Philosophy Now Forum

I'm certainly open to the notion that concepts can obscure reality. In fact, in that Katz book, he argues that the expectations of mystics can influence the type of mystical experience they have. So in any case, concepts might influence, if not obscure. But Watts, while a fantastic performer, second to none, in my opinion, is still a performer.

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm certainly open to the notion that concepts can obscure reality. In fact, in that Katz book, he argues that the expectations of mystics can influence the type of mystical experience they have. So in any case, concepts might influence, if not obscure. But Watts, while a fantastic performer, second to none, in my opinion, is still a performer.

I won't debate you opinion about Watts. I used the excerpt for it usefulness in creating a starting point for a philosophy of religion. After all,

There is but one indefectibly certain truth, and that is the truth that pyrrhonistic scepticism itself leaves standing, — the truth that the present phenomenon of consciousness exists. -- William James

The Inglorious One wrote:...
A book review: The one theology book all atheists really should read
...

Why would philosophical atheists need to read this book when we already have Spinoza?

Fair enough. I suppose I was a little turned off by what seem to me to be mistakes. But you are indeed advocating some mystical position correct? Where we have some union with God, if not oneness with Him?

Arising_uk wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:...
A book review: The one theology book all atheists really should read
...

Why would philosophical atheists need to read this book when we already have Spinoza?

Spinoza's pantheism leaves too many unanswered questions; i.e., the plurality of consciousness and the appearance of free will (Spinoza believes human beings are determined).

Jaded Sage wrote:Fair enough. I suppose I was a little turned off by what seem to me to be mistakes. But you are indeed advocating some mystical position correct? Where we have some union with God, if not oneness with Him?

I guess you could say that, if by "mystical position" you mean unity in diversity or a kind of "limited dualism." We don't achieve union with God like a drop of water might find unity with the ocean; rather, the ocean enters into the drop.

Personally, I like Evelyn Underhill more than Watts.

I've heard of Evelyn, but I haven't read her. So would we have to study man in order to study God? Is knowing thyself a prerequisite for knowing God?

Jaded Sage wrote:I've heard of Evelyn, but I haven't read her. So would we have to study man in order to study God? Is knowing thyself a prerequisite for knowing God?

There's an adage mystics oft repeat : "As above, so below; as below, so above." In our considerations there are two things to remember:

• Self-consciousness is directly dependent the fact of innate other-awareness
  
  Self-consciousness is in essence a communal consciousness: God and man, Father/Mother and son, Creator and creature.

This, of course, is easily extrapolated from the excerpt.

Mysticism (Evelyn Underhill)

To my knowledge that is occultism, not mysticism.

You mean to say that it is impossible to be aware of myself without simultaneously being aware of something other than myself? That doesn't seem accurate.

Jaded Sage wrote:To my knowledge that is occultism, not mysticism.

"Mysticism" is religion having an import that is not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence and beyond ordinary understanding; occultism is the study of the supernatural or a belief in supernatural powers and the possibility of bringing them under human control. Nothing I said implies the latter.

You mean to say that it is impossible to be aware of myself without simultaneously being aware of something other than myself? That doesn't seem accurate.

Try it. Try staying in a sensory-deprivation chamber for a couple of days.

Neither of those is correct, according to universities.

I have done it.

Jaded Sage wrote:Neither of those is correct, according to universities.

I have done it.

That's cool. They were taken directly from a dictionary. I'll drop the publisher a note to say they were wrong.

You may think you have, but I doubt it: it's a contradiction, like an "up" without a "down."

Not the one I'm reading.

Jaded Sage wrote:Not the one I'm reading.

What does your source say?

Mysticism is like science. Mysticism is essentially a way to know the existence, your own nature, and the relationship between what you call “myself” and what you call the cosmos. Mysticism is a way to know and realize that “There is no such thing as me and the cosmos, there is just me or there is just cosmic reverberation.” To know this, not as a knowledge, deduction, or philosophy, but as a living reality – this is mysticism.

The highlighted does not mean there is no experiencer-experience duality; it means only that there is no "and."

It's been a long time since I've read William James, but he was one of the main authorities. If I remember correctly, my dictionary says something like, "direct interaction with the divine," but that isn't very helpful. Remember that passage in the Bible that says, "participation in the divine nature," that might qualify as mysticism.

Also, no. It's not a contradiction. Nor is what you stated a contradiction. It's more like a hot without a cold. It's absolutely possible. It's not that difficult either, though I can't do it at will

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. Mysticism is closer to philosophy than science.

Jaded Sage wrote:It's been a long time since I've read William James, but he was one of the main authorities. If I remember correctly, my dictionary says something like, "direct interaction with the divine," but that isn't very helpful. Remember that passage in the Bible that says, "participation in the divine nature," that might qualify as mysticism.

Oh, gawd. You're just splitting frog hairs, making a distinction without a difference.

Also, no. It's not a contradiction. Nor is what you stated a contradiction. It's more like a hot without a cold. It's absolutely possible. It's not that difficult either, though I can't do it at will.

Who/what is aware of the "hot"?