I’m not so assiduous about avoiding all religion as yourself. I bought Murdoch’s Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals for a relative for Christmas last, I will borrow it back at some point. It was recommended to me by a lecturer when I did my last degree.

ecstasy - ex outside of; stasis - ‘business as usual’.
— Wayfarer
:fire:

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) - sleep, play, prayer, meditation, or contemplation via [ ... ] 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.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

[emphasis added]

The Greek word which appears is έκ-στασις and then means "to be or stand outside oneself, a removal to elsewhere" — javi2541997

[emphasis added]

I haven't lifted my head out of @T Clark thread on the Tao Te Ching (TTC) for so long.
This morning I thought I would peek in here to see what I could see...
I found the above quotes which relate to the current discussion of Verse 18 of the TTC and 'ego'.

Not sure about 'acting from our true natures' - what is your true nature ?
What do you think of how our egos and personality colour the way we understand and interact with others when we discuss the TTC ? I too see the TTC as a guidebook - but how we are guided depends on the translation. We can be led astray...

In Derek Lin's YouTube presentation of Ch13, lines 8-12 he paraphrases his translation:
The greatest misfortune is the self. How is it our biggest problem is the ego ? Think about all the troubles we get into when the ego is out of control. The issue here is to dial down the sense of self-importance.
13-16: The greatest rulers are the ones who can transcend the ego. They feel concern for the greater good. The greatest individuals are ones who love something greater than themselves; the family, team and community. They are the ones who can truly take charge of their own destiny.

Some might say, "Get over yourself !"... — Amity

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521801

I had never heard of 'unselfings' before this but have read Iris Murdoch.
I found this article by Jules Evans:
https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/iris-murdoch-on-techniques-of-unselfing

I think my time would be better spent on reading such.
A re-visit to Iris Murdoch and listening to her might be just what is right for me, right now.
Either way, I need to get out for a breather...
Thanks :sparkle:

I bought Murdoch’s Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals — Wayfarer

From Amazon:

'This book represents the summation of Murdoch's work as a philosopher. It surveys the development of Western philosophy, from Plato to Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein, and takes issue with new trends such as structuralism, arguing the case for a moral view in metaphysical argument. Iris Murdoch has written a number of short philosophical works including "The Fire and the Sun" and "Sartre: Romantic Rationalist".]

:up: I recommend her much more concise Platonic work The Sovereignty of Good. 

I had never heard of 'unselfings' before this but have read Iris Murdoch.
I found this article by Jules Evans:
https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/iris-murdoch-on-techniques-of-unselfing — Amity

I never heard about this word neither. In this forum I learn something new everyday! It is amazing. I will check out your link. Appreciated:100:

Thanks, will look it up. (The other book struck me as somewhat rambling.)

Good. Her idea is simple and profound and I've applied it to my own concerns. And yet, by no means am I a (neo)Platonist like Ms. Murdoch; some of her essays, though, have really moved me out of some of my intellectual comfort zones, for which I'm in the Dame's debt.

:up:

recommend her much more concise Platonic work The Sovereignty of Good. — 180 Proof

It's been a while - some of her writing has a rare power.

As soon as any idea is a consolation the tendency to falsify it becomes strong: hence the traditional problem of preventing the idea of God from degenerating in the believer's mind.
― Iris Murdoch, The Sovereignty of Good

Yes. I need to revisit her work soon (just took the book off the shelf and put it on "the pile").

The pursuit of “higher” (whatever that may entail) states of consciousness to broaden perception and/or worldview through intentionally altering or introducing one’s self to altered mind states using things like meditation, yoga, music, and/or psychedelics (which are notorious for giving people experiences that are considered ineffable and spiritual in nature.)

Would esotericism, fortune telling (astrology and tarot card readings) and magical rituals in the cult and pagan religions come under mysticism?

In popular literature, that is what 'mysticism' is. But it has a rather more specific definition in comparative religion, philosophy and theology. Take a look at the work of Bernard McGinn and Evelyn Underhill. I think Eckhardt Tolle is a current example. Also Richard Rohr.

Great info and the links. Thanks. :fire: :up:

[1] Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

[2] Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

[3] The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality.

[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis

[6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power — T Clark

What puzzles me about these various definitions is "self-delusion or dreamy confusion" and "a belief without sound basis" appear alongside God, Deity, Ultimate reality, Spiritual truth, Union, Knowledge & Communion thereunto.

Is God/ultimate reality/spiritual truth only accessible through insanity (delusion) and foolishness (confusion)?

If yes, then TheMadFool must be a mystic of the highest order. :lol: Jokes aside, the idea seems to be transcend logic. The only way I can make sense of this recommendation is to consider logic as just a tiny window our minds have opened unto reality, it operates only at the human scale, the world of things we can bump into so to speak. At scales smaller (atomic/nothing) and larger (cosmic/infinite), logic is useless, even a hindrance. Thus to grasp the full spectrum of reality, ultimate reality as it were, we need to break free from the grips of logic as we know it. God is sometimes viewed as infinity (Georg Cantor's absolute infinity). Has any philosopher understood nothing? :chin:

As for the Tao Te Ching, the last English translation that I read indicates the presence of mystical elements in it...I recall there's mention of infinity at a critical juncture in the book.

the farthest edges of your mind is "mysticism" and the farthest edges of your senses is "spiritual"

the farthest edges of your mind is "mysticism" and the farthest edges of your senses is "spiritual" — hope

As the previous posts in this thread indicate, there is more to it than that.

there is more to it than that. — T Clark

"If you can't explain it to a 12 year old you still don't understand it."

"If you can't explain it to a forum of cantankerous autodidact philosophers, you still don't understand it."

"If you can't explain it to a forum of cantankerous autodidact philosophers, you still don't understand it." — Noble Dust

Try to explain the taste of honey to someone who has never tasted it and realize its impossible and nothing can be explained, for all "explanations" are dependent upon shared experience and experience is ineffable.

"Sweet like sugar, thick and sticky, and slightly floral". Easy.

"Sweet like sugar, thick and sticky, and slightly floral". Easy. — Noble Dust

You just proved my point. You tried to explain the taste of honey using other shared experiences.

I still don't know what honey taste like. When I taste it only then will I realize it was a little bit similar to what you described but also 100% different.

You tried to explain the taste of honey using other shared experiences. — hope

That's fine with me.

That's fine with me. — Noble Dust

So you didn't really explain anything. Or you simply displayed what "explanations" really are. They are nothing but pointers to experiences. and the experiences are ineffable. Therefore nothing is ever explained nor ever will be.

Do you think experiences can be shared?

Do you think experiences can be shared? — Noble Dust

All communication predicates shared memories.

Two beings that are nothing alike can never communicate. One of them just saying hello might murder the other by accident.

Whatever you say...

Whatever you say... — Noble Dust

The more alike two beings are the easier communication will be.

"If you can't explain it to a 12 year old you still don't understand it." — hope

I think I could explain it to a 12-year-old. People here, @Noble Dust's "cantankerous autodidact philosophers" are more set in their ways. They've read philosophy, found philosophies they like, and become more rigid in their beliefs. Less open to alternative ways of seeing things.

and become more rigid in their beliefs — T Clark

Or maybe they became more firm in the truth.

Hello James, we already debated this topic in this thread created by @T Clark Probably you are interested in what we discussed then because it is related to your question.
What is Mysticism?

can one's brain experience Mystical phenomena? — 1 Brother James

I think this is very opened to so different answers. There are people who actually defends they lived some Mysticism and they use it as an argument to explain everything around them. To be honest, I think the same as you and I am agree. For me, Mysticism is another religious belief which operates similar towards another religion dogma. According to the thread I shared above, I wrote back in the day:

No, completely not. As you shared with us, mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living.

Context: We were debating if Taoism could be consider as "Mysticism". I stated no because Tao Te King is clearly a philosophical view which is related to our awareness, life, virtues, ethics, etc...
So much different from Mysticism, which is "spiritual energy" as you mentioned.