Mysticism

Post Reply New Topic

Hello there!

I was wondering: are there any Aspergers here interested in mysticism (I mean the one inspired by the Christian or the Eastern philosophies tradition, not the New Age type)?

a couple hands up here, but I suspect you will need to narrow your definition - like "religion", "mysticism" means a lot of things to different people.

Given gender differentiation in the spectrum, you will likely get more female positives than male.

Everything that exists is physical.

While there are many problems, quandries and puzzles, there are no mysteries.

ruveyn

I'm a male mystic, hi!

would anyone mind defining "mysticism"? I really don't know what people mean by it

Indeed.

There have been a couple of threads on this subject in the last few months which were little more than debates on what mysticism is. I go with this definition: Underhill, Evelyn "Practical Mysticism" Chapter I

Is that what you wanted to discuss?

Last edited by NobelCynic on 24 Jan 2011, 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A belief that there are things and processes that are not inherently part of the natural order and therefore cannot be understood in naturalistic and rational terms.

This is a mistaken belief. Everything that exists is natural. However we might not be smart enough to figure out what they are and how they work.

ruveyn

ah, I see. Yeah, as you said, everything that exists is natural, and we know they obey some laws, even though they are often difficult to discern.

... and how that came to be is occasionally alleged to be a mystery.

Yes, it is a mystery. The world does obey mechanical laws, but we can't say why. If we dissect the laws we observe, if we follow the chain of causation, we can't explain how the first event came to be. There is an infinite recursion. But the same is true if you postulate a God.

The fact is, people are cut off from epistemic knowledge about most of the Universe. Mystics claim to have this knowledge, but they don't. The senses aren't fallable. Sensational as a whole is. So things cannot be understood for certain in terms of hard evidence, or "that funny feeling in my tummy" telling me gods are real and dolphins are re-incarnated Angels.

I'm not claiming there is no objective truth. There is. But I am claiming we are cut off from knowing it. The human condition is Uncertainty, Uncertainty for the hard Rationalist, Uncertainty for the Airy-Fairy Mystic. We are shrouded in mystery. Science seems to push back that Shroud and Mysticism fails to understand it.

I always thought of mysticism as being about pursuing practices that bring about a direct relationship with reality, or god, whatever you might want to call it, as opposed to one that was mediated through something or someone else.

I could be dead wrong, never bothered to look at the word in a dictionary.

"Love" doesn't exist in nature. Neither do numbers or math. Yet we accept those things as real. In a strict sense, there is more to reality than the physical world.

Also, epistemic knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge that there is.

Oh, you misinterpreted me. Some ideas are more true than things that exist in the real world. Somethings are just unarguable. For example;

"I think, therefore I am"
"Language is meaningful"
"A=A"

try to disprove any of the above

However, consider this nasty piece of logic I happened upon:

The statement “The senses* are Invalid” may be true, but it cannot be proven. If the senses are invalid, then no evidence can be used to support the above. If they are valid, we still can’t use them to prove the above. In short, we cannot gather any evidence* in favour, or against, the validity of the senses.

Despite this, everyone makes the assumption the senses are valid. If they are valid, then large areas of Science is axiomatically true, while very little of Religion is.

But since perception might not be valid, there is unarguable, fundamental uncertainty in any analysis of the outside world. Scientist don't claim certainty. The mystics, and the religious do.

*Including any "intuition" or "funny feelings"

But is certainly the only Truth with a capital T.

Not really.

Think about it.

Let's say you have parts to build a computer along with instructions and diagrams describing how to assemble the computer. You assemble the computer, plug it into a power source, turn it on, and by the miracles of modern technology--IT WORKS!! !

You enjoyed assembling the computer, so you decide to assemble another identical computer from an identical kit with identical instructions. You test it, and it works.

You still enjoy it, so you decide to assemble another, and it also works.

After you've assembled so many computers, you've memorized all the necessary steps and no longer need paper instructions. You take the necessary steps, no instructions needed, and every single time you produce a computer that functions properly.

Time passes, many more computers are assembled, maybe even some computers with custom features or specialized functions. And let's say you get so good at assembling computers you take on an apprentice to help with the work load. You show him step-by-step how to assemble computers and, following your instructions, he does a beautiful job assembling computers.

So one day, he asks you how you know to assemble computers the way you do. So much time has passed you don't really know "how" you know, you just know that you "just do it." You started out following instructions, but the instructions are long gone. So how DO you know?

Epistemic knowledge is one part of broader "propositional knowledge," a sort of "if/then" kind of knowledge. Assembling computers from memory or habit is not propositional, however. It comes from your familiarity with computer assembly. You acquaintance with computers, so to speak. Now, if you produce variations of the original computer in order to perform specific tasks, you step from mere familiarity to instinct or intuition. This, again, is not propositional knowledge. You also have the ability to transmit this knowledge in the same way you learned it, but beyond that transmission the knowledge is no longer propositional.

Knowledge through acquaintance or intuition lacks the kind of "prove it" qualities that propositional "epistemic" knowledge has. But we demonstrate this kind of knowledge to be true every day.

A simpler example is riding a bike. The physics of bike-riding could fill an entire textbook volume. However, it doesn't take an expert in physics to learn how to ride a bike. Similarly, a physics professor who has never ridden a bike won't generally be prepared for the application of physical science to the skill of riding a bike. Now, he might be acquainted with the physics involved in riding a bike, perhaps read a study on physics and bike-riding (epistemic), and has a sort of acquaintance-knowledge of riding a bike without actually having ridden a bike. But he lacks the skill of riding a bike. If you assemble so many computers, you aren't just familiar with computers, but you are SKILLED at building computers. A child, who has no theoretical awareness of physics, can develop the skill of putting those physical laws to work by riding a bike, falling off, and repeated attempts until the skill is fully developed. Thus skill or ability knowledge, of which intuition plays a small role and also lacks that "prove it" kind of quality, is still "True" with a "capital T."

As a practicing linguist, I am entitled to despise what language forces us into. The lexical links of mystery / mystical are as the concepts have developed rather unfortunate. Not all the secrets of the mystery have anything to do with mysticism, not all of which is strictly mysterious.

Ruveyn is right to the extent that what is is.

But we are not in a position to claim EITHER that everything that is in the Universe is ultimately knowable from within te universe, OR that there are things in the universe NOT within our ultimate grasp. Nor can we demonstrate or on any basis other than postulating it to be so deny that there is what is OUTSIDE the universe, nor can we make claims as to any of THAT being knowable from in here.

Ruveyn chooses [and it may be a safe way, may even be, though I doubt it, a right way] the Last Battle dwarf tactic of affirming mystery ain't.

I personally take the equally safe way, and I THINK more correct way, of saying that there have been and ARE mysteries, though some may - even in my lifetime - be unmasked, and suspecting that THIS side of the semipermeable membrane much will remain mystery till ime's end [itself a mystery].

As for mysticism, for present practical purposes I prefer near but not quite NobelCynic;s take, to wit that mysticism in this context I understand as the awareness and the seeking of communion with What Is outside the universe, carefully avoiding contact with forces of dissolution inside and perhaps outside.

An imprecise definition, but that is inherent in the subject matter.