Mysticism

[Sally]

There's this huge, complex history of spiritual and philosophical debate that spans centuries and border and cultures.... I've come across it here and there, in history and literature and science. I see it in Catholocism and Kabbalah and Buddhism and Satanism and Shamanism and Hinduism and.... more, the more I know.

The Mystical Ideal of ... Isolation/Communion. I suppose is a way to put it. Holiness. Oneness. Inner peace. The energy that all matter is composed of.

And it seems like, for each sect, there are doctrines, but it's understood that the highest level transends all the symbols and all the rules - it's quite possible that I'm selectively remembering only that which suits my theory.

But I figure I'll just throw this out there - Mysticism. Not as an argument of belief (that would be rich, coming from me), but to see if we can put aside the 'is it, isn't it,' unknowable, unprovable aspects, and discuss.... Application, I suppose. Or interest. Or the Progressive Rock interpretation of Frederick II. Or whatever. >:}

[Sally]

And then take this thread on intuition, for example (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=1679&highlight=mysticism).

It's unfortunate, I suppose, that mysticism has an association with Belief. When it can make for.... interesting interpretations. Of reality. Exercises in Thought more patable to a rational mind.

And perhaps the science/mystical rift has been a detriment to both. Not that intellectuals should find themselves constrained by any Populist mode.

[Rhu]

I often find mysticism to be beautiful in a way... Seeing the rites and rituals as things of beauty requires two things of me--detatchement from my natural tendancy to say, "Religion is probably bogus," and a desire to understand the symbology involved in mystic item of study (be it performed or written.)

Further, the quest for the reason behind particular traditions and acts can be very interesting as well--did someone establish this routine out of a desire to control? Because they realized the practice would make people healthier but couldn't explain the reason? Is this advice a function of love or of fear? How many different things could this be a mixture of?

Recent example--I just got back from a wedding, in a Lutheran church. Most of the weddings I've seen in the past have been Albanian or Greek Orthodox... There are a wide variety of differences, but most interesting to me was the comparative lack of sexual symbology in the Lutheran wedding. Hell, I think it was limited to just a trio of candles, which is quite a contrast to the Orthodox weddings, which are stuffted with subtle symbolic sexual suggestion.

[Sally]

I wonder..... I tend to explain everything in terms of conscious and subconscious. Naturally, symbols appeal to the subconscious. And visions, feelings, preternatural knowledge, etc. - my rationalist explanation is that it's the mind's expression of subconscious knowledge. Just as perception is the mind's expression of sense.

But, instead of Stepping Back and Rationalizing, if there were a way to seize both. Solipsism as the inverse of Infinite Perception. I suppose the subconscious itself can be both Rational and Mystical at the same time.

[Rhu]

It may be simplistic, but mysticism and symbology are of interest to the concious mind in a "Oh, wow... now that's a clever and <subjective judgement> way of stating that fact!" sort of way.

As for mystic visions and such--It could be an expression of something that was intuited into the subconcious (in the case of honest believers) or it could also be an artful contrivance for some sort of manipulative or argumentative purpose. Sometimes it is clear which is which, sometimes it is an interesting puzzle to infer why something is.

For instance--Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, because God tells them to. The reason pork is to be avoided is because of the rather high occurance of parasites in pigs that tend to find a rather cushy home in human intestines. Did the early Jews realize this in its entirety and ban pork because of that? Or did someone figure it out along the lines of: "Hey, people have been eating this garbage and getting sick--God probably doesn't want us to eat it."?

[kuranes]

There seems to be many different things referred to with the word "mysticism", with some being related to words like "Nirvana" and "atman" that are impossible to define, and others being quite formal /hermetic involving rituals/secrets etc.

I do find it a fascinating subject, and have studied it off and on since my college days. The book that got me started was Hesse's "Sidhartha". I then read all of Hesse that could get my hands on, though i have yet to read "The Journey to the East." Alan Watts was another favorite during this period. Lately Ken Wilber . . . . . . . . . .
www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570627401/104-6302373-4487143?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

[illusivemind]

And then take this thread on intuition, for example (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=1679&highlight=mysticism).

It's unfortunate, I suppose, that mysticism has an association with Belief. When it can make for.... interesting interpretations. Of reality. Exercises in Thought more patable to a rational mind.

And perhaps the science/mystical rift has been a detriment to both. Not that intellectuals should find themselves constrained by any Populist mode.

Belief tends to be where exploration ends. People talk about how much value and meaning beliefs and belief systems add to their lives, this is at the heart of mysticism and religion, creating values and meanings. However the rational person can see that these meanings and values and no in of themselves absolute, but an interpretive map superimposed onto the human experience. To form a belief about any of these interpretations is to the exclusion of all others, until you work hard enough to rid yourself of that belief, thus belief tends to be where exploration ends.

However, the same pitfall that awaits the religious worshipper, lies in store for the 'rational' observer. For in identifying ritualistic belief systems as interpretive maps it is easy to 'believe' that the reality they are being superimposed onto is the 'correct' scientific version of the universe. That these are simply ways of explaining phenomena now explained by modern science. This of course neglects the view that modern science is yet another interpretive map, be it an improvement or not.

In replacing mystical beliefs with scientific ones the rational observer removes the state of mind which is vital for the most enhanced understanding of the human experience and the driving force which gave way to the ritualistic systems in the first place. This is the state of not knowing, of doubt, mystery and wonder. Of understanding that the systems we create to engender meaning in the universe are grafted onto an otherwise unknowable reality by ourselves.

In realizing this perhaps one can hold onto contradictory interpretations at once, open to what any and all may offer. Perhaps one can access the transcendental experiences mysticism offers without believing in superstition and one can utilize scientific explanations without believing the answers have been found.

[Sally]

In realizing this perhaps one can hold onto contradictory interpretations at once, open to what any and all may offer. Perhaps one can access the transcendental experiences mysticism offers without believing in superstition and one can utilize scientific explanations without believing the answers have been found.

I think that's a good way to go about things. Science itself is inherently mystical, the deeper down you go, pulling things apart. You get to the fabric of reality, and realize that there are No Working Assumptions - it's like asking about the origin of god. Or just mathematical patterns. Art is Science and Science Art. It can be Explored, but it can't and doesn't Need to be fully explained.