This being my presumption of why mystics and mystical traditions have often been deemed dangerous heretics or heresies — javra

Priests and popes hate mystics because mystics can get to 'god' on their own with no help from priests and popes.

Yes what you bring up is an important aspect of the mystical/spiritual quest (I realise that the use of the word spiritual has baggage here). The fight of, with, or subjugation of the limited self, resulting in the true self emerging like the pheonix from the ashes. Or the Hindu deity standing erect with his foot on the back, or head of his limited self. Such practices rituals like the initiation from the boy to the man speak volumes about the pitfalls and distractions of this limited, inherited self. Also they beckon to the aspirant the desire, need, requirement to cross this rubicon. In the certain knowledge that no (real) progress can be made until crossed.

This is not the subjugation I was referring to initially. What I was referring to is the process of the alignment between the self and the guide, to use another analogy. The self and God, the self and soul, the self with nature, with spirit. This is another important aspect/process on the path and likewise not much progress can be made until it is tackled. This process presupposes the breaking free of the limited self that you refer to.

This process of alignment, orientation has various aspects including some sense of giving up ones freedom. This is something which is offered freely in the knowledge and surety that nothing is lost because what is gained thereafter is that which was feared to be lost along with the added component of being guided by some ineffable power (I am using this phrase only because it follows on from the phraseology I was using earlier). Which is known to be oneself already, but just an area of the self not realised. So as I suggested earlier, it is not a subjugation to a power over, but rather a power with and power over simultaneously, synthesised into a unity.

An illustration of this is spoken by Jesus in John 12:44-46
"If you trust me, you are trusting not only me, but also God who sent me. For when you see me, you are seeing the one who sent me. I have come as a light to shine in this dark world, so that all who put their trust in me will no longer remain in the dark"

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.

Nice, I'm envious. I mentioned animals in particular, they have a special significance to me as they are in a sense me without the ego. Or at least there is a glimpse of this in a communion with them. Ref' St francis of Assisi.

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' (something)); 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.

I hear you loud and clear, it doesn't need to be either/or though, it can be both, or a creative synthesis. Tailored to the nature of the individual.

Freddy — 180 Proof

“I overcame myself, the sufferer; I carried my own ashes to the mountains; I invented a brighter flame for myself.”

Nietzsche

I mentioned animals in particular, they have a special significance to me as they are in a sense me without the ego. Or at least there is a glimpse of this in a communion with them. Ref' St francis of Assisi. — Punshhh

I have almost no experience with this kind of communion. I used to get a mystical kick out of staring at certain distant birds. But never a St. Francis kind of magic.

Curiously my wife has this even stronger than I have and she is not spiritual, mystical, or anything like that, but an atheist. Well she says so but I don't believe her and I doubt she does either on that point. I mean how could she with a gift like that.

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). — ZzzoneiroCosm

:cool:

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. — ZzzoneiroCosm

A band name or song title? :smirk:

:up:

It's easy to say 'I'm an atheist'; more difficult to be one. The mind wants what it wants. And having the power to create some kind of god will sometimes insist on creating it - where culture, habit, repetition, superstition, give it room.

To say 'I'm an atheist' can be a kind of superstition. Like knocking on wood.

Curiously my wife has this even stronger — Punshhh

I feel like I've known more women than men who have this kind of connection to animals. You're probably lucky to have that side to you.

I am not sure what this brings to the party but if someone has an experience that does not fit into available narratives, then the discomfiture becomes a thing. Not so much because of one's experiences but a reluctance to add new things to what is being experienced.
The history of Taoism is helpful in this regard. Most of the literature is devoted to how it gets talked about in unhelpful ways.

Not so much because of one's experiences but a reluctance to add new things to what is being experienced. — Valentinus

I think it's important to add as little as possible and to learn to add less and less. Especially linguistic interlopers. It's good fun to talk about this stuff on a philosophy forum but it's just a - though a far more positive - Beckettian silence.*


*Referencing Samuel Beckett's obsession with silence and achieving silence alongside a fairly continuous production of new and interesting literature.

We should not take our new experiences for granted. Nobody gave them to us. That is what many old farts were trying to say.

We should not take our new experiences for granted. — Valentinus

Yep, new or old.

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. — 180 Proof

The fight of, with, or subjugation of the limited self, resulting in the true self emerging like the pheonix from the ashes. — Punshhh

I see a discrepancy here between these two statements, a sort of inconsistency. I've always thought of the mystical experience as an experience where the importance of the self rises to the forefront. But I've often heard it described as an overcoming of the self, a negating or losing of the self; the self being apprehended as unimportant. You can see how the two perspectives are somewhat opposed.

So I'm more inclined toward Punshhh's description here, of "the true self emerging", where there's a sort of divided self. The past self, the limited, subjugated self, must always be left as inferior in relation to the new and improved self going forward from that moment in time. Even the very simple act of merely recognizing this, produces an improved self.

This is the nature of being, as living at the present. In a sense, what has happened in the past has made me who and what I am. This is the limited self, that I have been determined by my past to be what I am today, and there is no question of me being otherwise. The past self is absolutely restricted. However, going forward from this point in time, I am free to make my choices and improve upon myself, no matter how desperate my situation is, such that the person I will be in the future will be a product of my own choices, and so I am capable of giving myself a better life simply by making the choices which make me a better person.

The past self is absolutely restricted. However, going forward from this point in time, I am free to make my choices and improve upon myself, no matter how desperate my situation is, such that the person I will be in the future will be a product of my own choices, and so I am capable of giving myself a better life simply by making the choices which make me a better person. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is pretty much the song I sing to rise up each day. But all these other factors crop up. I do see the effective result of accepting the world upon the terms I make for it. But there are other things that do not care about any of that.

You mean other people?

Yes, other people. But who are these other people?
It is fun to be on the winning team and imagine all the crappy stuff that happens to others.

What does another point of view look like?

This process of alignment, orientation has various aspects including some sense of giving up ones freedom. This is something which is offered freely in the knowledge and surety that nothing is lost because what is gained thereafter is that which was feared to be lost along with the added component of being guided by some ineffable power (I am using this phrase only because it follows on from the phraseology I was using earlier). Which is known to be oneself already, but just an area of the self not realised. So as I suggested earlier, it is not a subjugation to a power over, but rather a power with and power over simultaneously, synthesised into a unity. — Punshhh

What you say resonates with me.

I take the following to be complementary to what you’ve expressed.

I’ve heard some word it as surrender to a higher power, rather than a subjugation. Even so: In my understandings it’s not about surrendering to any other. I still get bad chills of sorts when I hear people praising the virtue of obedience to others as a spiritual goal (obey your priest, your spouse (esp. if you’re a woman), your … anything and anybody that’s supposed to be of authority, sort of thing … don’t dare question anything they tell you or instruct you to do). As you express as well, to me there can be no I-thou relation in this surrender. Imperfectly phrased: if it’s a surrender, it’s a surrender to a greater version of you, one which you’ve tacitly yearned to be. Well, this is kind of Hindu slanted in that the phrasing implies there being a “greater self”, a Brahman if you will. But so articulated for a Christian audience, for example, the mystic or ecstatic experience as goal is likely that of becoming one with Christ, to be a Christ-within-er – such that Christ’s ethics, sensibilities, and virtue become one’s own, as well as the responsibilities, this in due measure. This stands in contrast to obeying Christ in an I-thou relation – which is what I most often experience in Christians. The first is a scenario of intrinsic values; here, one knows what is right and wrong and acts accordingly from one’s own volition. Whereas the latter is a case of extrinsic values, more along the lines of doing things due to punishments and rewards imposed by others: a scary thing to me ... one that in a way reminds me of Son of Sam in a worst case scenario way.

Then things can get weirder when interpreting things from along a Buddhist angle, in which this greater self one surrenders to is actually a non-hyperbolical selfless state of being, what I take at least some Buddhists to consider being the state of Nirvana that awaits to become actualized. I, for example, heard the Dalai Lama in a documentary claiming he still has very very many lives to yet live before he actualizes this state of being – and he’s said to embody the Bodhisattva of compassion. Personally, I don’t subscribe to anyone who claims to have obtained or actualized Nirvana, just because they’re still a self, an ego. But the Dalai Lama I can respect.

So in terms of loss of freedoms. Freedom is always relative to something. A flying bird is free from the requirement to walk, but is yet bound to, unfree from, forces of gravity and the flow of air currents, etc. Supposing the individual’s transcendence of his/her conditioned self can and does occur, they still remain a self, an ego, afterwards – albeit one that is no longer conditioned as they once were. And every self, ego, is yet limited by a distinction of I and other (if nothing else). I’m supposing that what the individual likely gains – here expressed differently for different cultures – is an understanding of Christ-nature, or of Brahman, or of Nirvana (the gaining of Buddha-nature), or of Ein Sof, and so forth. Which, I’d like to believe, might be different labels for the same exact given: Something that without these culturally loaded terms would best be understood as nameless, ineffable, and universally applicable – neutral to all cultural biases. But, then, it wouldn’t be communicable even in principle. Furthering this line of thought, if the individual gains awareness of this state of being to which the individual surrenders, so to speak, he or she would yet be limited by virtue of yet being a self, an ego – and would not be the limitless nature of being which was cognized. But in having gained an understanding of one’s true nature – again, which one has yet to fully actualize – to which one as a self has willfully surrendered, one obtains the freedom to pursue this desired end as one deems fit. And I gather that in this there might be a sense of freedom and serenity. This though life as always still has it pitfalls and obstacles. As one example, the Dalai Lama still hasn’t liberated Tibet, though I’m sure he’s content in having tried his best throughout.

Maybe this is too stream of consciousness. My bad if it is. Posting it anyway out of curiosity for feedback.

I am cool with stream of consciousness expression. What I write will also be like that, although some formulation has already been composed. I find it hard to reference scholastic material in this because there immediately becomes an issue of terminology and interpretation of the source, or criticism of the source, or of me, in which what I am trying to say becomes sidelined.*

I want to stress that what I have to say about this alignment in the self is a subject for a whole book and that I don't feel I have expressed it sufficiency as yet.

I want to stress the word orientation, because as I use these ideas in contemplation, I find the concept of changing myself through the fine tuning of my orientation easier to countenance. Firstly because I am not changing myself, but turning something in me, fine tuning a relation. Secondly because I realise that the goal is not a change in myself, but either a freeing, a realisation, an opening. Third I like the concept of an ironing out of the wrinkles in myself, or stilling the ripples on a pond. Fourthly that I am confident in the sentiment that that which I strive for, reach out towards want to free myself for, or to achieve is already here, I am already it, I am already there, if only I were to realise that fact, to re orientate inside myself that it shine through.


*I can reference my principle source, but on the condition that it is only a source in that it provides a skeleton of structure from which to work and that I dont endorse any other aspect of it. Or following it word for word, or agree with the premises of the work necessarily. That if someone then criticises the work, or my use of it that I would ask them to return to the discussion without derailing in these ways.

I agree, I see the overcoming the self, negating, or losing the self, narrative as one of a number of practices developed in a school which has become over emphasised in its, perhaps, being taken out of context. I am sure that it has some merit as a practice in a Tibetan monastery for example, but I have only ever found it to be something unattainable and pointless, or what is it that is to be achieved through doing it?

I want to stress the word orientation, because as I use these ideas in contemplation, I find the concept of changing myself through the fine tuning of my orientation easier to countenance. Firstly because I am not changing myself, but turning something in me, fine tuning a relation. — Punshhh

I think that the orientation referred to here is a matter of finding one's temporal perspective. There is a "turning" which is required because common empirical knowledge is derived from the past, so we tend to be always facing the past in our epistemological perspectives; yet to move forward in time in the most efficient and effective way requires that we turn and face the future itself. This is not easy because the future, as completely nonexistent in the empirical sense, looms as an abyss from that epistemological perspective. The future is therefore the source of all fear and fright.

It is much easier to live within the epistemological bubble that we have created, which draws on our empirical experience of the past, applying some mathematical principles of inversion, directing this knowledge toward the future, in prediction, than it is to turn around and face the reality of the future, and the fact that what has not yet been determined cannot be predicted with certainty, and this is the deficiency of that epistemological perspective. Facing that uncertainty which inheres within the future, due to it's very nature, is what we avoid, because of fear. Hence we are not inclined to turn around, and we accept the epistemological illusion and live in the epistemological bubble.

This turning of the person, towards the future, to apprehend the future as substantially distinct from the past, necessitates a division within the properties of the person. The self is commonly represented as being at the present, and now we need to distinguish properties related to the future (immaterial) from properties related to the past (material). This makes dualist principles inescapable as the true grounding principles for any acceptable epistemology. We might call this turning of the soul, to face the true nature of the future, a revelation, because it reveals to us the necessity of dualist epistemology in any attempt to understand the nature of reality. So from the metaphysical perspective, dualist sympathy is commonly associated with such a turning of one's orientation.

I accept that time is involved in these processes to quite a fundamental degree. I want to draw you back the what I am aiming for which is a relation between, in a sense different apparatus in a person's psyche, or being. The easiest way to explain this is if one considers that we have a soul, this soul is (for arguments sake) pure and divine. It does though have life, a past, a present and future and it is myself, but ordinarily I am somehow not aware of it, or at least can't distinguish it from the limited self. The orientation is to achieve an alignment of the person of the limited self and the person of the soul, such that the goals, desires, understanding and motivations of both is one and the same. The soul though being perfect cannot change, so the limited self being imperfect will change to become perfect.

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

The mysticism I have a limited introduction to is kabbalah, which entails finding hidden meaning in biblical texts. The study is typical of other Judaic study in that it involves textual study (in partucular, the Zohar). That is to say, it's an organized study and doesn't suffer from the nebulousness you describe and if you asked someone for a discussion of it, you'd be given all sorts of study materials.

The object of kabbalah is likely that of all mysticism, which is to find meaning in the world. Specific to orthodox judaism, they believe in the divine nature of the Torah, this leading to deeper analysis of the text (including counting the times a word is used or noticing the order of letters in deciphering meaning). That is. If God said these things, every mark and dot must be impregnated with infinite meaning.

And that leads to the next step, which is to state that each event in the universe was created for a higher purpose, and the kabbalah of life would be to decipher (or at least recognize) the meaning behind each blade of grass blowing in the wind.

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. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It seems to me that one can do these things and not have a mystical experience. So, what makes these experiences mystical for one and not another?

In saying it is mystical, what are you actually saying - that there is knowledge to be obtained, or that there is happiness to be felt, or something else entirely?

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. — praxis

I think you just posted examples of how we imagine what is beyond our little fishbowl of experience. What distinguishes imaginings from reality is the process of falsification.

In saying it is mystical, what are you actually saying - that there is knowledge to be obtained, or that there is happiness to be felt, or something else entirely? — Harry Hindu

A lot of mystics believe there is knowledge to be gleaned from mystical illumination. The sort of knowledge that might give rise to proclamations about the ins and outs of the universe. As a philosophical skeptic - Sextus Empiricus is an old friend - it seems silly to me to make claims about something as large, clunky and mysterious as the universe. There is certainly knowledge to be gleaned about the construction, mechanics and potentialities of the mind.

In short: to my view, mystical experience is a psychical phenomenon and can only teach us things about the mind.

Most mystics don't situate their illuminations on such a skeptical ground. That makes for a ton of philosophical muck and mockbait.

It seems to me that one can do these things and not have a mystical experience. So, what makes these experiences mystical for one and not another? — Harry Hindu

Desire and determination are key. The word 'seeker' comes to mind along with the old phrase 'seek and you shall find.' The obverse reads: do not seek and you shall not find.

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. — Pantagruel

So instead of addressing the point, you would rather engage in ad hominems. :roll:

Look who's talking. It seems to me that if we can't agree on whether things have multiple dimensions or aspects or not, then we are both not settling on a middle ground. Can you point to the post where you settled on a middle ground with me?

I guess you missed this part:

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? — Harry Hindu

So, if I am so entrenched in my beliefs, then how is it that I did a complete 180 on my beliefs earlier in my life? It is because I began to ask questions that weren't being asked and any answer I received didn't integrate with the rest of what was known or being said.

As part of our conversation, I have taken your position and then, like I did with my Christian beliefs, I began to ask questions and integrate your answers with the rest of what you said but, as I have shown, it is inconsistent.

So it seems to me that you are guilty of what you are accusing me of. Hypocrisy.

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. — Pantagruel

Wrong. I am pursuing your narrative and asking questions about it - questions that you should be asking yourself, but you aren't, because 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." - specifically that things have multiple dimensions or aspects.

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. — Pantagruel

I don't understand how you could be disagreeing with me if all we ever talk about is our opinions.

This also contradicts this statement of yours:

We know that we are talking about the same thing when we achieve consensus. — Pantagruel

Which is why I asked how we know that we are talking about the same thing if there isn't a consensus, which you avoided and then attempted an answer that just contradicted another previous statement of yours, which I showed, and so now you respond with hypocrisy and ad hominems.

So, who is it that needs to re-think their position again?

It seems to me that one can do these things and not have a mystical experience. So, what makes these experiences mystical for one and not another?
— Harry Hindu

Desire and determination are key. The word 'seeker' comes to mind along with the old phrase 'seek and you shall find.' The obverse reads: do not seek and you shall not find. — ZzzoneiroCosm

So how is this not the same thing as what I have said in that you already have to believe in mystical, supernatural things to go seeking it out? You already have to believe in ghosts to be scared by them, or use ghosts as an explanation for the "unexplained" sounds in your house.