Donny,
It seems pretty obvious that we are not going to advance our discussion
much until we reach agreement on the definition of Mysticism so instead of
refuting you point by point I am going to give you my understanding of what
mysticism means.
I have two fairly good dictionaries here so I will start by giving you
the two definitions of Mysticism that they give.
The first is the unabridged Random House Dictionary of the English
Language which gives the definition:
"The doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to
transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the
soul with God through contemplation and love."
The second is the American Heritage dictionary of the English Language
which gives the definition:
"Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual
apprehension but central to being and directly accessible by intuition."
Donny:
You seem to be making the same mistake as Mary and equating "mystical'
with 'supernatural'. I wont repeat all of that.
and further: The main point here is still that you insist on making
philosophy/mysticism a competing opponent to science.
Clark:
When we read these two definitions we see that mystical is equated with
supernatural by these two dictionaries.
In your second statement you equate philosophy with mysticism. This is
not necessarily the case. It is possible to do mystical philosophy but it
is just an abberration. As commonly understood philosophy is not mysticism.
You go on to equate mysticism with science and then compare the two
with political theory, literature, visual art. "Does painting contradict
poetry?. You must know that these are not the same questions at all. We
are talking about a predictable (science) process as opposed to an
unpredictable (mysticism) process.
Donny:
I don't think SO thinking = DQ. I don't think DQ can be subsumed within
SO thinking's Hierarchys
Clark:
I did not say that SO thinking = DQ, I said that I thought that SO
thinking was not incompatible with DQ. And by the way, with the MOQ.
When I said that the old philosophers were not playing with a full deck I
meant it as a sort of complement. Think of the conclusions they might have
reached had they had our (still limited) understanding of the operation of
the universe.
I agree that science is a means of communication and of proof. Whatever
counts as proof, and philosophy is fine, must be based on the bedrock of
our understanding of the way the physical universe works. Mysticism is
fine if it amuses you but it has no place in our understanding of our place
in the universe.
Now give me your understanding of what mysticism means. Ken Clark
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:44 BST