Post by Rik Wallin on Apr 5, 2007 12:43:28 GMT -6
From: markk@cypress.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe)
Subject: reasons why not to be a mystic......
Date: 4 Oct 1993 19:58:54 GMT
> From: oispeggy@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
> Subject: reasons why not to be a mystic.....
> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 19:07:00 GMT
> Attribution: This was written by jbanz, partly as a joke, and was
posted to a list. It is reproduced here with his
permission.
He is interested in feedback, so comment away, and I
will forward any comments to him (unless you say
otherwise). Thanks.
********************************************************************
> ~Subject: Why Studying Mysticism is a Really Bad Idea
> No, I'm not serious. But I came up with a list of reasons for
> the subject-line assertion, to inflict on four bright undergraduates
> who wanted to do a course with me on the history and philosophy of
> mysticism. I thought they could show me they were serious if they
> could navigate these waters. What do you think of them? Some have
> fairly obvious misunderstandings of mysticism, designed to get them
> thinking about the character of mystical experience. Some are more
> serious problems. Does anyone have any more to add?
Good stuff ... even if only 2/3 valid. We all need to challenge our
beliefs and motivations, and we can all benefit from regular warnings
about the perrils of our paths. Perhaps Bjanz was not entirely
serious about the beliefs behind the quiestions, but I think the
challenge inherrent in the questions is a very important thing, and
should be a pre-requisite to mystical studies.
> 1. There is nothing to study. Mystics have private experiences, and
> by their own admission communicate them badly. Studying this leads
> to speculation about fanciful stories that have no hope of
> corroberation.
True, it is absurd to 'study' someone elses mystical experience.
On the other hand, it is not absurd to study the work that lead
to the experieince, or the world-views that followed from the
experience, or the lessons that would-be pilgrims can learn from
the lives of mystics.
> 2. The supposed "reality" that the mystic accesses could just be the
> affectation of a psychotic mind.
Indeed, but most break-throughs appear to be dementia when viewed
from a pre-enlightened perspective. It is only in retrospect that
their wisdom becomes clear. None the less, the warning is a very
valid one, and we must continuously challenge ourselves in this
regard.
> 3. Mystics tend to challenge order -- in theology, in government, in
> morality. They are therefore divisive and destructive to all normal
> social functioning. Studying this is anti-social.
The evils of obedience to authority are probably at least as great
as the evils of anarchy. In order to be 'healthy' a society must
include both conformist and non-conformist elements in a moderate
ballance. A small element that challenges order, purpose, and
conventional wisdom is vital to the health of a society.
> 4. Mysticism adds nothing to the social world. A "moral mystic" is
> almost an oxymoron, because mystics are solitary, while morality is
> public. This solitary nature can lead to quietism.
This is the first challenge that I think is poorly posed. I
fail to see while 'morality is public' or why a hermit must
'of necessity' be less moral than a more social person. I see
little difference between the sociopath who seeks 'God at any
price' and the sociopath who seeks 'Wealth and Power at any
price'. This is, therefore, not an indightment against
'mystics', but against people whose lives are not of service
to others.
I agree that would-be mystics must be warned of the danger of
completely withdrawing from society, and must always ask what
purpose their life is serving.
> 5. Mystics do bad philosophy. There are no arguments, rarely any
> reference to the philosophical tradition. Mysticism is not rational
> -- to accept the mystic's version of the world, you have to have the
> mystic's experience. Furthermore, mystics retreat to the inner
> rationality of their own system to avoid criticism, but are quite
> willing to use rationality to criticize others.
There is an element of mystical experience that cannot be
attained through logical deduction. This does not mean,
however, that 'mystics do bad philosophy'. Einstein did not
arrive at the theory of General relativity through
mathematical investigation, but in a nearly religious
epiphany. He said (in his first autobiography) words to the
general effect of 'It was not through the use of my rational
mind that I came to an understanding of the fundamental nature
of the Universe'. Does this mean that Einstein did bad
physics?
How one comes by an insight is largely irrelevent. The
important questions are what one does with the insight, and
how valuable those results are. In Einstein's case, he spent
seven years evolving a mathematical formulation of his
insight, and changed the way we view the universe.
Here, once again, we do not have a criticism of mysticism,
but rather a warning of a weakness towards which mystics may
be inclined.
> 6. There is no ultimate value in the mystical insights, apart from
> having the experience. It is a little like getting high on drugs --
> fine for the one taking them (unless of course they overdose), but
> of no value past the momentary "hit".
This is the test for quality in mystics and mystical
insights. If an insight does not make a difference in the
world, it is indeed of no value. If an insight brings about
fundamental changes in the world, it may be of great value.
I reject this argument as a blanket slur on mystical
revelation, but I accept it as a warning against delusion.
> 7. Mysticism makes for bad theology. You can get a 2-tiered system
> -- those who have had the experience (the elite), and those who have
> not (the lost, or the seekers). This can lead to a situation in
> which the mystic can abuse the experience to gather power for him-
> or herself.
Another warning about how mysticism can be abused - although
I think there are really two problems here:
the formation of an elite illuminati
mysticism seldom becomes good religion
The first is another warning to understand what purpose our
lives are serving. If we are building up our own egos (to
serve no purpose) and driving away would-be students (serving
a negative purpose) we are missing the point, and are not
making a contribution to the world.
The second is a fundamental problem, that a theology that
depends on esoteric experience can not be put into a can and
mass-marketed ... and so it cannot serve as a basis for a
viable religion. If it is changed enough to be viable as a
religion, it will inevitably have been corrupted greatly in
the process, and the religion will not do justice to its
predecessor.
> 8. Further on this point, mysticism can lead to intolerance. After
> all, why would a mystic have to take anyone else's non-mystical
> experience into account if he or she has seen true reality?
Hopefully, your insights will include the fact that 'every
man or woman is a star'. If they do not, you are apt to
become a sociopath ... whether you are a mystic or a
doctor. Here, once again, we have a good warning about
something that we must strive to avoid.
> 9. Anything worthwhile that a mystic has said, has been said better
> by a philosopher. This is true because philosophers do not appeal to
> private experience.
I agree. What is the difference between a 'mystic' and a
'philosopher'? I suggest that the difference is that a
'mystic' has the experience, and a 'philosopher' can make
that experience accessible to others. Some mystics have been
philosophers and some have not. A philosopher who does not
have an experience to communicate is no better than a mystic
who cannot communicate it.
This is not a condemnation of mystics, but another warning to
make sure that your experiences can be made of value to
others.
> 10. Mysticism can lead to an abandonment of the self. The mystic can
> lose him/herself in the Other. It is suicide of the person, if not
> the body. It is irrational to pursue this.
I disagree completely - on both pragmatic and spiritual
grounds. I consider this statement to be a misleading play on
words.
The abandonment of the self is not the suicide of the
person. In fact, our species seems to heap great honor on
people who sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others
(Albert Schweizer, Mother Theresa,...). These are people who
decided that there were things more important than
themselves, and went on to achieve great works 'after their
suicides'. There is, in fact, an argument that people who are
obsessed with their personal egos are fundamentally crippled
in their effectiveness ... since they are incapable of truly
dedicating themselves to anything else.
As self aware mortal beings, we are forced to confront the
knowledge of our impending death. This is probably the basis
of most of all of our spiritual problems. The only solution
that has yet been found to our mortality is to relinguish our
identification with our mortal shells, and to find our
identity in something more timeless.
Transcendance of our ego existance is not harmful to our
lives. On the other hand, obsession with the self can very
easily lead to a wasted life.
> 11. The study of mysticism will not lead to mystical experience any
> more than philosophy of religion will lead to faith. So, even if we
> affirm that mystical experience is a good thing, studying it may
> still be a waste of time.
Absolutely. Study is interesting background preparation.
The real question is 'what are you doing about it?' Here,
once again, the question is an excellent warning.
Subject: reasons why not to be a mystic......
Date: 4 Oct 1993 19:58:54 GMT
> From: oispeggy@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
> Subject: reasons why not to be a mystic.....
> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 19:07:00 GMT
> Attribution: This was written by jbanz, partly as a joke, and was
posted to a list. It is reproduced here with his
permission.
He is interested in feedback, so comment away, and I
will forward any comments to him (unless you say
otherwise). Thanks.
********************************************************************
> ~Subject: Why Studying Mysticism is a Really Bad Idea
> No, I'm not serious. But I came up with a list of reasons for
> the subject-line assertion, to inflict on four bright undergraduates
> who wanted to do a course with me on the history and philosophy of
> mysticism. I thought they could show me they were serious if they
> could navigate these waters. What do you think of them? Some have
> fairly obvious misunderstandings of mysticism, designed to get them
> thinking about the character of mystical experience. Some are more
> serious problems. Does anyone have any more to add?
Good stuff ... even if only 2/3 valid. We all need to challenge our
beliefs and motivations, and we can all benefit from regular warnings
about the perrils of our paths. Perhaps Bjanz was not entirely
serious about the beliefs behind the quiestions, but I think the
challenge inherrent in the questions is a very important thing, and
should be a pre-requisite to mystical studies.
> 1. There is nothing to study. Mystics have private experiences, and
> by their own admission communicate them badly. Studying this leads
> to speculation about fanciful stories that have no hope of
> corroberation.
True, it is absurd to 'study' someone elses mystical experience.
On the other hand, it is not absurd to study the work that lead
to the experieince, or the world-views that followed from the
experience, or the lessons that would-be pilgrims can learn from
the lives of mystics.
> 2. The supposed "reality" that the mystic accesses could just be the
> affectation of a psychotic mind.
Indeed, but most break-throughs appear to be dementia when viewed
from a pre-enlightened perspective. It is only in retrospect that
their wisdom becomes clear. None the less, the warning is a very
valid one, and we must continuously challenge ourselves in this
regard.
> 3. Mystics tend to challenge order -- in theology, in government, in
> morality. They are therefore divisive and destructive to all normal
> social functioning. Studying this is anti-social.
The evils of obedience to authority are probably at least as great
as the evils of anarchy. In order to be 'healthy' a society must
include both conformist and non-conformist elements in a moderate
ballance. A small element that challenges order, purpose, and
conventional wisdom is vital to the health of a society.
> 4. Mysticism adds nothing to the social world. A "moral mystic" is
> almost an oxymoron, because mystics are solitary, while morality is
> public. This solitary nature can lead to quietism.
This is the first challenge that I think is poorly posed. I
fail to see while 'morality is public' or why a hermit must
'of necessity' be less moral than a more social person. I see
little difference between the sociopath who seeks 'God at any
price' and the sociopath who seeks 'Wealth and Power at any
price'. This is, therefore, not an indightment against
'mystics', but against people whose lives are not of service
to others.
I agree that would-be mystics must be warned of the danger of
completely withdrawing from society, and must always ask what
purpose their life is serving.
> 5. Mystics do bad philosophy. There are no arguments, rarely any
> reference to the philosophical tradition. Mysticism is not rational
> -- to accept the mystic's version of the world, you have to have the
> mystic's experience. Furthermore, mystics retreat to the inner
> rationality of their own system to avoid criticism, but are quite
> willing to use rationality to criticize others.
There is an element of mystical experience that cannot be
attained through logical deduction. This does not mean,
however, that 'mystics do bad philosophy'. Einstein did not
arrive at the theory of General relativity through
mathematical investigation, but in a nearly religious
epiphany. He said (in his first autobiography) words to the
general effect of 'It was not through the use of my rational
mind that I came to an understanding of the fundamental nature
of the Universe'. Does this mean that Einstein did bad
physics?
How one comes by an insight is largely irrelevent. The
important questions are what one does with the insight, and
how valuable those results are. In Einstein's case, he spent
seven years evolving a mathematical formulation of his
insight, and changed the way we view the universe.
Here, once again, we do not have a criticism of mysticism,
but rather a warning of a weakness towards which mystics may
be inclined.
> 6. There is no ultimate value in the mystical insights, apart from
> having the experience. It is a little like getting high on drugs --
> fine for the one taking them (unless of course they overdose), but
> of no value past the momentary "hit".
This is the test for quality in mystics and mystical
insights. If an insight does not make a difference in the
world, it is indeed of no value. If an insight brings about
fundamental changes in the world, it may be of great value.
I reject this argument as a blanket slur on mystical
revelation, but I accept it as a warning against delusion.
> 7. Mysticism makes for bad theology. You can get a 2-tiered system
> -- those who have had the experience (the elite), and those who have
> not (the lost, or the seekers). This can lead to a situation in
> which the mystic can abuse the experience to gather power for him-
> or herself.
Another warning about how mysticism can be abused - although
I think there are really two problems here:
the formation of an elite illuminati
mysticism seldom becomes good religion
The first is another warning to understand what purpose our
lives are serving. If we are building up our own egos (to
serve no purpose) and driving away would-be students (serving
a negative purpose) we are missing the point, and are not
making a contribution to the world.
The second is a fundamental problem, that a theology that
depends on esoteric experience can not be put into a can and
mass-marketed ... and so it cannot serve as a basis for a
viable religion. If it is changed enough to be viable as a
religion, it will inevitably have been corrupted greatly in
the process, and the religion will not do justice to its
predecessor.
> 8. Further on this point, mysticism can lead to intolerance. After
> all, why would a mystic have to take anyone else's non-mystical
> experience into account if he or she has seen true reality?
Hopefully, your insights will include the fact that 'every
man or woman is a star'. If they do not, you are apt to
become a sociopath ... whether you are a mystic or a
doctor. Here, once again, we have a good warning about
something that we must strive to avoid.
> 9. Anything worthwhile that a mystic has said, has been said better
> by a philosopher. This is true because philosophers do not appeal to
> private experience.
I agree. What is the difference between a 'mystic' and a
'philosopher'? I suggest that the difference is that a
'mystic' has the experience, and a 'philosopher' can make
that experience accessible to others. Some mystics have been
philosophers and some have not. A philosopher who does not
have an experience to communicate is no better than a mystic
who cannot communicate it.
This is not a condemnation of mystics, but another warning to
make sure that your experiences can be made of value to
others.
> 10. Mysticism can lead to an abandonment of the self. The mystic can
> lose him/herself in the Other. It is suicide of the person, if not
> the body. It is irrational to pursue this.
I disagree completely - on both pragmatic and spiritual
grounds. I consider this statement to be a misleading play on
words.
The abandonment of the self is not the suicide of the
person. In fact, our species seems to heap great honor on
people who sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others
(Albert Schweizer, Mother Theresa,...). These are people who
decided that there were things more important than
themselves, and went on to achieve great works 'after their
suicides'. There is, in fact, an argument that people who are
obsessed with their personal egos are fundamentally crippled
in their effectiveness ... since they are incapable of truly
dedicating themselves to anything else.
As self aware mortal beings, we are forced to confront the
knowledge of our impending death. This is probably the basis
of most of all of our spiritual problems. The only solution
that has yet been found to our mortality is to relinguish our
identification with our mortal shells, and to find our
identity in something more timeless.
Transcendance of our ego existance is not harmful to our
lives. On the other hand, obsession with the self can very
easily lead to a wasted life.
> 11. The study of mysticism will not lead to mystical experience any
> more than philosophy of religion will lead to faith. So, even if we
> affirm that mystical experience is a good thing, studying it may
> still be a waste of time.
Absolutely. Study is interesting background preparation.
The real question is 'what are you doing about it?' Here,
once again, the question is an excellent warning.