JONATHAN, THE RATIONAL MYSTIC AND MYSTICAL RATIONALIST
Hi Lilacs,
Thanks to Mary, Lithien, Kilian, Donny, David Buchanan and others (sorry
for forgetting anyone) for clarifying what we mean by mysticism vs.
rationalism. While Lithien ecstatically welcomes newcomers to the
mystics camp, I still want to hover on the edge.
David says:
>And maybe the reason for their persistence is based on the false belief
>that there are two choices; rational and irrational. If there were only
>two I'd be in the rationalist camp. BUT mysticism isn't irrational.
>MYSTICISM IS POST-RATIONAL.
Mysticism etymologically means that something is HIDDEN. It strikes me
that "hidden" is an ambiguous word. There is an "objective" hidden,
where something is intrinsically unknowable. There is a subjective
hidden where the "subject" just hasn't yet found or noticed the hidden
"object". It seems that philosophical mysticism refers to the first
hidden (unknowable), while rationalism recognises the second
(things hidden till we find them).
Fintan calls himself a "mystic", yet I interpret his "Bargain with God"
as pure rationalism. The essay says to me "This is it! I am God and I
will show you everything. It's up to you to open your eyes and see it".
Did I get it Fintan?
But...
Since there are an infinity of things to see and learn, and an infinity
of ways to see them, some part of reality must always remain unseen. In
this sense I am a mystic.
DAVID:
>One arrives at mysticism in a flash of insight, they say, but the
>secret is that it usually happens only after years of training. The
flash of
>insight isn't some gift from the heaven in answer to all those prayers,
>its more like the flowering of a cultivatred mind. Its as if all the
>experiences finally click together into one simple thing.
This speaks to me. First you have to "open your eyes and see", then
"close your eyes and see".
Far from calling mysticism "post-rational", I would call mystic insight
a
part of rationalism.
Insight allows you to assess the result of a "logical" analysis, and
reject an "unreasonable" result. Computers can't do that. There is some
interesting stuff on the web about how emotion is PART of rational
thought - a good start might be articles by Rosalind Picard (see MoQ web
site for link).
So Lithien, David B. I claim that this mysticism vs. rationalism is not
a useful division. I belong to both camps.
Jonathan B. Marder <MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il>
Department of Agricultural Botany, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Faculty of Agriculture, P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL
Phone: +972 8 9481918 Fax: +972 8 9467763
Web page: http://www.agri.huji.ac.il/~marder
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