I'm not convinced that these concepts of "true" and "correct" are particularly useful in this context, when attempting to compare faiths (or different versions of a faith). For a neutral viewpoint regarding a faith, it might be more useful to ask the questions "is it helpful?" and "is it harmful?" (for example).
I totally don't understand this concept at all. They make claims about the world, the supernatural, God or the gods, which are either true or false.
I confess I did have this in mind when I wrote (in the paragraph following the one above):
In other words, while being "true" or "correct" is usually quite important to the believers of a faith (although this can vary), it seems less so when it comes to comparing faiths.
As a believer, I would say I was always aware that while I thought the claims about God and Jesus were true, it was in the sense of being true for me, but that they might not be true for other people. It was the kind of truth that it was up to each person to make up their own mind about, including me.
I think I'd go further. As an evangelical, I understood the aim of evangelism not to be convincing people of the truth of the claims, but to be getting people to believe the claims. Or, in more evangelical(?) parlance, to believe *on* them.
And as for "helpful" or "harmful," aren't those dependent on what "helpful" and "harmful" are, especially if they may be at least partly dependent on those claims?
"helpful" and "harmful" were just examples. The criteria someone might use to assess or compare faiths depends on a number of factors, including why they're doing it.
I can see what @pease is saying but I'm not sure 'neutral' is the right term. We can be 'non-aligned' or unaffiliated with a faith position but that doesn't mean we have a neutral attitude towards it.
I wasn't convinced by the term "neutral" either. "Non-aligned" is OK.
When it comes to what we might call mysticism - for want of a better word and I agree it's a somewhat loaded term - how do we evaluate it? There's the Pauline thing in 1 Corinthians about the 'things of the Spirit' being 'spiritually discerned' which can sound very circular of course.
This question reminds me that in response to the question, "What does the mystic see?", one answer that occurred to me was, "Unity that the collective cannot see."
I was sitting by a river today and contemplating whether "a river" exists. In one sense it obviously exists, birds sit in it, it erodes the banks, boats bob on it.
I also happened to be by a river yesterday (standing). The clouds above the river were moving in the same direction as the water, and it led me to consider how the flow of the clouds through the sky and the flow of the water through the river together revealed something more fundamental about the nature of "flowing".
I see. So a demonstrably false statement is more correct than another demonstrably false statement because the first contains less false clauses than the second.
Does this multiply? Is a statement containing 5 lies more correct than one containing 10 lies?
This to me is nonsense.
You change from using the logical term false to using the moral and therefore emotive term lies.
If two children write a test and the one contains 5 "lies", or mistakes as the rest of us call them, and the other 10 "lies" or mistakes, then I think most people would say that the first test is more correct. Which is why the one child would get 15/20 and the other 10/20, rather than both getting zero.
Dismissing an argument as nonsense is cheap. Anyone can do it regardless of the merits. The appropriate reaction to the word 'nonsense' is usually well, you would say that wouldn't you.
"Superstition", frankly, when used to describe anything other than the wisdom of walking under ladders or counting magpies and so forth, is an emotive pejorative, a mere boo-word with no descriptive content that contributes nothing to rational discussion, which is why nobody was using the word until you interjected it.
The wikipedia page on mysticism seems to me a bit poorly organised, but it covers some of the general background to what people here are talking about.
Back to different belief systems. Belief systems may perhaps be better compared to maps than to tests.
A map that puts a church in the wrong place is problematic if someone is trying to get to that church or needs to use it as a landmark. But if that's not where they're going the map will be fine. A map that puts the church on the wrong side of the street is obviously better and to be preferred to one that puts the church in the wrong town altogether. Even if they are going to the church if the map puts the church on the wrong side of the road they'll be able to find their way if they can trust their eyes once they get there.
The discussion on the last two pages was largely down to the extent to which one should just trust ones own eyes (which may be faulty - it's an analogy) or whether one should consult with other people (who may not be in a position to see for themselves).
I'm not convinced that these concepts of "true" and "correct" are particularly useful in this context, when attempting to compare faiths (or different versions of a faith). For a neutral viewpoint regarding a faith, it might be more useful to ask the questions "is it helpful?" and "is it harmful?" (for example).
I totally don't understand this concept at all. They make claims about the world, the supernatural, God or the gods, which are either true or false.
I confess I did have this in mind when I wrote (in the paragraph following the one above):
In other words, while being "true" or "correct" is usually quite important to the believers of a faith (although this can vary), it seems less so when it comes to comparing faiths.
As a believer, I would say I was always aware that while I thought the claims about God and Jesus were true, it was in the sense of being true for me, but that they might not be true for other people. It was the kind of truth that it was up to each person to make up their own mind about, including me.
I think I'd go further. As an evangelical, I understood the aim of evangelism not to be convincing people of the truth of the claims, but to be getting people to believe the claims. Or, in more evangelical(?) parlance, to believe *on* them.
And as for "helpful" or "harmful," aren't those dependent on what "helpful" and "harmful" are, especially if they may be at least partly dependent on those claims?
"helpful" and "harmful" were just examples. The criteria someone might use to assess or compare faiths depends on a number of factors, including why they're doing it.
I can see what @pease is saying but I'm not sure 'neutral' is the right term. We can be 'non-aligned' or unaffiliated with a faith position but that doesn't mean we have a neutral attitude towards it.
I wasn't convinced by the term "neutral" either. "Non-aligned" is OK.
When it comes to what we might call mysticism - for want of a better word and I agree it's a somewhat loaded term - how do we evaluate it? There's the Pauline thing in 1 Corinthians about the 'things of the Spirit' being 'spiritually discerned' which can sound very circular of course.
This question reminds me that in response to the question, "What does the mystic see?", one answer that occurred to me was, "Unity that the collective cannot see."
I was sitting by a river today and contemplating whether "a river" exists. In one sense it obviously exists, birds sit in it, it erodes the banks, boats bob on it.
I also happened to be by a river yesterday (standing). The clouds above the river were moving in the same direction as the water, and it led me to consider how the flow of the clouds through the sky and the flow of the water through the river together revealed something more fundamental about the nature of "flowing".
It seems like we may have been thinking along similar lines. I was thinking about "flux" in the sense of everything being in motion. Evolution is flux. Chemistry is flux. Ideas evolved and change. Even the sense of what is or isn't justice is evolving.
I was also relating this to Platonism, in the sense of the "Forms", in that it is strange to contemplate that there are objective stationary concepts when everything else is in motion.
And then I was thinking about being on the train and watching objects that we sped past. The bicycle is in motion, yet because it is much slower than the train it is impossible to really grasp it's speed or direction. The tree is stationary in one sense and yet it is on a spinning planet.
So I was thinking about relative motion and how it's possible that Platonic Forms if they exist (which I think they do) are also in motion but just at an imperceptible speed compared to other things.
I see. So a demonstrably false statement is more correct than another demonstrably false statement because the first contains less false clauses than the second.
Does this multiply? Is a statement containing 5 lies more correct than one containing 10 lies?
This to me is nonsense.
You change from using the logical term false to using the moral and therefore emotive term lies.
If two children write a test and the one contains 5 "lies", or mistakes as the rest of us call them, and the other 10 "lies" or mistakes, then I think most people would say that the first test is more correct. Which is why the one child would get 15/20 and the other 10/20, rather than both getting zero.
Dismissing an argument as nonsense is cheap. Anyone can do it regardless of the merits. The appropriate reaction to the word 'nonsense' is usually well, you would say that wouldn't you.
"Superstition", frankly, when used to describe anything other than the wisdom of walking under ladders or counting magpies and so forth, is an emotive pejorative, a mere boo-word with no descriptive content that contributes nothing to rational discussion, which is why nobody was using the word until you interjected it.
The wikipedia page on mysticism seems to me a bit poorly organised, but it covers some of the general background to what people here are talking about.
Back to different belief systems. Belief systems may perhaps be better compared to maps than to tests.
A map that puts a church in the wrong place is problematic if someone is trying to get to that church or needs to use it as a landmark. But if that's not where they're going the map will be fine. A map that puts the church on the wrong side of the street is obviously better and to be preferred to one that puts the church in the wrong town altogether. Even if they are going to the church if the map puts the church on the wrong side of the road they'll be able to find their way if they can trust their eyes once they get there.
The discussion on the last two pages was largely down to the extent to which one should just trust ones own eyes (which may be faulty - it's an analogy) or whether one should consult with other people (who may not be in a position to see for themselves).
Yesterday I was reading a book about race which said "millions of slaves passed through the ports at Liverpool".
Which I thought was an interesting snippet which required more research. As far as I can tell, this is incorrect. The slavery ships were part of a triangular trade, the actual slaves didn't arrive in ports in this country in those numbers.
I have written this down to investigate further if I ever manage to get to the slavery museum in Liverpool.
Let's assume for this thought that the factoid is wrong. That the ships were owned by the merchants of Liverpool who profited from slavery but the slaves didn't arrive at Liverpool in them.
Does that matter? On the one hand it's a minor point. On the other hand, I find it a bit distracting from an otherwise interesting discussion.
But it's not the central point of the book. It might be an editorial error. It might be many things.
That's in no sense the same as a completely factually wrong and misleading statement about Shakespeare in your example.
Maybe it that appeared in a book where there was some clerical error in a single sentence when the rest of it clearly shows the author knows the Bard was from Stratford in England then maybe we could brush it aside.
IMHO, interesting as it is, you're not likely to get very far when mysticism, supernaturalism, superstition, the occult, and similar terms are all being treated as roughly equal in the same discussion. I mean, each of these is a huge field, and besides the pejorative content some phrases bear, they are terms that are also very very differently marked off depending on the speaker's faith or lack thereof. It may be you don't mind, but it's kind of driving me nuts as an onlooker (and former composition and rhetoric teacher).
They have their detractors too of course, but generally their music has gained a certain 'traction' that other contemporary classical music hasn't.
It's easier on the ear and that probably accounts for much of its popularity but I think there's more to it than that.
I'm no musician but certain musical forms and patterns do convey a calming and meditative atmosphere of course.
Hence churchy choral music can have an appeal beyond the churchy constituency in which it developed.
The same with Gospel music of course. It gave birth to Soul.
In the church where I sing and worship, Tavener, Part, Whitacre and Gjeilo are regarded as composers of religious music, and their works are used in worship.
For me at least there is something going on with their mystical approach.
I was sitting by a river today and contemplating whether "a river" exists. In one sense it obviously exists, birds sit in it, it erodes the banks, boats bob on it.
I also happened to be by a river yesterday (standing). The clouds above the river were moving in the same direction as the water, and it led me to consider how the flow of the clouds through the sky and the flow of the water through the river together revealed something more fundamental about the nature of "flowing".
It seems like we may have been thinking along similar lines. I was thinking about "flux" in the sense of everything being in motion. Evolution is flux. Chemistry is flux. Ideas evolved and change. Even the sense of what is or isn't justice is evolving.
In my case, I was trying not to think, and waiting to see if I became aware of anything beyond, or deeper, than the scene I was looking at.
I was also relating this to Platonism, in the sense of the "Forms", in that it is strange to contemplate that there are objective stationary concepts when everything else is in motion.
And then I was thinking about being on the train and watching objects that we sped past. The bicycle is in motion, yet because it is much slower than the train it is impossible to really grasp it's speed or direction. The tree is stationary in one sense and yet it is on a spinning planet.
So I was thinking about relative motion and how it's possible that Platonic Forms if they exist (which I think they do) are also in motion but just at an imperceptible speed compared to other things.
One impression I get from this is of a developing awareness of possible frames of reference.
They have their detractors too of course, but generally their music has gained a certain 'traction' that other contemporary classical music hasn't.
It's easier on the ear and that probably accounts for much of its popularity but I think there's more to it than that.
I'm no musician but certain musical forms and patterns do convey a calming and meditative atmosphere of course.
Hence churchy choral music can have an appeal beyond the churchy constituency in which it developed.
The same with Gospel music of course. It gave birth to Soul.
In the church where I sing and worship, Tavener, Part, Whitacre and Gjeilo are regarded as composers of religious music, and their works are used in worship.
For me at least there is something going on with their mystical approach.
Cheers
Heron
Sure. I wasn't disputing that there's something 'going on' in their music. I'm sure there is.
I may have misunderstood you, @Lamb Chopped but I'm not sure that all posters here are placing Christian mysticism, the occult and superstition on an equal footing. I don't see them as equivalent.
Perhaps I've not got your drift.
I wouldn't put the 'Rhineland Mystics' or St Theresa of Avila, say, on the same level as someone who refuses to walk under ladders or considers the number 13 to be unlucky.
I suppose it's my usual thing, where I wish we could get some definitions in the discussion. As it is, we're dragging in everything from the saints to Tarot, and now music, etc. But then, I'm a fool--the OP was about defining or understanding the term). I suppose what I'm seeing is that we just ... don't.
As a believer, I would say I was always aware that while I thought the claims about God and Jesus were true, it was in the sense of being true for me, but that they might not be true for other people. It was the kind of truth that it was up to each person to make up their own mind about, including me.
I think I'd go further. As an evangelical, I understood the aim of evangelism not to be convincing people of the truth of the claims, but to be getting people to believe the claims. Or, in more evangelical(?) parlance, to believe *on* them.
I still can’t make heads or tails of “true for me” — I do understand convincing people to believe (in the sense of trust, an act of the will) on Jesus, but I would think that believing, or being convinced sufficiently to give Him a try at least, would hinge on some kind of belief that the things said about Him were genuinely, objectively, in external reality true.
(As a side question—do you mean as a believer in general and now, or as a believer in the past but not now?)
So I was thinking about relative motion and how it's possible that Platonic Forms if they exist (which I think they do) are also in motion but just at an imperceptible speed compared to other things.
I don’t think they’re in motion per se, just because I think that involves time and I think they transcend time. Of course one could look at them as existing at an infinite speed as well I suppose. Of course, if they are things which simply exist in the mind of God then I would say they definitely transcend time…
I suppose it's my usual thing, where I wish we could get some definitions in the discussion. As it is, we're dragging in everything from the saints to Tarot, and now music, etc. But then, I'm a fool--the OP was about defining or understanding the term). I suppose what I'm seeing is that we just ... don't.
Fair do's.
Although I think a few of us did plump for Evelyn Underhill's definition and admired Caroline Spurgeon's quote.
I was trying to keep it the discussion to Christian mysticism, not because I don't think there are other kinds but I don't know much about Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah or Sufism and so on.
I think it was @Basketactortale who brought in things like Spiritualism, the occult, Tarot and so forth as to him all these things look alike.
I can understand that even though it's not a position I hold.
At the risk of dodging the definitions and the issue, I tend to think that in Christian terms we 'recognise' mysticism when we see it (or hear it in @Heron's case).
But I'd argue we need to be steeped in scripture and tradition in order to do so, or at least be influenced by those to the extent that we are attuned to these things.
I would definitely put the miraculous experiences (visions, etc.) of Christian Saints in a different category than the mere paranormal. I believe in the latter, but as just part of the created world the same way as everything else—“things visible and invisible, seen and unseen,” however weird or uncanny they may be from whatever point of view. Of course, God can use anything, ordinary or uncanny or miraculous, to interact with us.
I try to have a Franciscan view of “weird stuff.” God made and loves us, angels, animals, matter, energy, and whatever “weird” stuff may exist along with us that we know little about. Brother Sun, Sister Moon, Brother Weird Thing In The Forest That’s Hard To Quantify, etc.
Of course, just as various animals can be healthy or unhealthy to interact with, so can various things. Or even the context. Brother Fire can warm us or burn us. Sister Housecat can be a member of our family, but Sister Tigress can eat us. The same, I think, for Brother/Sister Things That Go Bump In The Night.
C. S. Lewis said this in Letters To Malcolm Chiefly On Prayer:
I do not at all regard mystical experience as an illusion. I think it shows that there is a way to go, before death, out of what may be called "this world"--out of the stage set. Out of this; but into what? That's like asking an Englishman, "Where does the sea lead to?" He will reply "To everywhere on earth, including Davy Jones's locker, except England." The lawfulness, safety, and utility of the mystical voyage depends not at all on its being mystical--that is, on its being a departure--but on the motives, skill, and constancy of the voyager, and on the grace of God. The true religion gives value to its own mysticism; mysticism does not validate the religion in which it happens to occur.
There’s a lot more but I don’t want to over-quote. It’s very good.
I suspect that there’s no single answer to “Mysticism How do we define the term?” Since “we” have a variety of different takes on what it is, depending on our varied backgrounds, experiences, and personalities. Even if we limit the discussion to Christian mysticism, I suspect we will struggle to agree about how “we” define Christian mysticism.
I suppose it's my usual thing, where I wish we could get some definitions in the discussion. As it is, we're dragging in everything from the saints to Tarot, and now music, etc. But then, I'm a fool--the OP was about defining or understanding the term). I suppose what I'm seeing is that we just ... don't.
Fair do's.
Although I think a few of us did plump for Evelyn Underhill's definition and admired Caroline Spurgeon's quote.
I was trying to keep it the discussion to Christian mysticism, not because I don't think there are other kinds but I don't know much about Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah or Sufism and so on.
I think it was @Basketactortale who brought in things like Spiritualism, the occult, Tarot and so forth as to him all these things look alike.
I can understand that even though it's not a position I hold.
At the risk of dodging the definitions and the issue, I tend to think that in Christian terms we 'recognise' mysticism when we see it (or hear it in @Heron's case).
But I'd argue we need to be steeped in scripture and tradition in order to do so, or at least be influenced by those to the extent that we are attuned to these things.
I'm not trying to tell other people what to believe or not and was genuinely trying to explore the question posed in the first post. To me, the things you say are different look suspiciously similar.
It seems to me that the bible includes ghosts, divination, fortune/future telling, speaking to the dead, reanimation of corpses and so on. I'm not seeing any significant difference to Spiritualism, which is why I was trying to understand how you tell what was mysticism and what was superstition.
For me it's all superstition. I can't make head nor tail of any of it.
As a believer, I would say I was always aware that while I thought the claims about God and Jesus were true, it was in the sense of being true for me, but that they might not be true for other people. It was the kind of truth that it was up to each person to make up their own mind about, including me.
I think I'd go further. As an evangelical, I understood the aim of evangelism not to be convincing people of the truth of the claims, but to be getting people to believe the claims. Or, in more evangelical(?) parlance, to believe *on* them.
I still can’t make heads or tails of “true for me” — I do understand convincing people to believe (in the sense of trust, an act of the will) on Jesus, but I would think that believing, or being convinced sufficiently to give Him a try at least, would hinge on some kind of belief that the things said about Him were genuinely, objectively, in external reality true.
We haven't referenced it for a while, but I think the idea of "being true for me", or the distinction between what's believed and what's true, is consistent with Puddleglum's speech to the Lady of the Green Kirtle in The Silver Chair:
… Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.
You can contrast this with what Lewis writes in Mere Christianity (Book III:11 Faith):
It is not reason that is taking away my faith: on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other.
A verse that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 13:11:
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.
Lewis strikes me as someone who hasn't entirely given up his childish ways. Or that, as a man, he sees the continuing value of childish ways. I think there is significance in the way his adult attitude to narrative, and his childhood attitude to story, continue to interact through his life.
(As a side question—do you mean as a believer in general and now, or as a believer in the past but not now?)
Apologies. Is "when I identified as a Christian" clearer? I don't think the perspective of being a believer ever really leaves you.
I would say that Puddleglum and the children are following deeper Reason in the face of an illusion of a horrible, empty world—remember, they’re dealing with overcoming an evil spell. (Lewis also did say that he put away childish things—including the desire to appear very grown-up, which is itself childish. I’d find the quote but my phone’s at 1% and at 5 am I should go to bed… 🫣)
I suppose it's my usual thing, where I wish we could get some definitions in the discussion. As it is, we're dragging in everything from the saints to Tarot, and now music, etc. But then, I'm a fool--the OP was about defining or understanding the term). I suppose what I'm seeing is that we just ... don't.
Fair do's.
Although I think a few of us did plump for Evelyn Underhill's definition and admired Caroline Spurgeon's quote.
I was trying to keep it the discussion to Christian mysticism, not because I don't think there are other kinds but I don't know much about Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah or Sufism and so on.
I think it was @Basketactortale who brought in things like Spiritualism, the occult, Tarot and so forth as to him all these things look alike.
I can understand that even though it's not a position I hold.
At the risk of dodging the definitions and the issue, I tend to think that in Christian terms we 'recognise' mysticism when we see it (or hear it in @Heron's case).
But I'd argue we need to be steeped in scripture and tradition in order to do so, or at least be influenced by those to the extent that we are attuned to these things.
I'm not trying to tell other people what to believe or not and was genuinely trying to explore the question posed in the first post. To me, the things you say are different look suspiciously similar.
It seems to me that the bible includes ghosts, divination, fortune/future telling, speaking to the dead, reanimation of corpses and so on. I'm not seeing any significant difference to Spiritualism, which is why I was trying to understand how you tell what was mysticism and what was superstition.
For me it's all superstition. I can't make head nor tail of any of it.
I know you aren't trying to 'tell' us what to believe or not to believe and yes, of course it all looks suspiciously the same to you. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
People who don't drink beer think that all beer tastes the same.
People who don't drink wine say the same about wine.
Same with tea, coffee, cheese ...
Unless we are 'involved' or invested in these things to some extent or other then they are all going to be confusing or incomprehensible to those on the outside looking in.
On the Spiritualism thing. We had a thread in Kerygmania I think on the story of Saul and the Witch of Endor. Some of us felt that Samuel's spirit may have been summoned up, others that it was some kind of simulacrum or a demonic counterfeit. Others had different ideas again.
Which is fair enough.
It isn't simply a matter of saying, 'Oh, there are ghosts in the Bible so I ought to believe in them ...' Or there's a story where someone apparently conjures up the spirit of a dead person, therefore we can do the same.'
No, there are whole systems of interpretation involved in all these things and we arrive at our conclusions and positions on these things by a combination of factors as well as discussion and debate. Which is what we are doing here.
Yes, a definition of mysticism is going to be difficult to agree on but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have fun trying.
Thanks ChastMaster - I admit I wasn't expecting a reply until later.
I 'm not surprised that Lewis references this verse. A quick search reveals the quote's from “On Three Ways of Writing for Children” published in Of Other Worlds:
When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
He also writes (before that quote):
The third way [of writing for children], which is the only one I could ever use myself, consists in writing a children's story because a children's story is the best art-form for something you have to say: just as a composer might write a Dead March not because there was a public funeral in view but because certain musical ideas that had occurred to him went best into that form.
…
Where the children's story is simply the right form for what the author has to say, then of course readers who want to hear that, will read the story or re-read it, at any age.
Just to note that wherever the distinction with "childlike" occurs (which doesn't immediately come to mind), Lewis doesn't use the word in this essay.
I would say that Puddleglum and the children are following deeper Reason in the face of an illusion of a horrible, empty world…
This reference to deeper reason reminds me of the higher or greater reality of mysticism (for Evelyn Underhill, at least). Coming back to definitions:
Caroline Spurgeon: The mystic sees [that] “unity underlies diversity”.
Evelyn Underhill: “Mysticism is the art of union with Reality. The mystic is a person who has attained that union in greater or less degree; or who aims at and believes in such attainment.”
The wikipedia article on mysticism (and the Stanford entries on mysticism, from which parts of it are drawn), suggest that two key elements that characterise the mystical experience in the narrower sense are that it is unitive and transformative.
It's been four very interesting pages. I haven't found a moment in the conversation where it felt right to pipe up with a general observation. Maybe this isn't the moment either ... but here goes anyway.
ISTM that our human suits come with a more or less standard issue "information broadcast and reception" capability. There are custom type suits that come with chromosomal, endocrinological, neurological and physiological modulators but in general - in general - most of us are wired to send and receive information on a narrow bandwidth that is only perceptible by one or all of our senses.
We are NOT wired to send or receive information on say, short or long wave radio frequencies or microwave frequencies. We need instruments to help us translate those transmissions into signals perceptible within our standard issue bandwidths.
However.
What if there is information on frequencies "further down or up the dial" that is still too subtle for instruments to detect, but which our earth suits are calibrated to send and receive and for which our earth suits are, in effect, the transmission and reception instruments.
What if mysticism is simply a matter of being able to "tune" to some of these frequencies outside the bandwidths that our earth suits are set by default within?
It's been four very interesting pages. I haven't found a moment in the conversation where it felt right to pipe up with a general observation. Maybe this isn't the moment either ... but here goes anyway.
ISTM that our human suits come with a more or less standard issue "information broadcast and reception" capability. There are custom type suits that come with chromosomal, endocrinological, neurological and physiological modulators but in general - in general - most of us are wired to send and receive information on a narrow bandwidth that is only perceptible by one or all of our senses.
We are NOT wired to send or receive information on say, short or long wave radio frequencies or microwave frequencies. We need instruments to help us translate those transmissions into signals perceptible within our standard issue bandwidths.
However.
What if there is information on frequencies "further down or up the dial" that is still too subtle for instruments to detect, but which our earth suits are calibrated to send and receive and for which our earth suits are, in effect, the transmission and reception instruments.
What if mysticism is simply a matter of being able to "tune" to some of these frequencies outside the bandwidths that our earth suits are set by default within?
AFF
I dunno - do you know anyone who can pick up Radio 4 long wave without a radio?
I understood the aim of evangelism not to be convincing people of the truth of the claims, but to be getting people to believe the claims. Or, in more evangelical(?) parlance, to believe *on* them.
Could you describe to me the difference between "believing the claims" and being "convinc(ed) of the truth of the claims" - to me they're two ways of saying exactly the same thing.
This is the difference between "vrai" and "juste" in French. I'm struggling for the English equivalent - something like "true" and "right". The first has no value judgement, but requires external evidence. The second can be reached on purely internal evidence, and has a strong value element. To me, claims about religion are "right" or not, but there is no possible way of making them "true" or not, because they aren't that sort of claim. The same is true of mysticism - it can be "right" or not, and therefore a real insight into the nature of God/reality, but I see no prospect of there being external evidence one way or the other.
This is also how it can be "true for me". It's not true - it's right.
This is the difference between "vrai" and "juste" in French. I'm struggling for the English equivalent - something like "true" and "right". The first has no value judgement, but requires external evidence. The second can be reached on purely internal evidence, and has a strong value element. To me, claims about religion are "right" or not, but there is no possible way of making them "true" or not, because they aren't that sort of claim. The same is true of mysticism - it can be "right" or not, and therefore a real insight into the nature of God/reality, but I see no prospect of there being external evidence one way or the other.
This is also how it can be "true for me". It's not true - it's right.
Doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. I'm only interested in religious claims that are objectively - and therefore, at least in principle, amenable to external evidence. It's just the way my mind works.
Comments
It's easier on the ear and that probably accounts for much of its popularity but I think there's more to it than that.
I'm no musician but certain musical forms and patterns do convey a calming and meditative atmosphere of course.
Hence churchy choral music can have an appeal beyond the churchy constituency in which it developed.
The same with Gospel music of course. It gave birth to Soul.
I think I'd go further. As an evangelical, I understood the aim of evangelism not to be convincing people of the truth of the claims, but to be getting people to believe the claims. Or, in more evangelical(?) parlance, to believe *on* them.
"helpful" and "harmful" were just examples. The criteria someone might use to assess or compare faiths depends on a number of factors, including why they're doing it.
I wasn't convinced by the term "neutral" either. "Non-aligned" is OK.
This question reminds me that in response to the question, "What does the mystic see?", one answer that occurred to me was, "Unity that the collective cannot see."
I also happened to be by a river yesterday (standing). The clouds above the river were moving in the same direction as the water, and it led me to consider how the flow of the clouds through the sky and the flow of the water through the river together revealed something more fundamental about the nature of "flowing".
If two children write a test and the one contains 5 "lies", or mistakes as the rest of us call them, and the other 10 "lies" or mistakes, then I think most people would say that the first test is more correct. Which is why the one child would get 15/20 and the other 10/20, rather than both getting zero.
Dismissing an argument as nonsense is cheap. Anyone can do it regardless of the merits. The appropriate reaction to the word 'nonsense' is usually well, you would say that wouldn't you.
"Superstition", frankly, when used to describe anything other than the wisdom of walking under ladders or counting magpies and so forth, is an emotive pejorative, a mere boo-word with no descriptive content that contributes nothing to rational discussion, which is why nobody was using the word until you interjected it.
The wikipedia page on mysticism seems to me a bit poorly organised, but it covers some of the general background to what people here are talking about.
Back to different belief systems. Belief systems may perhaps be better compared to maps than to tests.
A map that puts a church in the wrong place is problematic if someone is trying to get to that church or needs to use it as a landmark. But if that's not where they're going the map will be fine. A map that puts the church on the wrong side of the street is obviously better and to be preferred to one that puts the church in the wrong town altogether. Even if they are going to the church if the map puts the church on the wrong side of the road they'll be able to find their way if they can trust their eyes once they get there.
The discussion on the last two pages was largely down to the extent to which one should just trust ones own eyes (which may be faulty - it's an analogy) or whether one should consult with other people (who may not be in a position to see for themselves).
It seems like we may have been thinking along similar lines. I was thinking about "flux" in the sense of everything being in motion. Evolution is flux. Chemistry is flux. Ideas evolved and change. Even the sense of what is or isn't justice is evolving.
I was also relating this to Platonism, in the sense of the "Forms", in that it is strange to contemplate that there are objective stationary concepts when everything else is in motion.
And then I was thinking about being on the train and watching objects that we sped past. The bicycle is in motion, yet because it is much slower than the train it is impossible to really grasp it's speed or direction. The tree is stationary in one sense and yet it is on a spinning planet.
So I was thinking about relative motion and how it's possible that Platonic Forms if they exist (which I think they do) are also in motion but just at an imperceptible speed compared to other things.
Yesterday I was reading a book about race which said "millions of slaves passed through the ports at Liverpool".
Which I thought was an interesting snippet which required more research. As far as I can tell, this is incorrect. The slavery ships were part of a triangular trade, the actual slaves didn't arrive in ports in this country in those numbers.
I have written this down to investigate further if I ever manage to get to the slavery museum in Liverpool.
Let's assume for this thought that the factoid is wrong. That the ships were owned by the merchants of Liverpool who profited from slavery but the slaves didn't arrive at Liverpool in them.
Does that matter? On the one hand it's a minor point. On the other hand, I find it a bit distracting from an otherwise interesting discussion.
But it's not the central point of the book. It might be an editorial error. It might be many things.
That's in no sense the same as a completely factually wrong and misleading statement about Shakespeare in your example.
Maybe it that appeared in a book where there was some clerical error in a single sentence when the rest of it clearly shows the author knows the Bard was from Stratford in England then maybe we could brush it aside.
But as a statement on its own? No.
In the church where I sing and worship, Tavener, Part, Whitacre and Gjeilo are regarded as composers of religious music, and their works are used in worship.
For me at least there is something going on with their mystical approach.
Cheers
Heron
One impression I get from this is of a developing awareness of possible frames of reference.
Sure. I wasn't disputing that there's something 'going on' in their music. I'm sure there is.
Perhaps I've not got your drift.
I wouldn't put the 'Rhineland Mystics' or St Theresa of Avila, say, on the same level as someone who refuses to walk under ladders or considers the number 13 to be unlucky.
I suppose it's my usual thing, where I wish we could get some definitions in the discussion. As it is, we're dragging in everything from the saints to Tarot, and now music, etc. But then, I'm a fool--the OP was about defining or understanding the term). I suppose what I'm seeing is that we just ... don't.
I still can’t make heads or tails of “true for me” — I do understand convincing people to believe (in the sense of trust, an act of the will) on Jesus, but I would think that believing, or being convinced sufficiently to give Him a try at least, would hinge on some kind of belief that the things said about Him were genuinely, objectively, in external reality true.
(As a side question—do you mean as a believer in general and now, or as a believer in the past but not now?)
I don’t think they’re in motion per se, just because I think that involves time and I think they transcend time. Of course one could look at them as existing at an infinite speed as well I suppose. Of course, if they are things which simply exist in the mind of God then I would say they definitely transcend time…
Fair do's.
Although I think a few of us did plump for Evelyn Underhill's definition and admired Caroline Spurgeon's quote.
I was trying to keep it the discussion to Christian mysticism, not because I don't think there are other kinds but I don't know much about Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah or Sufism and so on.
I think it was @Basketactortale who brought in things like Spiritualism, the occult, Tarot and so forth as to him all these things look alike.
I can understand that even though it's not a position I hold.
At the risk of dodging the definitions and the issue, I tend to think that in Christian terms we 'recognise' mysticism when we see it (or hear it in @Heron's case).
But I'd argue we need to be steeped in scripture and tradition in order to do so, or at least be influenced by those to the extent that we are attuned to these things.
I try to have a Franciscan view of “weird stuff.” God made and loves us, angels, animals, matter, energy, and whatever “weird” stuff may exist along with us that we know little about. Brother Sun, Sister Moon, Brother Weird Thing In The Forest That’s Hard To Quantify, etc.
Of course, just as various animals can be healthy or unhealthy to interact with, so can various things. Or even the context. Brother Fire can warm us or burn us. Sister Housecat can be a member of our family, but Sister Tigress can eat us. The same, I think, for Brother/Sister Things That Go Bump In The Night.
C. S. Lewis said this in Letters To Malcolm Chiefly On Prayer:
There’s a lot more but I don’t want to over-quote. It’s very good.
I'm not trying to tell other people what to believe or not and was genuinely trying to explore the question posed in the first post. To me, the things you say are different look suspiciously similar.
It seems to me that the bible includes ghosts, divination, fortune/future telling, speaking to the dead, reanimation of corpses and so on. I'm not seeing any significant difference to Spiritualism, which is why I was trying to understand how you tell what was mysticism and what was superstition.
For me it's all superstition. I can't make head nor tail of any of it.
I know you aren't trying to 'tell' us what to believe or not to believe and yes, of course it all looks suspiciously the same to you. I wouldn't expect otherwise.
People who don't drink beer think that all beer tastes the same.
People who don't drink wine say the same about wine.
Same with tea, coffee, cheese ...
Unless we are 'involved' or invested in these things to some extent or other then they are all going to be confusing or incomprehensible to those on the outside looking in.
On the Spiritualism thing. We had a thread in Kerygmania I think on the story of Saul and the Witch of Endor. Some of us felt that Samuel's spirit may have been summoned up, others that it was some kind of simulacrum or a demonic counterfeit. Others had different ideas again.
Which is fair enough.
It isn't simply a matter of saying, 'Oh, there are ghosts in the Bible so I ought to believe in them ...' Or there's a story where someone apparently conjures up the spirit of a dead person, therefore we can do the same.'
No, there are whole systems of interpretation involved in all these things and we arrive at our conclusions and positions on these things by a combination of factors as well as discussion and debate. Which is what we are doing here.
Yes, a definition of mysticism is going to be difficult to agree on but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have fun trying.
I 'm not surprised that Lewis references this verse. A quick search reveals the quote's from “On Three Ways of Writing for Children” published in Of Other Worlds: He also writes (before that quote): Just to note that wherever the distinction with "childlike" occurs (which doesn't immediately come to mind), Lewis doesn't use the word in this essay.
Meanwhile… This reference to deeper reason reminds me of the higher or greater reality of mysticism (for Evelyn Underhill, at least). Coming back to definitions:
Caroline Spurgeon: The mystic sees [that] “unity underlies diversity”.
Evelyn Underhill: “Mysticism is the art of union with Reality. The mystic is a person who has attained that union in greater or less degree; or who aims at and believes in such attainment.”
The wikipedia article on mysticism (and the Stanford entries on mysticism, from which parts of it are drawn), suggest that two key elements that characterise the mystical experience in the narrower sense are that it is unitive and transformative.
ISTM that our human suits come with a more or less standard issue "information broadcast and reception" capability. There are custom type suits that come with chromosomal, endocrinological, neurological and physiological modulators but in general - in general - most of us are wired to send and receive information on a narrow bandwidth that is only perceptible by one or all of our senses.
We are NOT wired to send or receive information on say, short or long wave radio frequencies or microwave frequencies. We need instruments to help us translate those transmissions into signals perceptible within our standard issue bandwidths.
However.
What if there is information on frequencies "further down or up the dial" that is still too subtle for instruments to detect, but which our earth suits are calibrated to send and receive and for which our earth suits are, in effect, the transmission and reception instruments.
What if mysticism is simply a matter of being able to "tune" to some of these frequencies outside the bandwidths that our earth suits are set by default within?
AFF
I dunno - do you know anyone who can pick up Radio 4 long wave without a radio?
Could you describe to me the difference between "believing the claims" and being "convinc(ed) of the truth of the claims" - to me they're two ways of saying exactly the same thing.
This is also how it can be "true for me". It's not true - it's right.
Doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. I'm only interested in religious claims that are objectively - and therefore, at least in principle, amenable to external evidence. It's just the way my mind works.