3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating). — Pantagruel

If I dispute the factuality (btw, what's the difference between factuality and fact?) of 1, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing - us communicating? I've asked that question three times now. It seems to me that my dispute is what communication is.

If mystical experiences are by definition ineffable, and you just explained your "mystical" experience as such, then doesn't that make the experience natural, rather than mystical?

Is that explanation unappealing? — Harry Hindu

I agree and don’t find it unappealing, though I imagine that many do. It’s only unnatural in the sense that it’s uncommon, in my opinion, and ‘mystical’ in the sense of it being an altered state that is completely internal (others can’t experience the same thing like they can with external places and things). Also, some describe it as trans-rational in being a non-dualistic kind of consciousness.

If I dispute the factuality (btw, what's the difference between factuality and fact?) of 1, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing - us communicating? I've asked that question three times now. It seems to me that my dispute is what communication is. — Harry Hindu

We know that we are talking about the same thing when we achieve consensus. Then our communications are co-ordinated. I fully admit, this is an intersubjective (social) approach. That's consistent with Popper, Habermas, generally, the direction in which I am moving now. If you don't have any use for a consensus/communication perspective, well, then we aren't going to be able to communicate, are we? From my current philosophical perspective, there is no rationality at a purely individual level; rationality necessarily emerges as a social (cultural) phenomenon.

doesn't that make the experience natural, rather than mystical? — Harry Hindu

The mystical-natural dyad is a commonplace but inaccurate bifurcation. Certain kinds of mystical experience are as natural as the sky or the sun.

An important thing to realise, which is often not grasped by people enquiring into mysticism is that there is a subjugation of the ego and in a sense the personality to some other power which then directs one's development. As such an enquiry into the other power, or ones relation to it is, or its purposes, are not important. What is important is in allowing the channel between yourself and the power to flow freely.

I realise that this might sound weird, but when one looks into prayer, or religious based mystical practice this is also going on between the self and God. Such interaction is an important aspect of mysticism. This is not to say that it is necessary. — Punshhh

Commenting in the hope of maybe augmenting the given expression of “subjugation”. In my current understanding, there’s often a critical difference to be found between typical mysticism and typical religion: whereas the latter often concerns an experienced relation of power-over, the former is typically concerned with an experienced relation of power-with.

This being my presumption of why mystics and mystical traditions have often been deemed dangerous heretics or heresies by those who are religious fundamentalists.

To me, one relatively well-known example of this is the obliteration of the Gnostics by the Christians which resulted from the first Council of Nicaea: The Gnostics – which I interpret to be mystics – generally sought power with Sophia as divinity; this, roughly, being the personification of wisdom and of knowledge of right and wrong – which, according to the Gnostics, JC was instructing other about … JC to the Gnostics being one in spirit with the serpent from the garden of Eden: wanting to combat the ignorance of right and wrong which the “Lord” (to the Gnostics, Demiurge) wanted to enforce. Here, “power-with” was not about gaining “power-over” in relation to others but about the obtaining of oneness with what can be interpreted as ultimate reality. In contrast, to the Christians that labeled the Gnostics heretics and disposed of them, their relation with divinity was most often one in which divinity held power over them, a power that had to be appeased via prayer, likewise a power that was deserving of fear.

From my readings, I find the same intent of oneness via power-with in Sufism, in Hindu aspirations to become one with Brahman, and so forth.

Curious to learn if this meshes with what you were expressing.

This being my presumption of why mystics and mystical traditions have often been deemed dangerous heretics or heresies by those who are religious fundamentalists. — javra

Depatterning may threaten to disrupt whatever order presides. Nixon claimed that Timothy Leary was "the most dangerous man in America."

Depatterning may threaten to disrupt whatever order presides. Nixon claimed that Timothy Leary was "the most dangerous man in America." — praxis

Very true. But implicit to this is a presiding order of "power-over" relations. No?

Commenting in the hope of maybe augmenting the given expression of “subjugation”. In my current understanding, there’s often a critical difference to be found between typical mysticism and typical religion: whereas the latter often concerns an experienced relation of power-over, the former is typically concerned with an experienced relation of power-with.

I agree with the distinction you make, however as I see it there are many subtleties and nuance here. Perhaps in the case of religion "power over" is dictated for purposes of controlling the members, or population, over whom the high priests rule. Whereas an individual adherent might foster a more "power with relationship" in private.

When it comes to the mystical aspirant, or master the "power with is" stressed outwardly, while the individual might have developed more of a "power over" relationship, or aspiration in private.

Also for the mystic there is a more nuanced distinction in which the mystic is in many ways free to do, or think what he/she wants without fear or favour. While having a trust that an ineffable power is in some way directing their bahaviour and thinking, for some greater purpose, in which the aspirant is essentially offering service. This relation can take the form of the aspirant identifying an aspect of themselves which is of the ineffable realm in an imminent sense and there is a communion, or dialogue between the two. In which the distinction of power over/power with is lost, because the relation is within one's self. Also there may be the consideration of a hierarchy of ineffable connections/activities which the aspirant can't expect to, or be expected to have personal agency in, or understanding of. Such a scenario can only really be described as power over, although the aspirant is cooperating, or giving permission for the ineffable agency to operate through him/her self.

This is an interesting introduction I think into the role of agency and purpose in mystical practice. I would be interested in exploring this further.

Certain kinds of mystical experience are as natural as the sky or the sun.

Yes, like a communion with animals and plants. One might remember that one is an animal too.

Mysticism to me is just the difference between the abstract and the mundane. One really can't say which is which when it comes to the essential nature of things. It's all just preference. Some people think it's perfectly normal to be a human being; I think it's completely bizarre.

It's also a matter of experience. Experience is fundamental and fundamentally defines itself better than the second-hand report of language ever could.

Some people see a cloudy day. I see the stereotypical, mystical dimension.

Mysticism to me is just the difference between the abstract and the mundane — neonspectraltoast

I always found abstraction itself to be somewhat mystical.

I honestly don't see how some people don't reason that life is ultimately mysterious. Some people simultaneously have certainty while they're trying to figure everything out. How is that?

The truth is, no matter how eloquent the communication, the raw experience is always what was real.

Yes, like a communion with animals and plants. One might remember that one is an animal too. — Punshhh

Yes, nature mysticism.

I think a lot of young sensitive souls hit on this entree to mystical experience. It was my first taste. Especially the deserts of the southwest US; more especially, Monument Valley and Joshua Tree. A perfect mirror-metaphor for the emptiness of the soul.

I agree with the distinction you make, however as I see it there are many subtleties and nuance here. — Punshhh

I made use of “typically” and “often” with the intention of allowing for such exceptions to the generality I presented. So, yes, I very much agree.

This is an interesting introduction I think into the role of agency and purpose in mystical practice. I would be interested in exploring this further. — Punshhh

What got my interest initially was the use of term subjugation (of the ego). Not sure what avenues you’d like to explore, so I’m mentioning the first thing that came to mind:

Mircea Eliade wrote a rather long book documenting cases of shamanism, what I take to be one variant of mysticism. It can be expressed in different manners by different cultures, and its expressions are normally from pre-scientific times, so I take the following summation to be largely allegorical. From memory, and from a typical European account (Australian aborigines, for instance, express a similar process making use of jewels, best I recall), the pre-shaman enters solitude or is sometimes exiled by the village/tribe into the forest. There, the pre-shaman is, basically, torn to shreds by the spirits and deities, till all that remains is the skeleton. Here he enters into the otherworld, and is often expressed to be dead … maybe neither dead nor living? He then basically needs to place his flesh back onto his skeleton, this to become one of the living again. I interpret this as a regaining of recognizable self. Fast forwarding a bit, if he’s successful, he then reemerges from the forest back to the tribe as a medicine man or healer. OK, that said for background, I give this example of this one form of what I take to be mystical traditions so as to present a situation where the ego is not subjugated by divine power – nor obtains some form of instant bliss – but instead, in a sense, battles with greater powers so as to maintain integrity of being and, thereby, make oneself whole again. And, throughout this whole process wisdom, gnosis, is gained. Though this is very archaic and esoteric, I intuitively find parallels in this to both mythos regarding JC and the Buddha. So, both these guys supposedly underwent periods of extreme solitude (JC in the desert and the Buddha starving underneath some tree) where they gained some understanding or gnosis, after which there were great and sometimes unpleasant temptations offered to them to deviate from their newly found understanding; then, after holding fast, each emerged out of their solitude into the village, so to speak, to become healers (of the mind, to not say soul, if not also the body). I can also liken the same (non-new-age) shamanism tradition to the mythos of Osiris and Isis (guy was cut into pieces than placed back together) as well as to Nietzsche’s parable of the camel turned carnivore turned newly-birthed infant: here, the beast of burden’s broken back parallels the pre-shaman’s death and entrance into the otherworld, wherein the transformation occurs; the dragon of “thou shalt and shalt not” stands for the temptations and tribulations which must be combated or resolved; and the newly birthed infant to the same world stands for seeing the same old world for the first time with newly found eyes.

I know these are personal opinions. May they be taken with as many grains of salt as is required. And, to be explicit about things, I’m in no way here arguing for what is factual. Nor do I address the aforementioned as though it were the only mystical tradition – but, in my opinion, it does represent one well documented path. Again, my reason for expressing all this is that while there might be a sense of losing one’s self or ego, here it is plainly not about becoming dominated by greater powers one unquestioningly follows. Instead, apparently according to mythos, its about holding onto some form of integrity and gnosis despite the challenges … and coming out of it a better, and in some ways transformed, person.

That said, I'm imagining the experience of transcending one’s own (former?) ego to be something akin to what is expressed in the lyrics of a song by Dead Can Dance called Song of the Stars:

We are the stars which sing
We sing with our light
We are the birds of fire
We fly over the sky
Our light is a voice
We make a road for the spirit to pass over

Maybe (I’m guessing) those who are mystics simply think those who lack the given gnosis as just unaware of so being, and of so making a road over which the spirit passes? I’ll link to the song for context, though it’s mostly instrumental, and long.

I agree and don’t find it unappealing, though I imagine that many do. It’s only unnatural in the sense that it’s uncommon, in my opinion, and ‘mystical’ in the sense of it being an altered state that is completely internal (others can’t experience the same thing like they can with external places and things). Also, some describe it as trans-rational in being a non-dualistic kind of consciousness. — praxis

What is "unnatural"? Life itself doesn't seem to be a common feature of the universe. Does that mean that life is unnatural?

How do you know that we don't experience the same thing when we have an altered mental state as the result of taking some peyote? The difference seems to only be in how we interpret that experience - how we explain it based on our prior assumptions, like mystical/supernatural experiences exist - just like the people in the elevator assumed ghosts exist - hence their reaction in the elevator.

The "ghost" girl in the elevator is an external thing, yet I wouldn't interpret the experience it the same way as the people in the video. I don't believe in ghosts.

The mystical-natural dyad is a commonplace but inaccurate bifurcation. Certain kinds of mystical experience are as natural as the sky or the sun. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I was hoping that some great examples of mystical experiences that are as natural as the sky or the sun would follow such a grandiose claim.

1. It is a fact that we are communicating now.
2. Because I have presented this fact, it is (trivially) my opinion that this is a fact.
3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating).
4. Nevertheless, you can't dispute my opinion that 1 is a fact (that's what makes it an opinion). — Pantagruel

We know that we are talking about the same thing when we achieve consensus. Then our communications are co-ordinated. I fully admit, this is an intersubjective (social) approach. That's consistent with Popper, Habermas, generally, the direction in which I am moving now. If you don't have any use for a consensus/communication perspective, well, then we aren't going to be able to communicate, are we? From my current philosophical perspective, there is no rationality at a purely individual level; rationality necessarily emerges as a social (cultural) phenomenon. — Pantagruel

But that was my point, and your point in step 3. - that we aren't reaching a consensus. If you make the claim that we are communicating, and I dispute that, then we aren't reaching a consensus thereby contradicting your step 1. - that it is a fact that we are communicating.

It seems to me that you have to rational prior to being socialized, or else how do you make sense of your experiences of other beings that are more or less like you in appearance and behaviors you can emulate?

t seems to me that you have to rational prior to being socialized — Harry Hindu

Would merely having the potential for rationality be a sufficient condition of socialization?

Sure. What else would you need other than a rational interpretation of other beings and their behaviors and their relationship to you? It seems to me that you need to be able to categorize other beings and their behaviors in a rational way prior to emulating them in a rational way.

It also seems to me that you would have to understand object permanence - to understand that people still exist even when they are not part of your experience. It seems like this has to be done prior to being socialized.

I was socialized in a Christian environment and I was initially a believer in the Christian god, yet as I got older, I began to question the "rationality" of the social order that I developed in. How does one escape their social upbringing and take a up a position that is in direct opposition of the "rational" socialization one was indoctrinated with if they don't possess some inherent, rational, private language with which to do that?

It seems like this has to be done prior to being socialized. — Harry Hindu

Except that capacities emerge phylogenetically, not just ontogenetically. So for any individual capacity you can equally well point to its collective origin. I think trying to authoritatively say what something is instead of acknowledging that most things have multiple dimensions or aspects is one of the biggest sources of unnecessary conflict.

Except that capacities emerge phylogenetically, not just ontogenetically. So for any individual capacity you can equally well point to its collective origin. I think trying to authoritatively say what something is instead of acknowledging that most things have multiple dimensions or aspects is one of the biggest sources of unnecessary conflict. — Pantagruel

Which origin are you referring too? The origin of self-replicating molecules, the origin of sex and males and females, the origin of warm-blood over cold-blood, the origin of social behaviors that began well before the existence of humans, or what?

To say that something has multiple dimensions is the same as authoritatively saying what something is. The conflict between you and I is whether or not things do or do not have multiple dimensions or aspects. If something has multiple dimensions and aspects, then how do you distinguish between things? It seems to me that the multiple dimensions of one thing would overlap with the multiple dimensions of something else thereby blurring the boundaries of our mental categories.

In saying that some thing has multiple dimensions, are you saying that you can represent one thing in many ways? If yes, then the problem is that you are confusing the many ways of representing, or viewing, something with the thing itself.

Just a quick thought, I will give a longer response later. The aspirant when surviving the ordeal of the destruction of his/her conditioned self realises that the ineffable power who is the object of their effort to transcend the ego, or self, is in fact him/her self already. So again we have power over and power with integrated and the distinction desolving in a synthesis of self with creator. So power is both over and with in one unity.

The conflict between you and I is whether or not things do or do not have multiple dimensions or aspects. — Harry Hindu

The conflict between you and I is that you will never settle on a middle ground for anything. I've read that in others' responses to your posts and seen it in our past discussions. You relentlessly pursue your own very specific narrative without attempting to moderate or adapt your perspective to allow any kind of co-existence with alternative perspectives.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm well aware of the dimensions of a great many philosophical issues and know where I stand on them. To my knowledge, there is no universal consensus on almost any issue you might care to pick. There are current favourites, but those also evolve. Anything I might say is a summary of what I believe as well as a brief account of the reasons for that belief. I'm always careful to point out what is my opinion, I never claim to have an authoritative answer.

:grin: I like that.

What are your thoughts about mysticism and what experiences have you had when you’ve honestly and genuinely tried to engage with others who try to espouse their thoughts and ideas about/within ‘mystic’ ... er ... ‘methodology’? — I like sushi

When faced with expressions of 'mysticism' I've found it helps to remember that they are (almost always and entirely) 'non-inferential, dispositional utterances' (avowals) without propositional contents (claims), and not to be confused with ineffable 'mystical exercises'. Just as mysteries only beg questions, 'mysticism' concerns that which can only be shown but not said; and I agree with Witty: any attempt to 'say the unsayable' (whether inadvertantly (e.g. category errors) or intentionally (e.g. zen koans)) amounts to nonsense.

So I'm always on the lookout for egregious nonsense with a very precisely calibrated *woo-&-bullshit* detector (re: "new agey" tarot-crystals-astral-yogic "metaphysics"; bible / quran-thumping; pseudo-scientism & other garden varieties of magical (i.e. conspiracy) thinking).

On the other hand, I'm not a reductive philistine and have had a lifelong interest in - and my share of 'limit-experiences' with - shall we say, altered states. The term 'mysticism', as I understand it, shares with 'mystery' the etymological root múō which is Ancient Greek for 'eyes shut' (or mouth closed à la mute) ... which connotes, at least to me, perceiving-in-darkness (or speaking-via-silence (i.e. without words)), that is, without apparent distinctions, neither semantic nor existential: 'pure experience' without experiencer-experienced distinction (not so unlike Husserl's epoché or Pseudo-Dionysus' via negativa or Shankara's advaita ). Freddy's 'musical jubiliation' comes to mind as well as Schop's aesthetics of 'music-as-nonrepresentational-analogue' of the Will.

My preferred - idiosyncratic - notion is 'ecstasy' rather than 'mysticism'; ecstatic practices - what Iris Murdoch calls "unselfings" - rather than mystical, or spiritual, exercises (i.e. union with (some) 'transcendent' X); ego-suspending via everyday living (i.e. encounters (à la Buber) - prayer, meditation, or contemplation via e.g. making / performing / experiencing art; free play; intimate sex; compassion-care; etc - and/or hallucinogens) rather than ego-killing via ritualized ascetics (e.g. monasticism, militarism, etc). Not religious, not spiritual, not mystical - but I am (an) ecstatic.

:death: :flower:

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). — Pantagruel

:up:

I believe that mystical experiences correlate to a deactivation of the neural default mode network. A couple of the basic characteristics of that brain state are a loss of a sense of self and a depatterning effect on the mind.

[ ... ] one benefit is existential anxiety relief.

Any method to deactivate the network could work, like meditation, psychedelics, electrical fields, whatever. — praxis

:clap:

Mysticism, my interpretation of it, is like masturbation - you experience the ecstacy of ejaculation but you actually didn't have sex — TheMadFool

:lol:

An important thing to realise, which is often not grasped by people enquiring into mysticism is that there is a subjugation of the ego and in a sense the personality to some other power which then directs one's development. As such an enquiry into the other power, or ones relation to it is, or its purposes, are not important. What is important is in allowing the channel between yourself and the power to flow freely. — Punshhh

This 'ego-less/loss channeling' reminds me of Spinoza's (acosmist) scientia intuitiva aka 'blessedness'.

In my current understanding, there’s often a critical difference to be found between typical mysticism and typical religion: whereas the latter often concerns an experienced relation of power-over, the former is typically concerned with an experienced relation of power-with.

This being my presumption of why mystics and mystical traditions have often been deemed dangerous heretics or heresies by those who are religious fundamentalists.

To me, one relatively well-known example of this is the obliteration of the Gnostics by the Christians which resulted from the first Council of Nicaea: The Gnostics – which I interpret to be mystics – generally sought power with Sophia as divinity; this, roughly, being the personification of wisdom and of knowledge of right and wrong – which, according to the Gnostics, JC was instructing other about … JC to the Gnostics being one in spirit with the serpent from the garden of Eden: wanting to combat the ignorance of right and wrong which the “Lord” (to the Gnostics, Demiurge) wanted to enforce. Here, “power-with” was not about gaining “power-over” in relation to others but about the obtaining of oneness with what can be interpreted as ultimate reality. In contrast, to the Christians that labeled the Gnostics heretics and disposed of them, their relation with divinity was most often one in which divinity held power over them, a power that had to be appeased via prayer, likewise a power that was deserving of fear.

From my readings, I find the same intent of oneness via power-with in Sufism, in Hindu aspirations to become one with Brahman, and so forth. — javra

Oh yeah, this vibes powerfully with my decades-old Gnostic-interpretation of Freddy's eternally recurring 'self-overcoming' as the highest form (Sophia-as-Dionysus) of the will to power. Affinities with Spinoza's immanentism as well. And Abraham Heschel's (hasidic-qabalistic) God's Search For Man with its evocative mitzvah for us to partner with G_d in the process of perfecting creation - creating (power) with - or tikkun olam. :fire:

Buddhists see past lives, Christians are one with God, some people see ghost girl... and yeah, cults and religions are built around these experiences. People like Timmothy believe they’ve found the way to free the mind and save humanity or whatever. At the risk of philistinism, it’s all bullshit. An asshole is going to be an asshole after ‘enlightenment’. They might even be an asshole with a more inflated ego, because they’ve experienced selflessness, oddly enough.

I don’t think we can begin to imagine what is beyond our little fishbowl of experience.

a grandiose claim — Harry Hindu

That you consider the claim grandiose is a sign that a dialog on this subject will prove fruitless.

But in case there's fruit to be had: Lying on one's back staring up at the sky can evoke a mystical revelation. As can a fixed gaze at a sunset.

Not religious, not spiritual, not mystical - but I am (an) ecstatic. — 180 Proof

This is a welcome circumvention of the corrupted descriptor 'mystical.'

I would only add that certain kinds of mystical practice induce - you might say the obverse of ecstasy - placidity.

My practice is a kind of balancing act: placidity and ecstasy (and of course the hum-drum day-to-day).

Freddy's eternally recurring 'self-overcoming' as the highest form (Sophia-as-Dionysus) of the will to power. — 180 Proof

Yes: Always back to Freddy and his funny pal Z. I was listening to that astounding genius on librivox this morning.

You likely know your Freddy better than I do, but my feeling was that he would have adored Saint John's Revelation with its repetitions around the word 'overcome.' A psychological reading of the book gives us the destruction of the old self (or world or mind or Last Man) in Chapters 1-20 and a creation of the new self (or world or mind or Superman - taking the Superman notion to be a thing easily projected, from any point in time, indefinitely into the future) beginning with Chapter 21.

Just a curious nexus between Nietzschean and Christian phraseology.

“power-with” — javra

Absolutely my experience as well: God exists only when I am god.

The implication is an agnostic day-to-day coupled with the violence of sudden ecstatic, or the emptiness of a sudden placidic, gnosis.