Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

   Post 96. August 06, 2019 continued . . .

  Mysticism

   Empirical Meditation?  

  . . . . Mysticism is a romantic and poetic attitude toward the world, in that it appeals primarily to the sentimental side of human nature, emphasizing Intuition & Feeling over Reason & Sensation6. But, contra Mrs. Underhill, I think the “truths of the heart” are no more or less true than the truths of the head. The empirical facts of Science give us power over mundane Nature, while the “transcendent” truths of Poetry give us power over human nature. I, personally, am grounded in science, but that solid foundation gives me the freedom to explore the great beyond (the unknown). So, I can learn from the “truths” of both Mystics and Skeptics.

Clearly indicating her philosophical Idealism, Underhill says, “this sense world . . . Cannot be the external world, but only the self’s projected image of it. It is a work of art, not a scientific fact.” Yet, realists would make exactly the same argument in reverse about the the extra-sensory world. That’s because the mystical realm is experienced only subjectively, providing no objective evidence of its existence. So, how can we know that the mystic’s glimpses of ultimate reality are not also constructs of the physical brain — as works of imagin-ation? She asserts that “we are locked up with our receiving instruments . . .”, the physical sensory organs. So, she has to postulate a sixth sense, or a third eye7, that can extend con-sciousness beyond the limits of the five senses. There is a long tradition in the East of methods for opening the normally shut eye between the brows, to achieve Enlightenment8. She does present one example of sensory fusion as evidence of “a single and ineffable act of perception.” However, a similar fusion of senses also happens to non-mystics with brain disorders, or drug trips : synesthesia. So again, the evidence is moot.

Underhill often turns the criticisms of skeptics around to reach the opposite conclusion. “. . . An ordinary object of perception, tends to invalidate the simple and comfortable creed of ‘common sense’; that not merely faith, but gross credulity, is needed by the mind which would accept the apparent as the real.”  In other words, don’t believe your mortal eyes, believe your immortal soul. Ironically, Science is a sophisticated form of Realism. It goes beyond appearances to see deeper levels of being, such as the sub-atomic realm. But laymen, must likewise take their reports on faith. So, who are we supposed to believe, those who see what we see, or those who see higher or deeper things? Both disciplines claim to be objective, in the sense that if you look through their scopes you will see what they see. The third eyes of Science are technological instruments, while those of Mysticism are psychological.

Mrs. Underhill wrote a magnificent book to give us muggles a sense of the wonders of the mystical realm. But she deliber-ately omitted non-Christian mystical traditions9. I suppose she feels a kinship with them, but cannot accept their godless Nirvana or impersonal Brahman. Within her own tradition, she is ambivalent toward dogmatic institutional religion versus intuitive personal mysticism. But the BothAnd philosophy can tolerate some ambiguity in our knowledge of truth.  

End of Post 96             

6. Intuition vs Reason :
   The difference between Rationalists and Intuitives is that the latter prefer to simply subconsciously feel the flow, while the former wants to consciously understand the flux of life. Tender-minded Intuitives are typically appalled at the idea of dissecting a living thing, but the Rationalist is excited by the prospect of seeing how the mystery of life works.

7. Third Eye :
   “The third eye (also called the mind's eye, or inner eye) is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye, usually depicted as located on the forehead, which provides perception beyond ordinary sight.”
___Wikipedia
    A more scientific explanation for such insights into “things not seen” is the unique human ability to imagine possibilities beyond the here & now. One example of that talent is our ability to generalize categories from instances. Hence, we can imagine perfect Forms, even though no such things exist in the real world.    Philosophers use the notion of Ideals as aids to thought, but Mystics may treat them as more real than reality.

8. Two Enlightenments :
   The historical era typically labeled The European “Enlightenment”, resulted from illumination shed by the secret-revealing lamp of Reason that used technology to see beyond the superficial appearances of Intuition.
   Long prior to that revelation of natural laws, the Orient had its own enlightenment of the human predicament by the insights of the Buddha into the danger of being led by natural motives. But the “Enlightened One” preferred Intuition to Reason.
   European science looks under the skin of the material world, while Oriental wisdom looks within the observer. Both views have their place in promoting human flourishing.

9. Empirical Religion :
   Mrs. Underhill concludes her introduction : “Oh, taste and see . . . Ours is an experimental science. We can but communicate our system, never its result.” But would she accept the “truths” of Buddhists, who make the same claim of empirical validity?
   “Early Buddhism was based on empirical evidence gained by the sense organs (ayatana) and the Buddha seems to have retained a skeptical distance from certain metaphysical questions,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy

Christian Mystics