>Struan:
>Greetings,
>
>Rich (ignoring the sarcasm): Mysticism is best described using the
Wittgensteinian notion of family
>resemblances rather than a discrete definition. As such we can say that it
is characterised by:
>
>1) A belief in a world of reality different to that which manifests itself
to the natural senses.
>
>2) A belief in the unity of all things.
>
>3) A denial of the reality of time.
>
>4) A denial of the reality of evil
>
>5) A belief in the value of intuition over reason.
>
>A mystic is one who subscribes to the above and a mystical practice is one
which attempts to promote
>any of the above.
>
>Note that I am not claiming that this is a discrete and absolute
definition - such things do not
>exist for this kind of term. Also note that I am not claiming that all
mysticism adheres to all
>these points. The notion of family resemblances is vital here.
>
>When used on this forum, the term mystic has generally been applied to
anything that the user
>misunderstands or wants to hold as 'sacred.' This is not mysticism, rather
it is an excuse for not
>being able (or willing) to apply reason to intuition. The claim that this
cannot be done descends
>(inevitably) into relativism and thus has no place in the MoQ.
Your last paragraph seems to contradict your excellent delineation of
mysticism. When you say "it is an excuse for not being able (or willing) to
apply reason to intuition" are you not contradicting #5 above? When we apply
reason to intuition, do we not subordinate intuition to reason? (no sarcasm
intended, just asking)
glove
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST