I-Thou. — 180 Proof

Yes. Thanks.

Hmmm. It's certainly possible.

Then again, when Democritus was talking about atoms was he talking about the same atoms Bohr was talking about? It's not evident to me that they were talking about the same thing. Likewise, when Descartes spoke of bodies, was he referring to the same notion we use when we speak of bodies? There's a difference in that idea too. Maybe in essence, we are speaking of similar ideas?

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.

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.

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.

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. — T Clark

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. You find there is no inconsistency between the rational models developed through science and math with the ineffable element you personally encounter in Tao Te Ching. But that element cannot be expressed in the scientific terms you do not wish to abandon. Lao Tzu calls to for us to observe the element through doing some things and not doing others. The view seems to have its own "reasons."

Now that could mean something like Pascal saying: "The heart has reasons that reason does not know." I am pretty sure that is a religious register you are not interested in. But the two ways of approaching experience are standing side by side. Will one kind of model become the ground for the other or will they follow parallel lines for all of eternity? Looked at that way, it is both a philosophical and religious problem at the same time. The limit to what can be explained is a key element to both enterprises. It looks like the camel has got his nose under your tent and could go for his own plate of meat and potatoes.

The matter of parallel models is something I blundered about on Jack Cummins post upon Jung's understanding of God. 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. Was it an accident? Was it Michelangelo's God zapping Adam with static electricity? It seems to me that if Jung is successful in uncovering the truth about our development through symbols, he should be able to ask new questions about this hand off.

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. — T Clark

I wasn't challenging your way of describing mysticism nor objecting to your desire to see it separately from the occult that is not real in your mind. I think everyone who considers the matter has to make that distinction. One way you expressed it is: "taking words that are meant to be metaphorical as literal truth."
Well, it is in the context of metaphor where different interpretations take place. I don't think you should stop using the word altogether. If all our interpretations are just reflections of what we think by ourselves, the sense of sharing a text will be lost. It is in that sense that I said that we cannot cast out those who we even violently disagree with as living on a different planet.

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. — T Clark

There's good paper on the "red" argument, surprisingly, but that's a topic for another thread.

What you are describing reminds me of Susan Haack's "Innocent Realism", it's very interesting. This one I can share publicly, as opposed to Chomsky's essay, because this one is available online. I'll post it here in case anyone want's to take a look at it, I think it's a promising framework, and seems to follow from what you are saying:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305505412_THE_WORLD_ACCORDING_TO_INNOCENT_REALISM_THE_ONE_AND_THE_MANY_THE_REAL_AND_THE_IMAGINARY_THE_NATURAL_AND_THE_SOCIAL_2016

I think that you are correct to see the term mysticism as a term which can be applied and interpreted in different ways. No one has exclusive claim on the term, or right to say whether or not the term should be used.

There is the whole question of whether Jung was or wasn't a mystic. He was specifically interested in Taoism, but also in many other esoteric ideas. He did not like the term mystic, but was often labelled as one. I think that it is partly a problem of labels and choice of words.

Generally, I think that the use of the word, mystic, itself only matters for ideas being communicated clearly. It goes beyond word categorisation really and is about the ideas stemming and underlying the words. However, it is such a complex area because it is about experiential reality and probably every person has their own unique understanding. 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. It may be that the poets and other creative writers were the most accomplished in translating it into language which could be grasped by others.

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.

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

I'll take a look. Thanks.

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.

By talking so much about models, I wanted to propose that reference to the "mystical" is always connected to a view of what it is not. That "ordinary" realm is often gestured at as something that doesn't have to explain itself. The given quality of that is a reasonable starting place where ordinary life doesn't include a lot of people walking on water or people really being able to know what will happen next. That approach is very different from the "natural" being sought through what Jung describes as the physical/biological model of evolution.

Some have complained that Jung's account of some experiences are "supernatural" departures of the scientific production of models within which he also participates. I don't care about that. He is the one who set up the differences as possibilities for different outcomes. But such a set up makes talking about a creator a sticky wicket. A "religious" understanding of what comes about is not connected to one of the central ideas of how beings come about. Weak beer if you want your creation narratives attempt to connect what you have learned about the creation to each other.

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.

I am not interested in generating definitions for the "supernatural" If that is what the "religious" means for you, then my challenge to compare the scientific/math narrative to the one you are attentive to in Tao Te Ching needs a different set of references.

I will just say: they are different, and go from there.

One of the complexities which I see with trying to evaluate Jung's perspective is that he is drawing upon his own dreams and visionary experience and interpretations of various writers. The effect which I believe that has it makes his writing rich to read and certain ideas stand out.

However, it seems to me that it makes it difficult to analyse them in the exact way which is often done within philosophy. Also, he compresses so much detail and has written so much that it would be a lifetime's work trying to analyse it. But, I still wish to explore his writings, and I found reading 'The Red Book' very interesting. Also, I did manage to have brief access to a very rare book of his, 'The Visions Seminars' and that showed more of his personal visionary experience.

His personal experience of the numinous is so much more evident in writings which were outside of his 'Collected Works'. But, 'Answer to Job' seems to be more on that level, and I believe that he was in a fairly intense state of mind as he wrote it. But I do think that in many ways, his writings fall in the category of 'supernatural' revelations, although outside of the mainstream Christian tradition.

Having just written a long entry here, I am wondering if we discuss Jung any further perhaps it would be best if we resuscitate the 'Jung and God' thread. I don't wish to derail the discussion on mysticism. The reason why it fizzled out was probably because I was struggling to give it as much attention as I wanted because I was staying with my mother for Easter. She wanted me to talk to her rather than sit reading and writing constantly.

This is just a statement of personal bias. What you really mean is "stuff I don't know anything about", and you fallaciously conclude that this means "stuff we don't know anything about", And when you accept this faulty proposition you can proceed to the deductive conclusion that those talking about it know nothing about it. See below: — Metaphysician Undercover

Knowledge is not individual, Meta. It is shared.

Good idea. I will try to respond to your observation.
On the other hand, you don't seem interested in the "mystic
versus science point of view that I have been discussing. Does that sort of thing fall outside of your areas of concern?

I am interested in that kind of discussion but it just doesn't seem to be what T Clark is wishing to have. The other thing is that there are so many potential discussions going on that it tthe thread may become really fragmented. So, I am inclined to think that certain areas are best explored as separate threads rather than in this particular one.

Hmmn. T Clark opened this up with a specific alignment to being on board with scientific models as part of the good thing.
If you got something to say about that, what better place?

I will have a look at the beginning again tomorrow, because sometimes when several pages have been written it is easy to lose sight of how it began. 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.

Take your time.
I don't take your conclusions as the last word on what might happen if challenged.

Excerpt from an anonymous, first-person account provided to Richard Bucke and published in his 1901 book, Cosmic Consciousness. It concerns the mystical awakening of a woman, known only as 'C.M.C.' It begins with a brief autobiographical account. In that she writes of her religious upbringing, saying 'The vastness and grandeur of the God which I felt in nature I could never reconcile with the God in the Bible, try as I would, and of course I felt myself a wicked skeptic in consequence.' She writes of a deep, lifelong search, and of discovering modern science through various sources which led her to describe herself as agnostic. All of this culminated in the following 'awakening' at which time she would have been 40 years of age.

At dinner I remarked: "How strangely happy I am to-day!" If I had realized then, as I did afterwards, what a great thing was happening to me, I should doubtless have dropped my work and given myself up to the contemplation of it, but it seemed so simple and natural (with all the wonder of it) that I and my affairs went on as usual. The light and color glowed, the atmosphere seemed to quiver and vibrate around and within me. Perfect rest and peace and joy were everywhere, and, more strange than all, there came to me a sense as of some serene, magnetic presence grand and all pervading. The life and joy within me were becoming so intense that by evening I became restless and wandered about the rooms, scarcely knowing what to do with myself. Retiring early that I might be alone, soon all objective phenomena were shut out. I was seeing and comprehending the sublime meaning of things, the reasons for all that had before been hidden and dark. The great truth that life is a spiritual evolution, that this life is but a passing phase in the soul's progression, burst upon my astonished vision with overwhelming grandeur. Oh, I thought, if this is what it means, if this is the outcome, then pain is sublime! Welcome centuries, eons, of suffering if it brings us to this! And still the splendor increased. Presently what seemed to be a swift, oncoming tidal wave of splendor and glory ineffable came down upon me, and I felt myself being enveloped, swallowed up.

I felt myself going, losing myself. Then I was terrified, but with a sweet terror. I was losing my consciousness, my identity, but was powerless to hold myself. Now came a period of rapture, so intense that the universe stood still, as if amazed at the unutterable majesty of the spectacle! Only one in all the infinite universe! The All-loving, the Perfect One! The Perfect Wisdom, truth, love and purity! And with the rapture came the insight. In that same wonderful moment of what might be called supernal bliss, came illumination. I saw with intense inward vision the atoms or molecules, of which seemingly the universe is composed—I know not whether material or spiritual—rearranging themselves, as the cosmos (in its continuous, everlasting life) passes from order to order. What joy when I saw there was no break in the chain—not a link left out—everything in its place and time. Worlds, systems, all blended in one harmonious whole. Universal life, synonymous with universal love!

The editor notes that the subject's sister wrote to him :

It was in December, three months after, that I saw my sister for the first time after the experience described, and her changed appearance made such a deep impression on me that I shall never forget it. Her looks and manner were so changed that she scarcely seemed the same person. There was a clear, bright, peaceful light in her eyes, lighting her whole face, and she was so happy and contented—so satisfied with things as they were. It seemed as though some heavy weight had been lifted and she was free. As she talked to me I felt that she was living in a new world of thought and feeling unknown to me. Sincerely, P. M.

Remainder here.

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.

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.

I can't resist adding some more comments here, this really is an inexhaustible topic. People have different sensibilities, preferences, perspectives, biases and perceptions. I can't substantiate this claim with any evidence, but I suspect a minority of people may not have felt as impactful something analogous to what mysticism may be, which can be loosely associated with spiritualism and the like.

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. In this sense there is the external anchor, meaning, we relate the mystical experience with something in manifest reality, the world "out there", to speak loosely.

Another instance would be that of an internal nature. I remember once walking in my city, listening to music, I don't remember what kind. I suppose I was feeling good, or at least I was untroubled. As I was taking my usual route, quite suddenly, my body disappeared from the planet. What follows can only be an aberration as put into words. But it was if my body ceased to exist. I was only consciousness. I suppose a very rough analogy would be to think of the phenomenon of ball lighting in the mind's eye, all there was was thoughts connected to other thoughts, waxing in and out seamlessly.

I had no legs, no arms. The world was gone, in the sense that it receded so far into the background, it was inconsequential and totally negligible. Kinda like when one goes to the movie theater and is so engrossed in the movie, that you cease to notice the seats and people around you, but magnified to maximum capacity.

This must have lasted, I want to say, somewhere between 7 to 10 minutes. As soon as the world left, it came back. And I was immediately cognizant of the fact that something absolutely extraordinary had happened, feeling like a cloud of blissful thought. This kind of mystical experience I'd call "internal", in the sense that the world per se was not the object of amazement. I've never known what it meant, nor how to get that feeling back, if it's possible at all.

I reached no theological conclusions, nor did it vindicate or eliminate any previous views I my have had about the world. Only the trivial statement that the power of the mind is beyond words, by far.

I can only say that I do feel sorry for that potentially few percentage of people who deny or pay no attention to such experiences. But I understand that this type of personal evidence should not be taken to make theoretical postulates about the world.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel I should've shared that, if only for my benefit.

Knowledge is not individual, Meta. It is shared. — Banno

Thanks for telling me your dreams.

I have looked at the introduction to the thread and think that my own interest in mysticism is probably in the sense of category number 7, of hidden truths. One of the books which I am reading currently is 'Secret Teachers of my Western Tradition,' by Gary Lachman. In it, he does look at mystical ideas, such as those of Blake and Goethe. Lachman, who was also drummer in the pop band Blondie, is one of my favourite writers, and also wrote, 'Jung the Mystic', as well as others, including one on the ideas of Rudolf Steiner.

I spend a lot of time reading these books, but I do see it more as a process of gaining wisdom rather than declaring definitive truths. At times in my life I have almost felt 'beaten up' psychologically by people from religious or secular backgrounds who have tried to enforce their ideas. So, when I write on this site, I approach it with a view to meaningful exchange of ideas, but with a certain point of caution. I think that it is a problem if people claim to know more, or have the correct way of seeing than others.

However, that is not to say that there are not methods of analysis or certain knowledge which can be shared. However, I think that the quest which underlies the questions underlying the mystic quest goes beyond the actual ideas. Lachman says,
'Reading is simply more than simply looking at the pages and reflecting them. I have to make the mental effort of absorbing the words, connecting them, and assimilating them to my experience'.
I think that he is capturing the way in which ideas are not independent from our lives. They have to be absorbed subjectively, in order to become insights, rather than just remain as philosophical arguments. I am not saying that philosophical discussion is not an important aspect of this process, but it goes deeper and beyond the surface of the actual arguments, in the development of meaningful insight.

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.

I have read a few books by Carlos Castaneda and found them helpful, although I am not sure to what extent they are fictitious, as I have read some debate on this. Generally, I am interested in shamanism, which does involve exploring states of consciousness.

Even though I suggested to you that I am not a pragmatist, I think that this is not strictly true. I was really meaning more in a literal practical sense. However, my whole interest is in the idea of healing oneself and others, which definitely is about what works. I am interested in exploring ideas beyond conventional ones, but not just as abstract ones, so my own interest in mysticism and the esoteric is in that context. 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.

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.