Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Sam Norton (
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 02:14:31 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Static and dynamic aspects of mysticism and religious experience"

    Hi Chin,

    As you might have expected I have a different understanding of mysticism. I would uncouple mysticism
    from experience completely - I think the emphasis on experience is Modern and based in
    subject-object metaphysics (which I've gone through lots of times with DMB, I'm sure we'll come back
    to the why - see my essay, newly posted on, with which I began this thread).

    But a quick positive account of how I understand mysticism, then a suggestion.

    I think a mystic is someone who is able to discern the deeper truths within a tradition, thereby
    enabling that tradition to develop. To put that in MoQish, a mystic is the one who is sufficiently
    open to DQ that they are able to develop new static latches which shift the existing static patterns
    forward in a higher quality direction. The thing is, to be recognised as a mystic, you have to be
    within the tradition in the first place, in other words you can't get to the fourth level of Quality
    without having gone through the third level first (DQ guiding the process all the time).

    It's been suggested before that we drop the word 'mysticism' because of this sort of disagreement as
    to what counts or doesn't count as mystical. I'd be happy to drop it, as it probably does generate
    more heat than light. How about we call the view that it's about having an experience (or, about
    what follows having had the experience, what I've elsewhere called 'mysticism-in-the-Jamesian
    sense', or 'the modern synthesis'), let's call that 'noeticism' or 'the noetic view of mysticism',
    so that the person who undergoes such a [putative] experience is a 'noetic'; and lets call the view
    that it's about being rooted in a tradition, and developing that tradition further, 'praxis' or 'the
    praxis view of mysticism' so that the person seen as a mystic from this point of view is a

    I think this distinction may enable a clearer discussion. What do you think?


    "No Mystics (at least before the [20th] century) believed in or practiced 'mysticism'. They believed
     in and practiced Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism), that is, religions that
    contained mystical elements as parts of a wider historical whole."
    (Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism)

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ron Winchester" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 5:54 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

    > Hi Sam,
    > --- A quickie - in as few words as you can manage! - what do you mean by
    > 'mystic', when you say that
    > Socrates is one?
    > Mystic - beyond the realm of an accepted base for knowledge or wisdom. James
    > might have defined it best. "Everything real is experienced somewhere.
    > Everything experienced is real somewhere." If something is not commonly
    > accepted are reality, but you have experienced it, then you have had a
    > mystic experience.
    > How would that work with what you are calling mystic. Like all terms we use,
    > it is good to define the term - understand the term between all who are
    > involved in the discussion.
    > Thanks for asking.
    > Chin

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 15 2004 - 02:35:02 GMT