It’s just your objection to religion comes across as personal, rather than intellectual. Shrugs Maybe you’re just very passionate.
I’m talking about people who talk to God and He talks back! How many of the Mystics have been referred to as Madmen? How do we know that the earliest of Mystical leaders weren’t just suffering from schizophrenic episodes? I’ve had personal experience of somebody who heard voices, my Uncle. For the last 3 years of his life he constantly heard people talking to him. He used to say some of them were kind and others were mean. This was a medical problem not a mystical experience! Hume argues that we can never know if other peoples’ Revelations are brought about by madness or a divine being. He says this is where the faith comes into play, faith in this person and what they’re saying is true.
I didn’t say that and never would, I agree with you. I know many good people who enjoy helping others, both with religious and atheistic beliefs. Good people are not good because they practice the right religion or follow some mystical leader. I’ve met many people, from all sorts of backgrounds some good and some not so, some religious and others not. But you could never judge how good somebody was going to be based off the fact that they practiced a religion. In fact I found just as many good atheists as religious. Goodness has little to do with Faith in God! It’s about understanding and compassion, religion talks a lot about this but too many of their followers’ lose sight of this and concentrate on God, and what will God do for me. They have a selfish need for God; He’s their next get rich quick scheme.
I know atheists who are kinder then most Christians and help people out of love, not because God told them to, but because they know in their hearts it’s right. They’re not religious, they don’t do this for god’s approval; half the time they jokingly say they do it because god won’t! Goodness transcends religion, and religion has no right to that title. Morality or Ethics, Religion or Philosophy, both will teach kindness and compassion, each will tell you the stories for Truth, but in a different way. Religion will tell you about how they righteously murdered all those heretics in God’s glorious name and how it was a just war! Philosophy from its earliest days has seen wars as necessary, and its necessity, which makes it just, not God’s glory. Why have these religious wars died out? I would say rational minds have stopped the hearts of passionate men! I know none more passionate then those fill with a love for God. 9/11 is a testament to this, as they bore witness to their Muslim faith. And how many Jews, Cathars and many other nameless faces died because Christians, guided by the spirit knew it was God’s wish that those people should die. What could possibly stop all this madness, only one thing, Reason!
I don’t see Religion as escapism, other then escaping from the uncertainty of life, which is also true for Philosophy. In fact I don’t see much of a difference in Religion and Philosophy, their ultimate goal is the same, To Find Meaning. If God gives you meaning then Praise the Lord! But don’t let him tell you it’s ever okay to kill people in his name! Likewise follow Philosophy, but try to resolve the paradox of creation in a universe where cause and affect is inherently fundamental. Neither will put forth a strong enough case to convert all people to that one truth. But in each there is enough truth to see people through the dark night of the soul.
(edit) NB: Pax and I posted at the same time here which is why I have repeated a few of his points 
(edit)
Bob, your posts are very interesting and informative and I don’t mean to pick but you say:
without ever having tried to counter my arguments. All you have done so far is state that it is not escapism. I admit there was a fair chunk of assumption in my first few posts but the last big one I made was a full on attempt to argue from premise to premise to conclusion why mysticism HAS to be escapism. And “Matt’s assumption…is an assumption”? Rather leading the reader down the garden path are you not, play fair! 
Yes, mysticism might be a way of coping with the world but it is still escapism. Yes it does have value for the very reason that it gives hope and meaning to many people but it does it in an essentially delusional way. Yes, rationalism and reason have their problems, but it doesn’t mean they don’t give value or compassion, that’s attacking a straw doll and then presenting a false dilemma argument[1], I don’t want to enter into it as my post is going to be long enough as it is.
I have also argued that we don’t need religion anymore, we have ways to give hope and meaning to people without it. I didn’t mean to brush aside your point about the values it gives, I meant to show that it has been superceded by a better and fairer way of imparting responsibility and belonging. An illness may be relieved by giving someone a drug to counter the symptoms, but surely it would be better to cure the illness? I see religion and mysticism as not dealing with problems but displacing them, often ‘giving’ responsibility for certain occurances to a divine being and thus making a person feel better without ever facing up to the truth of what happened.
It might work, but it is still escapism. Without wanting to sound corny, as this is just an example that popped into my head, I’m not a Matrix nut, in the Matrix Neo goes to see the Oracle and she gives him some bad news. When he leaves she gives him a cookie and says something like “Don’t worry, by the time you’ve finished eating that cookie you’ll feel right as rain, you’ll remember you don’t believe in any of this fate crap”.
By deciding he doesn’t believe in fate he is escaping the problems that he has been given. By believing in God one escapes the need to face the horror that can be reality. One escapes the true reality of experience and displaces responsibility onto the shoulders of the divine.
Back to why mysticism is escapism, Pax’s second quote from Polemarchus is very telling, if I were from Afghanistan I’d definatly be religious believing in one type of God, if I were from an African country I’d believe in an essentially different one, perhaps being a devout Catholic.
And the two are irreconcilable, they are essentially different in character, in what they promise. These are not different interpretations of God, that is wishful thinking, these are different Gods. Different ways of expalaining the horror that can be reality. So at least grant me that the majority of Mysticism must be escapism, even if one set of mystics and religion are right.
[1] Very briefly you have accused rationalism and reason of not imparting any value to human life, compassion, love, etc. (the straw doll part as that’s misrepresenting these stances) and then reduced the argument to “It must be rationalism or mysticism that gives human life value therefore it must be Mysticism”. As far as I can tell that’s a false dilemma argument, if you want to debate it fully I’m game, but start another thread as it’s not really the discussion in hand and will take us way OT.
I’d like to begin by stating that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the debating in this thread. The dichotomy of Matt’s (and Pax’s) deterministic paradigm and Bob’s spiritual perspective voiced the very concerns and qualms I seem to be struggling with daily now.
Bob wrote:
I agree with you Bob, that dealing with problems isn’t escapism, but it really depends upon which side of the fence you’re on. Matt views faith as escaping- escaping the responsiblity of accepting the rational answer to the “meaning of life” question, because that answer is not a pleasing one. What Matt views as escapism, I think you see as pragmaticism (at the risk of putting words in your mouth). Let me see if I can explain my claim. The rationalist answer, while displeasing, is sufficient in describing how the universe operates. Why do you help people Bob? Well, because a specific chemical reaction that is created by assisting others leads you to keep doing it. But, if we are to accept this as our answer, the majority will lose their interest in doing anything, as life becomes merely a conglomeration of chemical reactions. If this stark realization doesn’t kill you, then the remainder of your life will be lived envying those that live in ignorance, or against the conclusions of reason. I think the position that you represent Bob, is the pragmatic position. That reason, while sufficient in describing the universe, is not sufficient in fulfilling happiness or well-being. It seems that if we are to live under the guidance of reason alone, our only joys will be found in those fleeting moments when we forget that our actions are determined (a position I find myself in quite often). This is the only reason that I cannot agree wholeheartdly with Pax’s and Matt’s arguments- it’s difficult to accept a position that does not seem to be conducive to a happy life. If the rationalist position foregoes happiness and peace of mind, can it truly be right?
Pax Vitae wrote:
I’m sorry that I wasn’t differentiating towards the end of the posting. My challenge wasn’t necessary guided at you but just generally voiced.
Today I would say that we are bound to trust people every day: the bus and train driver, the airline pilot, the surgeon etc. We live in a society of mutual trust - to some degree. The old point of reference was to judge by the consequences of what a person claimed and whether he put his own life on the scales. That seems to be a good measure even today.
And that is precisely the standpoint of many Mystics who were very often dissenters - and became heretics in the view of the mainstream church. In fact, it is in doing some good that you find those who are spiritually akin to yourself - whatever their relationship to the church.
I’m not sure they have died out - look at George W. Bush’s administration and listen to some of their wacky statements and I feel myself back in a time I wished was past. But I think Religion has always been misused by people in power, especially when you look at the structure of the church in the middle ages, when second sons of principalities looked for some power of their own. It is an old and relevant argument against church as we know it, but it isn’t what we are looking at. The Mystics were often classed as heretic themselves.
Not only that. I believe there was a great deal more rationality to this tragic act of mass murder that we are told. Especially in America there are facts that don’t get through the censorship, and Europe is reluctant to show some of the good investigative reporting done. Of course it’s sold as a mad religious act and possibly it could have only been done by muslims.
But Bin Laden has been part of a multimillionare family for all of his life. He has had a good education and he knows how the world works. It was also his second attempt and the WTC - why? It is the symbol of the WTO - World Trade Organisation - which is held by many millions of muslims to be the new colonialism of the west, but with more devastating effects. If you like, it was a rational decision to hit those buildings, irregardless of how many lives it cost.
Secondly, what was “Mein Kampf”? Was it Religion, Philosophy, Ideology? What was the Communist Manifesto? Were there no other writings than the Bible or the Qu’ran that led people to war? I think we should be able to recognise that Religion isn’t the only source of evil and passionate hate.
Shalom
Bob
Matt wrote:
Well I’m sorry Matt, I must of missed your arguments. I’ll give it another go though.
If this is your argument, then we are all escapists and do nothing but escape from looking at the world in a pessimistic state of mind. The thing is that the assumptions of this state of mind are equally unproven!
I could cry everyday because there is no hope and try to console myself with the thought: I am a realist! I don’t think it would work. I don’t think that I could motivate many people, or persuade them to stop being outright egoists, or promote some kind of social behaviour, if that was the official standpoint. If there is no hope of any kind, there is no reason to do anything but try to get the best out of life, regardless of the losses.
I’m listening …
You see, this is the way I have experienced your arguments. You say there are means and ways but you don’t describe them.
What cure Matt? Tell me what the cure is?
From a (not so) old posting:
What I did say is that Intuition and Love picks up where Rationality calls it a day. Mystics go beyond the rational argument and grasp hope.
Shalom
Bob
Matthew wrote:
I think you could be right by saying that. I am a bit pragmatic.
Thanks Doc, I’m feeling better already 
I suppose you could reduce everything to the sum of its parts, but the dissected rat on the table is dead, and we can’t see what made it live. We can’t see life by simply cutting it up and holding it up to the light. Just as we can’t base our life simply upon what we know. The thing is, you don’t do it either - nobody does.
Karl Jaspers tried to lead his Students into this kind of thought process and became very concerned when he realised that he may drive them to suicide (I believe some of them did take their lives). I can’t for the life of me understand why something so hopeless could be regarded as any kind of “cure”.
Exactly, life isn’t just the juices of the bodies flowing and the stimulants turning on instinctive reactions. Hope is an integral part of helping people grasp life and look for meaning. Hope isn’t born out of rational thought alone, but is to some degree irrational. But that is alright.
That is exactly my point.
Shalom
Bob
Bob said,
A agree that the balance is important, many philosophers such as Bergson have talked of the value of intuition.
After looking up mysticism at dictionary.com i am inclined to agree with Matt. I believe in prior posts here i have equated mysticism with religion. Mysticism is the topic of the thread however, and my arguments are for religion. Nevertheless, equating mysticism with escapism seems misguided. I don’t even think you can confine mysticism to religion. Heraclitus certainly had some mystical sayings, and charges of mysticism have even been leveled at Heidegger. The way some philosophers talk about their ‘nothingness’! As if that were not irrational in the ‘love of wisdom’ the same way that mysticism is an ‘unbalanced emotional state’ in the realm of religion! How is it that we are always reduced in these two realms: philosophy and religion to using what is not (God or nothingness[Sartre, Heidegger]) to describe what is! Is this not synonymous with mysticism!
Pax Vitae. A lot of your arguments seem like reductionism. The argument fails as Bob said, because you can not reduce a gestalt to the sum of its parts, it will always be more. Science believes that when it has explained something it has done away with it, similiar to the naming and labeling process that Polemarchus mentioned in reference to God. Science can explain, and verify but it can not give meaning to our lives. Science can provide the means, but not the goal. I agree that life should be taken as a puzzle and not an answer, however.
Anything else gets shaved by Ockham’s razor. I thoroughly support a lot of the opposition’s arguments. for example, most people, living in arabia would be muslim, most people unthinkingly take whatever religion they are given. I know that religion causes wars, stupidities, and the like. But i still hope to leave you with two things that remain after the bath water gets thrown out.
1.) As Bob said, “Religion supplies us with rites, ceremonies, songs, imagery, works of art, buildings, myths, legends, teachers and offices in connection with an assumed - and very often divine – authority. Religion was primarily oral and upheld the values which were regarded “holy†and were passed down from generation to generation. It is an abstract method of guiding social behaviour and dealing with problems.” Religion has previously supplied us with rites of passage, ceremonies, and other important devices to help people relate to themselves, their stage of life, others around them, and their universe. Myth is and remains an important part of the collective unconscious. This does not mean we actually have to believe the myth! a lot of these rites could be transvalued into humanistic rites and such. This is already happening! The other sciences are taking over where religion left off and this is good, but life still requires balance, meaning, and a center.
2.) Reason by itself is doomed to failure. Love by itself is doomed to failure. reason and love = understanding and a much better life. We have a lot to learn about love before we cast off this old garment called religion, and philosophy qua philosophy is ill equipped to do so.
Shalom
True, but there is a training process. You don’t just let anybody drive a bus, train, or fly a plane. How do you training Mystics? They normally just show up making claims. At least with most set religions you know a Priest has learned about the ways of his or her Religion and is qualified to teach that to the laity, while a Mystic is more of a sole-trader, who is guided by their God.
These people don’t call themselves Mystics, just normal people going about there daily lives. They have no interest in God and couldn’t careless if he is real or not. But they do know you should treat people with respect if you want to be respected.
True, but how can you tell the good Mystics from the bad ones? There are a lot of cunning people out there that play on the insecurity and vulnerabilities in their followers.
I don’t want to take this topic off subject to much, but… If you look at America over the Christmas holidays you can see just how successful that 9/11 incident has been. Code Oranges and flight cancellations. ‘The Land of the Free’ is gone look at all the new totalitarian laws that have been passed. America is frightened! and the terror is working! 9/11 is the only thing that needs to be done to keep America in fear.
I agree. But ‘Mein Kampf’ was a product of a country humiliated after WWI. But I think you know your own history. The ‘Communist Manifesto’ was about the workers getting their fair share of the profit and no longer being slaves to the system. To bad that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are all Doctrines just like religious texts are.
You are not labelling a mystery, but knowledge about how it works, its classification and other properties. We label the unknown as God, and then when we understand what was once a mystery, we no longer see it as apart of God anymore. God used to move the Heavens and the Earth, but not anymore with Newton’s laws of Force and Gravity new forces now control these objects.
That’s Philosophy’s goal. Science is apart of the investigation giving fuel to Philosophical minds to see how this new fact fits into the whole. After learning something new we have to revaluate if any of our old ideas or beliefs have become false in light of this new fact. Philosophy is about growing with the knowledge as each new insight brings us closer to understanding, while Religion already has all the answers so why bother to look in the first place. The only thing that might happen is, you might stumble across a piece of knowledge that throws out your religious worldview.
I don’t have any objections to Religion! Heck, I spent good deal of time studying to be a Catholic Priest! I believe Religion has a lot to offer! I’ve said this in my last post. Religion has its truths! But it’s not the only place offering such truths. Philosophy also teaches truth, each has it’s own place. The biggest problem with Religion is it can close peoples’ minds! while Philosophy tries to do the opposite.
I’m not religious; in I don’t practice a religion. But I still believe in understanding, compassion, and forgiveness, but not for religious reasons. I do it because it makes sense Ethically. “Treat others, as you would like to be treated.†Christ wasn’t the first to say this! All Moral teachers have said this; it’s the Golden Rule. From this rule you will see that Understanding, Compassion, and Forgiveness make sense. I know I want to be treated in that way, so I’m willing to treat others in that way. Not because God says I should, but because I want to have the same courtesy shown to me. But how can I ask to be treated fairly if I don’t do this to other people? Some religions and philosophy can teach you this.
So, a religion handing out any old “Meaning†will do? If truth and fidelity don’t play a part in your quest for that Meaning how do you know its right? This is my point about already knowing what we are looking for!!! We go to the religion with the answers we want to hear. We mightn’t know what these answers are at a conscious level, but when we hear people talk about their religion it clicks and we know this is the right one for us. This is where our intuition comes into play. Not only is this true for religion it’s also truth of people being led to philosophy. They hear philosophical answers that bring meaning, so follow that philosophical discipline.
Just like religion have dangerous sub-cults, the Cole-Aid-Kids, David Karesh (Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas), and other suicidal mystical leaders. Philosophy has their fair share, Sartre and the many other Existentialists. Nothing is perfect, whether it be religion or philosophy, each has had its Madman or women that have done more harm then good.
Please tell me where I have said we should do away with all religion. I’ve said each has its purpose, but when you think you can have Religion without philosophy then you end up with Passions leading people astray. Philosophy can teach love and compassion and understanding. Don’t dare think that only religion can teach these things! Pick up any good book on Ethics and all the same lessons are there. There not taught with Divine retribution if you disobey, just the simple, ‘Treat others, as you would like to be treated’ maxim. How quickly it’s forgotten that God less the 100 years ago was a God of Fear, not Love. Pick any religion and just look how full of holes it is. Nothings perfect not even God! Get over it and move on. I’m not saying leave your religion, but realise that religion only has the answers to a small part of the picture, the part of the picture that Philosophy can only guess at.
I’m baffled, again you duck and weave the questions I have raised. No, I’m not an escapist in the context of the question, I don’t buy the mysticism or religion side of things. I’m sure I am on other things, but not this one. Neither are all others who view these subjects in the same way as I do, and there are a lot of us out there.
So, we’re not all escapists, are we?
Have you been reading my posts?
Well, just for you, here it is again, posted 01/01/04 further to something I’d said in my very first reply:
The thing is I don’t have to offer an alternative, I am discussing whether mysticism is escpaism, I feel like you keep trying to drag this discussion out of the context of the question.
I had said I wasn’t really willing to go into the “atheism gives no meaning” argument, but as you insist that it’s needed for my arguments, so be it.
I wish I was paid a penny for each time someone comes into the forums saying that we need religion as without it we have no X, X being hope, need to be moral, sense of meaning, and on and on and on.
Why? There are so many atheists out there now and do you see them all commiting suicide every day? Do you see them constantly depressed? Do you see them acting as anarchists?
Your view is wrong, plain and simple, it is at odds with the real world. All these athesits out there prove you and all the others before you who have claimed this great ‘need’ for religion wrong. They prove you wrong every second of every day. I am proving you wrong by not sitting here sobbing at my keyboard at the hopelessness of it all. I have lots of hopes and dreams and desires and all that while believing there’s ultimately no real reason why we are here, we just are. And we should enjoy it and be thankful that this happy accident happened!
dictionary.com gives this definition of Mysticism (thanks Marshall!):
This is what Mysticism is considered in the various uses of the word. It gives us a variance because a dictionary only displays what a word can mean. There isn’t even any heirarchy in the numeration.
The question was, whether Mysticism is Escapism. The conclusion that I arrived at was, if we want to use the term Escapism, then we would have to use it in the sense of
“The tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment”
as it is defined by http://www.dictionary.com.
By doing this we immediately see that Escapism, if we’re honest, is something that we are into daily. Using this definition, there isn’t anybody on the planet that doesn’t “escape” on a regular basis. What we should then ask is whether Mysticism is a “form” of escapism. Is it a kind of “daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment”?
Do Mystics indulge in a “dreamlike musing or fantasy while awake, especially of the fulfillment of wishes or hopes.” I could accept that, yes, Mystics probably do indulge in dreamlike musings. Whether anything worse emanates from these musings than from any of our musings would have to be proven. When I read what (selected) Mystics have written, then I find that it is quite the opposite. You may have a different opinion.
Do Mystics indulge in fantasy? Yes, I am quiet certain they do, for how else would they transport an experience of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension? The human mind is dependant upon fantasy to understand at all. Metaphers are the use of fantasy to explain things otherwise inexplicable.
Do Mystics indulge in entertainmant? I can’t rule it out, but most of the revered Mystic lived in times when entertainment wasn’t readily available.
But the question ist, did Mystics wish to “escape from daily reality or routine” when they saw what they saw, and is it to be referred to as an indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment? To this I would say no! I believe that they were trying to fathom their daily reality, they tried to understand the things that occurred around them. In that sense, they weren’t escaping (although I’m sure they did that too) but they were occupying themselves with their experience of reality and the problems that arose from it.
Shalom
Bob
Pax Vitae stated:
Yes Pax, but science serves mainly to describe a thing, not state what it is.
Polemarchus repied to a fellow poster in the philosophy forum , philosophy thread:
Pax continued:
Who was it who said, “philosophy is a question looking for an answer and religion is an answer looking for a question.”? I remain skeptical as to whether philosophy can inherently provide meaning and value in and of itself. As has been stated in this thread numerous times by many posters in different ways, it is important to perceive things from within a balanced framework of ideas (reason, intuition, feelings / philosophy, religion, science). If you look at something for too long from only one spot you begin to think that that one perspective is all that exists of that object. Philosophy, for example, finds it hard to rationally demonstrate ethics. You yourself resort to the Golden Rule to do so.
Speaking of the golden rule different versions of the golden rule in different religions, philosophies, etc.
From Joseph Campbell, myths to live by:
If as you say in your post, truth is a criteria in the search for meaning, and life needs supporting illusions from myth then the only alternative to me seems to be to accept the myth as myth, accept the illusion as illusion, similiar to the way that art does. The fact that billions of people are unable to do this is no refutation to the cohesive, integrating power of myth in our lives.
Bob,
you said
Son of a gun! You’re right! no heirarchy! As it says in the below named dictionary’s introduction, “no fixed, arbitrary arrangement of the senses within a given entry has been attempted.” I once had someone in a thread tell me that the most common usage comes first and i believed them. damn unwarranted assumption.
My 1983 Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines mysticism thusly:
“1.) doctrines or beliefs of mystics; specifically, the doctrine that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation and love without the medium of human reason.
2.) any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge of spiritual truths through intuition acquired by fixed meditation.
3.) vague or obscure thinking or belief.”
this parallels that above. I pretty much disagree with the God part of number 1, and 3, but i fail to see any objections to #2. Note that #3 could refer to anyone, including philosophers, and charges of mysticism have been made about Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and others. Maybe you are mainly talking about 1.
Marshall McDaniel wrote:
Yup, that’s where I am - and if you think about it, it’s quite an ecumenical position. At the same time it very often annoys those who need written Religion or Dogmen. That is why I can cope as an “Elder” of the church, as long as I don’t have to play my hand. I believe myself to be in line with Christ and that is what matters to me.
To quote Matthew Fox, the director of the “Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality” in California:
I deeply believe that the abilities of Mankind have reduced since we became reliant upon technology and that is why we have difficulty in communicating. I don’t know whether it is completely correct, but my experience supports the theory that the left hemisphere of the brain is responsible for verbal, abstract, symbolic activities. The right hemisphere serves for synthetic, holistic, intuitive perception and information processing. I believe our teaching pushes people towards using the left half and leaves the right hemisphere of the brain underdeveloped.
That is why people distrust people who are primarily holistic and intuitive - especially if you are a man. In the sixties and seventies a man couldn’t cultivate these abilities without getting abuse. I believe a few have gone overboard, but most of us are using the right hemisphere more - but not enough. To some degree, that is why there are some extreme views on the subject here. Mystics aren’t people who are solely using the right hemisphere, indeed most have the ability to use both effectively.
Shalom
Bob
Even though strictly speaking many recent specialists think this distinction somewhat antiquated the left/right brain scenario is an important tool for understanding how people deal with information. Many people in education, for example, use it. When i was a corporate trainer, i found it useful to know if people were left brain (detail oriented) or right brain (holistic) oriented. I think age may be a critical factor too. It takes time to assess the many parts and learn how they congeal and interact as a whole. I used to be very detail oriented, but i think the latter half of my life (God or Nature willing) will be more right brain oriented. I’m currently 38.
That’s what I’ve been saying. You need Religion and you need Philosophy, but the idea I’m trying to get across is that no matter what you would like to believe, what we do believe comes initially from our intuition. Then we can use either Faith or Reason to hold on to that belief once it comes into question. Some people don’t like the idea of Faith and others Reason, but that doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong, each person is the measure of truth, their own truth. There is no universal truth! That’s the big lie!
The mystic believes that he has a special insight into God, to him he does, and maybe there will be others who like what he has to say. But there’s also going to be people who will reject his beliefs, as it doesn’t seem right to them or it conflicts with what they already believe in. Their faith or reason will stop them from accepting this new so-called truth. To them it’s just the ramblings of a madman, while they are more then willing to listen to another madman, the madman that gave them the belief they are now defending.
Pax Vitae wrote:
I apologise for being away for a while - had a lot of work. I keep on reading the word “special” when referred to the kind of spirituality that I’m into. What does special mean?
From dictionary.com I get the following:
If I judge my experience to be exceptional, in other words uncommon and unusual, is that a problem for other people? If a Mystic speaks of his insight, is he any more of a problem in doing that than anyone else with a view? And if people have the insights of Mystics passed on and eventually printed, which leads to them being read and held to be something special, where is the problem?
Is there a general requirement for people with a different approach to life to dispute their insights as the work of madmen? Nobody has yet told us the name of a Mystic that ranted and raved to the point of being a danger to others, or of a Mystic that forced his view upon other people. Quite the opposite is the case, most Mystics were heretics because they didn’t conform.
I get the feeling that some people tend to argue from the “stomach†than from the head. They have a “gut-feeling†about Mystics and start pouring their wrath upon anybody who dares to associate with them. This all occurs although we are writing in a Forum dedicated to Religion. It seems in keeping with what Mystics experienced in long-gone days when the churches tried to burn them at the stake.
All the time Mystics are the silent admirers of a mysterious God, who they believe created this universe and life therein. They remain silent to hear the one voice that we otherwise can’t hear, to understand what is happening in the world and marvel at the wisdom that can be found if we could only hear above all of the noises and voices that this world has to offer.
If a Mystic describes his experience as distinct amongst other experiences: a special kind of experience, why should others who clearly haven’t had the experience disagree? If his experience is peculiar to his experience with God, something that he doesn’t experience with other aspects of life, who is to disagree? And if a Mystic regards these experiences with particular affection, who can wish to dissent?
The insight of Mystics may well be “special†for a whole range of reasons – but who’s bothered about it? If we concede that much of what we speak comes from our vanity, or is spoken because we overestimate our importance, then we can only welcome people who want their judgement to be compassionate, their decisions careful and their answers balanced. Mystics achieve this only because their word is spoken out of the silence.
Mystics want their words to be equitable, they want to cleanse, the want to be peace-makers and give others strength to cope in the world. They can only achieve this, if they don’t speak everything that comes to mind. The real worthwhile things that people should hear aren’t the things that readily come to mind, but those that have been heard from a distance. That is why it pays to be silent, to gain time by waiting until the worthwhile things come to us from a distance. It is learning to discern our words from His that takes up most of our time and makes His word something special.
Shalom
Bob
I would say everybody that talks about God is a Mystic. But what do you mean by the word Mystic and not dictionary.com! All languages are living and as such words meaning and usage change over the years, just look at English 200 years ago. Would all Catholics Priests be Mystics because they talk about God, or must they have some other from for connection that is beyond their Ordination?
I have! Here’s one of many: David Karesh (Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas). If you would like I could find more, as there have been plenty. Or would your definition of a Mystic exclude Mr Karesh?
I’m not saying Mystics are Madmen, just that some would perceive them that way.
This is my main point, ‘Gut-Feeling’ is just another way of saying Instinct! People will act from Instinct about what they believe. Some will rant others will take a more structured approach, yet there goal is the same, to defend their point of view.
‘God is all things to all people,’ everybody has their own unique way of relating to and understanding God. There is no one right way, only our own private way. In essence we all need to be mystics if we want to have a relationship with God. Another person’s experiences might be similar but they won’t be identical.
Right Pax Vitae, there is no universal truth, that is why i have the “Truth is a pathless land.” quote from Krishnamurti (whom some would call a mystic) below.
The still small voice. Something rarely heard amidst the hustle and bustle of modern civilization. Do you meditate Bob?
Interesting part of that long quote Pax Vitae. “There is no way one story could encompass a complete understanding of the fullness of God and all His many glories, as it would require everybody’s personal story to be complete.” Nietzsche once said the same kind of thing in (the will too Power i believe) something like you could never define something because you would have to know all of it’s interactions with everything else.
Pax Vitae wrote:
LOL, please excuse me for laughing indiscretely, but you must be some kind of follower of David Koresh to give him the honour of appearing in the lines of such revered people as Adelhard of Bath, Johann Arndt, Aurelius Augustinus, Johann Christoph Blumhardt, John Bunyan, Jakob Böhme, Martin Buber, Mathias Claudius, Areopagita Dionysius, Meister Eckhart, Fénelon, Franz of Assissi, Gregor of Nyssa, Hildegard von Bingen, Ignatius, Johannes vom Kreuz, Juliane of Norwich, Sören Kierkegaard, Martin Luther, Nicolas Cusanus, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and many, many more…
None of these people saw themselves as a davidian Leader and heaped up arms to overthrow the Government. I really though you had something more to offer. You can’t just say “I don’t like Mystics and I didn’t like Koresh either, so Koresh is a Mystic.”
Are you paraphrasing me or do you really think that I am saying anything different? If I have a special kind of experience that others have difficulties with, who has a problem? It isn’t me. If we all have “our” spiritual experiences, then fine. Nobody on my side of the fence is complaining - we were sparked off by someone who asked a question.
Marshall asked:
Probably not enough, but yes, it is silence and meditation that helps in my struggle with a stressful vocation. What also helps is using time instead of “killing” it. Time is a precious gift and the art is in using it effectively. Of course I’m not talking about working overtime or performance, but using time for me, so that I can find strength for others.
Mysticism is all about giving ones life a direction and being resolute on the chosen path. You can call it loyalty, being faithful, being steady or constant. It all amounts to remaining unperturbed on the path. Not always very easy…
Where does the path lead? It leads inwards, into our inmost being and again it leads to other people. The inward path is necessary to prepare for our task in this world, helping people to catch their breath again, to disencumber the tired, to heal, to help people on their feet, to open the eyes, enable people to take hold of their lives again, to forgive and to set free. In fact I quite imagine Jesus in the Synagogue smiling as he is given the Scripture he is required to translate into everyday life:
That is what it is about, and Jesus must of thought: that’s easy! He said: this prophecy has just been fulfilled! Of course people didn’t understand straight away - that is nearly always the case with Mystics.
Shalom
Bob