What is mysticism?
I’m currently involved in a discussion thread about the “Tao Te Ching.” Is Taoism a form of mysticism? I have some ideas about what mysticism is, but I’ve never tried to tie them down. For that reason, it’s not a word I use much. It definitely has a bad connotation in some uses – it’s often mixed up with ideas about the occult. Chinese warriors flying through the air with their swords flashing. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to look for a definition of “mysticism” that I can use from now on. Here are some definitions from several sources:
I like number 4 the best. Based on that, yes, Taoism is a form of mysticism. The lesson I take from this exercise is that "mysticism" has at least two conflicting meanings. The first; as described in Items 1, 3, 4, and 9; represents a potentially valid method to gain knowledge about the world. The second; as described in Items 2, 5, and 6 represents a vague, undisciplined, invalid method to gain the appearance of knowledge or power. These two meanings are often mixed up. There are clearly those who don't think that mysticism, by whatever definition, is a valid means to knowledge.
As I said, I did this primarily for myself. If anyone has any comments on the definitions or any other aspects of mysticism, feel free to include them here.
- [i][1] Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender. [2] Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.[3] The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis[6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power[7] Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.[8] The belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God[9] The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth).[/i]
I like number 4 the best. Based on that, yes, Taoism is a form of mysticism. The lesson I take from this exercise is that "mysticism" has at least two conflicting meanings. The first; as described in Items 1, 3, 4, and 9; represents a potentially valid method to gain knowledge about the world. The second; as described in Items 2, 5, and 6 represents a vague, undisciplined, invalid method to gain the appearance of knowledge or power. These two meanings are often mixed up. There are clearly those who don't think that mysticism, by whatever definition, is a valid means to knowledge.
As I said, I did this primarily for myself. If anyone has any comments on the definitions or any other aspects of mysticism, feel free to include them here.
Comments (300)
No, completely not. As you shared with us, mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living. Taoism is philosophy and self realisation. TTC is a tool where we can develop our knowledge and satisfaction in life without any kind of subterfuge. When Lao-Tzu wrote TTC he was explaining the Principle or the Tao. This a criteria that goes further than “God” or any type of mysticism because it doesn’t explain it like it is over us but how wisely we should take it.
I shared with you and @Amity @Possibility a lot of verses from TTC but I guess a good example of showing that is not mysticism is the following one:
Verse XI
[i]Thirty spokes join in one hub
In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle
Mix clay to create a container
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room
Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality[/i]
It is about emptiness, functionality, spaces, etc... all examples which are opposite of mysticism.
Quoting T Clark
I searched and found the same definition at RAE Misticismo. Real Academia Española
No, I don't think mysticism is necessarily a religious phenomenon at all. According to one of the definitions above, mysticism is "The belief that direct knowledge of ... ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)." I think calling the Tao "ultimate reality" is a reasonable interpretation.
Quoting javi2541997
I have found that the Tao Te Ching is something more akin to a philosophy which seeks to understand the deeper reality of the world and how we ought to behave in it. Perhaps something like metaethics? I say metaethics because it does not seem to me to present practical actions or particular actions but rather attitudes and such.
As for what mysticism is in itself? I like the first definition that was proposed.
Quoting T Clark
My own experience of mysticism is founded in the Roman Catholic tradition. I am not claiming to be a mystic, but as a religious in the Catholic Church, I seek mystical union with God through prayer. But the goal is not knowledge per se but rather union with God in love.
The mystical tradition of the Catholic Church looks to find the heavenly reality of union with God in some aspect while still here on earth. It is a surrendering of the will in love to God in the hopes of a few moments of this mystical union. Knowledge and insight may follow, but that is a grace or gift which can be given but need not be. The experience may simply be that, an experience which is unlike any earthly experience, since what can be said of an experience of what transcends all earthly reality?
In this way, it is why I do not see Taoism as a form of mysticism.
The ignorant man believes that he is wise and knows all there is or at least all he needs to know. Not to be confused with the diligent scholar who knows he knows more than he would have without his academic pursuits and perhaps more than most.
A wise man believes there is more to know and more that is not yet understood. A mystic also believes this, yet seeks to narrow down, at least to a degree, where such knowledge can be found.
In some ways, I think that the term mysticism is sometimes used in a derogatory way. It is also difficult to talk about sometimes because there is the whole experiential level, which is so subjective. I am currently reading a book on peak experiences by Colin Wilson, 'Superconsciousness: The Quest for the Peak Experience' (2019). In this, he says, ' What I learned from mystics and poets was that " everyday consciousness" is only one of many possible states, and that we become trapped in assuming that it is the only kind.' Colin Wilson, in his many books looked at the quest for heightened states of consciousness. He began first exploring this in his first book, 'The Outsider',in relation to the states of mind or creative writers and artists, who entered into certain states of mind as part of the creative process. Of course, mysticism is central to religious and spiritual quests, but I think that it is an idea which is relevant to the whole spectrum of peak experiences too.
I think this is a good description of Taoism.
Quoting BroAlex
I think the definitions of "mysticism" I've included are broad enough to include both seeking union with God and knowledge of deeper reality. "Surrendering" is a word I sometimes use to describe the experience of the Tao, which I see as a yielding of my personal will to something outside myself.
Your insight into your experience as a Catholic is really helpful.
:up: :100:
Interesting. It is a very good point of view. I think fits what TTC actually means or at least the meaning.
What I pretended to do is defend that clearly TTC is so away of religion mysticism or whatever dogma because it is about (most of the verses) of self, thus, individual or individualism thinking. It is a way of put in practice some attitudes as you explained that not necessarily are connected with God...
Yes, I agree. That's one of the reasons I started this thread.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The first lines of the Tao Te Ching say this exactly - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I resist the idea that a mystical understanding of reality, at least as I've experienced it, represents an extraordinary phenomenon or heightened state. One of the things I like best about the Tao Te Ching is the pragmatic everydayness of what it describes.
I don't see mysticism as limiting the scope of where we look for knowledge. I think of it as a way of recognizing and acknowledging how we already gain knowledge. Most of what we know we don't know through study.
I have read the Tao Te Ching and looked at the lengthy thread on it, but did not participate because I don't have a copy of it currently. I am interested in Taoism, especially as developed by Jung. There is also Capra' book, 'The Tao of Physics' which was important in the leading the way in the exploration of mysticism arising from the findings of the new physics developed by Einstein.
I am wondering why you resist the idea of mysticism as being about heightened states of consciousness? I do not believe that we are able to touch upon these easily but I do see mystical states as being part of this spectrum. Maurice Bucke's book, 'Cosmic Consciousness' looks at specific individuals who reached illuminated states of consciousness, such as the Buddha, Jesus, William Blake and Dante. Of course, these were extemely rare individuals. I am aware that we cannot even attempt to compare ourselves to such important figures, but I do think that there is a whole range of potential mystical states, ranging from the the almost mundane states of bliss, to those of a more magnificent nature. It seems to a whole pathway of possible states of consciousness, more frequently touched upon within esoteric traditions.
I've always thought that Wittgenstein's mysticism in the Tractatus was extremely sensible and fascinating. The only disagreement I'd have with his presentation would be that, I think we can speak of the mystical as we can speak of anything else. It need not be silent nor need it be irrational or religious.
It's certainly a much, much better alternative than calling oneself "spiritual", or so it seems to me.
Here is a link to more than 20 translations.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
Different people like different translations. The ones I use most often are Stephen Mitchell, Ellen Marie Chen, Derek Lin, and Addiss & Lombardo.
Quoting Jack Cummins
When you see Asian mystical practice portrayed in the West, it is often associated with the occult, e.g. "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." That's why I resist portraying it as some sort of secret knowledge or heightened consciousness. There's nothing magical about it. It's down home and everyday. It's just regular old stuff. The fact that we often can't see it is what's complicated and hard to understand. I think that's an important attitude to take into mystical understanding.
I don't know anything about Wittgenstein's mysticism. Why don't you tell us about it.
I am not talking about the kind of Asian 'mystical' stuff you are talking about portrayed in the media. I am speaking of serious meditation practices, such as those within Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism . I am also thinking of the whole tradition of esoteric Christianity. However,it may be that you are not wishing for such areas to be explored in the thread you have created, and are just wishing to explore what the idea.
Please discuss this if you'd like. I started out wanting to find a good definition of mysticism but I tried to make it clear that it will be fine if people want to go further. BroAlex had interesting things to say about Catholic attitudes in a previous post.
Contemporary mysticism seems to be focusing a lot on science and technology. For example the use of dance music to induce trance-like states. Or synthetic drugs such as XTC (ecstasy) to create a mystical experience.
What classifies an experience as mystical? That can only be defined by the experiencer in my opinion.
If everything we can speak of is such that it's part of a system of parameters, and if those systems are such that there is always a conceivable parameter that is absent from these systems, then it is possible to infer there is always a single missing parameter.
Identify the parameter and you're potentially talking about religion. At least that's my take.
Obviously the whole area of mysticism in Hinduism and Buddhism is a very complex one and it is not as if I am from one of these traditions. I just read widely, and there is probably some truth in the common notion that a little knowledge is a bit dangerous. So, I will wait to see what happens in the thread as it so new.
Thanks for the link to The Tao de Ching. I may put one latecomer entry, probably on Hexagram 23. I often used to get that hexagram, or it might not have been that I really got it more than other ones, but it always used to stand out for me.
Fortunately, it's very very short. The problematic thing is how to interpret it!
I'll have to compress even that to give the bare essentials, which is a distortion:
6.44 Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.
6.52 We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered,
the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course
there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of
this problem.
(Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting
the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this
sense consisted?)
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the
mystical.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
I take it to mean that the given in the world, what is self evident, cannot be expressed. Whatever we say about the world falls way short, therefore, instead of speaking non-sense we should not speak at all about such matters.
I agree with the description of the mystical here, but I still think we can talk about it while risking complete ridicule. That's my (mis)understanding about it.
That's the question I'm trying to answer when I ask "What is mysticism." People use the word. We ought to be able to agree on what they mean. Or at least they should be able to explain what they mean.
I don't understand. Can you give an example? And how is that mysticism?
Examples of systems? Like a formal example?
Are you talking about the "Tao Te Ching" or the "I Ching?"
Oh, I am talking of the I Ching. Initially, when I read your thread I thought that The Tao de Ching was another book, and then I came to the conclusion that your thread was about the I Ching. So I feel extremely foolish. I have not read the Tao de Ching, in that case.
Isn't ineffability one of the hallmarks of mysticism?
I'm surprised you don't have a ready and cheerful definition fo this. For me Mysticism is an umbrella word for a range of spiritual ideas. I think the Tao Te Ching is an example of a form of mysticism, perhaps in part depending upon how it is approached. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Mysticism has a central focus on knowledge or realisation which can't be stated in ordinary language or apprehended in conventional ways.
Generally Mysticism takes as a staring point the idea that there is spiritual wisdom or higher consciousness which is inaccessible to ordinary intellectual activity. Access to mystical insights may be approached using various practices: readings, exercises, mediation, substance use, and contemplation. Most religions have a mystic tradition. Like many pursuits, there is hard and soft mysticism. There is probably a common mystical core to most of the world's spiritual traditions.
If you're interested, you can read it in about an hour. Tell me what other philosophy or religion can you say that about.
Okay, I will have a read of The Tao te Ching tomorrow evening. It is true that there are not that many philosophies or religions which can be read in an hour. So, it is strange that I have missed this little one, considering all the piles of books I accumulated from an esoteric bookshop in Central London a few years ago.
Your description of Wittgenstein's mysticism looks compatible with the definitions I laid out. It's true - when you get down to it, it's all about the inexpressible. As to whether you can talk about the unspeakable without looking foolish, people have been doing it for thousands of years.
This is a really good summary.
I mean, you are correct that people have been doing it for thousands of years. The thing is to do it well, it helps to illustrate the point by adding some poetry, rhyme or style of some kind.
The thing is, in our current society, it's quite easy to find some New Age-ish perspective that says something like "the world is awesome, man. Feel the vibrations." Yeah, ok fine. But this type of talk can take away from the serious point:
The world is a mystery, existence is too. We have no idea why we are here, why things appear the way they do, or why we even have experience at all. Sure, you can speak in terms of the laws of physics and biological processes that lead to ever more complexification of life and that perception is merely the way the brain makes sense out of information.
I think this view, while true in so far as it manages to describe some facts, does nothing to explain why things are the way they are, and not some other way.
It's a bit of a shame that many people, if told this, don't seem to care or think it's empty or something. Why complicate everything? Well, I don't have a good answer to that. But I think it's evident.
I figure communicating with the dead should count as a mystical process. There are shamanistic practices from many different traditions that involve being a "medium" for the conversation.
There are many different forms of divination, from oracular pronouncements from "speakers" in contact with the gods to systems of interpretation like Tarot or the I Ching.
What some people shun as superstition is a valid practice for others.
I'd be interested in parsing the difference between mystery and mystical - I think the two become confused.
It seems fairly clear that those who have mystical experiences don't generally view them as mysterious in the moment - the experience itself brings a type of grounding and certainty - perhaps a sense of oneness or a meaningful connection to higher consciousness. When encountered this is not doubted.
Talking about, describing it afterwards is the problem.
Is there any thinking about any notions of good mysticism versus bad mysticism. Can it be graded in any way? Perhaps shallow versus deep?
What are some of the better descriptions people have provided about the wisdom or insights they encounter through mysticism? Can it be brought back to the quotidian? Or does it remain resolutely first person and ineffable? I am particularly interested in whatever transformative capacities mysticism is said to have for people.
We should probably distinguish between the experiences people have taking substances and those mystical states gained during contemplative states. Thoughts?
This is what the gurus say: that everything we understand is but a concept in our minds. And that in letting go of those concepts one gradually becomes more blissful. And bliss lies more in emptiness than people realize.
I was mentally circling above "The Abyss", the bottomless pit. And it was terrifying. And I'm not sure if I ever want to feel that way again. But what I realize now is that it's empty. There was no gravity to pull me in. I wanted to die that day but I didn't. And that was an awakening.
Jesus fasted 40 days and nights in the desert. That means that he must have been near death. And maybe only such an extreme experience can bring one closer to understanding the mystery of life.
That is how I currently define mysticism: appreciation for the mysteriousness of life.
This happened to me in December 2020. I'm still trying to make sense of things. Thank you for helping me on this journey.
I place a strong emphasis on the fact that the Tao and associated phenomena are not magical or mysterious. They are as real as a box of rocks. As real as smelly socks. I do that because I don't want my understanding of Taoism to be mistaken for new age baloney. And yes, I know the Tao is not a phenomenon.
Quoting Manuel
Careful. This sounds a bit new agey. I read somewhere that a mystery is a part of us we have hidden from ourselves. I think it may have been in Alan Watts. That makes a lot of sense to me. There is no mystery, just things we're not aware of. The Tao, God, enlightenment, reality, whatever - it's sitting right here in front of us right now.
Quoting Manuel
There are lots of good ways to know the world. Different ways work for different people. None of these ways of seeing we are calling mystical are necessarily any better than other ways of seeing. They work for some people and not for others.
As I've noted several times so far in this thread, I emphasize the mundaneness of Taoism because I don't want it to be mistaken for the occult. I say it's not secret, it's not magic, it's just meat and potatoes. I think mixing mysticism up with magic undermines mysticism's credibility. I am reluctant to do that. For that reason, I wouldn't call communicating with the dead a mystical practice, although it may be, I'd call it an occult practice.
There's stuff we don't know anything about.
When folk talk about that stuff, despite not knowing anything about it, they are being mystical.
Honest folk will remain quiet.
Well, I mean, I think there's good actual evidence for this view. I could send you a very good essay about if you are interested. But, in either case, point taken.
Quoting T Clark
Sure. I only would like for people who think of this stuff, not to be labeled as "wacky" or the like. I don't think it is. I have in mind people like Dawkins, for example.
Mystery means lots of things. In what way is it confused with mystical?
Quoting Tom Storm
I can't really speak to this. I don't think I've ever had what I would call a mystical experience. What I have seen is that the way I normally see the world sometimes has more in common with what is called mysticism than with everyday conventional realism. Reading the Tao Te Ching has just given me words to talk about my experience.
Quoting Tom Storm
This is a really good question. Maybe we apply the same standards as we do for all other ways of knowing. Does it work? I guess we have to decide what it means for knowledge to work. Did I mention that this is a good question.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't really have an answer, but here's a quote from Franz Kafka that I think captures the heart of what mysticism means.
It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.
Yes. This is why I try to make sure mysticism is kept separate from the occult, magic.
Many of the examples start with 'belief that....'. The point about mysticism is that it is purported to provide an insight or realisation which is not a matter of belief. (Actually the term 'realisation' is key in this context - the enlightened 'real-ise' the higher truths, not as a matter of belief, but by direct intuition, and also 'making real'.)
It's often overlooked that the original derivation of the term was associated with 'initiation into the mystery schools'. The 'schools' in question were the indigenous cults of ancient Greece, notably the cult of Orpheus:
A notable commentator on, and possible initiate into, the Orphic cult was Plato - making Plato, if indeed he was initiated (and it will never be known for sure) a textbook mystic.
I mention this by way of rebuttal of (2) and (5). Mysticism is, for sure, a pejorative in many contexts and is generally abjured by the positivists and materialists, but it's also part of all genuine intellectual cultures. (Interestingly, Nikola Tesla's mystic vision of a sunset was integral to the development of alternating current in electronics.)
:up:
There's a rather quirky Wikipedia article I sometimes mine for references, on Higher Consciousness. I'm a firm believer in there really being higher and lower forms of consciousness - therefore a vertical dimension, the sense of which is all but extinguished in modern 'culture'.
This reminds me of arguments about what it means to have faith in something. Materialists/realists speak as if it's self-evident that faith is not a valid basis for knowledge because it hasn't been put to a rational test. It's also another reason that rationalists look down on mysticism.
Quoting Wayfarer
That's the argument I'm trying to make - that pejorative definitions like 2 and 5 unreasonably undermine the credibility of mystical viewpoints.
Quoting Wayfarer
I took a look. The only problem I have with the ideas is that there is a lot of goofy hippy-talk mixed in with the more substantive stuff. That provides more ammunition for those who want to undermine the credibility of mystical ways of knowing.
It was brave of you to share your experience. Your experience must have been just before you found this site I do believe that it is often the harshest things in life which bring about transformation. I have seen some literature on mysticism which seems to ignore this, and almost treat mystical states as if they were add on extras to the comforts of life. However, there is the tradition of mysticism which sees it in the context of 'the dark night of the soul.'
But, of course, I would not be wishing to denigrate the mystical experience of anyone, but do think that as your testimony suggest, the mystical experience arising from suffering is important.
I understand the distinction you are drawing between magic and "real" mysticism. But the criteria is not as straightforward as the thought of separating the superstitious from the phenomena we establish as separate from our experience by definition.
In Taoism, for example, the ineffable is related to our experience and that speaks to your preference for "meat and potatoes." But the Tao is also said to be the means to setting up everything on both sides of the gate separating our lives from whatever makes it possible. That encouraged a religious interpretation that was expressed in various ideas of immortality, some of them that are very "occult."
While I don't understand the text in that particular "religious" way, I remember Romulus is related to Remus, suckling from the same mother.
It is a wooden toad. When one draws the rod seen on the left along the spiky spine, it makes a sound much like some toads do.
Isn't this fascinating? Kafka... I really like this. This could be from any number of mystical traditions. And maybe for me this is the initial entry point on this subject that resonates most. That sense of no nothing (although that is perhaps too crude).
Quoting T Clark
I think mystery is often used as a synonym for mysticism but for me this suggests it is a puzzle to solve rather than an experiential phenomenon. Wrong path. Also to say it is a mystery is too general and sometimes used as a pejorative to shut down a discussion of mysticism (at least, that's what I've seen) as in 'Don't mystify us with your bullshit!'. And mystery is kind of a low resolution stand in for what people mean by the ineffable. That which cannot be explained but is experienced by others is a mystery to those outside the experience. Sorry, perhaps I lack sufficient precision on this point.
I think that there is a danger of trying to make mysticism into a neat and tidy term. For some people this may work, but the problem is that the mystical experiences of individuals vary so much as well as the attempts to understand them.Some of those who have experienced mystical states have been those who explored philosophies which are obscure. Also, some of the literature is not easy to read. One book which I have, but not managed to read, is W B Yeats" 'A Vision', but I am determined to do so, at some point.
One asks "Why am I?" and then "Why anything at all?"
And then one waits for an answer (Godot?). One listens with eyes and mouth shut (mú?), with body and mind relaxed (wu wei). One gradually, imperceptibly, lets (the) answer be ... revealed.
On cloudy, moonless nights the mystic does not wait for the sound of thunder from distant lightening to arrive; the mystic, instead, awaits that dark silence which reveals all (dao, tat tvam asi, logos, Ich-Du, natura naturans) before it's suddenly gone.
so the mystic cannot answer
and s/he can no longer ask:
between question and answer
(or "the lightning" and "the thunder")
between thoughts
between breaths
between the moments ...
the mystic simply waits
Perhaps 'mysticism' is waiting for sudden revelations as a way of life.
Quoting Banno
:zip:
Quoting T Clark
(re: #6 definition) Yeah, the more naturalistic-pragmatic interpretation daojia I'd say is more mystical (esoteric) than religious (exoteric).
:up:
I don't know why but the word 'sudden' seems slightly off target.
Very much so. The curious thing about this is that there seems to be no direct way to communicate mysticism, we have to elude, circumscribe, reveal, retreat and then make manifest what was already there. It's a bit like running in a straight line all around the world, just to find yourself where you originally were, but this time everything is different, more illuminated and transcendent.
Another quote:
"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
.........
It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:
“This is water.”
“This is water.”
It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out."
- David Foster Wallace
There are many other examples in mystical literature of the sudden 'parting of the veil'.There are also parallels in other areas of intellectual life, such as mathematician Henri Poincare:
Not hard to imagine parallels between the 'unconscious' and what Buddhists would consider the 'karma of previous lifetimes'.
Quoting Tom Storm
What "sudden" implies is this:
Quoting Manuel
:clap: :100: Thanks for this reminder.
Excellent!!
I wonder if there is a price to pay for all that suddenness.
I like W.S. Merwin for this:
The Hosts
You asked what
were the names of those two
old people who lived under the big tree
and gods in disguise visited them though they were poor
they offered the best they had to eat
and opened the oldest wine in the house
the gods went on pouring out pouring out wine
and then promised that it would flow till the ends of their lives
when the shining guests were out of sight he turned to her
by the table and said
this bottle has been in the cave all the time
we have been together
Quoting Tom Storm
Sa?s?ra ... wei ... maya ...
Quoting Tom Storm
I've been following the activities of a current Rinzai teacher, Meido Roshi, who has established a center in Wisconsin (not far from where my son now lives, so I've actually visited there, https://www.korinji.org/).
Meido Roshi says that Rinzai Zen recognises that an initial satori (insight) is not that uncommon amongst Zen aspirants, but that it is still very difficult to bring that insight to fruition, requiring many years of immersion in the discipline generally under supervision.
In day to day life, Buddhism in Japan is blessings, ceremonies, and social religion - 'Temple Buddhism'. There are very few for whom the 'path of Zen' is taken, and it's a very hard path - I think much harder than many Western enthusiasts recognise. It is the 'path of sages'. The popular Buddhism is Pureland, which relies on the vow of Amida Buddha rather than Zen's 'self-effort'. (It's like Christianity in some respects, although the belief system is completely different. And also, intriguingly, there are Pureland-Zen crossover schools.)
My guess is that the Zen system in Japan would be a very hierarchical structure. I would also guess that there are more and less compassionate roshis (head teachers) - some fierce disciplinarians and extremely harsh, others sympathetic and insightful. And the Japanese national character is very prone to disciplinarianism and repression of individuality, which I'm sure would be a major factor in Zen. Harold Stewart, an Australian poet and spiritual seeker who lived the last half of his life in Kyoto, wrote an eye opening account of Zen.
Looking at it from my own idiosyncratic hermenuetic, I genuinely believe that spiritual enlightenment or illumination is real. That's why I majored in comparative religion. There's a massive literature on it, from all cultures and all periods of history. I think you have to have an innate predisposition towards it - something very like what used to be known as a calling. But realising a genuine path can be very difficult indeed. I've never really belonged to any movement or sect, although the one I still feel the greatest affinity with is S?t? Zen - if for instance I lived in SF, I'd probably be a regular at SFZC - in fact I stayed there one night in 2009 (and sat Zazen there that morning).
Do you think that a Westerner holding an Eastern contemplative approach comes with additional cultural challenges to overcome or, in fact, are there some advantages? I used to think that spiritual truth is not restricted or contained by culture - if that makes sense.
Would there be uncontroversial views on a successful way to make a deeper pathway more 'Western friendly' without diluting or distorting?
Both 'Eastern' and 'Western' (bearing in mind they're generalisations) mind-sets have their strengths and weaknesses. The 'Eastern' weakness is conformity, unwillingness to question, blind obedience - just the kind of qualities that Christian preachers look for! The 'Western' weakness is self-centredness and lack of self-discipline (traits I know too well) and also 'spiritual shopping' - 'I'll take mindfulness, but leave re-birth out of it thanks!'
One east-west teacher I've been reading again recently is Shinzen Young https://www.shinzen.org/. His site has become a bit overly glossy for my liking but on the whole he's a solid teacher. I also read the Buddhist blogs on patheos.com, James Ford and Dosho Port. I already mentioned Meido, whom I like a great deal, but to be honest, Rinzai Zen scares me! :gasp:
Yes. My understanding is that you're right. I was talking about philosophical Taoism. I don't know much about religious Taoism. What I've heard makes it sound like Biblical fundamentalism - taking words that are meant to be metaphorical as literal truth.
I think you are saying that I am over simplifying mysticism. You're not the only one to make that comment. I think you're right. I'm struggling to defend my vision of mysticism against the skepticism of "rational" thinkers. If we let the occult in, it's hard to defend. Maybe the solution is to find another word. instead of mysticism. How about T Clarkism. Valentinusism. Or maybe stop using the word altogether. I think that may be the correct solution.
I really love this. If you look, you'll find that I've used the same quote in a bunch of other threads. It says everything I want to say about reality. And it only had to be translated from German instead of than Chinese.
Quoting Tom Storm
I haven't thought about this that much. The thing that comes to mind is "the mystery of woman," which I think is really demeaning. I think it's a good example of what I described earlier - men being unable to see things within that they have hidden from themselves.
I just thought of another. It's a wonderful song by a wonderful country musician - Iris DeMent.
[i]Some say once you're gone you're gone forever
And some say you're gonna come back
Some say you rest in the arms of
The Saviour if in sinful ways you lack
Some say that they're comin' back in a
Garden, bunch of carrots and little sweet peas
I think I'll just let the mystery be[/i]
I think you're right. See my response to @Tom Storm a few posts up. I've decided that "mysticism" is not a useful word. It carries too much baggage. The solution for me is not to use the word any more. I'm serious about that. Boy, this has been a really useful thread for me. I didn't expect it would go anywhere.
I'm wary of not using particular words just because of the tensions. But I hear you.
As you may recall, I am not a practitioner of any contemplative traditions or follower of any spiritual practices (for want of a better term). I want to understand better what people are getting out of things like Tao, and if I should care. In the 1980's and 1990's, I spent most of my time in the company of Buddhists, theosophists, mystics, cranks, Gnostics, Jungians and various devotees of I Ching, seances and Gurdjieff movements. Weak and anecdotal, but I never saw anyone benefit from these interests. Since then, while I value the numinous and the ineffable to some extent, I have been unable to shake of a simple minded empiricism and reason based world-view. I am not required or driven to speculative pursuits or to 'go deeper' than the quotidian. But I am usually interested to hear from others, unless the voice is strident and unpleasantly dogmatic.
Is this the same as Cthulhu?
As Lao Tzu wrote - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
I think I'm honest. And, as you should know by now, I will never remain quiet.
I would be interested in the essay. If you post it, I'll take a look.
Quoting Manuel
I think you're right. I've been struggling in this thread to find a way to address this. The only thing I've come up with so far is to stop using the word "mysticism."
I'm an engineer with a strong background in science and math. I was a strong materialist in my youth. I still believe strongly in what science can do and the kind of truth it can find. I find Taoism completely consistent with a scientific worldview. As I've said many times, for me it is meat and potatoes philosophy.
I know that you find Taoism useful, and think that mysticism can have too much baggage. However, don't you wish to go beyond a 'meat and potatoes' philosophy as you put it ? I am thinking about Maslow's highest stage on the hierarchy of needs, self actualization? I would say that it may be possible to cope without some of the lower needs being met, although there are limits, through some peak experiences. But, I do agree that the word mysticism can be problematic in some ways.
I can't find it online, save for it being pay-walled. I have it as a PDF, thus I can only send it through email. It's called "Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden?" by Chomsky.
Quoting T Clark
Very much so. It would be interesting to discover if all these mystical teachers, philosophers, people, had in mind the same thing, or something slightly different. Alas, it's clear words can't do it justice.
. Mysticism itself, by its very nature, is a contradiction, because it is not an ism. It is not a creed or dogma in which you can believe. You can be a mystic, but there is nothing like mysticism. And when one is a mystic the paradox deepens, it does not disappear. When one is a mystic there is no one left. There is a mystery, but with no center to it. It is like a cloud: translucent darkness, infinite darkness.
. One of the most important statements about mysticism in the Western hemisphere is the book called The Cloud of Unknowing. The name of the author is not known; it is good that we don’t know who wrote it. It indicates one thing: that before he wrote it he had disappeared into a cloud of unknowing. It is the only book in the Western world which comes close to the Upanishads, The Tao Te Ching, The Dhammapada. There is a rare insight in it.
. First he calls it a cloud. A cloud is vague, with no definable limits. It is constantly changing; it is not static – never, even for two consecutive moments, is it the same. It is a flux, it is pure change. And there is nothing substantial in it. If you hold it in your hand just mist will be left, nothing else. Maybe your hands will become wet, but you will not find any cloud in your fist.
. That’s what happens to the mystic: he becomes wet, really wet. Those countries where alcohol is prohibited they call dry, and those countries where alcohol is not prohibited they call wet. But the only wet person is the mystic. He is a real alcoholic! He cannot be helped by Alcoholics Anonymous. If a mystic enters there, they will all become alcoholics themselves!
. But for Dionysius it is even more a contradiction because he was a theologian. His whole book is written with a disguise, as if it is a treatise on theology; mysticism is just something by the side, secondary, not primary. Hence the name Theologia Mystica – as if mysticism is only a consequence of getting deep into the world of theology. Just the reverse is the case.
. The word “theology” means logic about God; theo means God. But there can be no logic about God. There is love about God, love for God, but no logic about God. There are no proofs possible. The only proof is the existence of the mystic. The presence of Dionysius, of Ramakrishna, of Bahauddin – the presence of these people is the proof that God exists, otherwise there is no proof. Because Buddhas have walked on the earth, there are a few footprints of God left behind on the shores of time.
. Philosophers have argued for centuries, but all their arguments are utterly futile and impotent; they have not come to a single conclusion.
. The mystic has to speak in contradictions because he is speaking about the whole, and the whole contains the contradictions. It contains the day and the night, both. If you call God the day, then it is only half the truth; if you call him the night, that too is only half the truth.
. Hence Dionysius calls God translucent darkness – as if the sun has risen in the night.
. The whole consists of both life and death. If you call God life, only life, then it is a half-statement. And remember a half-truth is far more dangerous than a complete lie because the complete lie is bound to be discovered sooner or later – just a little intelligence is needed. But the half-truth is very dangerous; even intelligent people, very intelligent people, may not be able to find that it is untrue. That is the danger of half-truths: they look like truths and they are not. They can keep you deceived for centuries.
. Mysticism is the whole truth; it has to be contradictory. Somewhere logic and love have to meet, because they both exist. Hence Theologia Mystica. Somewhere man and woman have to meet and merge and disappear into each other because they both exist and they are both halves of one whole. Hence the beauty and the bliss of a real meeting between a man and a woman: the orgasmic joy is possible only because two halves of a single whole have come together. Both were suffering, both were missing something. Suddenly, all that feeling of missing has disappeared. Of course, the meeting between a man and a woman can only be momentary. Again they are separate, and again the misery sets in, and again the desire to be united. Because the meeting is physical it cannot be very deep and it cannot be lasting either.
. But the meeting of the mystic with the whole is absolute; there is no coming back. He has gone beyond the point of no return. He has dissolved himself like a dew-drop slipping out of the lotus leaf into the lake. He has become the lake. Then whatsoever he says will be contradictory, because a part of it will be the vision of the dew-drop and a part of it will be the vision of the total lake, a part will be the standpoint of the part and a part will be the standpoint of the whole. Hence all mystics have spoken in contradictory terms.
. This is one of the reasons why intellectuals are against them, because the intellectual demands consistency and the mystics cannot be consistent. By the very nature of things that is not possible. He is helpless – he has to be contradictory. He has to say, “I am contradictory because I am vast enough to contain contradictions.”
. Logic is a small thing, love is infinity.
This is not true. The cosmological argument distinctly proves the need to assume a creator "God" to account for the reality of what we experience as the sensible world. Grasping the principles behind it, and the forcefulness of this argument is just as much a "revelation" as anything else.
Quoting Anand-Haqq
When the need for "God" is grasped by logic it is undeniable, and this is where love and logic meet. Excluding the possibility of grasping God through logic is a mistake which will only prevent the union of love and logic, by feeding the whims of those atheists who insist God is illogical.
Quoting Banno
This is just a statement of personal bias. What you really mean is "stuff I don't know anything about", and you fallaciously conclude that this means "stuff we don't know anything about", And when you accept this faulty proposition you can proceed to the deductive conclusion that those talking about it know nothing about it. See below:
Quoting Manuel
Banno is one of those young fish. But Banno proceeds to the conclusion that since "we" don't know what the hell water is, the older fish who uses that term doesn't know either.
They musn't have been any good at it. :rofl:
:smirk:
Major premise: All M are P.Minor premise: All S are M.Conclusion: All S are P :
All men are mortal. (MaP)
All Greeks are men. (SaM)
All Greeks are mortal. (SaP)
A little more complicated:
Jesus existed in history.
God was known to exist in Jesus.
God existed in history.
Quoting Anand-Haqq
Love is not logical (transcends logic).
God is love
God is not logical (transcends logic).
Thoughts?
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond. You quoted me, but I'm not Banno. I'm sure said person will have something to say.
In the context of the speech, which is much longer than what I quoted, Wallace indicates that the older fish does know what water is. At least, it looks quite clear that that's what the author intended to say.
I think if you look over my posts, you might classify me as a pragmatist. What works. Meat and potatoes. I am an engineer for a reason. I came to Taoism from that perspective and found that it fit right in with the way I see things. So, no. No aspirations beyond figuring out what works. Maslow's stages have always seemed unconvincing to me.
I always say that there's only one world, we're all human, so when we find similarities between the ideas of people writing centuries, millennia, and 10,000 miles apart, there is no reason not to think they are talking about the same things.
Okay, so I probably come from a completely different perspective because I am particularly interested in peak experiences. I may start a thread on this, but I may wait a bit because it may not be too great if it was running at the same time as yours. But I am definitely not into pragmatism. I do not find that 'meat and potatoes' philosophy makes much sense to me.
It's available at my library. I'll take a look. Thanks.
Quoting Anand-Haqq
There is an image I use when I am contemplating the world, reality, the Tao. It's a cloud, lit from within. It contains everything - dogs, cats, electrons, love, potato chips - but they are all one, amorphous thing. I can focus in on one part of the cloud and deal with individual ideas, or I can see it all at once, undifferentiated.
Quoting Anand-Haqq
I have a more down-to-earth understanding of mysticism. For me, it's a way of knowing. Not the only way, but a really good, useful one. Thinking of it in high falutin terms undermines its credibility. That doesn't mean I disagree with you. I do recognize that contradiction and paradox is the only way we can fit the Tao into our conventional intellectual boxes.
Yes. Thanks.
Hmmm. It's certainly possible.
Then again, when Democritus was talking about atoms was he talking about the same atoms Bohr was talking about? It's not evident to me that they were talking about the same thing. Likewise, when Descartes spoke of bodies, was he referring to the same notion we use when we speak of bodies? There's a difference in that idea too. Maybe in essence, we are speaking of similar ideas?
On the other hand, when it comes to trying to articulate what is mystical, it might be correct that Lao-Tzu and Wittgenstein and many others have in mind the same thing, because so little is known in this area, or at least that's how it looks like to me.
Everyone has a different way of seeing the world. That's why there are so many voices here on the forum.
I always fall back on my favorite platitude - There is only one world. We're all describing the same thing. Your question seems like the silly old "do I really see red the way you do" argument.
I don't think there is a simple way to separate the philosophical from the religious when dealing with texts that would venture to address reality as itself. You find there is no inconsistency between the rational models developed through science and math with the ineffable element you personally encounter in Tao Te Ching. But that element cannot be expressed in the scientific terms you do not wish to abandon. Lao Tzu calls to for us to observe the element through doing some things and not doing others. The view seems to have its own "reasons."
Now that could mean something like Pascal saying: "The heart has reasons that reason does not know." I am pretty sure that is a religious register you are not interested in. But the two ways of approaching experience are standing side by side. Will one kind of model become the ground for the other or will they follow parallel lines for all of eternity? Looked at that way, it is both a philosophical and religious problem at the same time. The limit to what can be explained is a key element to both enterprises. It looks like the camel has got his nose under your tent and could go for his own plate of meat and potatoes.
The matter of parallel models is something I blundered about on Jack Cummins post upon Jung's understanding of God. The realm of humans and their religion is set side by side with the Physical. The only place they touch is where the function of instincts in the Animal Kingdom enters a new dynamic that allows them to change in ways they didn't before. That moment is the one most in need of explanation. Was it an accident? Was it Michelangelo's God zapping Adam with static electricity? It seems to me that if Jung is successful in uncovering the truth about our development through symbols, he should be able to ask new questions about this hand off.
Quoting T Clark
I wasn't challenging your way of describing mysticism nor objecting to your desire to see it separately from the occult that is not real in your mind. I think everyone who considers the matter has to make that distinction. One way you expressed it is: "taking words that are meant to be metaphorical as literal truth."
Well, it is in the context of metaphor where different interpretations take place. I don't think you should stop using the word altogether. If all our interpretations are just reflections of what we think by ourselves, the sense of sharing a text will be lost. It is in that sense that I said that we cannot cast out those who we even violently disagree with as living on a different planet.
There's good paper on the "red" argument, surprisingly, but that's a topic for another thread.
What you are describing reminds me of Susan Haack's "Innocent Realism", it's very interesting. This one I can share publicly, as opposed to Chomsky's essay, because this one is available online. I'll post it here in case anyone want's to take a look at it, I think it's a promising framework, and seems to follow from what you are saying:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305505412_THE_WORLD_ACCORDING_TO_INNOCENT_REALISM_THE_ONE_AND_THE_MANY_THE_REAL_AND_THE_IMAGINARY_THE_NATURAL_AND_THE_SOCIAL_2016
I think that you are correct to see the term mysticism as a term which can be applied and interpreted in different ways. No one has exclusive claim on the term, or right to say whether or not the term should be used.
There is the whole question of whether Jung was or wasn't a mystic. He was specifically interested in Taoism, but also in many other esoteric ideas. He did not like the term mystic, but was often labelled as one. I think that it is partly a problem of labels and choice of words.
Generally, I think that the use of the word, mystic, itself only matters for ideas being communicated clearly. It goes beyond word categorisation really and is about the ideas stemming and underlying the words. However, it is such a complex area because it is about experiential reality and probably every person has their own unique understanding. No wonder people often speak of the ineffable. Perhaps the people who choose not to describe it know intuitively that they would get tangled up in knots trying to put it all into words and concepts. It may be that the poets and other creative writers were the most accomplished in translating it into language which could be grasped by others.
I draw the line between what is real and what is not at magic, the occult, the supernatural. That isn't exactly the same as the line between philosophy and religion, but it's pretty close. I understand that now I have to define "supernatural." Yes, I know what Arthur C. Clark wrote - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” But leprechauns are not advanced technologists, they're magical creatures. I'm going to leave it there. I'd rather not get involved in a deep discussion of what "magic," "occult," or "supernatural" mean.
Quoting Valentinus
I know I'm repeating myself - there is only one world. One realm. Any distinctions like physical, religious, spiritual, mental, etc. are human overlays. When you say "that moment" do you mean the moment when humans became self-aware? I don't see that as discontinuous with the rest of human evolution. Nothing special. Our self-awareness is not supernatural. I don't know if that's what you were saying.
Quoting Valentinus
I haven't given up on the practice of making interpretations and sharing our understanding. I'm just giving up on that one word.
I'll take a look. Thanks.
People don't choose not to talk about the ineffable. The ineffable cannot be talked about. As Lao Tzu says - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. If you talk about it, it's not ineffable, it's something else. Something effable.
By talking so much about models, I wanted to propose that reference to the "mystical" is always connected to a view of what it is not. That "ordinary" realm is often gestured at as something that doesn't have to explain itself. The given quality of that is a reasonable starting place where ordinary life doesn't include a lot of people walking on water or people really being able to know what will happen next. That approach is very different from the "natural" being sought through what Jung describes as the physical/biological model of evolution.
Some have complained that Jung's account of some experiences are "supernatural" departures of the scientific production of models within which he also participates. I don't care about that. He is the one who set up the differences as possibilities for different outcomes. But such a set up makes talking about a creator a sticky wicket. A "religious" understanding of what comes about is not connected to one of the central ideas of how beings come about. Weak beer if you want your creation narratives attempt to connect what you have learned about the creation to each other.
It may be that some aspects of certain experiences are beyond speech. However, I think that there is a danger of even taking Lao Tzu too literally, and Taoism is only one perspective. Please don't think I am wishing to undervalue the wisdom of Lao Tzu, or your view. It may be that at some stage in my life I have some experience which will lead me to agree with you.
I am not interested in generating definitions for the "supernatural" If that is what the "religious" means for you, then my challenge to compare the scientific/math narrative to the one you are attentive to in Tao Te Ching needs a different set of references.
I will just say: they are different, and go from there.
One of the complexities which I see with trying to evaluate Jung's perspective is that he is drawing upon his own dreams and visionary experience and interpretations of various writers. The effect which I believe that has it makes his writing rich to read and certain ideas stand out.
However, it seems to me that it makes it difficult to analyse them in the exact way which is often done within philosophy. Also, he compresses so much detail and has written so much that it would be a lifetime's work trying to analyse it. But, I still wish to explore his writings, and I found reading 'The Red Book' very interesting. Also, I did manage to have brief access to a very rare book of his, 'The Visions Seminars' and that showed more of his personal visionary experience.
His personal experience of the numinous is so much more evident in writings which were outside of his 'Collected Works'. But, 'Answer to Job' seems to be more on that level, and I believe that he was in a fairly intense state of mind as he wrote it. But I do think that in many ways, his writings fall in the category of 'supernatural' revelations, although outside of the mainstream Christian tradition.
Having just written a long entry here, I am wondering if we discuss Jung any further perhaps it would be best if we resuscitate the 'Jung and God' thread. I don't wish to derail the discussion on mysticism. The reason why it fizzled out was probably because I was struggling to give it as much attention as I wanted because I was staying with my mother for Easter. She wanted me to talk to her rather than sit reading and writing constantly.
Knowledge is not individual, Meta. It is shared.
Good idea. I will try to respond to your observation.
On the other hand, you don't seem interested in the "mystic
versus science point of view that I have been discussing. Does that sort of thing fall outside of your areas of concern?
I am interested in that kind of discussion but it just doesn't seem to be what T Clark is wishing to have. The other thing is that there are so many potential discussions going on that it tthe thread may become really fragmented. So, I am inclined to think that certain areas are best explored as separate threads rather than in this particular one.
Hmmn. T Clark opened this up with a specific alignment to being on board with scientific models as part of the good thing.
If you got something to say about that, what better place?
I will have a look at the beginning again tomorrow, because sometimes when several pages have been written it is easy to lose sight of how it began. I also think that T Clark has arrived at a conclusion, so further exploration of the initial debate is probably more for the open discussion between others.
Take your time.
I don't take your conclusions as the last word on what might happen if challenged.
The editor notes that the subject's sister wrote to him :
Remainder here.
My natural intellectual instinct is to simplify, boil down, condense. That can lead me to toss out some of the subtleties and nuances. But I do recognize that being too literal can be misleading.
Quoting Valentinus
Quoting Jack Cummins
In the OP I tried to make it clear that this would be an open-ended discussion about mysticism. I had my own agenda, which worked out better than I expected. Please go ahead and use the thread as you see fit.
But I have a hard time believing that even this minority has never felt, at least one time, a feeling that this moment here is extraordinary. One aspect of mysticism would be those situations which can be put in words (inadequately) and made manifest, such as being in nature and suddenly feeling how sublime and impactful the world around may be. In this sense there is the external anchor, meaning, we relate the mystical experience with something in manifest reality, the world "out there", to speak loosely.
Another instance would be that of an internal nature. I remember once walking in my city, listening to music, I don't remember what kind. I suppose I was feeling good, or at least I was untroubled. As I was taking my usual route, quite suddenly, my body disappeared from the planet. What follows can only be an aberration as put into words. But it was if my body ceased to exist. I was only consciousness. I suppose a very rough analogy would be to think of the phenomenon of ball lighting in the mind's eye, all there was was thoughts connected to other thoughts, waxing in and out seamlessly.
I had no legs, no arms. The world was gone, in the sense that it receded so far into the background, it was inconsequential and totally negligible. Kinda like when one goes to the movie theater and is so engrossed in the movie, that you cease to notice the seats and people around you, but magnified to maximum capacity.
This must have lasted, I want to say, somewhere between 7 to 10 minutes. As soon as the world left, it came back. And I was immediately cognizant of the fact that something absolutely extraordinary had happened, feeling like a cloud of blissful thought. This kind of mystical experience I'd call "internal", in the sense that the world per se was not the object of amazement. I've never known what it meant, nor how to get that feeling back, if it's possible at all.
I reached no theological conclusions, nor did it vindicate or eliminate any previous views I my have had about the world. Only the trivial statement that the power of the mind is beyond words, by far.
I can only say that I do feel sorry for that potentially few percentage of people who deny or pay no attention to such experiences. But I understand that this type of personal evidence should not be taken to make theoretical postulates about the world.
Sorry for the long post, but I feel I should've shared that, if only for my benefit.
Thanks for telling me your dreams.
I have looked at the introduction to the thread and think that my own interest in mysticism is probably in the sense of category number 7, of hidden truths. One of the books which I am reading currently is 'Secret Teachers of my Western Tradition,' by Gary Lachman. In it, he does look at mystical ideas, such as those of Blake and Goethe. Lachman, who was also drummer in the pop band Blondie, is one of my favourite writers, and also wrote, 'Jung the Mystic', as well as others, including one on the ideas of Rudolf Steiner.
I spend a lot of time reading these books, but I do see it more as a process of gaining wisdom rather than declaring definitive truths. At times in my life I have almost felt 'beaten up' psychologically by people from religious or secular backgrounds who have tried to enforce their ideas. So, when I write on this site, I approach it with a view to meaningful exchange of ideas, but with a certain point of caution. I think that it is a problem if people claim to know more, or have the correct way of seeing than others.
However, that is not to say that there are not methods of analysis or certain knowledge which can be shared. However, I think that the quest which underlies the questions underlying the mystic quest goes beyond the actual ideas. Lachman says,
'Reading is simply more than simply looking at the pages and reflecting them. I have to make the mental effort of absorbing the words, connecting them, and assimilating them to my experience'.
I think that he is capturing the way in which ideas are not independent from our lives. They have to be absorbed subjectively, in order to become insights, rather than just remain as philosophical arguments. I am not saying that philosophical discussion is not an important aspect of this process, but it goes deeper and beyond the surface of the actual arguments, in the development of meaningful insight.
Quoting Manuel
Others, including @Jack Cummins, have noted that, in my search for the meaning of "mysticism" I left something out. I talked about non-rational ways of knowing and about the occult, but I left out discussion of higher states of consciousness. That oversight is probably an expression of bias on my part. I've always thought of those higher states as an expression of a non-rational, intuitive, spontaneous way of knowing and acting like what Lao Tzu describes in the Tao Te Ching. I think that is probably true, but I should have put it on the table with the other possibilities. I did read and enjoy several books by Carlos Castaneda in my youth, although I never saw the experiences described as relevant to my life.
I have read a few books by Carlos Castaneda and found them helpful, although I am not sure to what extent they are fictitious, as I have read some debate on this. Generally, I am interested in shamanism, which does involve exploring states of consciousness.
Even though I suggested to you that I am not a pragmatist, I think that this is not strictly true. I was really meaning more in a literal practical sense. However, my whole interest is in the idea of healing oneself and others, which definitely is about what works. I am interested in exploring ideas beyond conventional ones, but not just as abstract ones, so my own interest in mysticism and the esoteric is in that context. Also, I do believe that people who have accessed higher states of consciousness, such as many described by Bucke, which @Wayfarer referred to, did not stop at the mystical. The mystical experience is often a source for bringing some kind of healing vision to share with others.
Maybe you've mentioned this before - do you follow any meditative practice? It seems like it might be a fruitful direction for you.
This would be my most accurate, classical definition of mysticism. As a pantheist, I believe that everything in the observable universe is our to observe. The word "supernatural" is a misnomer... there is nothing beyond God's nature.
I do some meditation but a bit haphazardly. I may go out and find a group when life begins again, because most things have been closed throughout the time I have use this site.
I have just been reading a book which I think is relevant to the thread: ' Perennial Philosophy, ' by Arthur Versluis. The author suggests that,
' Perennial philosophy points to individual spiritual experiences; and Platonism, Vedanta and Buddhism are based on direct individual realisations, on the experiential transformation and illumination of the individual.'
I think that the mystical experience can often be understood within such a framework.
I think you and I are on the same page.
A little peyote goes a long way....
I'm a coffee in the morning, wine in the evening kind of guy.
One important area is raised by an author Zaehner, in, 'Sacred and Profane Mysticism', is to what extent should the mystical states arrived at naturally, especially in a religious context, be distinguished from those achieved through the use of hallucinogenics? Can they be viewed as having a similar or completely different nature? The complexity of this is the way in which certain states have a chemical basis, but as Zaehner points out, the context is so different, with 'the profane' one occurring artificially, as opposed to naturally.
I think there is a similarity but hallucinogenics are a kind of visa rather than a citizenship in one's existence. My encounter with them was long ago and far away.
I think that the question is really how genuine the ones on hallucinogenics are? But, I am not sure that there are any absolute answers. However, in reading on the topic of mysticism, it does seem that the two contexts are different. One writer who explored this whole area was Aldous Huxley, especially in, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell'. However, his writings do lead to interesting questions about consciousness. He drew upon Bergson's idea of the brain being a 'reducing valve'. From that perspective, the mystic is able to see beyond the ordinary world, into the infinite. In shamanic cultures, this was often seen as voyages to the lower and upper worlds, as part of the quest for healing wisdom.
Quoting Jack Cummins
They can be utterly genuine, but not sustainable and not repeatable. But they can part the curtain, give a glimpse which otherwise in this mortal life you may never get a chance to glimpse. Huxley, I seem to recall, only ever took mescaline twice, once on the celebrated occasion which gave rise to Doors of Perception, and once on death's door.
Incidentally in Zaehner's book there's some pretty harsh polemic meted out to what he categorised as the nature mystics. I seem to recall him saying that the slaughter of such heretics was pious work somewhere in that book, although it is decades since I read it.
It is a while since I read Zaehner's book. However, I think it raises the question of whether one should seek certain states of consciousness, and how. It is also about potential dangers. Even though he was not writing about drugs specifically, Rudolf Steiner said, 'He who imagines that he can violently and forcibly climb into the higher worlds is greatly mistaken.' I also remember reading in Castaneda' s writings, the suggestion that the voyages to otherworlds come with potential dangers, especially of becoming lost, and unable to return to the ordinary world.
Maybe my notion of 'mysticism' is too mundane or prosaic for this new(er) age?
Quoting 180 Proof
Y'know, I suppose now, the everyday dao (wu wei) or that it is (Witty) or musical jubilation (Freddy) aren't "mystical" enough it seems. IIRC, hallucinogens – entheogens too – are just revolving "doors" through which you bring back out only what you've brought in, just stranger now – or less familiar – if you're paying attention. "Derangement of the senses"? Yeah, okay. But "the real trip" estranges the familiar and your everyday (a little or a lot depending upon dosage, purity, setting & mindset) and greets "faces" who "come out of the rain" ... Shamanism, you mentioned, only seems needed where sleepwalking is a chronic sickness & superstitions run rampant, that is, where folks have learned too well (due to religious indoctrination / prohibitions, social or political taboos, lack of courage, etc) to become completely inattentive to their moment-to-moment lives. So, are you experienced? not necessarily stoned ... :fire:
[quote=Buddha]It is better to travel well than it is to arrive.[/quote]
:flower:
I just feel drawn to these areas of thought, and mainly read about them. I think that it is best to avoid using hallucinogenics, as far as possible. I have known people who have become extremely unwell mentally as a result of doing so. I read a lot about shamanism and mostly find that music is about the safest way of conjuring altered states of consciousness. I do believe that meditation is important too, and read writers, such as Gopi Krishna, on kundalini awakenings.
I find the whole exploration of the unfamiliar to be fascinating as part of the quest for creativity and healing. I keep an open mind towards all the many explorations of others, ranging from those of the religious mystics to those from diverse cultures, such as the vision quests of the North American Indians.
I try not to be judgmental about this sort of thing. Use of drugs to change awareness can be part of a disciplined mystical practice. Who am I, as a very undisciplined mystical practitioner, to say.
Me too. As I've said, my take on mysticism is very meat and potatoes. I'm always thinking - what's all the excitement about. I do like Brussels sprouts though.
I'll roll with #3. BTDT, but it's ineffable, so further this affiant sayeth naught.
That was LSD
Plus, to open up a new channel for discussion, I'm just not comfortable with mind-altering substances present in plants; most such chemicals seem to be plant-based. Do plants "know" something we don't? They were here long before animal brains evolved. Puzzling...conscious plants.
[quote=Matt 11.12] And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[/quote]
Quoting TheMadFool
Fair enough. I rather like 'entheogens' but nobody knows what it means. I'm always impressed that Albert Hoffman, who sythesized it, lived until 104. (I've written an instrumental track in his memory called Bicycle Day. I think, regrettably, that Leary was a rascal, though. )
:up: Beautiful. The amazing things you can find on Youtube.....
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm sure not. It was mentioned in passing, one of Prince Phillips [s]gaffes[/s] memorable quips was how at least Edward had the good sense not to talk to plants (the implication being that Charles did not.)
Biblical Entheogen Hypothesis (Benny Shanon)
(Although based on that Wiki page, Leary was tame by comparison! :yikes:
What bothers me is how entheogen-induced mental states have been lumped in with hallucinations as the other word "hallucinogenic" suggests. This smacks of a materialism bias; perhaps not, I'm unsure but it definitely and greatly diminishes the epistemic worth of such experiences. The consensus in the scientific community and by extension the popular view of these mental states is that they're episodes characterized not as a catching glimpses of a different facet of reality but as instances of losing touch with reality. I prefer the former interpretation but, for the moment, can't think of a good reason why? Being as open-minded as possible in this case feels like the right thing to do.
I agree. But it’s a naturally contentious subject, better to steer clear of it IMO.
To my reckoning, what we usually mean by "reality" is simply that "facet of [ALL] reality" in which we can get hurt and die. Remove those pesky factors (injury and death) - not possible as of now - and I'm sure we'll all have a different opinion about what real is.
I found it in internet and you are right! I never thought ecstasy meant this. The Greek word which appears is ??-?????? and then means "to be or stand outside oneself, a removal to elsewhere"
Everyday we can learn something new and thanks to you I now know what is the meaning of a drug :sweat:
I wonder, given what we know or more accurately what we think we know, if there are "silent" genes in plants, much like the letter "h" in honest that, that code for neural tissue and even arms and legs - "animal" bodies to be exact? Conversely, what if some of our genes, those so-called junk DNA, code for plant parts? That would be interesting, don't you think?
:fire:
Quoting 180 Proof
[emphasis added]
Quoting javi2541997
[emphasis added]
I haven't lifted my head out of @T Clark thread on the Tao Te Ching (TTC) for so long.
This morning I thought I would peek in here to see what I could see...
I found the above quotes which relate to the current discussion of Verse 18 of the TTC and 'ego'.
Quoting Amity
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521801
I had never heard of 'unselfings' before this but have read Iris Murdoch.
I found this article by Jules Evans:
https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/iris-murdoch-on-techniques-of-unselfing
I think my time would be better spent on reading such.
A re-visit to Iris Murdoch and listening to her might be just what is right for me, right now.
Either way, I need to get out for a breather...
Thanks :sparkle:
From Amazon:
I never heard about this word neither. In this forum I learn something new everyday! It is amazing. I will check out your link. Appreciated:100:
:up:
It's been a while - some of her writing has a rare power.
As soon as any idea is a consolation the tendency to falsify it becomes strong: hence the traditional problem of preventing the idea of God from degenerating in the believer's mind.
? Iris Murdoch, The Sovereignty of Good
What puzzles me about these various definitions is "self-delusion or dreamy confusion" and "a belief without sound basis" appear alongside God, Deity, Ultimate reality, Spiritual truth, Union, Knowledge & Communion thereunto.
Is God/ultimate reality/spiritual truth only accessible through insanity (delusion) and foolishness (confusion)?
If yes, then TheMadFool must be a mystic of the highest order. :lol: Jokes aside, the idea seems to be transcend logic. The only way I can make sense of this recommendation is to consider logic as just a tiny window our minds have opened unto reality, it operates only at the human scale, the world of things we can bump into so to speak. At scales smaller (atomic/nothing) and larger (cosmic/infinite), logic is useless, even a hindrance. Thus to grasp the full spectrum of reality, ultimate reality as it were, we need to break free from the grips of logic as we know it. God is sometimes viewed as infinity (Georg Cantor's absolute infinity). Has any philosopher understood nothing? :chin:
As for the Tao Te Ching, the last English translation that I read indicates the presence of mystical elements in it...I recall there's mention of infinity at a critical juncture in the book.
the farthest edges of your mind is "mysticism" and the farthest edges of your senses is "spiritual"
As the previous posts in this thread indicate, there is more to it than that.
"If you can't explain it to a 12 year old you still don't understand it."
"If you can't explain it to a forum of cantankerous autodidact philosophers, you still don't understand it."
Try to explain the taste of honey to someone who has never tasted it and realize its impossible and nothing can be explained, for all "explanations" are dependent upon shared experience and experience is ineffable.
"Sweet like sugar, thick and sticky, and slightly floral". Easy.
You just proved my point. You tried to explain the taste of honey using other shared experiences.
I still don't know what honey taste like. When I taste it only then will I realize it was a little bit similar to what you described but also 100% different.
That's fine with me.
So you didn't really explain anything. Or you simply displayed what "explanations" really are. They are nothing but pointers to experiences. and the experiences are ineffable. Therefore nothing is ever explained nor ever will be.
Do you think experiences can be shared?
All communication predicates shared memories.
Two beings that are nothing alike can never communicate. One of them just saying hello might murder the other by accident.
Whatever you say...
The more alike two beings are the easier communication will be.
I think I could explain it to a 12-year-old. People here, @Noble Dust's "cantankerous autodidact philosophers" are more set in their ways. They've read philosophy, found philosophies they like, and become more rigid in their beliefs. Less open to alternative ways of seeing things.
Or maybe they became more firm in the truth.
Hello James, we already debated this topic in this thread created by @T Clark Probably you are interested in what we discussed then because it is related to your question.
What is Mysticism?
Quoting 1 Brother James
I think this is very opened to so different answers. There are people who actually defends they lived some Mysticism and they use it as an argument to explain everything around them. To be honest, I think the same as you and I am agree. For me, Mysticism is another religious belief which operates similar towards another religion dogma. According to the thread I shared above, I wrote back in the day:
Context: We were debating if Taoism could be consider as "Mysticism". I stated no because Tao Te King is clearly a philosophical view which is related to our awareness, life, virtues, ethics, etc...
So much different from Mysticism, which is "spiritual energy" as you mentioned.
The word "mysticism" has many definitions. Yours - "that which the brain cannot experience" - is a bit confusing. You say that mysticism cannot be experienced because mysticism means what the brain cannot experience, which is circular. Here are some common definitions, positive and negative, from a discussion called "What is Mysticism" from a few months ago.
Quoting T Clark
I think you're right, intuition is a big part of mysticism. For me, intuition is a normal part of human mental processing and doesn't involve what I would call "spiritual energy."
Oh, yes, and welcome to the forum.
I coined a term "ExperTuit" that refers to the experience of Invisible phenomena [by what philosophers call] the "Self". I refer to the Self as "Conscious Awareness," or 'C-Awar,' which is where one's Soul stores bits of Truth that one's Soul has acquired by Completing Karma. One's faculty of Intuition can access one's C-Awar, and can use these bits of Truth as a means of resisting a desire by one's MIND. We refer to this "operation" as "Intuition" or Enlightenment. Peace
Probably my point of view was epistemological or metaphysical. I am agree with you in all you said previously but I was referring that I guess mysticism is not observed by intelligence neither is a "Whole of Man" as you said just because I see it as completely dogma. You cannot debate or put arguments (axioms or syllogisms for example) in something as simple as mysticism.
As has been pointed out, there are many definitions abound of mysticism, but I'd like to share my view on it.
I don't think mysticism can be called a religion. Religious individuals can be mystics or partake in mysticism, but the two are different.
Religions are belief systems.
Mysticism concerns itself primarily with peak/mystical/enlightenment experiences.
To the experiencer, these are no different and no less real than their sight, hearing, sense of smell, taste or touch (albeit a lot more profound).
The difference between religion and mysticism is that between which is believed and that which is directly experienced.
The brain creates everything. We don't know its size but it is material. Spiritual things are activities of the brain. All you experience is the spiritual activity of the extension of matter
It doesn't make sense and it disrupts the discussion.
I loosely group as spiritual intangibles such as boundaries, relationships, attitudes.
There is variety in this universe, there is me, there is some other people, there is things of all kinds, there are things I'll never know, all contentedly getting along alongside each other, no grand dichotomies anywhere, just variety. Many people sense all sorts, but I think it unsuitable to push any particular states. Just be you and you'll be surprised what you pick up.
Insights come looking for me. Serendipity = serenity dip. I get insights about what I like to get insights about. They aren't generic, they are personal, which is other people's access point because they know it has been vivid to me. Is designer outlet mysticism rather homogenised and therefore difficult for anyone to recognise as interesting?
This is an old thread. Anand-Haqq was banned two months ago.
The OP of the merged thread:
Given this nonsense, the implication is that the moderating mergerer generally views mysticism as similarly nonsensical. Tellingly, they did not delete the topic or move it to the lounge but merged it into a topic that discusses mysticism in general.
I see it more as showing disrespect for discussions of mysticism in general. I thought the "What is Mysticism?" thread was a good one. It had some rigor and clarity. It really helped me get a hand on what the word means. I think it helped others too. The moderators brought it back from four months in the past just because a couple of us referenced it and it was easy to dump it in the trash with the new thread.
Pisses me off.
Philosophy provided (or at least it tried to) a lot of logical principles to discover the "truth". This word as anothers like "freedom" or "happiness" are so free of interpretation and opened to many answers related. Before blaming philosophy to not discover the truth, you have to ask yourself: what do I consider as a "truth"?
I was in a movement of "charismatics" some years ago and it harmed me a lot because I was "supposed" to try to reach a vague standard which I now see had no basis. This is why I am now very feet on the ground and am opposed to strain of all kinds. I am only interested in what comes looking for me. Almost none of the public are using their faculties as dimosthenes9 was pointing out on another thread. All we need to improve the world is for more people to think straight and think more. I wonder how many self-appointed mystics were under 40 when they started and have not learned how to use their imagination yet. On the other hand some people are doing something highly normal, low key, plain, copious, relaxing and productive e.g poetry, or method in learning, or getting intuitions, but giving it a fancy name "mysticism".
I blame authorities who cut "logic" back to something very small, inaccessible and nasty (and sciences, history and languages likewise). I recommend Straight and crooked thinking by R H Thouless, revised ed, Pan, 1953, and Elementary lessons in logic by W Stanley Jevons, 1888. Jevons' sense of humour is subtle and his range of subject matter wide, familiar and vivid. I ignore his notations. Thouless guards us against the ever increasing gangs of thugs and liars. These things should have been taught in all schools. Don't forget Max Black's warning to not exclude a middle when it ought not to be excluded (middles get excluded far too often).
I used to think visually and even spatially as a small child, and a coach told me to get back to it and my life gradually got back on the rails again. Everyone has got this faculty and ought to start engaging it.
Always look for sound premises and don't be misled by what people "imply". Real logic is about honesty. Knowledge and belief can already be firm to be getting on with when they are tentative and provisional. Always keep all hypotheses on the table indefinitely, but provisionally re-prioritise them.
I am also determined to get infinite use out of words. Words allude (the word is not the thing). When we have a number of intersecting allusions (note my spatial imagery) we can begin to get meaning. Fundamentalists and reifiers deny all meaning(s). S J Gould slammed the reifiers.
Bourdieu is about habitus which is where Dawkins' memes hit us; Husserl describes the stages in perception (more than you would think) including a stage where we can build in a valuation prior to judgment. This is where we can revalue as Nietzsche called for which might help (nothing promised) in coping with traumas / triggers.
Follow J H Newman's "assent to degrees of inference" which is in Grammar of assent (free PDF). Your inference, your degrees of it, your assent, your good pride in your individuality and your productivity of mind. Everything in this world and in life IS betwixt and between and a bit of this a bit of that. Don't believe the heavies who want to deceive you into all or nothing thinking.
Barthes wittily saw semiotics in culture (try his essay 'Plastic'; he also panned the industrialised religion of Loyola), while Peirce saw semiotics in all of nature. I have only dabbled in a few of these authors and have come across commentary about others. I am pinning them on my mental pinboard.
Every day you get up, ask yourself what enlightenment is going to come looking for you today. I find this helps me achieve better than any kind of "mystic" I used to "try" and is more relaxing. If your religion or anything similar gives you facts consider the "mystic" has been done for you. Epicurus begs us not to fall for superstition (neurosis). My physical makeup was always very contemplative anyway.
Relativity and quantum mechanics made good sense to me as a child when my mates explained them to me (they weren't on the syllabus) because they refer to different scales from the scale we are in and which we see. It was always obvious to me all parts of the world interact.
Myth and ceremony are supposed to bring about lesser intensity and not more. This society deprives us of what is normal then sends us on wild goose chases. Don't consent to be stolen from. I think the latest thread start needed widening to this base anyway.
Pardon my interference, but the term "Mysticism "is quite specific in meaning. It refers to the ability to Intuit Spiritual Truth from "Within" ones own Conscious Awareness [or what philosophers refer to as the "Self"]. It also refers to a person's level of Consciousness that enables that person to access Spiritual Knowledge from "Within" him or herself via Intuition. Peace
Could be a brain tumor or perhaps a parasite (t. solium/t. gondi/etc.).
Becoming one with gods or an absolute truth seems impossible. Gods are involved though. Mainly the mystery of their existence is healthy mystic fodder.
Quoting T Clark
That's a theory. Not mysticism.
Quoting T Clark
I dont think so. There is no union involved. At most an intuitive mirror-neuron-like identification with the magic divine essence. Contemplation and meditation are helpful in attaining identification. Self-surrender? Hmmmm...
Quoting T Clark
Comes close.
Quoting T Clark
This is an evaluation, not a definition. Likewise: "Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis"
Leibniz was of the view that our minds are little gods and introvertive mysticism allegedly attempts to find the divine spark within our self.
Extrovertive mysticism is, as the name indicates, appreciating the oneness of nature; union with the cosmic soul (Brahman).
There is the issue of what the true self, or the Divine is and there is the issue of how the person gets there, if at all.
[quote=Wayfarer]Will things go awfully wrong for the JWST or will it go as planned?
— Agent Smith
JWST got through all 344 single-point failures - things that, if they had gone wrong, would have doomed the mission. So - so far it is going exactly as planned, astonishingly well, in fact.[/quote]
Infinite monkey theorem: There are so many attempting to hit the bullseye of mysticism, that one or two most definitely will, even if no skills but only luck is involved. Serendipity, how spectacular you are! Very few could put up a fight against the barbarian hordes: sheer numbers guaranteed victory/defeat depending on which side of the battle you were on.
You know the infinite monkey theorem is a feature of an infinite amount of time.
:ok: No, I wasn't aware of such a connection.
[quote=Wikipedia]The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In fact, the monkey would almost surely type every possible finite text an infinite number of times. However, the probability that monkeys filling the entire observable universe would type a single complete work, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero). The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening, at least as long as it has not occurred, will almost certainly eventually occur.[/quote]
I was under the impression that it's kinda like a lottery. If the right number of people play, one is sure to win (doesn't take an infinite amount of time to actualize an event with a probability near-zero but not zero).
So, if we have an infinity of monkeys, one of 'em should produce the entire works of Shakespeare, in fact everything that was written, is being written, and will be written in a finite amount of time determined by typing speed and the size of all written/spoken text.
Imagine if this were doable. We could find out what Socrates said to his wife Xanthippe (for gossip-mongers), what orders were issued, verbatim, by Napoleon to his general in secret, and so much more.
Any task requires time. Even with an infinite number of monkeys it is not guaranteed that one of them would type any particular thing at first try. This is because many of them would type the very same thing. in the first few moments. So time is the essential feature. We might even consider that one monkey would type all of Shakespeare in an infinite amount of time.
But still we'd have to consider what constitutes all of Shakespeare. Would typing one text at one time, then another text at a much later time qualify? If so, then would typing the first letter at one time, then the second letter at another time, and the third letter at a later time, etc., qualify? What happens with all the intervening letters?
The infinite monkey theorem, as a rendition of the principle of plenitude, is really a demonstration that the idea of infinite time is ridiculous.
I agree with Metaphysician Undercover here. Infinite time is a peculiarity of philosophy, along with the infinite monkey theorem.
Also I disagree with your point about random mystics achieving the goal eventually. As I see it and as it is taught in mystical traditions there is a path, or lifestyle. So if one puts one foot in front of the other on that path, one has achieved one’s goal. Or another way of viewing this is how an acorn becomes a mature tree. It is achieved one growth ring at a time, not all of a sudden by happenstance.
Perhaps by goal you are thinking about the realisation of nirvana. If such a state does indeed exist, then eventually every being would get there in varying ways.
I still feel, time isn't really a factor in re the infinite monkey theorem. Why, as you yourself so graciously pointed out only one monkey would be needed for this rather boring task, it has all of eternity to try out all character combinations.
Say you roll 2 die, the odds of you rolling a 3 on either of them is twice the odds with just one die. Extrapolate that and with [math]\infty[/math] macaques, one will get it right immediately. What say you?
Quoting Punshhh
I guess you feel merit plays a role in all this. One must be pure of heart or a diamond in the rough (Aladdin, Disney), oui? Bad karma, it's said, can cloud your judgment, you wouldn't see God even if He appeared in person in front of you.
According to Tibetan Buddhism, everyone is a buddha. It's just that their bad karma stops them from realizing their own buddhahood (buddha nature). Introvertive mysticism; turn on your little gods (minds, re Leibniz).
The point being that the monkey needs all of eternity (infinite time). Assign any particular amount of time to the monkey and it is highly probable that it would not complete the task in that time. Give the monkey infinite time, and it is impossible that it will not complete the task. As I said above, this just shows how ridiculous the concept of infinite time is.
:ok:
I see your point, only vaguely though.
What truth are you referring to?
(I note no one else picked up this hot potato. Maybe it’s a good way into a discussion of mysticism)
What does it mean to see a point "vaguely"? Does this mean that the point only has a vague existence, or does it mean that your mind only has a vague grasp of it? Or both, or neither? If the point itself is in your mind, then I would conclude both.
Well, it's not at all clear that for the infinite monkey theorem to work infinite time is necessary. Imagine if I have an infinity of googol-sided (10[sup]100[/sup]) dice. Getting a googol on one roll of one such die is vanishingly small, unlikely. However, if I roll all of them (infinite googol-sided dice) at once (think multiverse), at least one of the outcomes will be a googol; the time required is finite - the average amount of time a die will take stop rolling - and not infinite.
Like malignant tumor? :fear:
So you're saying that if there is an infinite number of monkeys typing, it's very likely that one might sit down and type some Shakespeare right off the bat. Well, I see the point but I don't buy it. I guess the example not only shows how ridiculous infinite time is, it shows how ridiculous an infinity of anything is.
What if your die had an infinite number of sides, do you think it would be circular?
Good question but doesn't affect my argument. Spheres do come to rest, oui?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why? Do the math. Lemme show you:
Assume that 5 represents all written/spoken words. and P(x) is the probability of getting x on roll of a die.
1. One die.
P(5)[sub]1[/sub] = [math]\frac{1}{6}[/math]
2. Two dice.
P(5)[sub]2[/sub] = [math]\frac{11}{36}[/math]
3. Three die
P(5)[sub]3[/sub]= [math]\frac{91}{216}[/math]
P(5)[sub]3[/sub] > P(5)[sub]2[/sub] > P(5)[sub]1[/sub]
As the number of dice approaches [math]\infty[/math], P(5) approaches 100% (certainty).
I don't think there is a justified reason to think this.
Well this infinite monkey analogy seems to have a malignancy about it.
But joking aside, what I was saying is that a being achieving a mystical goal, or enlightenment or whatever. Is as a result of the stage of growth they are at as a being*. So for example a mystic, or aspirant might practice really hard in a certain way and achieve enlightenment. But that that achievement was going to happen anyway, irrespective of the course of action of the mystic. That that course of action might be one of a set of behaviours exhibited by a being going through such an inevitable development in the growth of their being.
*I am working from the assumption that a being is in essence transcendent of the world, or some kind of immortal soul.
I do not accept any mathematics which employs infinity. Infinity is not applicable to real world situations Such mathematics may be very useful in many situations, but the infinity monkey example demonstrates how adhering to principles which are not actually applicable to real world situations, will eventually give us absurd conclusions.
Quoting Yohan
That's what I've been saying, the conclusion is based in faulty mathematics which employs infinity as a number.
That's exactly what it means, it's basic calculus.
Well, I won't say you're wrong. There must've been a very good reason why the Greeks were so reluctant to incorporate infinity into their math. Even Archimedes & Eudoxus, two people who were among the first to employ the method of exhaustion simply stopped/limited their calculations at/to an arbitrarily large but finite number (Archimedes used, if memory serves, a 96-sided polygon to approximate a circle when calculating [math]\pi[/math]).
In addition, there's also the small matter of one's sanity. Georg Cantor, to whom we owe our current understanding of [math]\infty[/math], eventually went bonkers, lost his, once formidable, mind.
What, may I ask, are the specific issues you have with [math]\infty[/math]? Is it the paradoxes (Cantor's mind probably couldn't parse them and ergo, his brain crashed) or something else?
It is because, for the Greeks, a number is a count (arithmos). It tells us how many of whatever thing you are counting. There can be no counting without a unit of the count, some one thing that is counted, apples, oranges, or fruit. An infinite or unlimited amount is not a number, it does not tell us how many.
I believe infinity leads to absurdity
Yes, so on this assumption some eastern mystical traditions are poor mystical practice. This is not to say that they are not excellent meditation, or mind control technique’s etc. The notion that anyone can achieve enlightenment simply by acting in exactly the correct way (as in the infinite monkey analogy) is misleading.
Also inline with the other replies I would suggest that infinity is a peculiarity of intellectual thought and cannot be applied to real world situations. For example a pendulum would decelerate & accelerate at infinite rates at the end of each swing. It might be possible to Map this mathematically, but in the real world it is clearly not what happens. Likewise I have yet to come across an example of infinity occurring, or applying to real world situations.
:ok: Yet infinity seems as natural as getting 2 by adding a 1 to 1. A simple procedure (+ 1) can cause so much havoc in our minds. The only option is to deny the existence of infinity, but then a large chunk of modern math would need to be consigned to the rubbish heap. That's what a book on philosophy on math says anyway. Calculus will probably be the first casualty.
Also interesting is the whole number sequence: 0, 1, 2,...
From 0 to 1: That's something from nothing! Creatio ex nihilo.
From 1 to 2: Doubling ( × 2)
From 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 and n to n + 1 hereafter, the ratio [math]\frac{n + 1}{n}[/math] approaches unity (1).
Then there's this: x + 1 = x. The solution is x is nothing. No finite number exists that satisfies this equation.
However, with a little algebra that equation becomes [math]1 + \frac{1}{x} = 1[/math] and we all know [math]\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x} = 0[/math]. In other words x = [math]\infty[/math].
So, x = nothing (no, not zero, nothing), and x = [math]\infty[/math]. That means [math]\infty + 1 = \infty[/math]. Mathematics breaks down!
My simple musings.
For Greek mathematics 2 is the first number. Two tells us how many ones or units of the count. They did not have the concept of zero. There cannot be an infinite number of things because a number tells us how many. But this is not to reject what is unlimited, that is, without number.
Modern physics would not be possible without symbolic mathematics. In modern number theory a number 'n' need not be the number of any particular thing existing or not.
You're joking, right?
Nope. We retain a vestige of this. When we say we have a number of things we do not mean one thing.
Quoting An’ a one, an’ a two …
And this is an example of mysticism? Obsession with lemniscates will lead to no good. Please see your psychoanalyst. :chin:
The problem though is that a curved line is fundamentally different from a straight line, because the curved line, no matter how short the segment, will always require two dimension, and the straight line will always be on one dimension. So there will always be angles between the sides, no matter how many there are. If basic calculus denies this difference between the straight line and the curved line, it must be mistaken.
Quoting Agent Smith
Things like this have proven to be very useful, just like the calculus that Pantagruel refers to, it's very useful. I would call these useful lies.
Quoting Agent Smith
What if I said that the issues I have with infinity are infinite? Look at the issue in my reply to Pantagruel for example. The concept of infinity is used to blur the fundamental difference between the straight line and the curved line. The two are incompatible, but employing infinity makes it seem like they are not incompatible. There are countless examples of similar instances where infinity is used to blur the incompatibility between two fundamentally incompatible things, like discrete and continuous for another example. It's just a basic error carried out for convenience sake, like representing a circle as a 96 sided polygon.
The method of exhaustion, refined to the notion of limits in calculus, is clearly stated as an approximation by mathematicians. A 96-sided polygon isn't a circle but is merely circle-like, that's all. Something is better than nothing, oui? Infinity simply inreases the accuracy of our calculations and I guess that's why it's such a big deal.
Nevertheless, you have a point. Now that I think about it mathematics, though described as the queen of the sciences by Gauss, is like trying to understand women (curves) in very manly (straight lines) terms.
Good day!
:lol: Good call. The lemniscate, if you'll recall, was the reason Cantor lost his marbles. Of course Kroenecker was being nasty; probably that was the proverbial last straw that broke the camel's back.
We say "a" or "an" when there's only one of something e.g. " an apple" or "a dog".
Or, if you are feeling mischievous, hand him some [math] 2^{\aleph_0} [/math] and tell him the computable numbers are countable.
Well it makes for a lovely myth (sort of like Nietzsche going mad from his denial of God). He moved on from the lemniscate to the Hebrew alphabet before going mad, btw.
The circle is the limit of a polygon with n-sides. Each polygon is therefore an approximation of the circle. No polygon is itself the circle, of course. Or let [math] f(n) = 1/n [/math], then we can use a compact notation for taking limits and say [math]f(\infty) = 0 [/math], while [math]\forall n \in \Bbb N \; \; f(n) > 0 [/math]. Note that the function need not achieve the limit but only 'eventually' (for large enough n) get and stay arbitrarily close.
[math]\aleph_0[/math]. That's the only infinity that makes sense to me; kinda feel like a time traveler (physically in the 21[sup]st[/sup] century but mentally a mathematical troglodyte)
Do you mean [math] \aleph_0 [/math], the cardinality of the natural numbers?
Yep, that's the phrase I was looking for. Infinity is used to get as close as possible to a target (curves/females). Have you heard of The Teakettle principle
Aye!
Looked it up, and it's a big part of math. 'We'll transform this into a quadratic equation, which we covered last week...'
As you probably know, the old timers of math tended to feel that way...that only 'potential' infinity was respectable. But beyond what is accepted formally (say you embrace the symbol game of an infinite tower of differing infinities), an ancient problem remains. What does it all mean? To what does it all refer? How does it hook up with the rest of life?
Indeed. Try to compound interest more and more often, and you'll naturally bump into probably the most famous number (for insiders) which is [math]e[/math].
It all depends on how you define "circle-like". Clearly it is not at all "circle-like" when we compare a curved line to straight lines at angles to each other. If the defining thing is practical purpose, then it is circle-like, because it serves the purpose in practice.
But since the representation, which serves the purpose, is really nowhere near like the thing it is meant to represent, we can see a deep problem, if truth is supposed to be correspondence. Our theories which work in practice, and are confirmed and validated by the fact that they do work, (experimentation), might still be far from the truth.
I don't know, but @T Clark might have something to say. The metaphysics, the ontology, of infinity, may not be as important as how useful it is to us. Figuring out if there are actual infinities or if they're just potential infinities would be the icing on the cake, yes?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The word "like", in my humble opinion, furnishes the required degree of freedom to claim that (say) a 192-sided polygon is an approximation of a circle. Your eyes, for sure, will find it really difficult to tell them apart, even your sensitive finger tips will fail in this task.
I believe it's this very issue that you raise that makes infinity so attractive/appealing to mathematicians; You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an [math]\infty[/math]-sided polygon and an actual circle. Invoking Leibniz's 2[sup]nd[/sup] law of identity (the identity of indiscernibles), I'd say it's all good; for all intents and purposes, won't you agree?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
N.B. Something is better than nothing is the key principle at play here. We can reject infinity for many reasons, but look at all the good it's doing!
I wish! :smile:
Yes. And for me the issue of whether there are 'really' various infinities leads inexorably what we could mean if we say so. All roads seem to lead to the 'problem' of the meaning of 'meaning.'
IMO, there would be no difference at all. The phrase 'infinite-sided polygon' is typically interpreted as a circle. (Nonstandard interpretations are possible, of course.)
Even having been a prof of mathematics I learn something about the subject on this forum. Never came across this. :smile:
The senses deceive us, that's why we have logic.
Quoting Agent Smith
I'd disagree, this is not a correct application of the identity of indiscernibles. An infinite sided polygon is an incoherent object. It could not have any identity.
Quoting Agent Smith
Until we reject it, we'll never figure out how much bad it is doing. How much bad does it take to negate how much good?
It's physicists taking a dig at mathematicians. The Teakettle Principle, in my humble opinion, is basically a variation of don't reinvent the wheel principle, but there's more to problem solving than just standard/formulaic solutions, oui?
It (The Teakettle Principle) makes a whole lot of sense, but then it's ridiculous to follow the principle mechanically. That's the gist of the joke as far as I can tell.
All I can say is you're not incorrect, but as I pointed out, infinity allows approximations that turn out to be useful when dealing with feminine geometric objects (curves). Mathematicians seem to have isolated infinity to certain domains in math by way of damage control (infinity is like nuclear power - useful, yes, but extremely dangerous) i.e. they've been retained in areas where the accompanying paradoxes aren't as problematic. This is just a hunch of mine - it seems a reasonable course of action taking into account the givens.
Yep! Thanks for letting me know. @Metaphysician Undercover will find this tid bit right up his alley.
I lost the scent there buddy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:chin:
If I tell you that a tower of infinities actually exists in something like a Platonic realm, what does that mean for you and me? If you tell me that you do believe in [math] \aleph_0 [/math] but not [math]2^{\aleph_0} [/math], what am I to make of that? Does it mean you therefore aren't interested in it? But perhaps a skeptic studies the system to debunk it. On the level of math, it's dry logic, something like a symbol game. This tower exists within that 'fiction,' just as the bishop exists in the rules of Chess. It's not clear what is being denied or asserted when we are talking about the outside of this game. Does the denier mean to indicate that his intuition has peeked into Platonic heaven and only found infinity classic? Or is it a matter of taste? Utility? Maybe a mix of things. In any case, ambiguity.
I'd say you're taking Wittgenstein a bit too far. There are clear-cut definitions in mathematics which don't allow either ambiguity or vagueness. Mind you I'm familiar with high school math only; perhaps it's different at PhD level.
Remember math is a constructed world and in being that it has an advantage viz. precise definitions which, for me, makes no intuitive sense at all. That's just how the game is played I guess.
I know, and that lack of ambiguity pretty much continues as one climbs the mathematical ladder. The issue is not in the system of symbols but in the relationship of that system to the rest of the world.
Think of one version (the formal version) of [math] \aleph_0 [/math] as a dead mark that's moved around according to rules with no other meaning but its relationship to those rules. Then think of what, if anything, this 'infinity' means to you beyond being a dead mark in a dead game. Is there 'infinity' in the real world? That is the zone of ambiguity. What exactly is this real world? Does 'infinity' fit in it somehow?
The weird thing is that we value the dead game because it does help us in the real world. On the basic level, a person can tell the government that they have 3 kids on their tax return.
The issue is that this type of approximation produces the illusion that we understand what a curve is, when we really do not. There's a fundamental incommensurability between two dimensions of space, which makes things like pi and the square root of two irrational ratios. What it indicates is that we lack a proper understanding of space.
The fact that we are in the habit of reducing straight lines at angles to each other to curved lines through the application of infinity, Is evidence that we simply ignore this deep misunderstanding, and proceed as if we think that we understand. I would argue that the "damage control" which you claim, is basically non-existent, because those employing the principles actually believe themselves to have an adequate understand, when infinity proves useful, therefore wouldn't even seek damage control. The problem is prevalent all through modern physics, with vectors and spins, etc..
Quoting Agent Smith
Actually "infinite-sided polygon", to me, can only be interpreted as an incoherent object.
Quoting jas0n
Only coherent intelligible objects could ever exist in the Platonic realm. Incoherencies are banned by the Ruler of the realm.
Quoting jas0n
Actually the issue is not as simple you say. In reality, incoherency is allowed to exist within the system, as the example of "infinite-sided polygon", demonstrates. What happens is that there are problems in the relationship between the system and the world, as you say. But since the problems are associated with the very fundamental aspects of the system, no amount of tweaking the system can overcome the problems. So the only way that the system becomes applicable to the world, is to allow inconsistency into the system, to overrule the problems with the foundational axioms.
The simple reality is that the entire system is flawed, right from the very foundations, so any attempts to make it more applicable will require inconsistency within it. And that's what we see, inconsistency is rampant within the system. The only true fix is to replace the entire system from bottom up, with principles derived from a better understanding of space and time. And that's how this discussion is related to mysticism. We need to turn to mysticism to find that better understanding.
All I can say is
[quote=Voltaire]Le meglio è l'inimico del bene[/quote]
Please note mathematicians are under no illusion that a curve is in fact made up of infinite straight lines. They are, as I tried to impress upon you, estimations (not exactly a curve, but close). I'm reading this book on mathematics and there's a chapter on the dome of the Hagia Sophia which required the construction of a square. The architects had to find the length of the diagonal (actually the [math]\sqrt 2[/math]) and they did that using an ingenious method which involved the use of a rational approxomation much like how Archimedes stopped at [math]\frac{22}{7}[/math] as the value of [math]\pi[/math].
It would be wise not to underestimate the intelligence of people, mathematicians included.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's because your conception of [math]\infty[/math] doesn't allow you to to make sense of it. Different strokes for different folks. to each his own, eh?
I'm sure you're aware of this but how different is a curve from a straight line between two points that are infinitesimally close to each other? Try drawing a chord between two points on a circle. As the two points come closer, the chord and the arc subtended by these two points approach each other. Extrapolate that unto infinity and you'll get an idea of what mathematicians are trying to convey here.
The idea, it seems, is to reduce the error to an arbitrarily small value and what better way to do that than using infinitesimally small straight lines which results in a corresponding infinity of straight lines (smaller the straight lines, more of them you'll need to measure the circumference).
Please note, I have only a rudimentary grasp of mathematics; although I love the subject, it's not exactly my strong suit. Just sharing my intuitions on the matter.
Also, you're correct about how no matter how small you make straight lines, they can never be curves. It depends then, doesn't it, how stringent one's criteria are. If you want to split hairs then all mathematics that depend on infinity and infinitesimals need to be scrapped. We would be much handicapped if we were to do that.
The way out of this would be to accept that infinities can be used for increasing the accuracy of our estimates but then we need to make it clear that no matter how good our estimate it still is never going to be the real McCoy.
What say you?
Cantor's system seems to work just fine. Gödel would allow it in, I think, and actually believe there was such a place.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Something similar to that has been tried: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._E._J._Brouwer
I think anyone can make up their own version of mathematics, but it'd be hard to get anyone to care. Even intuitionism (Brouwer's & Heyting's) and constructivism (like Bishop's) are mostly ignored in universities.
Well, there are lots of ambiguities in mathematical symbolism. The equal symbol for example, then the idea of transforms and transformations, etc. In advanced math one has to consider context to interpret accurately.
Quoting jas0n
Mathematicians in analysis or topology mostly know Brouwer for his famous Fixed Point theorem .
I believe you mean polysemy (a feature) and not ambiguity (a bug).
And as I tried to impress on you, a curve is not even close to a multitude of straight lines.
Quoting Agent Smith
I think I know what mathematicians are trying to convey, I've been told that numerous times. I simply believe that it's fundamentally incorrect. "Infinitesimally close to each other" is not a standard of measurement which has any rigorous meaning. I mean it's not a distance which is measured.
Quoting Agent Smith
Now you're getting the idea. Yes, I agree, that anyone who scrapped that stuff would be greatly handicapped at this time of scrapping the stuff. But necessity is the mother of invention, and what would develop out of the scrapping, making a fresh start, knowing what we know now, would be a great improvement.
Quoting jas0n
That looks interesting.
Quoting jgill
Of the following, I can see intuitively why #2 would be true, but I haven't a clue as to why #1 and #3 are.
[quote=Wikipedia]1. Take two sheets of graph paper of equal size with coordinate systems on them, lay one flat on the table and crumple up (without ripping or tearing) the other one and place it, in any fashion, on top of the first so that the crumpled paper does not reach outside the flat one. There will then be at least one point of the crumpled sheet that lies directly above its corresponding point (i.e. the point with the same coordinates) of the flat sheet. This is a consequence of the n = 2 case of Brouwer's theorem applied to the continuous map that assigns to the coordinates of every point of the crumpled sheet the coordinates of the point of the flat sheet immediately beneath it.
2. Take an ordinary map of a country, and suppose that that map is laid out on a table inside that country. There will always be a "You are Here" point on the map which represents that same point in the country.
3. In three dimensions a consequence of the Brouwer fixed-point theorem is that, no matter how much you stir a cocktail in a glass (or think about milk shake), when the liquid has come to rest, some point in the liquid will end up in exactly the same place in the glass as before you took any action, assuming that the final position of each point is a continuous function of its original position, that the liquid after stirring is contained within the space originally taken up by it, and that the glass (and stirred surface shape) maintain a convex volume. Ordering a cocktail shaken, not stirred defeats the convexity condition ("shaking" being defined as a dynamic series of non-convex inertial containment states in the vacant headspace under a lid). In that case, the theorem would not apply, and thus all points of the liquid disposition are potentially displaced from the original state.[citation needed]'/quote]
Now, you're joking, right? :smile:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Show us then a different method of measuring the length of a curve if not using infinitesimally small straight lines. I bet you can't and so infinitesimals and infinity it is. Nevertheless we'll wait, with baited breath, for you to discover a new way of tackling curves.
Yes, curious isn't it? A problem is that this is an existence theorem. I've never used it for this reason, going instead with Banach's theorem that incorporates a procedure for actually finding such a point (which is unique). In the Brouwer theorem the function f(z)=z means all points are fixed points.
Quoting Agent Smith
Merriam-Webster:
But if you like polysemy, be my guest. Although, to me, it seems unseemly. :roll:
Polysemy is necessary, our memory can't handle so many words as there would've been if it were not a feature of human language.
Ambiguity, a result of polysemy, nevertheless is to be avoided to the extent possible. It causes confusion.
I suppose it's a trade-off: to make language less memory-intensive we need to make a sacrifice, befuddlement.
Ah yes! I'm guessing that's part of his work he didn't find metaphysically sound. I'm pretty much OK with mainstream math. The outsider versions are intriguing though.
The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of comforting ideas.
Of course I'm not joking. Let's assume that two straight lines is "close" to being a single curved line, two being "close" to one. The curved line is a single line, the two straight lines is two distinct lines. Now you seem to think that the more straight lines you put together, 3, 4, 5, 6, the closer you get to being a single line, such that as you approach an infinity of straight lines, it becomes one curved line. Can't you see that you're going the wrong way? Instead of getting closer and closer, you're getting further and further. Producing a larger and larger multiplicity does not somehow produce the conclusion that the multiplicity is getting closer and closer to being a single entity.
Quoting Agent Smith
I use something flexible like a string, bend it around in the curve to be measured, then I lay it out straight and measure it as one long length. The single curved line is effectively converted to a single straight line, then measured as such, in that way. You have to be careful though because the "inside" measurement is always distinctly shorter than the "outside" measurement, and this is a problem which cannot be avoided. So the inside of the string will complete the circle in a shorter length than the outside of the string.
This thing you refer to, "using infinitesimally small straight lines", is not itself an act of measurement, because as I told you, an infinitesimal length cannot be measured, and therefore cannot be used as a unit of measurement.
Quoting jgill
The question then, is there a way to determine whether it is true or not? For example, if you stir a coffee, is there a way to determine that there is a molecule or something like that, which remains in the same place after stirring as it was prior? Or is this just a principle which is useful for some purposes, but is not really true? I guess it depends on what is meant by "continuous function" and whether it is true to think of things in terms like this.
You're a perfectionist and so the mathematics of infinity and infinitesimals won't make any sense to you.
That's exactly the problem. I thought mathematics was supposed to provide us with precision, perfection in our understanding. Then I was disillusioned, realizing that it's all a facade, and deep misunderstanding lies behind.
You're too quick to pass judgment. The precision is there, it's just that your way of looking at math (without infinity and infinitesimals) doesn't allow mathematicians to show you how the margin of error can be reduced to an arbitrarily small value.
Imagine if the true value of a measurement is 4.5879... units. I can get very, very close to that value and that should be more than enough. Note mathematicians are fully aware of this rather embarrassing state of affairs. Irrational numbers were called incommensurables.
So, something that is not perfect is deeply flawed?
What I am saying is that the reason why perfection is impossible is that the tool (mathematics) is fundamentally flawed.
Quoting Agent Smith
It's not an issue of there being a "true value of a measurement" and we can get very very close to that, it's a matter of there being no true value, because the way of measuring is fundamentally flawed. So you have no justification to your claim that you "can get very very close" to the true value. If you could show the true value, to show how close you are to it, you wouldn't accept the "very very close" value, you'd accept the true value instead.
What you're not grasping, is that when measurement is impossible, which is what "incommensurable" implies, then there is no true measurement, and no such thing as close to the true measurement. What is evident is that the measuring tool is inadequate for the job. Need to get a better tool, properly designed for the job
Quoting jgill
Mathematics consists of ideals. An ideal which is not perfect is deeply flawed.
It's an immense subject - Wikipedia has over 26,000 mathematics articles - consisting of a lot more than Platonic ideals. There's a tremendous amount of material concerning how various entities relate to one another. How one theorem gives rise to another, etc. You have a peculiar understanding of the subject.
Measurements work pretty well for something "fundamentally flawed". Try to not be fascinated by the word "incommensurable". It's not the death knoll of math.
I am mostly a constructivist in that my theorems are generally not indirect, but include processes for obtaining mathematical objects. Certain fundamental objects might be considered ideals, but arguing them into new results doesn't make those results ideals. Especially if one creates rather than discovers math - a can of worms.
No one says math is perfect. But it is interesting and useful.
And I'm saying we don't have an option. Infinity and infinitesimals are the best available tools we have to study curves. Maybe some day we'll discover something better. Until that happens, we're stuck with what we have.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:up:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You mean to say the diagonal of a square has no true measurement? What is a true measurement to you?
I have a slightly different opinion. I think we will not discover something better until we reject what we have. As I said, necessity is the mother of invention. Everyday I pick up my hammer and bang some nails. I think this tool's just fine, it serves the purpose well. I will never replace it unless I am dissatisfied with it. And until someone shows me, look it's got this problem and that problem, I'll continue to think it's just fine.
Quoting Agent Smith
I don't know, that was your words. You were talking about being close to the true measurement. If you talk about "true measurement in that way, then there is no such thing. But I think any measurement is a true measurement, how could it not be a true measurement, yet still be a measurement? The issue is the measuring technique.
This is poor logic. I've used a block of wood on nails, when I couldn't find my hammer. When I did find my hammer, I threw away the wood.
True measurement, to me, simply means the correct value of (say) the length of a line. So, a square has a diagonal whose true measurement is [math]\sqrt 2[/math].
:up:
@Metaphysician Undercover [math]\uparrow[/math]
Then how were you distinguishing between the true value of a measurement, and a measurement which is close to the true value?
Suppose there's a line. Do you think the line has a measurement without being measured? How could it?
There are ways...
We could calculate using algebraic techniques. In the case of squares, Pythagoras' theorem shows us that the diagonal is [math]\sqrt 2[/math].