. That isn't exactly the same as the line between philosophy and religion, but it's pretty close. I understand that now I have to define "supernatural." Yes, I know what Arthur C. Clark wrote - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” But leprechauns are not advanced technologists, they're magical creatures. I'm going to leave it there. I'd rather not get involved in a deep discussion of what "magic," "occult," or "supernatural" mean.

The realm of humans and their religion is set side by side with the Physical. The only place they touch is where the function of instincts in the Animal Kingdom enters a new dynamic that allows them to change in ways they didn't before. That moment is the one most in need of explanation. — Valentinus

I know I'm repeating myself - there is only one world. One realm. Any distinctions like physical, religious, spiritual, mental, etc. are human overlays. When you say "that moment" do you mean the moment when humans became self-aware? I don't see that as discontinuous with the rest of human evolution. Nothing special. Our self-awareness is not supernatural. I don't know if that's what you were saying.

If all our interpretations are just reflections of what we think by ourselves, the sense of sharing a text will be lost. — Valentinus

I haven't given up on the practice of making interpretations and sharing our understanding. I'm just giving up on that one word.

On the other hand, when it comes to trying to articulate what is mystical, it might be correct that Lao-Tzu and Wittgenstein and many others have in mind the same thing, because so little is known in this area, or at least that's how it looks like to me. — Manuel

I always fall back on my favorite platitude - There is only one world. We're all describing the same thing. Your question seems like the silly old "do I really see red the way you do" argument.

I do not find that 'meat and potatoes' philosophy makes much sense to me. — Jack Cummins

Everyone has a different way of seeing the world. That's why there are so many voices here on the forum.

I-Thou. — 180 Proof

Yes. Thanks.

One of the most important statements about mysticism in the Western hemisphere is the book called The Cloud of Unknowing. — Anand-Haqq

It's available at my library. I'll take a look. Thanks.

First he calls it a cloud. A cloud is vague, with no definable limits. It is constantly changing; it is not static – never, even for two consecutive moments, is it the same. It is a flux, it is pure change. And there is nothing substantial in it. If you hold it in your hand just mist will be left, nothing else. Maybe your hands will become wet, but you will not find any cloud in your fist. — Anand-Haqq

There is an image I use when I am contemplating the world, reality, the Tao. It's a cloud, lit from within. It contains everything - dogs, cats, electrons, love, potato chips - but they are all one, amorphous thing. I can focus in on one part of the cloud and deal with individual ideas, or I can see it all at once, undifferentiated.

But the meeting of the mystic with the whole is absolute; there is no coming back. He has gone beyond the point of no return. He has dissolved himself like a dew-drop slipping out of the lotus leaf into the lake. He has become the lake. Then whatsoever he says will be contradictory, because a part of it will be the vision of the dew-drop and a part of it will be the vision of the total lake, a part will be the standpoint of the part and a part will be the standpoint of the whole. Hence all mystics have spoken in contradictory terms. — Anand-Haqq

I have a more down-to-earth understanding of mysticism. For me, it's a way of knowing. Not the only way, but a really good, useful one. Thinking of it in high falutin terms undermines its credibility. That doesn't mean I disagree with you. I do recognize that contradiction and paradox is the only way we can fit the Tao into our conventional intellectual boxes.

Very much so. It would be interesting to discover if all these mystical teachers, philosophers, people, had in mind the same thing, or something slightly different. Alas, it's clear words can't do it justice. — Manuel

I always say that there's only one world, we're all human, so when we find similarities between the ideas of people writing centuries, millennia, and 10,000 miles apart, there is no reason not to think they are talking about the same things.

However, don't you wish to go beyond a 'meat and potatoes' philosophy as you put it ? I am thinking about Maslow's highest stage on the hierarchy of needs, self actualization? — Jack Cummins

I think if you look over my posts, you might classify me as a pragmatist. What works. Meat and potatoes. I am an engineer for a reason. I came to Taoism from that perspective and found that it fit right in with the way I see things. So, no. No aspirations beyond figuring out what works. Maslow's stages have always seemed unconvincing to me.

No, I don’t believe it does. It says that the Tao is the unity, the mystery, the door to all wonders. The difference between observing its wonders or its manifestations is whether we relate to the Tao as a relational structure of qualitative experience, free of desire or identity, or as one of 10,000 quantifiable things. — Possibility

Yes, the Tao is the unity, but the Tao and the 10,000 things are the same. That's the mystery. As I wrote, this is a good example of the TTC's ambiguity.

The 10,000 things is not just what we do as humans - consolidation, or quantifying by setting arbitrary energy limits on qualitative relations, is basically how the universe has formed. — Possibility

I think maybe Lao Tzu would agree with you. I'm not sure. But that's not how I've always seen it. As I've written, I've always seen as creating the 10,000 things as something humans have done, are doing, by naming and using language. This is a work in progress for me.

I think it’s possible, too - but I think it’s a much more challenging process that still involves controlled experiences of pain, humiliation and loss. The idea is to experience the limits of our human capacity: to push past the influence of affect and explore in detail where thought and feeling meets the will, or where conception meets interoception head-on. Without an experiential understanding of this, we’re just playing with metaphorical language, or going on someone else’s best guess, and we have to admit that we simply don’t know. — Possibility

My strategy is to sit here in my lounge chair, drink iced coffee in the morning and beer in the afternoon, argue with people on the web, swim at the Y, and wait for enlightenment to find me. So far, so good.

And, as I've said, "playing with metaphorical language" is everything we do when we think. There is hope, I guess, that experiencing the Tao can help us go beyond that. The Tao that can be expressed in metaphorical language is not the eternal Tao.

Well, I think I'm all caught up through the beginning of Verse 18. I'll keep chugging away.

No, I don’t believe it does. It says that the Tao is the unity, the mystery, the door to all wonders. The difference between observing its wonders or its manifestations is whether we relate to the Tao as a relational structure of qualitative experience, free of desire or identity, or as one of 10,000 quantifiable things. — Possibility

We'll leave this for now. I'm not sure where I stand.

The 10,000 things is not just what we do as humans - consolidation, or quantifying by setting arbitrary energy limits on qualitative relations, is basically how the universe has formed. — Possibility

As I've said elsewhere, to me, it is humanity that creates the 10,000 things by naming them. I've had discussions about this before with people who disagree. They think the naming happens differently, although how has always been an open question. This is an area where I am not certain.

Do you think that we really understand reality? — Possibility

Sure. Not completely, but in a way that helps us live our lives. In a sense, living our lives is how we understand reality.

So long as this ‘self’ is recognised as consisting of qualitative human experience (ie. not just as an intellectual capacity) inclusive of the pain, humiliating lack and inevitable loss that comes from actually living and dying. FWIW, I don’t think it’s a conflict, it’s a glossing over of unknown relational structure - a clumsy relation disguised by metaphorical language. — Possibility

I'm ok with this meaning for self, except that, "a clumsy relation disguised by metaphorical language" is a pretty good definition of all human understanding.

Great falseness, in my mind, refers to the assumption that an action is right because it is proven effective; or that we should do something because we can. Might does not make right. — Possibility

For me, "great falseness" means insincerity, hypocrisy, deceit.

This appearance of being against knowledge relates back to intentionality and wu-wei. — Possibility

As I wrote previously, knowledge seems to be connected to desire. I guess striving for knowledge is like striving for success, acclaim, or power. I think you can see in this thread, and really throughout the forum, that intellect, rationality, is a barrier to the message of the TTC.

And zhī can be translated simply as ‘to know’, but it more accurately refers to the illusion of power that knowledge brings: to notify, inform or be in charge of. — Possibility

I can't speak to the specific translation points you're making, but this understanding makes sense to me.

Wisdom isn’t just about knowing information or appearing intelligent, it’s about knowing when to act and when not to, regardless of how it makes us look in terms of intelligence or capability. Which then relates to your quote from verse 48: serving the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake (or ours) is different from pursuing an understanding of the Way.

In my view, the TTC is not against knowledge and rational thought - it’s against revering knowledge for its own sake or as an illusion of power, and against acting on knowledge simply because we can or want to. — Possibility

So, you're making a distinction between knowledge and knowledge acquired for "ulterior" motives, i.e. acclaim or power. Is that right? I have no problem with that, but I think there's more to it. Knowledge, rational understanding, distracts us from the Tao. It leads us in the wrong direction.

Well, considering the Tao is all-inclusive, I don’t see how they can not be part of the Tao. — Possibility

Yes, I used misleading language. Action, wu wei, including what we might call moral behavior, can come directly from the Tao. I'm not sure exactly how that works yet. As I said, it may have to do with te. That process is superior to conventional morality.

When we lose sight of Tao, all we have is Te: the framework for morality and virtue, or instructions for a benevolent life. When we have no understanding of Te (having already lost sight of Tao), all we have is benevolence as the pinnacle of achievement, the exemplar. When we cannot grasp what benevolence is (having long since given up on the aim of virtue, let alone Tao), the pinnacle is considered to be righteousness. And when we don’t understand what righteousness is, we figure that etiquette, or formal politeness, is the thing to strive for. It’s not a moral ladder, but a reduction in awareness of our capacity. — Possibility

That's not how I see Te, although I'm still working on it. My best understanding is that Te is the working of Tao through us in the world. So, it's not a step down to Te or, if it is, it's inevitable. It's how we are connected to the Tao. I recognize that the language about this is ambiguous. I agree with everything else in this paragraph.

‘A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity’ is not really a judgement of inferiority - that’s affect talking. Someone who strives for etiquette simply doesn’t understand how to be benevolently sincere if they can’t be polite about it. They’re not working from a framework of morality and virtue, so any moral judgement is unfair.

I’ve already explained my understanding of the good-bad relation in verse 2. If someone sees etiquette as the highest good, then when there is no formal/polite way to be sincere they are not sincere, and for them, there’s nothing bad about that... — Possibility

Sure, calling anything on the ladder inferior is unfair. I've had this argument before. Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements. But... I'm not Lao Tzu so I'm allowed to. "A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity" is not as good as wu wei. Etiquette can, and often does, hide hypocrisy and deceit.

I am way behind on my responses to you. I'll catch up.

I agree that the most obvious difference between the Tao and the 10,000 things is the naming....So, although we may have a sense that this diversity is one, our energy is spent developing relationships with each of the 10,000 things, and then between each of them, in order to try and unify them. — Possibility

Well, that's one problem. This is from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 1.

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

This says that the Tao and the 10,000 things are a unity. Others don't say it as explicitly. I'm not sure there is a difference between them.

What this naming does, though, is divide any relation to the Tao through a process of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation or collaboration/exclusion in what would otherwise be a completely free flow of energy. An experience of that is not this. It’s not just how we make sense of existence, but how existence (or the flow of potential energy itself, chi) has gradually made sense of itself: from the differentiation of matter from anti-matter or the up/down spin of quantum particles, to the broad diversity of life, the universe and human ideas. — Possibility

I really don't get what you're trying to say.

I see the TTC as an attempt to understand what unifies the 10,000 things in the Tao without necessarily having to identify and understand each of them individually — Possibility

Forget Taoism for a moment, in a conventional way of looking at things, don't we understand reality without having to identify every little piece of it?

The difficulty is that self-identity is one of these 10,000 things - and we’re rather attached to this concept (among others) in our modern, Western experience. So there’s a disconnect between the quantitative conceptual structure of modern thought (ie. English idea concepts) and the qualitative experiential structure of the TTC (Chinese idea characters), which we refer to as ‘metaphor’. — Possibility

We've discussed this before, although we had some disagreement, the TTC recognizes self-identify, self. I don't see any conflict.

Meditation helps to explore a clear mind as consisting of qualitative experience, which eventually allows us to explore ideas as qualitative experience, instead of as conceptual structure. — Possibility

I like to think that experiencing the Tao is possible without formal meditative practice. That may well be because I am really lazy.

But I think that understanding how the logical framework described in the TTC might be translated into a framework between conceptual and empirical reality can also be useful, especially if we’re working in English.

I do think that te (literally translated as ‘virtue, goodness, morality, ethics, kindness, favour, character’) refers to this constructed framework idea. — Possibility

Sorry. I'm lost again.

Since then, while I value the numinous and the ineffable to some extent, I have been unable to shake of a simple minded empiricism and reason based world-view. — Tom Storm

I'm an engineer with a strong background in science and math. I was a strong materialist in my youth. I still believe strongly in what science can do and the kind of truth it can find. I find Taoism completely consistent with a scientific worldview. As I've said many times, for me it is meat and potatoes philosophy.

Sure. I only would like for people who think of this stuff, not to be labeled as "wacky" or the like. I don't think it is. I have in mind people like Dawkins, for example. — Manuel

I would be interested in the essay. If you post it, I'll take a look.

Well, I mean, I think there's good actual evidence for this view. I could send you a very good essay about if you are interested. But, in either case, point taken. — Manuel

I think you're right. I've been struggling in this thread to find a way to address this. The only thing I've come up with so far is to stop using the word "mysticism."

There's stuff we don't know anything about.

When folk talk about that stuff, despite not knowing anything about it, they are being mystical.

Honest folk will remain quiet. — Banno

I think I'm honest. And, as you should know by now, I will never remain quiet.

The curious thing about this is that there seems to be no direct way to communicate mysticism, we have to elude, circumscribe, reveal, retreat and then make manifest what was already there. — Manuel

As Lao Tzu wrote - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Ich-Du — 180 Proof

Is this the same as Cthulhu?

I think that there is a danger of trying to make mysticism into a neat and tidy term. For some people this may work, but the problem is that the mystical experiences of individuals vary so much as well as the attempts to understand them.Some of those who have experienced mystical states have been those who explored philosophies which are obscure. — Jack Cummins

I think you're right. See my response to @Tom Storm a few posts up. I've decided that "mysticism" is not a useful word. It carries too much baggage. The solution for me is not to use the word any more. I'm serious about that. Boy, this has been a really useful thread for me. I didn't expect it would go anywhere.

Isn't this fascinating? Kafka... I really like this. — Tom Storm

I really love this. If you look, you'll find that I've used the same quote in a bunch of other threads. It says everything I want to say about reality. And it only had to be translated from German instead of than Chinese.

I think mystery is often used as a synonym for mysticism but for me this suggests it is a puzzle to solve rather than an experiential phenomenon....Sorry, perhaps I lack sufficient precision on this point. — Tom Storm

I haven't thought about this that much. The thing that comes to mind is "the mystery of woman," which I think is really demeaning. I think it's a good example of what I described earlier - men being unable to see things within that they have hidden from themselves.

I just thought of another. It's a wonderful song by a wonderful country musician - Iris DeMent.

Some say once you're gone you're gone forever
And some say you're gonna come back
Some say you rest in the arms of
The Saviour if in sinful ways you lack
Some say that they're comin' back in a
Garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas
I think I'll just let the mystery be

In Taoism, for example, the ineffable is related to our experience and that speaks to your preference for "meat and potatoes." But the Tao is also said to be the means to setting up everything on both sides of the gate separating our lives from whatever makes it possible. That encouraged a religious interpretation that was expressed in various ideas of immortality, some of them that are very "occult." — Valentinus

Yes. My understanding is that you're right. I was talking about philosophical Taoism. I don't know much about religious Taoism. What I've heard makes it sound like Biblical fundamentalism - taking words that are meant to be metaphorical as literal truth.

I think you are saying that I am over simplifying mysticism. You're not the only one to make that comment. I think you're right. I'm struggling to defend my vision of mysticism against the skepticism of "rational" thinkers. If we let the occult in, it's hard to defend. Maybe the solution is to find another word. instead of mysticism. How about T Clarkism. Valentinusism. Or maybe stop using the word altogether. I think that may be the correct solution.

Many of the examples start with 'belief that....'. The point about mysticism is that it is purported to provide an insight or realisation which is not a matter of belief. (Actually the term 'realisation' is key in this context - the enlightened 'real-ise' the higher truths, not as a matter of belief, but by direct intuition, and also 'making real'.) — Wayfarer

This reminds me of arguments about what it means to have faith in something. Materialists/realists speak as if it's self-evident that faith is not a valid basis for knowledge because it hasn't been put to a rational test. It's also another reason that rationalists look down on mysticism.

I mention this by way of rebuttal of (2) and (5). Mysticism is, for sure, a pejorative in many contexts and is generally abjured by the positivists and materialists. — Wayfarer

That's the argument I'm trying to make - that pejorative definitions like 2 and 5 unreasonably undermine the credibility of mystical viewpoints.

There's a rather quirky Wikipedia article I sometimes mine for references, on Higher Consciousness. I'm a firm believer in there really being higher and lower forms of consciousness - therefore a vertical dimension, the sense of which is all but extinguished in modern 'culture'. — Wayfarer

I took a look. The only problem I have with the ideas is that there is a lot of goofy hippy-talk mixed in with the more substantive stuff. That provides more ammunition for those who want to undermine the credibility of mystical ways of knowing.

By the way - I've been meaning to ask you what that thing is in your icon picture. I looked a the larger version on your page. It looks like maybe it is meant to weigh down fabric or rugs or something. I want it. Give it to me.