Philosophy Now Forum

Mysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy because it speaks of the 'ineffable'. Certainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification. Nevertheless, the focus on mystical states of transformation, or enlightenment has an important role in life. Awakening or higher states of consciousness may act as the inspiration in life, The psychologist, Abraham Maslow, was particularly interested in peak experiences.

Mysticism is often associated with religion but Buddhist ideas of meditation and enlightenment have become prominent in positive psychology. The emphasis is on wellbeing and higher states of awareness. Within religion, esoteric traditions place significant on inner transformation. The transformation of consciousness is also emphasised within shamanic traditions.

The explanations for consciousness are debated so much within philosophy. However, I see transformation of consciousness as equally important. It may also be connected to the development of insight. So, I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pm Mysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy because it speaks of the 'ineffable'. Certainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification. Nevertheless, the focus on mystical states of transformation, or enlightenment has an important role in life. Awakening or higher states of consciousness may act as the inspiration in life, The psychologist, Abraham Maslow, was particularly interested in peak experiences.

Mysticism is often associated with religion but Buddhist ideas of meditation and enlightenment have become prominent in positive psychology. The emphasis is on wellbeing and higher states of awareness. Within religion, esoteric traditions place significant on inner transformation. The transformation of consciousness is also emphasised within shamanic traditions.

The explanations for consciousness are debated so much within philosophy. However, I see transformation of consciousness as equally important. It may also be connected to the development of insight. So, I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

Define "mystic quest", "inner transformation" and "enlightenment".

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 1:31 am

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pm Mysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy because it speaks of the 'ineffable'. Certainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification. Nevertheless, the focus on mystical states of transformation, or enlightenment has an important role in life. Awakening or higher states of consciousness may act as the inspiration in life, The psychologist, Abraham Maslow, was particularly interested in peak experiences.

Mysticism is often associated with religion but Buddhist ideas of meditation and enlightenment have become prominent in positive psychology. The emphasis is on wellbeing and higher states of awareness. Within religion, esoteric traditions place significant on inner transformation. The transformation of consciousness is also emphasised within shamanic traditions.

The explanations for consciousness are debated so much within philosophy. However, I see transformation of consciousness as equally important. It may also be connected to the development of insight. So, I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

Define "mystic quest", "inner transformation" and "enlightenment".

I can give you my own working definitions but I am not sure that the terms can be defined in a neat way because they are realised by individuals in an individuals in varying ways. I use the term mystic quest to refer to the intention to realise alternative, heightened states of consciousness.

This is sometimes referred to as enlightenment or self-realisation within Buddhism. Saying that, Buddhists do challenge the concept of the self as such because it is not an entity but about changing, subjective experiences. I have some limited experiences of heightened states of consciousness, but see it as an ongoing area for development of understanding.

My choice of the term inner transformation is taken from the tradition of transpersonal psychology and philosophy. This does focus on states of consciousness. However, one essential aspect is not simply about 'higher' states, because the negative ones are are also important for transformation. This is sometimes referred to as the 'dark night of the soul'. Part of my own search for transformation is about transmuting negative experiences. This may be true for many, especially as the Buddha's own quest was a response to awareness of suffering.

This is my basic understanding of the ideas in my thread question. If anything, I would like to open up a discussion of how others see such ideas, based on both reading and experience.

Jack Daydream wrote:

I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

I suspect that 'enlightenment' may mean that the enlightened individual become a member of a superior social caste or class. Irenaic (now mainstream) Christianity for instance opposed the version of Christianity that set some individuals apart as being more perfect than others.

If enlightenment is confined to psychology as in Buddhism which has nothing to do with social control., then I approve of it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 12:33 pm Jack Daydream wrote:

I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

I suspect that 'enlightenment' may mean that the enlightened individual become a member of a superior social caste or class. Irenaic (now mainstream) Christianity for instance opposed the version of Christianity that set some individuals apart as being more perfect than others.

If enlightenment is confined to psychology as in Buddhism which has nothing to do with social control., then I approve of it.

The politics of spirituality have been problematic as they are tied up with religious institutions. Also, there is the idea of a spiritual master, which may be an elitist ranking system. One aspect of this involved organisations, such as the Freemasons and the Rosucrucians. These organisations were seen as a source of development of consciousness and knowledge for many writers, including Tolstoy.

It does seem that in this and the last century so much of what was accessed by the 'chosen' is now available for the general public. The esoteric has become 'rejected knowledge' in a sense, but many are seeking it. The ideas of Buddhism are incorporated into psychology, especially in the form of mindfulness meditation.

One interesting figure is Krishnamurti. He was viewed as an aspiring spiritual teacher who questioned this so much. He went onto develop his own perspective independently. There is such possibility for independent thinking, although there may still be oppressive forms of social control. AI may be a form of this because it acts as a form of governance created by powerful organisations.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 12:33 pm Jack Daydream wrote:

I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

I suspect that 'enlightenment' may mean that the enlightened individual become a member of a superior social caste or class. Irenaic (now mainstream) Christianity for instance opposed the version of Christianity that set some individuals apart as being more perfect than others.

If enlightenment is confined to psychology as in Buddhism which has nothing to do with social control., then I approve of it.

Are 'you' of some 'superior class', "yourself", that 'we' should, or would, care what 'you' approve of, or do not approve of?

How important are those two things in relation to, exactly?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 1:50 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 12:33 pm Jack Daydream wrote:

I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

I suspect that 'enlightenment' may mean that the enlightened individual become a member of a superior social caste or class. Irenaic (now mainstream) Christianity for instance opposed the version of Christianity that set some individuals apart as being more perfect than others.

If enlightenment is confined to psychology as in Buddhism which has nothing to do with social control., then I approve of it.

Are 'you' of some 'superior class', "yourself", that 'we' should, or would, care what 'you' approve of, or do not approve of?

Age, when we do philosophy we try to be objective and not relate opinions to persons . This is what is called ad hominem.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 2:10 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 1:50 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 12:33 pm Jack Daydream wrote:



I suspect that 'enlightenment' may mean that the enlightened individual become a member of a superior social caste or class. Irenaic (now mainstream) Christianity for instance opposed the version of Christianity that set some individuals apart as being more perfect than others.

If enlightenment is confined to psychology as in Buddhism which has nothing to do with social control., then I approve of it.

Are 'you' of some 'superior class', "yourself", that 'we' should, or would, care what 'you' approve of, or do not approve of?

Age, when we do philosophy we try to be objective and not relate opinions to persons . This is what is called ad hominem.

Who and/or what is the 'we' word here referring to, exactly?

Considering I have not related 'an opinion' to 'a person', what you say and claim here is moot.

And, what you call 'ad hominen' others do not.

Also, why do you not approve of 'that', which stops societies from doing what is Wrong, in Life?

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pm Mysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy because it speaks of the 'ineffable'. Certainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification. Nevertheless, the focus on mystical states of transformation, or enlightenment has an important role in life. Awakening or higher states of consciousness may act as the inspiration in life, The psychologist, Abraham Maslow, was particularly interested in peak experiences.

Mysticism is often associated with religion but Buddhist ideas of meditation and enlightenment have become prominent in positive psychology. The emphasis is on wellbeing and higher states of awareness. Within religion, esoteric traditions place significant on inner transformation. The transformation of consciousness is also emphasised within shamanic traditions.

The explanations for consciousness are debated so much within philosophy. However, I see transformation of consciousness as equally important. It may also be connected to the development of insight. So, I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

First and foremost, if so-called "enlightenment" doesn't allow you to see that there truly exists levels of consciousness and intelligence that extend infinitely above the human level of consciousness, then I suggest that it's not true enlightenment.

Furthermore, if the so-called "enlightenment" that is encapsulated in the old Zen Buddhist axiom...

"...Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water..."

...doesn't compel you to share that water (both literally and figuratively) with all who are thirsty, then, again, I suggest that it's not true enlightenment.

And lastly, if everyone acquired the sort of so-called "enlightenment" that causes them to sit around in their underwear all day like, for example, Sri Ramana Maharshi...



... or utter such things as the following from the chain-smoking guru - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj...

"...Abandon all self-concern, worry not about your welfare, material or spiritual, abandon every desire, gross or subtle, stop thinking of achievement of any kind..."

...then you too can sit around in your underwear all day and dispense impractical platitudes while the world comes to a complete standstill because no one is thinking about achieving anything.

So then, Mr. Daydream, what kind of "enlightenment" do you have in mind for us?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:27 pm

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pm Mysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy because it speaks of the 'ineffable'. Certainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification. Nevertheless, the focus on mystical states of transformation, or enlightenment has an important role in life. Awakening or higher states of consciousness may act as the inspiration in life, The psychologist, Abraham Maslow, was particularly interested in peak experiences.

Mysticism is often associated with religion but Buddhist ideas of meditation and enlightenment have become prominent in positive psychology. The emphasis is on wellbeing and higher states of awareness. Within religion, esoteric traditions place significant on inner transformation. The transformation of consciousness is also emphasised within shamanic traditions.

The explanations for consciousness are debated so much within philosophy. However, I see transformation of consciousness as equally important. It may also be connected to the development of insight. So, I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

First and foremost, if so-called "enlightenment" doesn't allow you to see that there truly exists levels of consciousness and intelligence that extend infinitely above the human level of consciousness, then I suggest that it's not true enlightenment.

Furthermore, if the so-called "enlightenment" that is encapsulated in the old Zen Buddhist axiom...

"...Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water..."

...doesn't compel you to share that water (both literally and figuratively) with all who are thirsty, then, again, I suggest that it's not true enlightenment.

And lastly, if everyone acquired the sort of so-called "enlightenment" that causes them to sit around in their underwear all day like, for example, Sri Ramana Maharshi...



... or utter such things as the following from the chain-smoking guru - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj...

"...Abandon all self-concern, worry not about your welfare, material or spiritual, abandon every desire, gross or subtle, stop thinking of achievement of any kind..."

...then you too can sit around in your underwear all day and dispense impractical platitudes while the world comes to a complete standstill because no one is thinking about achieving anything.

So then, Mr. Daydream, what kind of "enlightenment" do you have in mind for us?
_______

It is not as if I rule out the possibility of other dimensions, and even multidimensionality. I am aware of more than the world of realism, It is a matter which I have thought about so much, especially in relation to lucid states of dreaming and near-death states. It is simply hard to know if they exist objectively beyond the human imagination. For example, with near death states they may point to another dimension but it is not certain because the person has not died ultimately.

Writers from Deepak Chopra to Rudolph Steiner have suggested objective dimensions beyond the physical. I keep a fairly open mind but like to take a sceptical approach. That is because to see experiences beyond the usual in a too concrete way can lead to blind literalism.

Generally, I think a softer, more subtle perspective on metaphysics as within Eastern philosophy may offer more scope, especially in going beyond the mind/body dichotomy of Western philosophy. Such an approach is also consistent with quantum physics, such as in the comparison with the quantum dimensions and the ideas of Taoism, as suggested by Fritjof Capra in 'The Tao of Physics'.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:48 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:27 pm So then, Mr. Daydream, what kind of "enlightenment" do you have in mind for us?

It is not as if I rule out the possibility of other dimensions, and even multidimensionality. I am aware of more than the world of realism, It is a matter which I have thought about so much, especially in relation to lucid states of dreaming and near-death states.

I'm glad to hear you mention "lucid dreaming."

Indeed, from my own perspective (via the "mystic quest"), I have come to realize that lucid dreaming (for those who can do it) is pretty much a precursory (semi-conscious) glimpse of the ultimate control we will possess over our infinitely malleable mental holography once we awaken into full-consciousness of our minds post death.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:48 pm It is simply hard to know if they exist objectively beyond the human imagination. For example, with near death states they may point to another dimension but it is not certain because the person has not died ultimately.

Writers from Deepak Chopra to Rudolph Steiner have suggested objective dimensions beyond the physical. I keep a fairly open mind but like to take a sceptical approach. That is because to see experiences beyond the usual in a too concrete way can lead to blind literalism.

The question is, Jack, what do you think would happen to humanity if it was literally proven - beyond any doubt - that there truly does exist a higher and more wonderful context of reality - above and beyond - the opaque veil of physical death, and that all we humans had to do was to find a quick and painless way of leaving our bodies, and we...

(make that the alleged eternal aspect of our inner being - i.e., the "soul")

...will instantly arrive there with no judgment or punishment involved for having done so?

What would you do, Jack, if given such an option?

What do you suppose these folks...



...would do if given that option?

The point is that I believe that the truth of what awaits us (post physical death) is so wonderful that it must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

In other words, just imagine the status of the approximate 8 billion human souls presently alive on planet earth today if our ancient ancestors had been given the above-mentioned option.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:48 pm Generally, I think a softer, more subtle perspective on metaphysics as within Eastern philosophy may offer more scope, especially in going beyond the mind/body dichotomy of Western philosophy. Such an approach is also consistent with quantum physics, such as in the comparison with the quantum dimensions and the ideas of Taoism, as suggested by Fritjof Capra in 'The Tao of Physics'.

Agreed.

Indeed, I spent a large amount of time back in the 80s/early 90s reading books such as the one you mentioned by Capra, plus similar ones like Gary Zukav's - The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics," along with a whole host of esoteric, metaphysical, and pop quantum physics books, too numerous to list (quite frankly, it's all kind of a blur now ).

I did so because I was obsessed with trying to see if there was anything in the world's metaphysical writings, and, especially, quantum physics (i.e., the ontological status of matter) that could help me make sense of what I experienced one fateful night in 1970, of which I went to great pains to describe in my thread titled:

My "Burning Bush-like" encounter with God.

Here's a link to that thread if you are interested:

viewtopic.php?t=41452
_______

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pmMysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy...

If you can come up with something that is never viewed poorly within philosophy, I will give you a biscuit. Philosophy survives because it challenges ideas.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pm...because it speaks of the 'ineffable'.

I'm not one to pull the analytic card, but if something speaks about the ineffable, then ineffable means something other than ineffable.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pmCertainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification.

Philosophy is about putting ideas into context. If you fall into the trap of committing to a particular context, all but one will mystify you. From my point of view, that's one too many.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pm Mysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy because it speaks of the 'ineffable'. Certainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification. Nevertheless, the focus on mystical states of transformation, or enlightenment has an important role in life. Awakening or higher states of consciousness may act as the inspiration in life, The psychologist, Abraham Maslow, was particularly interested in peak experiences.

Mysticism is often associated with religion but Buddhist ideas of meditation and enlightenment have become prominent in positive psychology. The emphasis is on wellbeing and higher states of awareness. Within religion, esoteric traditions place significant on inner transformation. The transformation of consciousness is also emphasised within shamanic traditions.

The explanations for consciousness are debated so much within philosophy. However, I see transformation of consciousness as equally important. It may also be connected to the development of insight. So, I am asking about the philosophical significance of the mystic quest and inner transformation, or enlightenment. How important do you see it within your own searching?

I do have experience have lucid dreaming. However, I have some eye problems, as well as some questions about my own mental health, which the eye clinician did think may trigger some visual hallucinations when my eyes are closed . Nevertheless, I do think that it may be more than this because I have had a lot of hypnagogic and hypnpompic dream states as well.

I have been told that I am a 'psychonaut' by a few people for my interest in altered states of consciousness. I see lucid dreaming as a potential source for creativity, even though it may be dismissed as being of any significance in terms of philosophy and the realm of ideas.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 12:26 am

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pmMysticism is sometimes viewed poorly within philosophy...

If you can come up with something that is never viewed poorly within philosophy, I will give you a biscuit. Philosophy survives because it challenges ideas.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pm...because it speaks of the 'ineffable'.

I'm not one to pull the analytic card, but if something speaks about the ineffable, then ineffable means something other than ineffable.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 11:23 pmCertainly, I see philosophy as being a way of trying to articulate ideas and a way of demystification.

Philosophy is about putting ideas into context. If you fall into the trap of committing to a particular context, all but one will mystify you. From my point of view, that's one too many.

NB: I have edited this quite a bit as I wrote the original post during the night.
The philosophy aspects of mysticism is an area which I see as important, but it is so easily dismissed in the context of twentieth first century, especially as materialism and realism are ranked so highly. With the idea of the 'ineffable', there is the context of the transcendent. It may be possible to speak of it in words, but words as well as knowledge have limitations. This was recognised by Wittgenstein.

One book which I have read is Richard Bucke's 'Cosmic Consciousness' which focuses on writers and other historical figures who have attained higher states as a source of creativity. Also, Colin Wilson focused on the importance of peak experiences as being about going beyond the 'robotic' aspects of everyday consciousness. There is so much emphasis on AI but while it may be superior in intelligence it is unlikely to be able to have peak experiences or 'awakening' moments.