From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Mysticism (was Re: MINDWALK etc)
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 03:50:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.115546.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.224019.5629@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
> coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec18.100323.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> 
> bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca (Bill Garland) writes:
>>>
>>>Mystics have been damaging society for a long time.
>> 
>> This is among one of the most ignorant statements I have read in 
>> a long time.  
>
>I guess you haven't been reading much lately, if that is among the
>most ignorant.

Perhaps it isn't an issue of quantity, which I can assure it is not;
rather, it is an issue of quality.

>Even if it was ignorant, which it isn't, there would 
>surely be other things just a tad on the more ignorant side,
>wouldn't there?

Not really.  Of course, I hope you are not failing to make
the distinction between ignorance and stupidity.  However, you
have somewhat redeemed yourself in my eyes by at least asserting
a justification for this position.  I am cautious about such statements
as yours simply because I have read enough of the ilk of Stephen Grossman--
something which, I am sure, you can appreciate.

> Or perhaps you have been reading too much of the 
>wrong stuff?
>  On the other hand, it could be (I'm just speculating
>here) that you are a mystic yourself ?? (something in your .sig 
>suggested that possibility?)

As to the last two, I have no idea of what you think to be
the "right" stuff--I personally would add particular 
mystical works to that charecterization, though not all.  As for the later,
I am not a mystic if by that you mean one who practices.  However,
I find that some of them have really important things to say and
as such find merit in their writings, have sympathy for mysticism 
in general(and I stress in general), and as such consider it
an extremely valuable "genre"(if I do say so) that should not
be written off in an all too often cursory fashion. 

>>    Would you care to specify what you mean by mysticism
>> and further in what way you find that it damages this or any other
>> society?  (This question in no way upholds anything written by Capra)
>
>Mysticism in its most general form, is the practice of creating
>problems where none exist. Mystics are those who do this, knowingly,
>and who profit by it at the expense of those who create values. Persons
>who fall into this category are: all clergy, most lawyers, many 
>academics and journalists, criminals, and others.

I will, of course, disregard this charecterization on the same
grounds as my accusation that your first assertion was ignorant.


>
>     Mystic : noun - person who seeks union with God and, through that, 
>     realization of truth beyond men's understanding.

This definition is at best minimalist and can not find distinctions
between a body of literature that would argue for the possibility,
in fact present the method of achieving this particular end, that
is not inherently considered mysticism and those that are.  On the
other hand, it is also known that some Christian mystics, for example,
were not practicing "mysticism" per se, but Christianity.

>
>but even using
>those definitions, it is clear to me that a mystic is a fool,
>since he seeks realization of truth beyond his own capacity to 
>understand...  

And by doing so, you limit your scope of understanding the
field of mysticism.  Furthermore, you are relying a particularly
false understanding of the contextual arrangement under which
any "realization" beyond understanding would arise.  In simpler terms,
you are limiting 'understanding' to a logical empericism of some sort
or another.  That this definition of 'understanding', disregarding 
religion in and of itself, is contrary to psychologcal facts has
been made more than obvious over the last 150 years.

>However, most mystics now are simply professional
>neocheaters who know bloody well that what they preach is a crock
>of shit and they do it to extract power and money from those who
>would listen to them.

Perhaps those you are not describing are not 'mystics' but rather
fall under your ignorant epithet of such.

>
>So, by accepting that definition, i.e. that mysticism is that which
>causes problems where none existed previously, would be to agree that
>mysticism damages society, since its purpose is to cause problems.
>
>(1) Consider Mount Cashel. Here we have a orphanage, created and
>run by the Christian Brothers, who are a nepharious lot if ever I
>met any, ostensibly for the good of society and the good of the
>boys who were their charges. Well, it turns out that these Christian
>Brothers were nothing but a bunch of masochistic pedophiles, who 
>hid under the cloak of the church. Here they are preaching the
>so-called gospel of Christ in the day, and molesting their captives
>by night. This is all bad enough, and one could easily say that 
>you cannot blame all mystics for the actions of the few, and so
>on, and that deep down the Christian Brothers are _good_ people,
>etc etc ad nauseum, BUT it goes beyond that. When finally we have
>some evidence of this activity surfacing some 15 years ago, with
>police called in to investigate, lo and behold there are more
>foamin catholic mystics up on the hill [in government], who step 
>in and illegally stop the investigation, tell the police to take 
>a flying leap, and cover it up, all in the name of justice.

And, of course, you are precluding the possibility that none of
these people practiced mysticism propre.  I ask 
you to provide documented proof of the theoretical grounds upon
which these actions would be justified from any known Christian
mystic.  Of course, I am refering to literature, not to actions.
Unless you can do such, I still maintain your ignorance to
the field of mysticism.  I am in no way endorsing the behavior
of these people and I agree with your moral outrage--however,
to pin this conceptually to a body of literature is nothing
but shortsightedness.

>
>(2) Consider the Dark Ages. The Inquisition. Galileo. Oh, there
>are so many examples, and I really _do_ have to go make some money...

But you fail to appreciate the more positive works of other
mystics in this time period.  If you would actually look at the
literature, you will find many more positive works, social justice,
equality, etc, in the history than some of these atrocities--which,
I may add, are not considered necessarily justified by the 
Christian ideology.  The distinction of actual Christian behavior and the
concpetual grounding and justification of Christian behavior are
two different things.  This should be obvious, however I will
provide an example:  I do not hold the United States
or any of its particular ideologies _directly_ responsible for
the at least 6 wars in the last 100 years, nor the countless
issues of social injustice, those issues which provide the fluid
of this society's discourse, without documented and reasonably
argued conceptual justification and compatibility.

>
>So, Charlie 003, there you have it. I really don't want to get into
>a flame war about this with you, but do not mistake that as a sign
>of weakness or backing down. If you cannot find anything "more ignorant",
>well too bad for your shortsightedness and lack of access to otherreadings.

On the contrary, old chap, it was your shortsightedness and access
to readings that was in question.(And is still maintained.)

In sum, it is my position that some writers who attempt to
establish themselves to the tradition of "mysticism" and at the same time
may work to "exploit" others, as is your fear evidently, are 
just as patently offensive and ignorant as your shotgun
explanation of why "mysticism has been damaging society for 
a long time."  I will make the same suggestion to you that I made
to Stephen Grossman as I now feel confident to cast you in his 
position: actually read some mysticism and the history of it so that your
argumentation is not only intelligble but accurate.


>|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| Bill Garland = bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca | Commercial: Send me your money.|
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III
-- 
Charles O. Onstott, III                         (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and the Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School
           "For [the study of] history, too, has its fashions."  (Anouilh)