Talk:Mysticism/archive 1

message: I've been asked to look in and comment on the article by one of the editors concerned in the current dispute.  On the current dispute, I must say that I agree that "divinity" refers both a monotheistic god and to other notions of gods — so I don't really see that the addition does anything except introduce repetition.  When Christians talk about Christ's divinity, they're not suggesting that he's not their one god — on the contrary.
What surprises me much more about the summary, though, is that it contains a reference to a book (and a rather old book at that).  That's surely inappropriate; particular books might be discussed in the article, or included in a bibliography at the end, but not given a prominent place in the summary of the article.  (I'm surprised that no mention is made of better known work, such as that of Dean Inge, F.C. Happold, William James, or Ludwig Wittgenstein, or more recent writing by pople such as Caroline Franks Davis or Steven Katz (I'm typing off the top of my head — there are probably even more obvious or better known writers I should have mentioned).
The summary is also a little too narrow; "mysticism" is also often used to refer to the notion that (the highest form of) knowledge can't be gained through reason or normal experience, but only through some other means (meditation, intuition, drug use, etc.).  That knowledge needn't be of either divity or "ultimate reality" (though the latter is, admittedly, very vague).  Mysticism is also not always associated with ineffability; mystics sometimes say though that what they have come to know can be understood by others, it can only be known if one follows their methods. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good comments. I'd like to see your improvements. :-) Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to jump in and start being bold after a relatively brief look.  Would a section on the philosophical arguments be OK, or would that be better as a separate article?  It would cover issues such as the possibility of private experience (Wittgenstein, et al.), the role of interpretation, the relation betwenn thought and language, and so on. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Also fixed the etymology of the word mysticism.≈ jossi ≈ 03:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
===Types of mystical experience===
This section, without any attribution or references needs work/cleanup/deletion. As it stands it is  dangerously close to original research. One way to address this could be to cite the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in which categories of mystical experiences are classified as Extrovertive,  Introvertive, Theistic and non-theistic. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
shall we seek other cources as well then?
Gabrielsimon 03:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: This section, without any attribution or references needs work/cleanup/deletion. As it stands it is  dangerously close to original research. One way to address this could be to cite the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in which categories of mystical experiences are classified as Extrovertive,  Introvertive, Theistic and non-theistic. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
shall we seek other cources as well then?
Gabrielsimon 03:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of mystical experience

message: Debate over inclusion of a link to God vrs. a link to divinity. Anyone is welcome, regardless of expertise. 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments

message: It appears the problem is over the opening sentence, correct?
:Mysticism, from the Greek μυω (mueo, "to conceal"), is the pursuit or practice of the direct experience of union with Gods, divinity, esoteric truth, or Ultimate Reality;
Some digging through about two dozen online dictionaries, shows this definition is skewed. of all the definitions, the most common reference was "ultimate reality", the next one was "divine" and only a handful said the word "God". The current definition appears to qualify as original research. Given what I've read from all these dictionaries, I would suggest teh following definition:
:Mysticism is the pursuit of communion or conscious awareness with ultimate reality or the divine.
Communion, awareness, consciousness were all common words in the definitions. The different means of pursuing this communion or awareness can fill the article. FuelWagon 23:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been much disagreement over what terms to include.  I've personally been thinking that in this situation, including more terms to satisfy more editors doesn't usually hurt.  If there are specific terms that people object to, they should of course explain their objections.  I just checked m-w.com, my personal favorite and as far as I know a reputable dictionary.  Their definition happens to include "God" (as well as "spiritual truth").  You've got at least some hopefully reputable dictionaries including "God".  You've got some reasonable-sounding (IMO) editors wanting to include "God".  Is there a reason it shouldn't be there?  Friday 02:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the two dozen dictionaries I looked at, "ultimate reality" was number one, followed by divine. "god" was a distant third. just because someone wants to put it in teh definition doesn't mean it qualifies as original research. Based on the outside sources, "god" isn't a hard association with mysticism. if dogmatic editors insist on including it, it should be included at the end of the list. FuelWagon 03:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and someone above is arguing to include one word or another because they prefer the article it links to. This is admitting original research simply because of a personal problem with another article. The defintion of mysticism by the dictionaries shows ultimate reality to be primary, with Divine a close second, and "god" a distant third. That order of prevalence should be reflected in the defintion, and it shouldn't be re-defined simply because someone doesn't like the Divine article or teh God article. If there is a problem with another page it should be fixed. FuelWagon 03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FuuelWagon. WP:Be bold and edit the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
agree with fuelwagon, except a mention of "direct experience" should be retained.  the "experience" part is very important.  perhaps Mysticism is the pursuit of the direct experience of communion or conscious awareness with ultimate reality or the divine. ??  --Heah (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from FuelWagon

message: Because of all the reverting going on around the definition, I went through the dictionaries again and noticed that a component of the defintion of mysticism is that this communion or awareness of the divine is attained through subjective experience (intuition or insight) rather than rational thought. It was a common theme in various dictionary definitions, so I added it to the article. FuelWagon 15:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: changed "subjective" to "direct, personal" and "personal".  subjective isn't a good word to be using here, as supposedly you are communing with ultimate (non-subjective) reality, supposedly an experience that would be pretty much the same for everyone.  but you do have to have it personally, and have a direct experience- mysticism is not about reading books and learning theories, but personally and directly communing.  --Heah (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: works for me. FuelWagon 16:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: intuition and insight