Intellectually Defunct

[EdgyDolmen]

Recently I had a visit from the Grim Reaper. Massive stroke! I was a goner. The significance of surviving had nothing to do whatsoever with faith? I am a Deist. What follows may confound many but allow me to say that most Deist never discount the mystic or the metaphysical. I happen to particularly be bound to mysticism.

Okay - Opinion: Mysticism is a rational endeavor. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought. This recognition is vulnerable to rational dispute but preferably rational discussion. The mystic has reasoned what he/she believes and these reasons are empirical. Mystery can be analyzed with theory, which is science, or it can be free of concepts which is mysticism. Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good concepts and done so for 'all' time. It is the denial of the immensity of human ignorance.

I certainly cannot doubt that a kernel of truth is in the heart of religion because spirituality, ethical behavior and strong community are essential for our happiness. Yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct. While spiritual experience is a natural tendency of the human mind we need not believe on insufficient evidence. It should be possibly to bring reason, spirituality and ethics together in our thinking.

And you say...

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I certainly cannot doubt that a kernel of truth is in the heart of religion because spirituality, ethical behavior and strong community are essential for our happiness. Yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct. While spiritual experience is a natural tendency of the human mind we need not believe on insufficient evidence. It should be possibly to bring reason, spirituality and ethics together in our thinking.

Whatever works for you. But I can say that your view on religion is highly influenced by a group of irrational people. Religion, while building upon a few tenants that can only be attributed to faith, is very much rational. I think if you broaden your scope a bit, you might find there are rational ideas to most religions, even in their complete forms.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

ED,

Did you have any kind of near-death experience during all of this?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Could you define the two in your own words? Is not mysticism part of religion? What is 'mystery'? If Science is expanded to include 'analyse with theory' then I would think theology would fall under science as well?

I'm glad you found some sort of stimulation from your visitor, I'm also glad he moved on. I hope his visit didn't leave any unwanted marks?

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Re: post two
Big Joe: I understand your remarks but respectfully disagree. I will shorten this explanation by simply saying - If for no other reason than your relationship with faith we will disagree more often than not.

Re: post three
Nick: Other than the feeling or serenity I experienced no near death experience. I suppose the joy of being spared had lasting effects but that would be it.

Re: post four
TEA: Can't say much to help clarify. Those are my words. My point is actually simple. As to the relationship of mysticism and religion you will need to decide for yourself, much is written. However I can say this. The concepts endorsed by a dualistic perception of the world are not endorsed by mystics.

As for residual affects, nothing demonic was left behind. Improving. Thanks for asking.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I don't believe in objective reality, and I don't think 'mysticism' or 'religion' mean the same thing for people, so I want to know your experience of them to understand what you are actually saying.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

I don't believe in objective reality, and I don't think 'mysticism' or 'religion' mean the same thing for people, so I want to know your experience of them to understand what you are actually saying.

I do not equate mysticism with religion. Read the thread post again. Although you asked for my thoughts relating the two I am satisfied that I have posted exactly what I meant to post. I would find it necessary to write an extremely long reply when all I expected anyone to do was use their understanding. Try themystic.org Thanks again. ED

 

[farhan]

Your definition of religion is a very western one. In sino-dharmic lands, there are only saints, immortals and divine incarnations, all being very high level mystics. In Sufism, there is a pretty old debate, the end result of which is that every prophet (semitic meaning, not western) is always the highest level mystic of his time, the most "realized" person on the planet.

Religion is really a nonsensical word, both etymologically and philosophically. The thing is that outside the christian/post christian western world, this concept doesnt even exist. Daoists, hindus, buddhists, muslims etc dont see their belief system the way post christian west sees "religion". In all of these, you will always find mysticism, ethics, community welfare, and in case of Islam, law, all working synergistically with each other.

Laymen obviously practice their belief system in parts. Because thats all they can comprehend. So from a purely scholarly (western definition) POV there will is a distinction visible between mysticism and religion. But that isnt really the case.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Glad to see your visitor didn't hang around Edgy! Hope there are no serious side effects from said visit.
If I may I would like to break down your statements to better understand.

You say you were a goner. By this do you mean that medically speaking you should not have survived the stroke? Can I assume that from your point of view you survived because of prompt emergency medical response? Biologically it wasn't your time to go yet.

In your opinion paragraph you make some declarative statements that from my Deist point of view I would soften around the edges. I.E. mysticism 'can' be a rational endeavor, although it can be used irrationally as well. And I would say the same of religion. It too can be a rational endeavor, and it can be anything but rational. It depends on the person.

You use the word 'mysticism' in an unusual way. It is a way that I use the word as well; not sure we are not pushing the edges of the definition though. Both of us approach this reality from what we believe is a rational perspective in that we base our belief structures on those precepts that science has shown stand the test of time. So my belief system, and I think yours as well, are based on a foundation of scientific principle. From that structure I then extrapolate beyond where science has taken us thus far.

I wonder if we are not stretching mysticism because few mystics use science as the foundation from which to ponder the greater mysteries. They tend to use religion.

Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good concepts and done so for 'all' time. It is the denial of the immensity of human ignorance.

I do agree that too many people's acceptance of their religion is based on a strict dogmatic acceptance of their holy books. It is the strict acceptance that is the problem point for me. But then I would say one cannot be rational about religion, but one can rationalize it. Which is what I believe most people do. More specifically, religious people take accounts from very primitive human societies and extrapolate that they are perfect in form as they were written at that time. The more dogmatic people are about this supposed perfection, the more off the path of truth they walk.

Those that are able to accept the tenants of their ancient texts without believing in the actuality of these texts are people who are on a proper religious path. Because they can take the important aspects without being dragged down by ignorant beliefs that our ancient ancestors held. All of this is In My Opinion, of course.

There is more but I believe I have rattled on long enough for now.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I don't believe in objective reality

A Hah! No wonder we miscommunicate so often. I do believe in objective reality. I also believe in subjective reality and accept that subjective reality plays a part in how we each define this reality. Which of course, it must. For me the subjective is secondary to the objective for the simple reason that there can be no meaningful communication between people unless the basic groundwork of whatever we are discussing, the objective, is accepted by both parties.

Once we have an objective base line, we can explore our experiences from the subjective side of the equation.

I expect you will likely disagree with me.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I expect you will likely disagree with me.

Sure I will, if for nothing else but habit.
I'm not discounting a objective reality, but it's more like 'I know a guy that knows a guy that knows reality', I'm saying that what you and I think we know of the objective reality is based on our experiences of that reality. And those experiences move things around a bit. They might not be wrong but they can still differ from the next guy. So subjective reality is built on the foundation of an objective reality that we can never reach.

 

[arthra]

Since the etymology of the word "religion" was raised above I thought of maybe offering the partial explanation of the online etymological dictionary would be timely here:

"...the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."

So "religion" at least for me involves a community and bonding. When there are important passages or transitions that we go through in life...such as marriage, death and birth... there are often also important emphases on the bonds we have with family and community.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

re: post #9

Thanks DA. Slowly recouping. As for my use of the "goner" description - I was. I have no clue as to why I survived. It dumbfounded many. Apparently it just wasn't my time. Quite an experience!

Now as to your remarks, I can't disagree with you. Had I the ability to rewrite the thread post I would allow it to be as long as necessary instead of attempting to keep it short. I believe I could have explained myself much better. ED

 

[StevePame]

Slowly recouping

Happy to hear that. A close friend just suffered a stroke too. She is in the same camp of taking it one day at a time.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Under the circumstances Edgy, I'm impressed with what you were able to do! No worries. Hang in there!

 

[Thomas]

Recently I had a visit from the Grim Reaper. Massive stroke! I was a goner.

Whoa! Glad to see you slipped passed the old GR!

Okay - Opinion: Mysticism is a rational endeavor. Religion is not.

Depends on definitions, I suppose. I agree with DA, as do you, I think, that rationality depends on the person rather than the endeavour.

The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought.

Again, Depends on definitions. Most mystics I refer to sit within a religious tradition. The etymology of mysticism devolves from the verb 'to initiate', a mystic was an initiate, so prior to today, it would be inconceivable to separate one from the other.

The mystic has reasoned what he/she believes and these reasons are empirical.

As above. The mystics I refer to do not.

Mystery can be analyzed with theory, which is science, or it can be free of concepts which is mysticism.

Not really. Any 'mysticism' is seated within a conceptual paradigm.

Religion is nothing more than bad concepts ...

Oh, ED, shame on you! That's just polemical nonsense.

Yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct.

Well contemporary 'pop' religion might well be; not so much defunct as founded in ephemeral and fashionable concepts which change and so leave the denomination high and dry, like the continual end-of-the-world scenarios of the millennial denominations, or 70s liberalism ... but the long-standing traditions continue to produce towering intellects in this as in every prior century. Paul Ricoeur, Bernard Lonergan, John Polkinghorne, ...

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Whoa! Glad to see you slipped passed the old GR!

Thanks!

Oh, ED, shame on you! That's just polemical nonsense.

Guess I read too much of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris in my day. You suppose?

 

[hoghead1]

Mysticism basically means to have a direct connection to the divine. In the Christian mystical tradition, individuals sought to have a direct, immediate revelatory experience of god, one in which they became one with God. Is mysticism rational? It depends on what you mean by "rational." Mysticism looks to a deeper, unconscious level of purely affective experience. Hence, thought, sense, intellect, and the more specialized forms of human knowing are seen as superficial. In the West, may are unaware there was a strong mystical tradition. The problem is that the believer is either confronted with the church or the Bible as the ultimate authority, whereas mysticism looks to personal, transcendental experience.

 

[Thomas]

The problem is that the believer is either confronted with the church or the Bible as the ultimate authority, whereas mysticism looks to personal, transcendental experience.

Not true, really, although many think so. The 'great mystics' are always conscious of their Tradition, and his or her devotion is always within that context. The mystics speak the language of Tradition, so whilst Rumi or St John of the Cross might point to the same love that transcends all, they do so firmly within a traditional context.

I've often seen it declared that Christian mystics operate 'outside the Christian box', for example, it's an assumption that's simply not true.

 

[hoghead1]

I can't say as I agree, Thomas. The early Christian community was torn by a major battle between the gnostics (mystics) and the orthodox. The gnostics felt the organized church was a conspiracy to alienate people for a direct, immediate revelatory experience of God, by insisting on the priests as necessary intercessors between the believer and God. Also, Marguerite Porete was burned at the stake, probably also Hadewijch. Meister Eckhart was twice tried and declared a heretic. He probably died under torture during his second trail. Teresa of Avila was under the gun of the Inquisition for four years, after which time they let her go on condition she shut herself up in a convent and write no more, which she didn't do, of course. Jacob Boehme was a bit different. He is a Protestant mystic. However, the Reformation tended to ignore mysticism. More than one Protestant work was written strongly condemning mysticism as effeminate, too artsy-fartsy, too erotic, etc. See, for example, Nygren's "Agape and Eros." Mainstream Christianity followed the Aristotelian-Thomistic model of God or classical theism. Mysticism stressed the oneness of God and creation.