mfbukowski Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Good stuff, mski, but James needs a little revision.Sure he does. That's why you need to read Paulsen and Faulconer and the other LDS philosophers who agree with James.
volgadon Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 I happened to be teaching the section on mysticism in my world history class today. I recorded it for those who want to know how I try to explain mysticism to general education undergraduates:[media=] I finally got a chance to watch this in full. Scandalous! I heard the words "sex," "ecstasy," "drug," "rave," and "stupid." Horrifying!All kidding aside, you really should develop that further and submit it to the upcoming conference.
The Nehor Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 The process of discovering the truth about things (including God) through unmediated personal contact with those things... not to say that you can't have a mediator, but that mediator would be helping you to discover the truth about things through your own unmediated personal contact with those things rather than by relying solely on that mediator.NOTE: If you don't agree that doesn't mean it's not a coherent definition of mysticism.It is a coherent definition but it is also a useless word.By this definition me talking to a friend is mysticism.Sex is mysticism.Me digging in dirt is mysticism.Prayer is mysticism.Recreational drug use is mysticism.Beating someone to death with my bare hands would also be mysticism.
Ahab Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 It is a coherent definition but it is also a useless word.By this definition me talking to a friend is mysticism.Sex is mysticism.Me digging in dirt is mysticism.Prayer is mysticism.Recreational drug use is mysticism.Beating someone to death with my bare hands would also be mysticism.Yes, to the extent mysticism is the process of discovering the truth about those things (including God) through unmediated personal contact with those things. In each example you're focusing on a specific discovery of different things, though, even though they're all a part of everything you can discover, collectively.For a less fancy word, substitute the word "learning" where you have "mysticism" while realizing you're talking about you as the one learning about those things yourself through your personal interaction with those things, rather than relying on a mediator to learn about them.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 It is a coherent definition but it is also a useless word.By this definition me talking to a friend is mysticism.Sex is mysticism.Me digging in dirt is mysticism.Prayer is mysticism.Recreational drug use is mysticism.Beating someone to death with my bare hands would also be mysticism.The weird thing is that all those things can be part of someone's mystic practice. All acts of creativity are part of mine.
Ahab Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Sure he does. That's why you need to read Paulsen and Faulconer and the other LDS philosophers who agree with James.Or I could just continue to learn directly from God rather than learning through others who have learned something from him. That way I can cut down on how many mediators I need to go through to get at the truth of all things.
The Nehor Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Yes, to the extent mysticism is the process of discovering the truth about those things (including God) through unmediated personal contact with those things. In each example you're focusing on a specific discovery of different things, though, even though they're all a part of everything you can discover, collectively.For a less fancy word, substitute the word "learning" where you have "mysticism" while realizing you're talking about you as the one learning about those things yourself through your personal interaction with those things, rather than relying on a mediator to learn about them.So we have made your definition of mysticism worthless because it can be described more simply using other words and the definition does not include all of the things historically referred to as mysticism. 1
volgadon Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Sure he does. That's why you need to read Paulsen and Faulconer and the other LDS philosophers who agree with James.There is also a fascinating path of influence from William James to the Russian intelligentsia to Hillel Zeitlin, and from Hillel Zeitlin to Abraham Joshua Heschel (who marched with Martin Luther King) and from Zeitlin to new-age Jewish movements such as those by Carlebach and Schachter Salomi.
The Nehor Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 The weird thing is that all those things can be part of someone's mystic practice. All acts of creativity are part of mine.Then creative=mystic and the word is still worthless as a description.
pogi Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 (edited) The OP asked if there is such a thing as Mormon mysticism. The answer is: it depends on how you define mysticism. The problem is, as this discussion has more than amply demonstrated, there is no historically coherent and universally applicable definition of mysticism.I agree that it may be hard to find a definition of mysticism that all will be happy with. It's hard to find a definition of anything that all will be happy with. Ask Bukowski.So, we accept other traditions and definitions of mysticism, just as we accept other traditions and definitions of faith. But we, as Mormons, are entitled to have our own definition don't you think? So that other's (like the OP) may have a better understanding of where we are coming from. Our definition might not be harmonious and coherent with other definitions. Why should it be? We don't expect theirs to be harmonious and coherent with ours. Edited November 20, 2012 by pogi
harfad Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Bill Hamblin said:The OP asked if there is such a thing as Mormon mysticism. The answer is: it depends on how you define mysticism. The problem is, as this discussion has more than amply demonstrated, there is no historically coherent and universally applicable definition of mysticism.The OP gave a definition (or rather found one) which he thought was adequate to the task, at least adequate to serve as a basis for a discussion; and I agree with him. You can either use that definition, or alternatively come up with your own. As it is, you have done neither. Do you have a contribution to make to this discussion, apart from telling us that we need a definition?
Calm Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 The weird thing is that all those things can be part of someone's mystic practice. All acts of creativity are part of mine.But a coherent definition excludes as well as includes.
pogi Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 My, you find a lot to be amused by.[media=] That was awesome (amusing), thanks for the laugh!
volgadon Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 That was awesome (amusing), thanks for the laugh!I'm a Peter Sellers fan. Queen Victoria was rather appropriate here... =)
volgadon Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 But a coherent definition excludes as well as includes.Good point.
pogi Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Wow.There are some hard feelings here and I am sorry for that.It might interest you that I found Mormonism much after I was trained in the philosophy of language and the only reason I find it my knowledge of the truth of Mormonism philosophically sustainable is precisely BECAUSE of that training.It might interest you, though I posted this earlier, that Wittgenstein- who's philosophy of language I largely subscribe to, is often cited by those who believe in the "truth" of spiritual experience, to be one who would understand such matters the best of any nearly contemporary philosopher.If you want to discuss philosophy I would love to do so, here, in another thread, or by PM or email if you like. Or not at all. It's up to you.But I suggest you read this wikipedia article which may acquaint you with "where I am coming from" a bit better.Really all I am saying is that mystical experience cannot be classified or expressed in language OR "reason" and I would find it odd that you would think otherwise. I am truly sorry for any offense I have given- it was not my intent by any means.No hard feelings Bukowski! You know how frustrating language can be, I feel completely inadequate at times to be understood, I'm sure you can relate. I was just venting my frustrations. I agree that mystical experience cannot be adequately expressed in language or reason. Neither can God, yet we continually attempt to find words that most closely symbolize God, such as love, light, etc. The scriptures are full of attempts to express mystic experience in words. At some point we have to settle. I think that we can find words that most of us can agree upon. We can use common words that Mormons are familiar with and use to describe their "mystical" experiences.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 But a coherent definition excludes as well as includes.Of course. I'm just saying that a given mystical tradition could include any of those things.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Of course. I'm just saying that a given mystical practice could include any of those things, though probably not all.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 Then creative=mystic and the word is still worthless as a description. Not quite. Creativity facilitates mystical union with some deities I honor, but it does not define that union. I don't claim to be a mystic at this time, just someone who is seeking to become one.
mfbukowski Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) It is a coherent definition but it is also a useless word.By this definition me talking to a friend is mysticism.Sex is mysticism.Me digging in dirt is mysticism.Prayer is mysticism.Recreational drug use is mysticism.Beating someone to death with my bare hands would also be mysticism.Actually that is the problem with the word "mysticism".All it is saying that the experience of God cannot be described. But of course neither can the experience of the taste of salt or the color red. So your point is well taken. Edited November 21, 2012 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Actually that is the problem with the word "mysticism".All it is saying that the experience of God cannot be described. But of course neither can the experience of the taste of salt or the color red. So your point is well taken.I disagree. I can describe salt as salty and people know what I mean. I can describe red and its hues and people know what I mean. The experience of God can be described. It is just that the vocabulary does not exist because so few experience it that the words used would never enter general usage because so few would know what they mean.
mfbukowski Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Or I could just continue to learn directly from God rather than learning through others who have learned something from him. That way I can cut down on how many mediators I need to go through to get at the truth of all things.That's true. But then don't try to talk about it to people who have spent their lifetimes figuring out how to talk about it any more than you would talk about physics to a physicist without learning the vocabulary.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 I disagree. I can describe salt as salty and people know what I mean. I can describe red and its hues and people know what I mean. The experience of God can be described. It is just that the vocabulary does not exist because so few experience it that the words used would never enter general usage because so few would know what they mean.Close to what I would say, but I would say it like this.Salt can be described as something that gives the taste of something salty, like the rim of a glass ready for a margarita... virgin or otherwise. You could then further describe some more about salt, and the taste salt can give, and all the while you would actually be describing salt and things that are salty. Hence, salt can be described.God can also be described even if the description we give is only a fraction of all that is God. It doens't need to be a full and complete description to be at least a partial description and sometimes even a brief description can lead someone to have a better description of God. Like describing God as the source of all things that are good. That's a description of God, and hence God can be described in that way. What we shouldn't say is that God or an experience of God can NOT be described, because pretty much everything good can tell us at least a little something about God.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) That's true. But then don't try to talk about it to people who have spent their lifetimes figuring out how to talk about it any more than you would talk about physics to a physicist without learning the vocabulary.An intelligent physicist can pick up on the principles and ideas I'm talking about even if I don't use the same vocabulary he uses in physics. All he has to get is an idea of what I mean, and I can convey those thoughts... that is my main point, I can convey those thoughts of God and about God to another person. Edited November 21, 2012 by Ahab
mfbukowski Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) An intelligent physicist can pick up on the principles and ideas I'm talking about even if I don't use the same vocabulary he uses in physics. All he has to get is an idea of what I mean, and I can convey those thoughts... that is my main point, I can convey those thoughts of God and about God to another person.Got it backwards. I was talking about you teaching a physicist physics because you had direct experience of it- say in throwing a ball.After all it doesn't have to be a full and complete description, according to you.What we shouldn't say is that God or an experience of God can NOT be described, because pretty much everything good can tell us at least a little something about God. Edited November 21, 2012 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts