Whatever floats your boat, I would say.

Don't take what appeals to me or anyone for that matter as bearing any significance other than indicating my (our) failure to use logic in the proper way. People like us are then naturally drawn to what is presented to the public as an alternative - mystical insight. We feel better about ourselves when we see that what we're not good at is claimed not to matter. However, this is all a smoke and mirrors: there is no alternative route to knowledge other than by the application of rigorous rules of thinking - logic.

By the way, are we talking about the same thing? — TheMadFool

I don't know. Is your goal to feel better about yourself, or to obtain knowledge?

Ideas that make one feel better about themselves at the expense of obtaining knowledge are generally referred to as delusions (delusions of grandeur).

Have you ever "understood" anything that simply can't be worded? — TheMadFool

How can you say that you understand it if it can't be worded, unless the problem is that you don't have the vocabulary for wording it. Sometimes new ideas require new words, but words that still embody the idea.

The above points might have just touched on something that many people have issues with. That is the idea of ‘thinking’ that isn’t verbal. Some people find that extremely hard - I guess they lack the ability to purposefully visualize in high resolution.

Yes, I care. I think that the OP's observation about non-combativeness make don't apply to mystical discussion in particular. Non-combativeness should be the rule, not the exception. This is coming from someone who spent years arguing with people on the internet, on this forum and its precursor. I can have discussions, and even debates, and the debates can even get heated, but I don't do "internet arguments" anymore.

Anyway, I think that talking about mysticism is like talking about sex; why talk when you can do?

Anyway, I think that talking about mysticism is like talking about sex; why talk when you can do? — Pneumenon

Because it's sexy.

Maybe I can say something.

Mysticism is harder to discuss than other subjects because, by definition, it's about stuff you can't talk about. It would be very Wittgensteiny of me to say that that settles it, but that would be premature. The word "ineffable" is a logical contradiction, because it's a word for things there aren't words for, but we can still use it.

I would say that talk about mysticism must be rooted in mystical practice, and ultimately circle back to it.

We can meaningfully talk about a place we've never been or an experience that we've never had.

The above points might have just touched on something that many people have issues with. That is the idea of ‘thinking’ that isn’t verbal. Some people find that extremely hard - I guess they lack the ability to purposefully visualize in high resolution.

I practice the ability to think on other ways than those instilled by conditioning along with alternative kinds of knowing.

I wonder what you mean by this, particularly after relating experiences that you still pursue the meaning of. — praxis

An intuition or experience can give us a starting point from which to investigate further, but it should always hold up to the scrutiny of logic and reason, or we risk ending up with delusion.

In the context of my personal experiences, I can use logic and reason to discern the genuineness of my experiences. If I conclude that my experiences were likely genuine, I can use logic and reason to try and filter understanding out of these experiences.

Alternatively, intuition can serve as a guide. Doesn't a quest for an answer often start with an intuition of the general direction of the solution?

Intuition and reason both seek to work towards understanding. I advocate to use them both, because intuition can be a powerful tool, like logic and reason.

Many throw out the baby with the bathwater. Intuition leads to things that one cannot measure with a measuring stick, so many conclude it must be useless.

Many throw out the baby with the bathwater. Intuition leads to things that one cannot measure with a measuring stick, so many conclude it must be useless. — Tzeentch

I admire intuition. But I don't know what it is.

Well said.

Many throw out the baby with the bathwater. Intuition leads to things that one cannot measure with a measuring stick, so many conclude it must be useless. — Tzeentch

Or go the other way and devalue reason. :grimace:

I meant more in lines of trying to appreciate/consider individual perspectives and the general narrative function embedded in communication.

Yes, unique perspectives I expect. Perhaps this is why it is best to spend time in person with the person in question. For me the best understanding of the mystical experience of someone else was achieved by spending a few weeks together with another aspirant.

I am not familiar with literary theory.

One element that is mentioned in most "mystical" narratives is that you are alone while learning the ropes. Or you are alone afterwards.

Anyway, a lot of emphasis upon taking your experience as your experience without being in a rush to say what they are about. A silence.

I have no idea about what it all means. But that stopping for a beat is interesting. I can compare that with other events.

How can you say that you understand it if it can't be worded, unless the problem is that you don't have the vocabulary for wording it. Sometimes new ideas require new words, but words that still embody the idea. — Harry Hindu

Mysticism, to my knowledge, is always about the ineffable, no? If mystical knowledge could be put into words then, that would be a contradiction - amounting to saying I can express the inexpressible.

I don't know. Is your goal to feel better about yourself, or to obtain knowledge?

Ideas that make one feel better about themselves at the expense of obtaining knowledge are generally referred to as delusions (delusions of grandeur). — Harry Hindu

I wish you'd not judge people like me so harshly. We don't have delusions, especially of the grandiose kind. We simply find linear thinking difficult. Thus we look for alternatives. Too, it's possible that some knowledge can't be gained by the mere application of logic to certain sets of assumptions.

Well, if understanding represents something in addition to what is explicitly presented in a proposition, then by definition it is "beyond words." So perhaps all understanding has this dimension; and it is just more evident in some types of claims than others. I am leaning in the direction of hermeneutics now. — Pantagruel

If it can't be expressed (in words), it can't be understood.

An intuition or experience can give us a starting point from which to investigate further, but it should always hold up to the scrutiny of logic and reason, or we risk ending up with delusion.

In the context of my personal experiences, I can use logic and reason to discern the genuineness of my experiences. If I conclude that my experiences were likely genuine, I can use logic and reason to try and filter understanding out of these experiences.

Yes I agree with this approach, for me treading the path of mystical enquiry is rather like how we deal with ordinary life, a process of having experiences, living mentally and emotionally with them, analysing them where they are of interest, or problematic, seeking more where of interest, less where problematic issues are identified. But differing from normal life where more disciplined, or structured practices are undertaken, for example meditation, or contemplation of an esoteric text. Such alternative processes can give a different take on experience, so that one can cross reference in the spirit of, or part of a structured attempt to break out of previous conditioning.

Along side such practices there are processes of introspection, in which one analyses yourself, this can be structured, or intuitive. So as to identify conditioning, trauma, weaknesses, strengths etc within your person. This then becomes like a kind of preening (to use analogy).

Alongside such practices are those in which one attempts to reach out, to commune with the wider world, or a divinity of some kind. The aim being at a later stage, re orientation with the divine, or nature, so as to deconstruct and rebuild the self as a transfigured individual, rather like zzoneiroCosm's Maslow practices, of self actualisation. The main difference as I see it between my reading of the process and his is that for me the transfigured self is seeking communion and deeper, or underlying, alignment with formative process in nature, or the divine nature, particularly in which one becomes a divine agent within a greater purpose. For me this agency is not conscious, for many reasons, but rather like a grace, or fortuitous happenstance.

Mysticism to some extent involves the concept of freeing oneself from the constraints of the mundane (viz the whole monastic tradition is a separation from the worldly).

Comparably, scientific theories or worldviews can sometimes become trapped in dead ends, which require a radical rethinking of core beliefs (paradigm shifts). Likewise individuals can become trapped in self-reinforcing frameworks of prejudiced beliefs.

So if mysticism aims explicitly at deconstructing mundane reality in order to work towards actualizing a more idealized version (as in the example of a monastic community) then I would say it absolutely does offer the possibility of something new, and potentially meaningful. Certainly at the very least as an exercise in self-discipline or introspective awareness.

Nice summary, do you study, or practice?

Stab a baby in the leg with a knife and see if it ‘understands’ pain. According to what you said I guess not because it can’t articulate it with words.

If it can't be expressed (in words), it can't be understood. — TheMadFool

Do you believe that when Pythagoras first grasped the relationship between the squares on the sides of a right-angled triangle it popped into his head in propositional form?

It seems pretty clear to me that there is an incipient event of understanding which is pre-verbal and intuitive. Any kind of reasoning about the nature of learning and theorization would never get started if the mind were not capable of intuitively grasping something novel. You would be in an infinite circularity of already known propositions.

I have been what I would classify as a seeker from a very early age. I considered entering a Zen monastery when I was 25, visited and did the intake interview. Practiced yoga, meditation, martial arts, studied every kind of philosophy and science I could. Did a lot of comparative religion too. In my half-century I have had more than a few experiences that really solidified my certainty of there being much more than meets the eye shall we say.

The secret for me is I always maintain a hypothetical or experimental attitude. I'm not looking for any kind of particular confirmation (which is where I think the search degenerates into something contrived). I am just....continuously gathering information.

The secret for me is I always maintain a hypothetical or experimental attitude. I'm not looking for any kind of particular confirmation (which is where I think the search degenerates into something contrived). I am just....continuously gathering information.

Quite, confirmation, or reaching a perceived goal is a side issue. But rather a growth, or progression along a path is what is important, rather like the growing of an oak tree. The acorn cannot jump from acorn to mature tree in one step without growing through all the millions of smal steps in between.

When I was younger I was intrigued by Zen, but was never in a position to give it ago. However I have been in retreat in the Himalayas, where I exercised techniques equivalent, also Hatha and raja yoga.

Do you believe that when Pythagoras first grasped the relationship between the squares on the sides of a right-angled triangle it popped into his head in propositional form?

It seems pretty clear to me that there is an incipient event of understanding which is pre-verbal and intuitive. Any kind of reasoning about the nature of learning and theorization would never get started if the mind were not capable of intuitively grasping something novel. You would be in an infinite circularity of already known propositions. — Pantagruel

As I see it there are two kinds of insight then. One kind, something Pythagoras might've experienced, can be expressed in words - clear propositions - and the other kind, the mystical variety, that simply defies any attempt to word them.

As I see it there are two kinds of insight then. One kind, something Pythagoras might've experienced, can be expressed in words - clear propositions - and the other kind, the mystical variety, that simply defies any attempt to word them. — TheMadFool

I think this is a difference of degree, and not of kind. Mystical experiences are not impervious to communication (I don't limit myself to language here, because I think communication is more fundamental than language. You can have communication without language, but not language without communication). They are just more difficult to communicate. Think Kant's antinomies of reason. Both sides of the antinomy can be formulated, but the antinomy arises out of the juxtaposition of the two contradictory positions. Is, in essence, the "gap" or tension between the linguistic forumlations, which nevertheless produces an insight.

The methods of mysticism are new but they lack credibility unless you want to take the mystics' words on it. — TheMadFool

I would call a method credible when it is known to produce desired results. — TheMadFool

These two are distinctly contradictory. If credibility is obtained through reaching desired results, then just as the thing desired is something personal, than so is credibility. So you would have no choice but to take the person's word for it because only that person knows what is desired and whether the method fulfils that desire.

I suggest however, that it is the second statement which is wrong. Credibility is produced from proof, logical demonstration, and justification. It cannot be a matter of producing the desired results, or else people would always be fudging the evidence, making deceptive demonstrations for the sake of producing the desired results, and this is the very opposite of credible. This is why credibility is based in a judgement of truth, rather than desired results, which is personal.

Nice summary, do you study, or practice? — Punshhh

Stab a baby in the leg with a knife and see if it ‘understands’ pain. According to what you said I guess not because it can’t articulate it with words. — I like sushi

Everyone has mystical experiences: living is a mystical experience. The question of this thread appears to be the distinct types of approach we which we make to mystical experience. Some people, it seems, have been trained to suppress their own mystical experience, denying its reality, until they get to the point where they haven't the means to relate to it anymore. So they grow up lacking this unique aspect of emotional development, they cannot relate to the mystical reality of their own being. Then you'll find them in places such as this forum, insisting that mystical experience is something we cannot relate to. Others however, will learn to recognize their own mystical experience, and seek to better understand it. This will drive them toward associating with people who have the same object, where they can discuss and learn about mystical things.

Meanwhile, the people who have successfully suppressed the mystical from their lives will see those discussing the mystical as speaking nonsense, insisting that they're talking about something which cannot be talked about. It's a sort of taboo. It's not that we cannot talk about it, it's that they have been trained not to talk about it and therefore have not developed the means for talking about it.

Others however, will learn to recognize their own mystical experience, and seek to better understand it. This will drive them toward associating with people who have the same object, where they can discuss and learn about mystical things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would agree precisely. "Mysticism" is no less a valid experimental or theoretical domain than any other. It is just a question of the nature of its "utility" - most people labour under a very parochial concept of utility, which modern media (driven by de-valued/monetized objectives) promotes.

Mysticism, to my knowledge, is always about the ineffable, no? If mystical knowledge could be put into words then, that would be a contradiction - amounting to saying I can express the inexpressible. — TheMadFool

Then why are you even here trying to put it into words? Why are you even trying to express something that you say is inexpressible?

I wish you'd not judge people like me so harshly. We don't have delusions, especially of the grandiose kind. We simply find linear thinking difficult. Thus we look for alternatives. Too, it's possible that some knowledge can't be gained by the mere application of logic to certain sets of assumptions. — TheMadFool

I don't see how non-linear thinking would be easier than linear thinking. If you want to abandon logic, then you are abandoning coherency. Just go back and read the above. It is incoherent - contradictory - to claim that mysticism is inexpressible while at the same time trying to express it. If that is truth to you, then we might as well part ways.

It's not that you find linear thinking difficult. You just don't like the answers it gives. You want to feel special - important - and logic doesn't give you that. Your feelings are in conflict with the conclusions of logical, reasonable thinking.

Then why are you even here trying to put it into words? Why are you even trying to express something that you say is inexpressible? — Harry Hindu

Because expressing an opinion about mysticism was the subject of the thread.

I don't see how non-linear thinking would be easier than linear thinking. If you want to abandon logic, then you are abandoning coherency. — Harry Hindu

Non-linear dynamics is not illogical, it represents a different form of logic, one in which order is revealed in the apparent disorder which characterizes complex-natural systems.

Likewise, reason does not reduce to logic, but is a communicative process in which defensible hypotheses are supported by reasons which are not reducible to material facts, but may constitute 'plausible narratives' (depending on the subject matter, as in this case).

Well said.

Because expressing an opinion about mysticism was the subject of the thread. — Pantagruel

The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. Maybe people are confusing the two, or are they the same thing - is mysticism a kind of opinion - if so, then an opinion about what? If mysticism is ineffable regardless of one's opinion, then what is the purpose of even talking about your opinion of it? If mysticism isn't necessarily ineffable, but can be also be expressible, then we are talking past each other, and not sharing opinions about the same thing.

Likewise, reason does not reduce to logic, but is a communicative process in which defensible hypotheses are supported by reasons which are not reducible to material facts, but may constitute 'plausible narratives' (depending on the subject matter, as in this case). — Pantagruel

Logic reduces to reasons. If you don't have reasons, or your reasons don't support the conclusion (as in a contradiction), then you simply aren't being logical.