Philosophy Now Forum

I have a few ways to define this, but I would like your input first.

It's when your glue doesn't work.

That's a dick move, dude.

Jaded Sage wrote:That's a dick move, dude.

Its a joke duh!!
And a fair response to a somewhat dubious question.

Lol what's dubious about the question?

the winner of the Tourette's beauty pageant?

-Imp

Arising_uk wrote:It's when your glue doesn't work.

That’s a good one. In that vein mystic is also a golf term referring to wrong club or stick selection derived from the Pequot miss’ed-strike, meaning when wind steals birdies, a.k.a. rationalizing, self-sabotage, blaming the gods, burrito for breakfast, etc. Its appropriation and adaptation is thought to have replaced coarser language during the consciousness-raising Sufferage Era when rather than curse, wise men would gaze from the T and sigh, “missed stick,” as when wind shortened Spieth’s chip.

I’m no Spieth but I do know the thrill of once hitting a golf ball downhill to a dartboard green, a normal 8-iron but seeing as how the wind is about 40 mph and gusting even more from dead ahead 12 o’clock, the stick selection feels like a 3. Perfect strike and follow through, the ball hangs forever just like a tiny hole in an ocean of the blue sky as wind roars and pulls at even tied-down things, then at just the perfect moment the kinetics of sun-fueled muscles transferring to a technology-ball in flight pushing against the elements pauses at the stasis until gravity dominates and quietly pulls the dimpled sphere onto soft grass, where it backspins to 4 feet from birdie. (Cue crowd roar and violins after the silence of the flight, but in truth there’s only the feel of imagination becoming reality by merging elemental forces, and the awe that wind can impart backspin to a 3 iron raised to towering heights by the hill.)

In another sense, a mystic at once sees near and far, mystic is as mystic does (Gump), and a pro would have hit a low-runner against the wind.

So nobody has any definitions?

• A mystic is someone who has direct experience of God.

• A mystic is someone who considers personal firsthand experience to be the highest authority, especially regarding religious things, most especially God.

• A mystic is an unorganized philosopher.

• A mystic is someone whose understanding is bigger than their intellect.

Nice ideas of a mystic, JS.

Definitely more intuitive than intellectual, trying to tap into efficacious primal instincts normally suppressed by the intellect. The Abrahamic path has always been emotional while the eastern religions took a more analytical and technical approach. Most seem to utilise aspects of trace states, induced by either overwhelming emotions or rhythm - breath, drumming, dance or chanting.

Mystics place great value on internal subjective states. By contrast a typical logical positivist will consider our internal subjective states to be no more significant than any other phenomenon, sometimes less.

Jaded Sage wrote:So nobody has any definitions?

• A mystic is someone who has direct experience of God.

• A mystic is someone who considers personal firsthand experience to be the highest authority, especially regarding religious things, most especially God.

• A mystic is an unorganized philosopher.

• A mystic is someone whose understanding is bigger than their intellect.

Going on your definition, it seems to me that if thoughts of God don't play a significant part in your life then the term "mystic" is an irrelevance.

Harbal wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:So nobody has any definitions?

• A mystic is someone who has direct experience of God.

• A mystic is someone who considers personal firsthand experience to be the highest authority, especially regarding religious things, most especially God.

• A mystic is an unorganized philosopher.

• A mystic is someone whose understanding is bigger than their intellect.

Going on your definition, it seems to me that if thoughts of God don't play a significant part in your life then the term "mystic" is an irrelevance.

A religious man doesn't have to speak about religious things.

Greta wrote:Nice ideas of a mystic, JS.

Definitely more intuitive than intellectual, trying to tap into efficacious primal instincts normally suppressed by the intellect. The Abrahamic path has always been emotional while the eastern religions took a more analytical and technical approach. Most seem to utilise aspects of trace states, induced by either overwhelming emotions or rhythm - breath, drumming, dance or chanting.

Mystics place great value on internal subjective states. By contrast a typical logical positivist will consider our internal subjective states to be no more significant than any other phenomenon, sometimes less.

Thanks.

Trance is more shaman. But that is the heritage of mysticism; it started with frenzied women dancing and chanting.

That's the shortcoming of many thinkers today, valuing the subjective less than the objective. It seems utterly foolish to me.

I do like the third and forth particularly. Mystics can utilize their intellects heavily and still qualify as mystics. I suppose that makes them of a higher caliber.

Jaded Sage wrote: A religious man doesn't have to speak about religious things.

True but what's the relevent conclusion we are supposed to draw from that.

...he who dives far beneath the surface membrane of logic; a mind traveler; that what cannot be spoken of not surrender to silence but recreated in the art of metaphor.

Dubious wrote:...he who dives far beneath the surface membrane of logic; a mind traveler; that what cannot be spoken of not surrender to silence but recreated in the art of metaphor.

So then, an illogical day dreamer who, although not very articulate with words, can sort of draw you a picture of what he means.