What is a mystic?

[Gary Childress]

No marks. I heard there were no nails in his feet.

Then what is stigmata of the feet? I thought it was some sort of mark or something. Maybe I'm thinking of the movies or something, though.

[Jaded Sage]

Having his feet. Yeah, that's hollywood stuff.

[Gary Childress]

Having his feet. Yeah, that's hollywood stuff.

So you felt as though you had Jesus' feet? Is that correct? What made you think this? Or what was the feeling? Does it involve any sort of unique sensation?

[Jaded Sage]

I was more of a realization than a sensation. I think all I can explain I already did. I also had Adam's hands once, but I don't count that one.

[Gary Childress]

I guess one habit we humans often tend to engage in is to try to determine if someone is telling us the truth or telling us something that is in fact the case. Maybe it's some sort of knee jerk instinct or something. For example: if you tell me that if I walk 10 blocks in a specific direction I will find a good eye doctor who can perform a needed surgery on my eyes, before I invest the energy and time to walk 10 blocks and place myself under the care of the doctor, I may want to have some sort of assurance that you know what you are talking about or are not telling me in jest or something. For whatever reason many of us seem to want to verify everything people tell us, whether it's critical in some way or not. If something someone tells us is not verifiable or seems out of the ordinary some of us may tend toward skepticism.

In any case, I hope your experience was genuinely the case. It' sounds very uplifting to have such a "realization".

[Jaded Sage]

I'm afraid not sure what you're getting at I sure you that what I said it's 100% true. In any event I find you quite respectable so if you would like to interrogate or question me and anyway or fashion I welcome it.

[Harbal]

This is like overhearing a conversation between two seven year olds.

[Greta]

Maybe nonsystematic is a better word than unorganized. The point I want to make is that philosophers and mystics are not all that different. Both Plato and Kant have been called mystics.

Also Spinoza. Carl Jung's psychology bordered on both philosophy and mysticism. Each of the sciences has reluctant links with mysticism too - physics, chemistry, biology, psychology etc. Science and mysticism use different tools with which to better understand reality, and IMO philosophy will ideally borrow from either, depending on the best tool for a particular job.

Untutored is greatly incorrect.

"Mystics" tend to be self-taught and certainly need not have a formal philosophic education.

It can be kinesthetic but it can very much be by lectures as well (that's why the word philosopher was included). It's definitely not gonzo.

Mysticism tends to be physical; it often includes emotionalism and trance-inducing activities. That's why it's "gonzo"; professional philosophers may talk the talk from their ivory towers but mystics are more interested in experiencing their learning first-hand. It's an attitude not miles from the scientists of the 19th century who experimented on themselves.

This physical involvement was a recurring theme of Hermann Hesse's books - the young holy man, dissatisfied with his rarefied surrounds, throws himself into the dirt of regular life, seemingly intent on making every mistake possible. Eventually, beaten down by reality's harshness over decades of struggle he finally surrenders his ego, knowing for sure that each of the paths of his desires only leads to a spiritual dead end and emotional torment.

Also, Richard Dawkins is in no way a mystic.

Mysticism is more of a teaching style, rather than a learning style. Well, it's an independent learning style; hence the holding of personal firsthand experience as the highest authority.

I agree with you that Richard Dawkins is obviously not a mystic. However, that particular talk he gave considered the nature of reality in such a deep and broad manner that it evoked as many mystical feelings in me as anything produced by the bona fide mystics who'd influenced me in my youth such as Paramahansa Yogananda, Mahatma Gandhi and P.D. Ouspensky.

The least mystic of us can have deeply mystical moments. Consider Neil deGrasse Tyson stepping out of the light, palms prophetically splayed and breathlessly quoting Sagan's famous line, "We are made from star stuff!". On the other hand, mystics still have to buy their groceries, go to the toilet and other mundane things too. We each toggle between the sacred and profane in different ways, to various degrees and at different times in our lives. This makes the various labels we apply to each other, including "mystic" to be rather loose and subjective definitions. That's fine by me - not all concepts need be nailed down with definitions like a Victorian corset.

[Arising_uk]

I interpreted it as being able to freely move into the state that people enjoy when they have peak experiences. Lucky them.

Take a respectable NC NLP course and learn to be lucky too.

It's a strong valuing of subjective experience. We live in a society where subjective experience is less valued than in the past, dismissed as "anecdotal" or just electrochemical activity, which are fair enough ideas but they miss the point IMO.

I doubt this, we still live in a society where the bulk believe pretty much anything without much thought.

Unstructured, untutored. A kinaestetic learning style. Gonzo philosophy.

You mean they use their feelings and emotions separately from the rest of the thought processes? A dubious method.

Maybe they put more effort into making connections with their existing information than seeking out new information?

Sounds more like confirmation bias in that they only seek out new information to fit with their existing model.

[Greta]

I interpreted it as being able to freely move into the state that people enjoy when they have peak experiences. Lucky them.

Take a respectable NC NLP course and learn to be lucky too.

Have you done those sessions? Do they induce peak experiences?

It's a strong valuing of subjective experience. We live in a society where subjective experience is less valued than in the past, dismissed as "anecdotal" or just electrochemical activity, which are fair enough ideas but they miss the point IMO.

I doubt this, we still live in a society where the bulk believe pretty much anything without much thought.

I would say people believe far less unquestioningly than in the past, which is obviously a good thing. However, there is a growing vein of logical positivism with a dismissive attitude towards subjective experience and consciousness that seems to me have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Unstructured, untutored. A kinaestetic learning style. Gonzo philosophy.

You mean they use their feelings and emotions separately from the rest of the thought processes? A dubious method.

Maybe some do do that. However, there is the option of staying rational while not being dismissive of intuition. That worked for Einstein, whom many think of as somewhat of a mystic.

[Lacewing]

We each toggle between the sacred and profane in different ways, to various degrees and at different times in our lives. This makes the various labels we apply to each other, including "mystic" to be rather loose and subjective definitions. That's fine by me - not all concepts need be nailed down with definitions like a Victorian corset.

Beautiful, Greta!

I'm thinking that if we can see/accept how we're all (each of us)... ALL OF IT... and accessing/experiencing all of it in our own unique ways... then we can reduce the illusion of separation and unique self-importance.

[Greta]

I'm thinking that if we can see/accept how we're all (each of us)... ALL OF IT... and accessing/experiencing all of it in our own unique ways... then we can reduce the delusion of separation and unique self-importance.

LW, I'm a fan of separation, personally. That's why we are here - that homogeneous cloud of hot plasma separated into atoms, atoms to molecules, etc etc ad nauseam - layer after layer of separation, which seems preferable to a homogeneous hot plasma cloud :)

While the interconnected oneness of all things seems indisputable, there's this problem of other minds. Why should our minds be so separate if we are all fundamentally one thing? The situation suggests to me that either blind or extremely slow processes are at hand because the problem of other minds seems to have no advantage, just causing suffering through objectification, misunderstandings and misreadings.

[Jaded Sage]

Maybe nonsystematic is a better word than unorganized. The point I want to make is that philosophers and mystics are not all that different. Both Plato and Kant have been called mystics.

Also Spinoza. Carl Jung's psychology bordered on both philosophy and mysticism. Each of the sciences has reluctant links with mysticism too - physics, chemistry, biology, psychology etc. Science and mysticism use different tools with which to better understand reality, and IMO philosophy will ideally borrow from either, depending on the best tool for a particular job.

Untutored is greatly incorrect.

"Mystics" tend to be self-taught and certainly need not have a formal philosophic education.

It can be kinesthetic but it can very much be by lectures as well (that's why the word philosopher was included). It's definitely not gonzo.

Mysticism tends to be physical; it often includes emotionalism and trance-inducing activities. That's why it's "gonzo"; professional philosophers may talk the talk from their ivory towers but mystics are more interested in experiencing their learning first-hand. It's an attitude not miles from the scientists of the 19th century who experimented on themselves.

This physical involvement was a recurring theme of Hermann Hesse's books - the young holy man, dissatisfied with his rarefied surrounds, throws himself into the dirt of regular life, seemingly intent on making every mistake possible. Eventually, beaten down by reality's harshness over decades of struggle he finally surrenders his ego, knowing for sure that each of the paths of his desires only leads to a spiritual dead end and emotional torment.

Also, Richard Dawkins is in no way a mystic.

Mysticism is more of a teaching style, rather than a learning style. Well, it's an independent learning style; hence the holding of personal firsthand experience as the highest authority.

I agree with you that Richard Dawkins is obviously not a mystic. However, that particular talk he gave considered the nature of reality in such a deep and broad manner that it evoked as many mystical feelings in me as anything produced by the bona fide mystics who'd influenced me in my youth such as Paramahansa Yogananda, Mahatma Gandhi and P.D. Ouspensky.

The least mystic of us can have deeply mystical moments. Consider Neil deGrasse Tyson stepping out of the light, palms prophetically splayed and breathlessly quoting Sagan's famous line, "We are made from star stuff!". On the other hand, mystics still have to buy their groceries, go to the toilet and other mundane things too. We each toggle between the sacred and profane in different ways, to various degrees and at different times in our lives. This makes the various labels we apply to each other, including "mystic" to be rather loose and subjective definitions. That's fine by me - not all concepts need be nailed down with definitions like a Victorian corset.

Beautifully written, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with all of it. Also, the gonzo stuff is shamanism.

[Jaded Sage]

I guess one habit we humans often tend to engage in is to try to determine if someone is telling us the truth or telling us something that is in fact the case. Maybe it's some sort of knee jerk instinct or something. For example: if you tell me that if I walk 10 blocks in a specific direction I will find a good eye doctor who can perform a needed surgery on my eyes, before I invest the energy and time to walk 10 blocks and place myself under the care of the doctor, I may want to have some sort of assurance that you know what you are talking about or are not telling me in jest or something. For whatever reason many of us seem to want to verify everything people tell us, whether it's critical in some way or not. If something someone tells us is not verifiable or seems out of the ordinary some of us may tend toward skepticism.

In any case, I hope your experience was genuinely the case. It' sounds very uplifting to have such a "realization".

Stick around, Gary. It's nice having someone around who isn't a jerk.

[Lacewing]

LW, I'm a fan of separation, personally. That's why we are here - that homogeneous cloud of hot plasma separated into atoms, atoms to molecules, etc etc ad nauseam - layer after layer of separation, which seems preferable to a homogeneous hot plasma cloud

Well, you make a very good point!

While the interconnected oneness of all things seems indisputable, there's this problem of other minds. Why should our minds be so separate if we are all fundamentally one thing? The situation suggests to me that either blind or extremely slow processes are at hand because the problem of other minds seems to have no advantage, just causing suffering through objectification, misunderstandings and misreadings.

I think the purpose is to explore. More territory can be covered when the energy is going in all directions... and trying all possibilities. The discoveries can then be transmitted back to the collective, which can evolve and expand. The illusion of separation seems to need to be a delicate balance: enough illusion to keep the game going, but not so much illusion that we simply compete for dominance over "each other" rather than seeking expansion. That's my guess... at the moment. Of course, the total failure of the human/ego component could be a huge lesson in the overall exploration.