While I don’t think I’d care to argue against the derivation of ‘mystic’ from the Greek word mystes, I do not feel that the etymology of the word is a plausible rebuttal to my concerns with your definition, Lothar. If we wanted to take this route, then we’d also have to question the origins of the word ‘magic’ and thus be required to acknowledge the shady history of both words which is carried as so much lost luggage. In other words, simply because Greek Mystery schools had doctrine and claims to knowledge does not appear to require that we must include such terms in our working definition. If anything, we avoid certain epistemic and ontological arguments against the existence of mystical experience by not including words like ‘knowledge’ and ‘doctrine’ in our definitions. Put differently, I agree that history is an important avenue of investigation for pursuing understanding; however, the task I have in mind here in this thread needs its parameters to be a little more narrow than an extensive investigation into the origins and history of the words ‘magic’ and ‘mysticism.’
I’d also like to say, echoing grant, that it does appear that both Eastern and Western individuals who are referred to as mystics lay claim to some sort of union with, what we are loosely calling, the divine principle. In general (hence the word ‘typically’ in the purposed working definition), mysticism does often include a unification experience of some sort, but like you point out, Lothar, different people are going to have different ideas about what this experience is. But that, my friend, is part of what this thread intends to grapple with, and when you say:
quote: Mysticism should be about discovering one's relationship with the divine, not dictating a religious belief of the nature of the divine.
I really agree with the sentiment you express! But then I’m also inclined to ask you what it is that distinguishes a “religious belief” from any other sort of belief, and also, how is one supposed to have a relationship with the divine without also having some notions about the nature of this divinity?
I’d also like to point out that you say:
quote:1. … this may be a sense of dissolving into unity. &
2. … that one's self can dissolve and become one with a divine unity…
and I don’t think that either of these statements follow from the working definition that I’ve suggested. What I’ve wrote in the definition entails the collapsing of boundaries but I have not stated anything that suggests that the sense of self is dissolved! I feel, if anything, the sense of self if expanded by mystical experience and not destroyed. Of course, it is necessary at this point to note what we might mean by ‘self.’ If we mean ego drive-desire as self, then perhaps this “self” is dissolved or altered through mystical experience, but if we mean the whole of the individual being as self, then I’d have to shout a resounding “NO” to any and all ideas that concern the dissolving of this self by means of mystical experience. I do not think that anyone has ever suggested (nor would care to suggest) that the whole of one’s being is destroyed by an encounter with the divine.
Now Lothar, you also say that:
quote: If I walk down the street and kick someone I'm performing an action that alters the world…
and I fail to see how this does not fit into the Bonewits definition of magic. There is no act that is not motivated by desire and desire is an emotive force; thus, kicking someone is the result of some sort of build up of human emotions. Moreover, anything that we do is a result of/brings about electrochemical changes in brain states; thus, both the walking and the kicking are involved with altering states of our bodies. As well, I would think that in the kicking one is using associative techniques that concentrate and focus the emotive force. I could continue with this, but I’m hoping you see the point: Bonewits’ definition does not make any progress in differentiating the magickal from the non-magickal, and I wonder to myself why you feel inclined to do so? I mean, I see your point about novices, but I feel that one moves from being a novice to an adept (if you’ll allow me to use such awful terminology) by overcoming such confusions and mystification: finding one’s way through Chapel Perilous without any aid whatsoever is the mark of the true magician. It appears to me that making a distinction between what is a magickal act and what is not is an arbitrary one that, as long as it is definite in the individuals mind, prevents him or her from really getting beyond the Long Dark Night of the Soul. But, like you, I’m not asserting this as TRUTH, but only my truth—derived from my experiences, thoughts, studies, and such.
I’d also like to say that when you write:
quote:I think it's hard to be…interacting with the divine if one doesn't believe or is [not] concerned with the divine in the first place.
that I couldn’t agree more! How would anyone discover and/or interact with anything that they do not and never will believe in?!? It would be like me trying to interact with dogs if I did not believe in such creatures: they might approach me and sniff me, etc., but because of my unwillingness to believe in dogs, I’d always look for alternative answers to explain such interaction. Thus, I’d never interact with ‘dogs’ but only with whatever else I might want to posit to explain those experiences. Of course, when it comes to something like dogs, most of us experience these readily and somewhat uniformly; thus, to make claims about my beliefs about dogs is easy and if I tried to explain such interactions by alternative methods, then I’d obviously be crazy, ya? But yet, interaction with the divine principle, because most people do not share as common and ready an awareness of such matters, is often dismissed as illusory, insane, and entirely a function of (subjective) beliefs and expectations. I wonder, if more people would accept that they could interact with the divine principle as readily as they interact with dogs, then would we be so hesitant about speaking about our encounters as reality?
quote:tm writes:
I've always had the idea of a mystic as someone who is somehow in a position to receive information (for lack of a better word) from some kind of special insight or sense ability (divine revelation or what have you) that ordinary people lack. That is, it's more than just an experience in that either the cause or result of the experience is some kind of new information.
I agree with the notion of the mystic as an individual in a position to receive information; however, I am hesitant about “special insight” or “special sense ability.” It does not appear to me that mystics are somehow biologically different from “common people.” We are all humans, ya? Rather, it seems that a mystic is someone who has turned his or her attention to things that other people do not attend to. In the same way that, at a given moment, we may be both watching a b-ball game, but at that moment I notice the colour of the players shoes while you are looking at the screen being set by a player of the opposing team. We notice different things, and thus, receive different information based on what we are attending to, i.e. by what we aware of. I mean, I can receive new information simply by cruising through Barbelith, so is my experience of Barbelith—in that it reveals to me new information—a mystical experience?
I agree that information might be the common ground between mysticism and magick, but by this line, everything partakes of this common ground as all things are, in some way, bits of information. This is not really something I’m against per se; however, this does not take us far in our current discussion. The Yin-Yang metaphor you use I really like, however, and it was painted in my head as well when I read cusm’s response, so I think I get your general drift, ya?
Well, that’s it for my thoughts for now, but more later as there is more here that I’ve neglected currently, and I’m sure there will be even more new information here when I get back!
Until then,
{0, 1, 2}
[ 16-03-2002: Message edited by: modthree ] |
