What is a mystic?

[Jaded Sage]

Sometimes you get a seriously worthwhile contribution here.

When do you plan to do that?

Are you a teenager? You sound like one.

[Harbal]

Sometimes you get a seriously worthwhile contribution here.

When do you plan to do that?

Are you a teenager? You sound like one.

I don't suppose I sound like one, do I?

[Lacewing]

Are you a teenager? You sound like one.

Is that the best you got? At least you're consistent in missing the mark.

I'm just messin' with ya JS... because, well, you seem to kind of deserve it.

Are you willing to explore the philosophy behind what you say and think? I'd still like to know your mystical answers to the mystical questions that I posed to you based on this (below) that you said in another thread:

It's a progression / ...it's unmistakeable when you get there / ...many false awakenings /... I had many /...But when you look back, you can see you were always there the whole time.

So, I'll re-word my questions, since you didn't like them before.

What do you think a "false awakening" is?

If you thought it was real THEN, and now you don't think it was -- what makes you think that what you think NOW is real? Are you likely to see any more in the future?

Isn't everything happening in each moment, and isn't each moment full of potential and a reality of its own? Can we be grateful for that?

Do we need to feel that we're making progress by denigrating our past selves?

C'mon, be a sport and explore what you think and say... if you're going to make us listen to it, and then accuse us of not answering correctly.

[Harbal]

Lacewing.

It's wonderful to have you back. This place is nothing without you.

[Jaded Sage]

See it sounds like it's something, but it ignores anything of real substance. That's why I don't respect you.

[Jaded Sage]

Maybe I'll answer you questions later.

[Lacewing]

ignores anything of real substance

So asking questions to explore what YOU SAY, is somehow "ignoring anything of real substance"? Wouldn't that suggest that the lack of substance is coming from what you're saying? If you can't move beyond your statements to examine and provide rationale, then you're just blabbing words. THAT'S where the lack of substance is originating. We're trying to bring this to your attention, and you don't seem to appreciate it.

[Jaded Sage]

I must have insulted you. I thought we were above that. I'll get bck to it later, maybe.

[Lacewing]

I must have insulted you. I thought we were above that.

Man, you just keep making up stuff left and right, don't you?! Fascinating!

I'll get bck to it later, maybe.

I'm guessing you can't. It takes real courage and insight to question yourself... and considering how much deflection you keep coming up with, it seems you're unable to be above that. You should know that your credibility pretty much tanks if you can't brave up.

[Lacewing]

Lacewing.

It's wonderful to have you back. This place is nothing without you.

Thanks Harbal. I'd be more flattered... but the bar seems set kind of low, doesn't it??!

[Jaded Sage]

Lacewig, you're not here for philosophy. You're here for sophistry.

[Greta]

Trance is more shaman. But that is the heritage of mysticism; it started with frenzied women dancing and chanting.

That's the shortcoming of many thinkers today, valuing the subjective less than the objective. It seems utterly foolish to me.

I do like the third and forth particularly. Mystics can utilize their intellects heavily and still qualify as mystics. I suppose that makes them of a higher caliber.

A bit happening here since I last came here lol

Is a focus on the objective over the subjective absurd or just an alternative approach? Too much focus on subjectivity risks ungrounded ideas, eg. fundamentalists, and too much focus on objectivity can be ruthlessly amoral, eg. big biz.

I suggest that a deep and sensible delving into the subjective leads us to marvel at the objective world that expresses subjectivity, just as a deep and sensible study of (apparently) objective reality leads to an appreciation of the phenomenon of subjectivity.

[Jaded Sage]

Fully agreed, my dear.

[Lacewing]

you're not here for philosophy. You're here for sophistry.

Again deflection (with more fiction that you make-up to suit yourself)... because you apparently cannot answer challenging questions about what you say. If you're not here to explore (including beyond yourself), what are you here for? If someone invests energy in thoughtfully questioning and exploring what you say, why don't you have the integrity to respond? If the questions are inapplicable, or there has been some misunderstanding, then it should be simple for you to show how. Unless, of course, you are only here to announce what you think and dismiss all else?

[Jaded Sage]

• A mystic is someone who has direct experience of God.

• A mystic is someone who considers personal firsthand experience to be the highest authority, especially regarding religious things, most especially God.

• A mystic is an unorganized philosopher.

• A mystic is someone whose understanding is bigger than their intellect.

So again, these are some definitions. Anyone have anything to add?