From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Mysticism - A reply to Leo Smith
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 07:26:43 GMT

From article <memo.532110@cix.compulink.co.uk>, by shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith):
> 
> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes..
> 
>>LS - Leo Smith
>>CO - Charles Onstott
> 
> And the rest is me. For those who want to hit 'n' now, this is anbout
> degfinitions of mysticism, and some comments on what it may means
> today, and some comments on 'new age' also.
> 

CO: I have cut some things from the original posting for space.  Please
refer back if you are confused.  The discussion following requires
familiarity with the defintions of "mysticism" and "mystical experience"
as given by Leo Smith.

>>CO Reply:
> 
>>    There are a number of problems with your definition of mysticism
>>   and mystical experience given above:

LS: > 
> Oh no: here we go again.... looking for that precise binary
> demarcation between 'Mysticism' and 'not Mysticism' sigh...

CO REPLY: Nothing could be further from my mind.  The issue at hand is
to provide a more general functional defintion of mysticism.
> 
>>    First, how do you derive a definition of mysticism from a
>>    definition of a "mystical" experience. The "mystical" of mystical
>>    experience denotes a particular kind of experience, namely a
>>    mystical one. Thus, it would seem very strange to attempt a
>>    definition of mysticism from a mystical experience whenever what
>>    is mystical is heretofore unknown. In simpler terms, the
>>    derivation of definitions attempted makes no sense. How do we
>>    demarcate something as mystical without a definition of such?
> 
> If the rest of the human race can derive a material world from their
> own personal expereinecs, I don't see why I can't hypothetically
> derive mysticsim from mystical experiences...

CO REPLY: Ah, but that was logico-western philosophy that did that, not the
mystics! (Grin)

> 
> Look - a little grammar should sort this. for MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE
> read MYSTICAL_EXPERINECE through out. This means that the term
> 'MYSTICISM' can be adequately defined as the study of
> MYSTICAL_EXPERIENCES. The experience is primary, the study is
> derived.
> 
> Ok?

CO REPLY:
  Not ok.  But, it's really irrelevant.  I was being picky.  I still
believe it impossible to demarcate a "mystical experience" without 
knowing what mysticism is...  
> 
>    Second, because of your derivation problem, I will start with your
>    definition of mysticism and work backwards to reach your first
>    defintion of mystical experiences.
> 
> The problem is yours - not mine. By turning things upside down you
> aren't going to make it any easier you know.

CO REPLY:
     So I like working upside down!  Hey, its my right! (Grin)
> 
>>   The definition of mysticism given by you is not a working
>>   definition at all. It reminds me more of a standard street
>>   definition of mysticism, that is, of a person fascinated by the
>>   empty promises of new age people who drag mysticism, thus
>>   profaning it, into their discussion of a new world, or new world
>>   order, or new self, or whatever else it is new that they feel like
>>   discussing. The fact, of course, remains that what "new age"
>>   amounts to is a strange combination of mysticism, mythology, and
>>   neurosis all wrapped into one, under the banner of "new age." All
>>   of these, of course, not being new phenomena at all.
> 
> Umm. Should I respond by saying that your attitude to what you term
> 'new age' which is full of very strange and emotive terms like
> 'profane' 'empty promises' 'neurosis' sounds very much like a rather
> religious person who has had a nerve touched? You seem very anxious
> to make the distinction between what you seem to regrad as bona fide
> religio/mystical experience al la Eckhart etc. and 'street trip'
> mysticism. They might just be aspect of the same thing, you know...
> 
CO REPLY;
  That depends on whether one knows mysticism from the street or
one actually studies the field of mysticism.   Religious person, Me?
But yes, I have a touched nerve when it comes to New Age mumbo jumbo.
They, of course, rebuttle by saying I am "anal retentive.."


> 
>>   The literary style of mysticism tends to be beutifully written,
> 
> Your a strange person: You start off by making rational criticisms,
> and end up with value judgements. 'beautifully written' indeed. That's
> not very rigorous is it? Good thing I am a New Age Mystic and not a
> logician.:-)

CO Reply:

  Ah, but you have confused my position!  I am not necessarily a 
logician nor am I a New Age Mystic.   The point at hand was that you
were looking for a definition of mysticism.  I thought that it had
some problems, so I tried to fix them.  The fact remains, that
mystical literature is remarkably more interesting than the cool 
logical world-view of, say, Augustine..>   Besides, who says
a logican doesn't make value judgements anyway?  :)
> 
> 
>         Awareness.
> 
>>    Mysticism is about awareness more than anything else. Awarness of
>>    the self, the body, the world, and of God working in all of these
>>    things. (By God, I don't necessarily refer to the Christian God,
>>    the Jewish God, I could be refering to the Tao working in all of
>>   these things...)
> 
> Absolutely summed up New Age mysticism to a 'T' there. Awareness. I
> wouldn't use the term 'God' or 'Tao' though - too loaded with
> unwanted meaning. Try 'substrate' or some such concept...

   Not summed up New Age mysticism, summed up mysticism.  New Age
isn't so new.  Further, a lot of New Age mysticism tends to bend
things a little.  (let's see, a comparison of virtual reality with
a particular kind of Buddhism--result: The physical world is not real..
mmmm. see "The Quest" somewhere between May and July 1992))
> 
>>   Third, now to focus on what you refer to as a mystical experience.
>>   I think I would call what you have defined a "life-changing"
>>   experience. To assume that it is somehow mystical is not
>>   necessarily correct.
> 
> No. I NEVER said LIFE CHANGING, I said one that changes ones idea
> about life. To all intents and purposes, no outward effect might be
> visible.
> 
> Nothing disagrees with my position.
> 
>>   Mysticism does not seek to change life necessarily, mainly its
>>   intent is to bring living to the fore. (This, of course, could be
>>   considered a change in life--but I don't think it is what your
>>   definition has in mind).
> 
> It wasn't far off. At least 'practical mysticism' has that purpose.
> To go back to the primacy of experience, and seek to re-link with the
> actuial experience of living, rather than to experience the models
> that one uses to relate to the experience of living.

  Ok.  I guess I was confused.

> 
>>   Often, the stong experience, that I think you are thinking of,
>>   results in equinimity or complacency--it doesn't need to change
>>   the world--its focus is understanding. Mysticism can bring about
>>   change, and can be a life-changer, but to define it as ipso-facto
>>   as such, is a terrible mistake.
> 
> Again the emotion: I really feel that you are desperately trying to
> separate drugs and god again :-) Wouldn't it be terrible if those New
> Agers were right?

Not seperating God, nor worry of New Age correctness--just a comment 
about the equinimity involved in most mystical experiences.  THe
problem that I have with most New Age stuff is the sensationalism involved
when nothing is further from the point.  I wasn't necessarily maintaining
that to be your position no matter how blatantly implied.  Sensationalism
is not mysticism--with sensationalism not only can we consider New
Age to be wrong, but fundamental Christian types, et al.> 

>>LS:
> 
>>SORCERY and MAGICK a la 'Coyote' (Higgy)
> 
> Did I write (Higgy) ? slip of the keybored....
>>
>>        PRACTICAL MYSTICISM. THE HANDBOOK TO HAVING MYSTICAL
>>        EXPERIENCES AND THE 10001 THINGS TO DO WITH THEM. REDEFINE
>>        YOUR SENSE OF SELF TODAY AND BE TWICE THE COYOTE YOU NEVER
>>        THOUGHT YOU WERE ????
> 
>>CO Reply:
> 
>>  New age garbage if you ask me. Although magic can be an important
>>  part of mysticism.
> 
> Yes: New Age Garbage: But with some interesting ideas plagiarised
> from lots of other places. Castaneda - as I have pointed out
> elsewhere - though possibly not in this group - was the first
> 'mystic' to actually address the issues of having 'mystical
> experiences' to order. Plenty of Cactus juice meant that all these
> issues about how to get the experience were relatively unimportant:
> what was important was what it had to say about the nature of the
> individual and his/her personal relationship with the world. And what
> THAT meant in relation to the 'normal' view we use in everyday life.
> 
> Other issues dealt with were the disciplines needed to the experienec
> with - and here Castaneda is far more didciplined in his description
> of the 'warriors way' than most new agers...:-)
> 
>>LS:
> 
>>RELIGION
>>        ANOTHER SOPPY NAME FOR PRACTICAL MYSTICISM, FOR KIDS ONLY.
>>        SAFE TRANSCENDENCE FOR THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO DRUGS. BELIEVE
>>        IN JESUS AND NOT TIMOTHY LEARY. LET GOD TAKE CARE OF YOU JUST
>>        LIKE DADDY. EXPERIENCE HEAVEN JUST LIKE DISNEYLAND.
> 
>>CO Reply:
> 
> 
>>  Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Mysticism in the western tradition
>>  tends to be a branch of religion, not the reverse. I also, of
>>  course, see a grin on your face as you typed that paragraph, so see
>>  my grin when I told you how wrong you were. Religion generally
>>  refers to an organization which directs by dogmatics a group of
>>  people in a particular belief system. Any form of mysticism can
>>  qualify as a religion.
> 
> Well yes, yes and yes I suppose:-)
> 
> I didn't really WANT to argue about definitions - its such a waste of
> time.
> 
> Look: ecstatic religion can provide the sort of effect that drugs
> can. So can prayer. So can meditation. SO if you need to believe in
> it in order for it to work, then I suppose the bit about 'directs by
> dognatics....particular belief system' holds true.

CO REPLY:  In total agreement.

> However there ARE devout christians in this group, and I was merely
> trying to downgrade Christianity to 'just another way to gain
> transcendence' - which to me it is.
  Yes, but is making  Christianity into 'just another way to gain
transcendence' a "downgrade."  Please provide your definition here..
:)
> 
> 
>>BCnya,
>>  Charles Onstott, III
>                     ^^^
> You mean there are two MORE like you?

No!  There is only ONE like me!

BCnya,
   Chrles Onstott, III