I do remember that one. I would say part lunatic, part lord.

Part lunatic in that he took himself to be god's gift to humankind - in his own words to the woman at the well. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Helps solve the Good Book's inconsistency problem. Parts of it were God's word when he wasn't a lunatic or a liar, parts of it were when he was one or the other, both even! :up:

However, studies show that those who are mysticism-oriented aren't mentally unstable - they tend to have jobs, families, friends, no criminal records, and have never been diagnosed with a mental affliction. — Agent Smith

Yes. The mystic moves slowly, by degrees, gaining mastery, into the waters in which the schizophrenic is plunged suddenly, wholly unprepared.

(deep) meditation. — Agent Smith

Deep meditation is not a simulation but mysticism itself.

This is precisely how deep meditative states feel: a movement toward sleep and dream while retaining full to partial conscious awareness. (I've been an avid meditator for more than 20 years.) — ZzzoneiroCosm

I've dabbled in meditation, but I wasn't cut out for it. I'm scatter-brained you see, I couldn't have chosen a worst possible hobby/activity for myself. I'm in a sense waiting for my mind to just collapse on the floor out of sheer exhaustion. 4 decades later, it doesn't seem to be showing any signs of slowing down. :sad:

I'm scatter-brained — Agent Smith

Meditation is the antidote for scatterbrainedness. But, sure, it's not for everyone. :smile:

Meditation is the antidote for scatterbrainedness. But, sure, it's not for everyone. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

:up: What's the difference between an unloaded gun and one whose magazine has been emptied? :chin:

Who was it that said that the strength of a man's character can be gauged by the amount of truth he is able to stomach?

Psychotic episodes can present in many different forms by way of many different triggers. When it comes to diagnosing someone as bipolar or schizophrenic it is not exactly an easy task because people can, and do, have episodes that look very much like these.

It basically comes down to stressing the body/mind. Alter states of consciousness are trigger by a severe stress - be this culminated over prolonged periods of time (anchorites and such) or brought on by some kind of trauma (strokes and forms of severe psychological stress).

It does not take long to see that every religious prophet was exposed to such stresses.

It does not take long to see that every religious prophet was exposed to such stresses — I like sushi

No pressure, no diamonds. — Thomas Carlyle

No pressure, no diamonds. — Thomas Carlyle

:cool:

ought the Dalai Lama be given medications till he holds no more belief in Nirvana and related and/or derivative Buddhist ideas - this on grounds that mysticism is linked to madness? — javra

I never said anything remotely like the above.

Keep reading the thread if you want to learn more about the link. I'll be posting more soon. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I’ve done my fair share of research into psychology and psychiatry. What you and express are nothing novel to me. I could probably further stoke this fire, so to speak, with other similar observations. So what conclusions do you draw from the links/connections correlations you’ve presented - and likely will further express - between the experiences of some mystics and the experiences of some madmen?

More concretely asked: Are all insights from the vast array of mystics to be considered the delusional insights of madmen - and, in so being delusional, thereby devoid of any existential truths? Taoism as just one example among many.

I know that the default answer of materialism is “yes”. Nothing novel in this either. Here, any and all spiritual/non-materialist experiences/insights and related reasoning are at best delusional. I’m so far assuming this is your stance - and, if so, so be it.

I’m asking you so as to find out if I’m wrong in so assuming.

Are all insights from the vast array of mystics to be considered the delusional insights of madmen - and, in so being delusional, thereby devoid of any existential truths? — javra

Of course not. I've said nothing to suggest that. You've leaped there for unknown reasons. In fact, I consider myself a mystic.

I’m asking you so as to find out if I’m wrong in so assuming. — javra

Not only wrong for so assuming but wrong in methodology as apparently your approach is to make a wild, baseless assumption and then a day later ask if it's wrong. I don't get that. Why do that?

Alright. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Not only wrong for so assuming but wrong in methodology as apparently your approach is to make a wild, baseless assumption and then ask if it's wrong. I don't get that. Why do that? — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's a conclusion that materialists are likely to make ... if not the only logically necessitated conclusion which materialism allows. Oh, and materialists are prevalent on this forum.

. So what conclusions do you draw from the links/connections correlations you’ve presented — javra

Now you want to revise my phraseology. I said links and I meant links.

Now you want to revise my phraseology. I said links and I meant links. — ZzzoneiroCosm

As in there can't be mysticism devoid of schizophrenia, bi-polarity, or the like? We may have different understandings of the term "link".

Oh, and materialists are prevalent on this forum. — javra

I know they are but I'm not in their camp. Materialism tells a good part of the story - but any kind of extremism is, to my view, ill-advised.

link — javra

Link-a relationship between two things or situations...


https://www.google.com/search?q=link+definition&oq=link+&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l2j0i20i131i263i433i512j0i131i433i512l2j0i67l2j46i131i175i199i433i512j0i433i512j0i271l2.2356j1j4&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

As in there can't be mysticism devoid of schizophrenia, bi-polarity, or the like? We may have different understandings of the term "link". — javra

What I mean to say is there is some kind of relationship (link, connection) between mystical and schizophrenic phenomena and experience. It's a complex relationship (link, connection) and this thread is designed to increase my understanding of it.

Materialism tells a good part of the story - but any kind of extremism is, to my view, ill-advised. — ZzzoneiroCosm

also

What I mean to say is there is some kind of relationship (link, connection) between mystical and schizophrenic phenomena and experience. It's a complex relationship (link, connection) and this thread is designed to increase my understanding of it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

To be clear, I acknowledge the often occurring commonalities between mysticism and madness so far presented. That said, do you have a working thesis on what distinguishes mysticism from madness that is more philosophically precise than the metaphor of how one deals with waters one is surrounded by?

To me, mystics (that are not madmen self-appraised as mystics) hold insights into (non-materialist) existential truths. At least, that's the best working thesis I have on a whim. At any rate, this to me signifies that materialism/physicalism as a doctrine (and not the presence of the material/physical) is in some way false.

That said, do you have a working thesis on what distinguishes mysticism from madness that is more philosophically precise than the metaphor of how one deals with waters one is surrounded by? — javra

No, no thesis yet. Still much more to learn.

At any rate, this to me signifies that materialism/physicalism as a doctrine (and not the presence of the material/physical) is in some way false. — javra

There are so many different kinds of materialism presented on the forum - the most extreme materialists I've bumped into deny even the existence of thoughts.

A less extreme materialism may be compatible with mystical experience. This isn't really where I'm focused as I take metaphysics to be a (happily) dying art.

The materialism-antimaterialism debate no longer holds much interest for me.

The materialism-antimaterialism debate no longer holds much interest for me. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Were it to be so for most. Who knows? Time will tell.

Thanks for the clarification. — javra

Welcome!

I think this is why the Muslims believe that Mohammed is the last prophet. Because there is something innately disturbing about prophecy. Islamic mysticism is about poetry, not about predicting the future. Jewish mysticism is heavily debated, as everything within the Jewish community has been heavily debated for millennia. Having had psychoses myself, I can certainly tell that there's a very thin line between sanity and insanity. Having almost fully recovered now after 10 years, I can certainly say that the psychoses made my life better. It's about the nuances. There are certainly sanities & insanities in mysticism. But also so much more than that.

On the Mad Pride movement:

"Paul Levy [a schizophrenic] eloquently described the initiation process in general terms— but in a manner that clearly reflected his own life journey. “The ordeals, trials, and tribulations that inevitably come our way as part of life and put us ‘through the fire’ are initiations, designed by a higher, divine intelligence, uniquely crafted for and by our soul to burn away our false, egoic personality traits so as to liberate our latent, higher psycho-spiritual potentials.”

Mad Pride [is] a budding grassroots movement, where people who have been defined as mentally ill reframe their conditions and celebrate unusual (some call them “spectacular”) ways of processing information and emotion."

From The Spiritual Gift of Madness

I think this is why the Muslims believe that Mohammed is the last prophet. Because there is something innately disturbing about prophecy. Islamic mysticism is about poetry, not about predicting the future. Jewish mysticism is heavily debated, as everything within the Jewish community has been heavily debated for millennia. Having had psychoses myself, I can certainly tell that there's a very thin line between sanity and insanity. Having almost fully recovered now after 10 years, I can certainly say that the psychoses made my life better. It's about the nuances. There are certainly sanities & insanities in mysticism. But also so much more than that. — Kevin Tan

Etymologically speaking, a prophet is "one who speaks for a god, an inspired preacher or teacher." The connotation of fortune-teller was, to my understanding, a more recent development. The Biblical prophets are, at heart, mystical poets; they may have had a vision of futurity, but a psychological reading of this vision - futurity not as future world, but as future Self - is in every case a practical possibility.

A psychological reading of the book of Revelation has been at the heart of my psychospiritual development; a vision centered in the word Overcome.

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. — John the Revelator

Chapters 1-20 relate the destruction of the mundane self; chapters 21-22 relate the birth of a 'higher' self; New Jerusalem, by name.

To have the name of god written upon you - this trope, to my view, is a poet's attempt to relay firsthand knowledge of what Maslow called the peak experience.





You may have some interest in the Mad Pride movement, with its roots in R. D. Laing's anti-psychiatric iconoclasm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Pride#:~:text=It%20was%20formed%20in%201993,the%20city%20except%20for%201996.


@Wayfarer (As someone who has without a doubt read deeper into these mysteries than I have, your point of view is always welcome.)

My only thought was that normality is a narrow band of behaviour. It's bell curve.

I wrote a blog post on it some time ago:

It is natural to assume that normality is an end in itself, or that the 'normal' mode of life is all that can be aspired to. People generally hold great stock in normality as a mode of being. But just because normality is our modus vivendi (way of life) does not make it our summum bonum (ultimate end.) Anyone spiritual must realise that normality is simply a transitional state and not the end of life. You don't want to be subnormal, but spirit calls you to be more than normal. It calls you to a state beyond the 'normal' concerns of the 'normal' life.

The way normal people worship fame and riches betrays the notion that, for them, 'normality' defines all our notions of reality and they can conceive of nothing beyond it. For being rich and famous - being a Star - is conceived of by the normal person as being the best thing that normality has to offer. Being A Star is the excellent version of normality, that to which all of us ordinary bourgeois individuals can only aspire. Stardom, or being rich and famous, is the Ultimate in Normality - it represents all of the things which normal people have and enjoy, but in more or less infinite supply and variety. Getting everything you want, in a world where getting what you want is the most important thing. Hence the paparazzi, and a large part of the 'normal' media. People are transfixed by it. They will kill for it. And because most people are normal, then naturally this is an enormous audience.

But I also see a different dimension to the human condition, that of the 'Self-Realised Individual' in the sense defined by the non-dualist schools of Indian culture. Now without going into the profound meaning of this term, let us just say that 'Self Realisation' is definitely not part of the normal condition of humanity. In other words, 'Self Realised Persons' are not 'normal persons'. The normal person is not self-realised, and the self-realised individual is not a normal person.

But self-realised individuals are not sub-normal. They are actually super-normal, they are outside the scope or realm of what we call 'normality'. Yet they are not mad, or psychotic, or degenerate. My thesis is, that if degrees of normality can be represented on the Bell Curve, then the self- realised individual is on the extreme right side of the curve.

So at the far left of the Bell Curve of normality are the sub-normal: psychotics, sociopaths, those who for one reason or another cannot live in 'normal' society (defined by Freud as 'the ability to love and to work').

Then you have the vast bell of the curve, 'normal people', moving, from the left, from those who are barely integrated, through the middle, where almost everyone you will ever know is, to the right of the bell curve, where superbly integrated people are - commensurately few in number, of course.

Then, probably fewer in number than the psychopaths and sociopaths, are the highly integrated humans, those who are as far above 'normality' as your psychopath is below it, on the extreme right of the bell curve.

I had in mind Abraham Maslow and the other transpersonal psychologists when I wrote that.

I suppose another point that can be mentioned is the idea of 'holy madness'. There is a recognised category, cross-cultural, of the 'holy madman (or woman)' who is 'possessed by God' but also completely fails to observe normal standards of behaviour. Such people might really be clinically insane, but they're said to be not only that, to also have a real 'charism'. You have to dig pretty deep in anthropological literature to find the accounts, but they're both interesting and a bit disturbing. There's closely-related accounts of holy (usually wandering) vagabonds and vagrants who are great spiritual beings in disguise, that are the subject of (usually edifying) tales, often both enlightening and humorous (like the classic Mullah Nasruddin stories from the Islamic culture).

There's closely-related accounts of holy (usually wandering) vagabonds and vagrants who are great spiritual beings in disguise, that are the subject of (usually edifying) tales, often both enlightening and humorous (like the classic Mullah Nasruddin stories from the Islamic culture). — Wayfarer

I remember bumping into the holy mad a decade or so ago. Thanks for the link.

actually not a very good collection of Mullah Nasriddin stories, but I’ve heard some great ones over the years.