Talk:Mysticism/archive 1

Some comments

I've been asked to look in and comment on the article by one of the editors concerned in the current dispute. On the current dispute, I must say that I agree that "divinity" refers both a monotheistic god and to other notions of gods — so I don't really see that the addition does anything except introduce repetition. When Christians talk about Christ's divinity, they're not suggesting that he's not their one god — on the contrary.

What surprises me much more about the summary, though, is that it contains a reference to a book (and a rather old book at that). That's surely inappropriate; particular books might be discussed in the article, or included in a bibliography at the end, but not given a prominent place in the summary of the article. (I'm surprised that no mention is made of better known work, such as that of Dean Inge, F.C. Happold, William James, or Ludwig Wittgenstein, or more recent writing by pople such as Caroline Franks Davis or Steven Katz (I'm typing off the top of my head — there are probably even more obvious or better known writers I should have mentioned).

The summary is also a little too narrow; "mysticism" is also often used to refer to the notion that (the highest form of) knowledge can't be gained through reason or normal experience, but only through some other means (meditation, intuition, drug use, etc.). That knowledge needn't be of either divity or "ultimate reality" (though the latter is, admittedly, very vague). Mysticism is also not always associated with ineffability; mystics sometimes say though that what they have come to know can be understood by others, it can only be known if one follows their methods. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Good comments. I'd like to see your improvements. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to jump in and start being bold after a relatively brief look. Would a section on the philosophical arguments be OK, or would that be better as a separate article? It would cover issues such as the possibility of private experience (Wittgenstein, et al.), the role of interpretation, the relation betwenn thought and language, and so on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Took the liberty to NPOV the intro a bit, added alternative definitions, moved the epistemology text to its own section and deleted the unattributed quote "For he who has had the experience, no words are necessary. For he who has not, no words are possible." I looked to see if I could find someone to attribute this quote but found nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Also fixed the etymology of the word mysticism.≈ jossi ≈ 03:41, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Types of mystical experience

This section, without any attribution or references needs work/cleanup/deletion. As it stands it is dangerously close to original research. One way to address this could be to cite the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in which categories of mystical experiences are classified as Extrovertive, Introvertive, Theistic and non-theistic. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

shall we seek other cources as well then? Gabrielsimon 03:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

expanding intro?

You supplied:

Mysticism is acceptance of the idea that direct experience of union with God, divinity, or Ultimate Reality (or the tendency toward that experience), can be attained, often by a system of prayer, theological contemplation, or meditation focused on such union.

I think that Mysticism cannot be "the acceptance of an idea". That gives readers a subterfuge or a run-around definition. We must offer something more concrete. You also left out the definition that mysticism is theology focused on such a union: "mysticism" can refer to the study of the phenomenon. I have incorporated your "Ultimate Reality" and "meditation"; the exclusion of this latter was not a point of insistence on my part as prayer includes meditation in some traditions. How's it looking? Trc | [msg] 22:07, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

How would this be:

Mysticism is acceptance of the idea that knowledge of direct union with God, divinity, or Ultimate Reality can be experienced, often by a system of prayer, theological contemplation, or meditation focused on such union.

I still cannot find this acceptable:

Mysticism is the direct experience of union with God, Ultimate Reality, or divinity (or the tendency toward that experience), or a system of meditation, prayer or theology focused on such union.

Though I myself accept the idea that the experience is or can be a genuine and profoundly important one, Mysticism is NOT the experience itself. For that other words like Gnosis, and many words in the eastern philosophies and belief systems have been employed. I must leave off editing for today, I might resume dialog tomorrow. I hope we can come to an expression acceptable to us both, and to others. - Moby 22:49, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

++ If I "accept" the idea that prayer might lead to union with God, that is not mysticism. Therefore I consider your definition inaccurate. Note that in the definition you are critiquing, it states "or a system of meditation, prayer, or theology focused on such union", union which includes with "Ultimate Reality" which presumably averts a strictly God-centered conception. Trc | [msg] 23:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

++Your contention that "gnosis" is the principle term for the experience is also inaccurate, as that is the term for privileged knowledge, which may be derived experimentally but it is exclusive, and it is, nonetheless, a term for knowledge, not the experience, not the path. Now by vagueness of language and synecdoche, perhaps some will bleed the two together, but they are distinct. We might say, for some, gnosis is a result of mysticism. I wouldn't think that healthy in my own case, but it illustrates a helpful relationship between the words. (Trc | [msg])

Finally, observe that "prayer ... focused on such a union" perfectly answers your critique, that mysticism is not just the experience. Indeed, a person may pray, hoping one day that God will make deeper union possible, yet not have a noticeable experience of union. The definition you are critiquing is quite complete, actually. Trc | [msg] 00:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In an attempt at arriving at an introduction, that might be generally acceptable I changed:

Mysticism is the direct experience of union with God, Ultimate Reality, or divinity (or the tendency toward that experience), or a system of meditation, prayer or theology focused on such union.

to:

Mysticism is a term that is used to indicate systems of meditation, prayer or theology focused on the direct experience of union with divinity, God, or Ultimate Reality, or to indicate the belief that such experience is a genuine and important source of knowledge about the ultimate nature of Reality and the ultimate or particular relationships of all things.

This gives precedence to one of the ways that some prefer to use the term, and yet acknowledges another of the ways that others tend to use it as well. It acknowledges the very real situation that the use of the term varies greatly: different sources [1] [2] [3] [4] do tend to use the word differently, and with different assessments of which type of use deserves precedence (some of these links seem to give priority to its use in a primarily pejorative, insulting or dismissive way, which is the way that most irritates me). Such diversity of use is not entirely unbefitting a word that refers to the ultimate ranges of mystery, and to that which supremely indicates the ultimate insufficiency of all mortal words, definitions, delineations, notions and conjectures to fully comprehend or convey that which ultimately IS, and all that it dictates. ~ Kalki 21:51, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

++ I am not sure that it is really mysticism to believe that such experience is genuine and/or important ("or the belief that such experience is a genuine and important source of knowledge"). Someone could impassively state, without any attempt to pray or meditate, that mysticism appears genuine, without themselves being at all engaged, i.e., without being mystical. But for now I accept it.

I excised this: ("about the ultimate nature of Reality and the ultimate or particular relationships of all things") because it seems fluffy and we already have a link to Ultimate Reality, which is pretty broad. Trc | [msg] 21:55, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to explain: I removed this ("is a term that is used to indicate ") because it is the 'recursive error'. It interposes an unnecessary distance between the term and the meaning. If a term is used to indicate, then the term is _. Example: Bread is a term used to indicate a starchy bakery product often made of wheat, water, and yeast. Bread is a starchy bakery product often made of wheat, water, and yeast. Trc | [msg] 21:59, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but the term is commonly used in more than one way, and I felt there was a need to emphasize this. To extend the analogy with the use of "Bread" if someone began an article on bread, with a statement "Bread" is money, or Bread is a pop rock band of the 1970s and ignored the use of the term as a food made from ground up grains that would be a deficient introduction, unless it was an article plainly just on the slang use, or the music band. I tend to believe that the term is far more often used to refer to beliefs about the genuine importance of the experiences than it is for the experiences themselves or even the practices involved in attaining them. The latest revision that I saw "Mysticism is meditation, prayer or theology focused on the direct experience of union with divinity, God, or Ultimate Reality, or the belief that such experience is a genuine and important source of knowledge." does seem acceptable to me for now though, and I will think upon the matter more. Good luck to everyone on finding acceptable expressions upon an often difficult and puzzling subject. ~ Kalki 22:26, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

God cannot be removed. Notice the or, its very key. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"good" is abrahamic muslim and christian only, thus exclusitory, "divinity" covers these and all other god type ideas and beings, i feel thats closer to fair. Gabrielsimon 02:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, its actually a german word "Gott", which goes back to ancient pagan times. Anyhow, the divinity article is lousy, have a look. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Etymology is irrelevant; the main point is that "divinity" covers a single (Abrahamic-style) god, pantheistic and panentheistic conceptions, polytheisms, etc. To add "god" is bad enough, being redundant; to replace "divity" by "god" is flat out wrong, as it narrows the focus in a way that falsifies the statement. (The quality of another Wikipedia article is irrelevant to this issue, of course.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any persuasive reasoning, or should I assume the expression of your opinion alone is sufficient in your eyes? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 12:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

i tend to agree with the thought presented. Gabrielsimon 21:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"God" is the english translation term of choice for most faiths, for the vast majority of people, and the outrageous majority of mystics. Think about who mystics are, on average.. Think of midieval alchemists, kabbalist jews, freemasons and rosecrucians. Then think of any abrahamic or vedic believer who also is, or was a mystic. The overwhelming majority utilize(d) a translation of "God" for their focus. To even hint otherwise is unreasonable in the extreme. I don't for a moment think to rule out satanists and others w a non, or anti-God focus from mention in this article, and I find similarly oppose the exclusion of God from this article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

there is no anti god focus here, theres simply a way to make it fair, that the word divinity covers gods of all kinds, thus is not anti anyone focusing. its a way of being fair. Gabrielsimon 22:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing fair about being exclusionary to the majority, for the sake of some postulated minority. Divinity does not encompass God, and the divinity article is terrible. Readers should not be directed there in exclusion of God. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

fix the divinity article then. The word Divinity encompasses all things Divine, including a unified god. please accept this. Gabrielsimon 00:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The divinity article is going to be made into a disambig page, and will never be an acceptable link for the proposed purpose. You've c amp has never given a shred of evidence that either "divinity" (a terrible article), nor the the word or concept "divity" are in any way encompassing of God. State your case before you demamd I accept it, anything less is insulting. I have heard nothing in the way of argument in this regards, only rhetoric and 1st person POV. It would seem an RfC is the next step. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

my "camp"what are you talking about/ im going bythe definition of divinity. Gabrielsimon 01:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

To SS:

1. Pick up a dictionary; look up "divinity". It really doesn't take much research to verify its use both to refer to gods directly (as a count noun) and indirectly by their status and qualities (as a mass noun).
2. "The divinity article is going to be made into a disambig page". The suggestion has just been made ([5]), and no-one has yet commented on it, not even you. I've started trying to improve the article, though I'd agree that there wasn't much to go on.
3. Why do you insist on turning Talk pages into polarised "camps"? That may be how you see the world, but some of have a rather more sophisticated approach.
4. An RfC would be very welcome. I'll place the article there if you don't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment from RfC: Both God and divinity should be included. To exclude God from the intro is to deny the reported experience of many western mystics. To exclude divinity from the intro is also to deny the reported experience of many Western mystics; and the existence of advaita and Theravada mysticism. Wikipedia is not parochial. Septentrionalis 18:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

its not the matter of trying to exclude the westerners, its the matter of combining brevity and accuracey, since divinity covers all things divine, thenthe word god seems unnessessary.

Gabrielsimon 18:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon beat me to it. the point that's being made is that "divinity" includes "god", so that to include both is redundant. To do as SS keeps doing, and replace "divinity" by "god" is simply wrong, as "god" has a much narrower meaning. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, divinity includes "God", but I see no reason not to have both. A possible bit of redundancy seems preferable, since apparently some editors strongly oppose not having "God". Removing divinity wouldn't be appropriate either, the article quality notwithstanding. Friday 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

is your preference based on your abrahamic religious point of view? Gabrielsimon 20:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Errm, no, actually my personal POV is quite far from that, but I'm trying to leave it out in this case. To mention mysticism without "God" would be remiss; history is full of monotheistic mystics. Friday 20:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

that is why we mix bvrevity with accuracey aand use the word divinity becasue it carries both the momno and poly theistic regimes, wiothout gtting into specifics... Gabrielsimon 20:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand. However, do you see that other editors object to leaving out God? If we can leave it in, satisfy more people, and not have edit wars, I feel this justifies the redundancy. If there's a better way to describe it and avoid the whole issue, that's great, let's have some ideas. Until then, I don't see the harm in leaving it in. Friday 20:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

But this is like insisting that we say "all human beings and women..." because some editors either can't or won't see that women are included under "human beings". The simple fact (verifiable in any dictionary) is that "divinity" includes gods of all kinds, from the god of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions to Egyptian pharaohs and minor nature dities, as well as more mystical ideas of non-personal divinity. See the article Divinity on which I'm working at the moment. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I honestly can't quite see it that way, but thanks for the great analogy. I can now see why anyone would object to including both, which I couldn't see before. Maybe a complete rewording is the only way to satisfy all. I think that we can all probably agree that many monotheistic mystics would definitely prefer the word "God" over "divinity" when describing their own belief systems. On the other hand, plenty of non-monotheistic mystics would take offense to using the word "God" and would sooner eat glass than hear their beliefs described in this way. If I can come up with wording that I think both groups could be happy with, I'll put it on the talk page to see if anyone likes it. Friday 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure about the claim that many mystics would object to the word "divinity", or that many polytheists would object to the word "god"; what makes you say that? Do you have anyone in mind? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't, I was just giving unverifiable speculation. I just now got an edit conflict with this, but I'll post it here cuz it still seems relevant: Is it possible that this disgreement is really about the difference between "god" and "God"? Monotheists are going to want "God" obviously, and explanations that divinity includes any "god" may not satisfy. What if we found a way to include "god"(s) or "God" as seperate concepts? A complicating factor may be that the God article seems to be about Upper-case "God", so maybe we don't have a good explanation of lower-case "god". Friday 22:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

thier objections seem larhgely based on thier religion. Gabrielsimon 21:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not see this as supported by the discussion; and Friday denies it. This line of argument is in any case far too close to personal attack. Septentrionalis 22:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus that "divinity" includes "God", and to edit from that position is inherently PoV. (There is even less consensus that "God" includes "divinity", so leaving out divinity is even worse.) For the dissenters, Divinity suggests the impersonal Hegelian absolute; divinity, like lower-case god, one of the anthropomorphic deities of anthropology or Greco-Roman religion. (Since personal bias has been suggested in this discussion, I should perhaps add that I am also arguing for the inclusion of a position I do not hold, but observe to be held.) What, aside from a slight redundancy, is wrong with God, divinity...the rest of the list? Septentrionalis 22:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

                  *******************************

First time listener, first time caller on a WP edit page. My apologies in advance if I don't have the protocols correct. Perusing over the Wikipedia entry and this discussion, I find some gaping holes and unneccesary, protracted discussion (IMHO!!!).

First, the definition of mysticism: Reading through this discussion, it appears that a very good on was abandoned in favor of the current one: "Mysticism is the belief that knowledge of divinity or Ultimate Reality can (only) be gained through direct personal experience."

Hole #1: I might have missed it, but George Fox was definitely a mystic, and his subsequent Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has often been described as "the mystical branch of Christianity." Not that other Christians aren't or can't be, but this is the only sect that specifically *starts* with individual and corporate revelation. Quakers for that reason have no use of a priesthood and most consider the Bible words about God, not the word of God. A nice reference, but not the experience. Yeah, I'm a Quaker.

Hole #2: Perhaps this is semantics, mysticism vs. mystical experience. Active vs. passive. Seeking vs. BANG! YOU ARE IT! Maslow's "Peak experience?" I've had a fair number of "mystical" experiences including that proverbial voice, but one that still humbles me involved my motorcycle, a Colorado mountain road, and high velociity in a sweeping curve. This was many years ago and many years before I would know what mysticism and related is/was. During this very high speed curve, left knee out an inch over the asphalt, I suddenly knew everything there was to know about my Honda and me. I understood every pertinent law of physics, of math, I could "see" the parts of the engine working, the vectors of friction and my tires with the road. It lasted only seconds, and as I came out of the curve and was upright, my only response was, "Holy Excrement! What was that all about?" St. Paul on the Damascus road didn't have a Honda, but he surely found out about BANG! YOU ARE IT!

Hole #3: "Less" perhaps than #2 above, and perhaps more Maslow-ish in terms of possible frequency. To be fair, there was some notion of "the oneness of all creation" in the WP page, but not deserving of the importance as both a phenomena and a hallmark. I think there should be more, because this is a great identifier of the mystical experience. Said experiences are barrier lifting, not creating. They let one see there is no "thee" and "thou", only Oneness. The idea that I am not you is, to cop a Buddhist term, an illusion. This the reason that mystics almost universally set aside war and violence. I think that the collapse of self into "the other" during intense mutual orgasm is very much one of these experiences. After all, our word "sex" comes from Latin, "to split." Orgasm heals that division, even if only momentarily.

Thanks for letting me add mi dos centavos! !paradoxical!

paradoxical - this seems to be a comment on an old version of the page, and a now-defunct argument. maybe something weird wiki-wise has happened? nice comments, though, and worth keeping in mind.  :-) if you could 'sign' your name at the end of your posts using four tildes ~~~~ that would help keep things clear. Ted 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I have yet to hear any argument for inclusion of divinity outside of the broadness and theoretical inoffensiveness of the term, but I would be perfectly happy to have gods mentioned as well as God, I have no desire to exclude any verifiable POV. I will point out however that a near unanimity of mystics are or have been monotheists. Even from the non-abrahamic traditions, mystics are mightily disposed towards dualism or monism. See Theurgy, or Vedanta, for example. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Gods Is God. its all the same. Gabrielsimon 22:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Try clicking on the links. It is not at all the same. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

To reduce edit warring, I'm personally in favor of including any/all of the disputed terms, while this is being hashed out. What's the worst that will happen, we'll give people too broad an impression of mysticism? We're already including several terms there, it seems to me that more harm is done by leaving one out than by putting one in. Friday 23:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

to SS dictionary definitions make Divinity, Gods and God the same thing. please acccept this. Gabrielsimon 23:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries are by nature brief and dogmatic. That is the chief reason encyclopedias exist, to explain distinctions too long or too subtle for a dictionary. (Even so, a competent dictionary will distinguish several senses of divinity; the OED has six, three of which can be objects of mysticism. Half of one is identical with "God".) Septentrionalis 23:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

when trying to define something like divinity as all the concepts it is, one should note that semantics aside, gods, god, and divinity are the same. Gabrielsimon 23:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If that is your POV, it is not shared by most people. It may be monism (everything is the same) which I might agree with, but that doesn't really matter here. Were trying to write an article that describes mysticism in a manner inclusive of most mystics, utilizing what expert references we have available. We editors are not expert references (generally), which is reflected in the paycheck the wikimedia foundation mails us every month. Me, I'm not here for $, or to express myself, I'm here to write an encyclopedia.

regarding the article, what is wrong with:

Mysticism, from the Greek μυω (mueo, "to conceal"), is the pursuit or practice of the direct experience of union with God, gods, esoteric truth, or Ultimate Reality;

? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

Debate over inclusion of a link to God vrs. a link to divinity. Anyone is welcome, regardless of expertise. 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

could someone explain the problem a bit more than this? Not a lot more, just a bit more. FuelWagon 23:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment from FuelWagon

It appears the problem is over the opening sentence, correct?

Mysticism, from the Greek μυω (mueo, "to conceal"), is the pursuit or practice of the direct experience of union with Gods, divinity, esoteric truth, or Ultimate Reality;

Some digging through about two dozen online dictionaries, shows this definition is skewed. of all the definitions, the most common reference was "ultimate reality", the next one was "divine" and only a handful said the word "God". The current definition appears to qualify as original research. Given what I've read from all these dictionaries, I would suggest teh following definition:

Mysticism is the pursuit of communion or conscious awareness with ultimate reality or the divine.

Communion, awareness, consciousness were all common words in the definitions. The different means of pursuing this communion or awareness can fill the article. FuelWagon 23:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There's been much disagreement over what terms to include. I've personally been thinking that in this situation, including more terms to satisfy more editors doesn't usually hurt. If there are specific terms that people object to, they should of course explain their objections. I just checked m-w.com, my personal favorite and as far as I know a reputable dictionary. Their definition happens to include "God" (as well as "spiritual truth"). You've got at least some hopefully reputable dictionaries including "God". You've got some reasonable-sounding (IMO) editors wanting to include "God". Is there a reason it shouldn't be there? Friday 02:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Of the two dozen dictionaries I looked at, "ultimate reality" was number one, followed by divine. "god" was a distant third. just because someone wants to put it in teh definition doesn't mean it qualifies as original research. Based on the outside sources, "god" isn't a hard association with mysticism. if dogmatic editors insist on including it, it should be included at the end of the list. FuelWagon 03:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and someone above is arguing to include one word or another because they prefer the article it links to. This is admitting original research simply because of a personal problem with another article. The defintion of mysticism by the dictionaries shows ultimate reality to be primary, with Divine a close second, and "god" a distant third. That order of prevalence should be reflected in the defintion, and it shouldn't be re-defined simply because someone doesn't like the Divine article or teh God article. If there is a problem with another page it should be fixed. FuelWagon 03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FuuelWagon. WP:Be bold and edit the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

agree with fuelwagon, except a mention of "direct experience" should be retained. the "experience" part is very important. perhaps Mysticism is the pursuit of the direct experience of communion or conscious awareness with ultimate reality or the divine. ?? --Heah (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

intro reverts

Sam Spade, please stop inserting original research. According to these online dictionaries, most define mysticism as primarily being about communing with ultimate reality, secondarily with the divine, and least common with god. wikipedia's definition should match these dictionaries. if you have more dictionaries that show another definition to be more prevalent, please provide a source. FuelWagon 04:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[6] Revision as of 02:03, 2 August 2005 Sam Spade

[7] Revision as of 04:14, 2 August 2005 Sam Spade

[8] Revision as of 03:01, 3 August 2005 Sam Spade

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the dictionaries. I didn't want to look at all 22, so I picked the top 5, and what I found was:

1: defines the term, doesn't mention "God" [9]

2: refers to "mystic" instead of giving good definition [10] (however, askoxford.com's definition of "mystic" does mention "Diety" which I think we can consider fairly equivalent to "God")

3: defines the term, mentions "God" [11]

4: defines the term, mentions "God" [12]

5: defines the term, refers to mystic, doesn't mention "God" [13]

I think this supports the idea of that including "God" is quite common. I don't have any opinion on the order of words that seems to be what the recent edit was about. I'm just saying I think "God" should definitely be included, and (IMO) the very dictionaries you cited support this. Friday 04:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

But "divinity" means "god"; it's one of the main definitions of the word in any dictionary. We're not a thesaurus, we're an encyclopædia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. Let's not engage in original research. Let's use the primary definition of Mysticism. ≈ jossi ≈ 14:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I personally have no objection whatever to saying "God" instead of divinity. However I thought historically there had been those who felt strongly that divinity should be in there as well. If it's going to avoid disagreement, I have no objection to including multiple terms, even at the cost of redundancy. I remember well the comparison to saying "human beings and women", however, that would specifically be insulting to women who read the article. Are we worried about insulting a god who may read the article? Friday 14:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are all the keyword/definitions of mysticism from all the dictionaries listed by here. In parenthesis, I placed a score based on the position of the keywords within the defintion. 3 points for being first in the list, 2 points for being second, and 1 point for being listed third.

intuitive spiritual revelation (+3). communion with the divine(+2) union with divine(+1).

vague or illdefined spiritual or religiosu beliefs. (ignoring this definition)

union with ultimate reality(+4) knowledge of God(+3), spiritual truth(+2), or ultimate reality(+1)

unite with god(+3) through prayer

spiritual understanding(+3), uniting with ultimate reality(+2)

consciousness of the transcendent(+3), ultimate reality(+2), or God(+1).

communion with ultimate reality(+3)

communicate with God(+3) or other forces by prayer/contemplation

intercourse with the divine(+3) Spirit(+2), and aquired a knowledge of God(+1) and of spiritual (+1) things

direct relation with God(+3), the Absolute (+2), or any unifying principle(+1) of life.

union with God(+3) or with some other divine(+2) being or principle(+1)

grasp the divine(+3) essence o; the ultimate reality(+2) of things, and to enjoy the blessedness o actual communion with the Highest(+1).

communion with an ultimate reality(+3)

mystical communion with an ultimate reality(+3)

The resulting totals are

20 ultimate reality 4 + 1 + 2 +2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 3

11 spiritual 3 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 2

9 divine 2 + 1 +3 + 3

11 God 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 3

3 transcendent 3

2 absolute 2

Ultimate reality is clearly the primary definition for mysticism. all the others seem to be tied, plus or minus a margin of error (1 point). So, list the remaining ones in order of most encompasing to least encopassing. From largest set to smallest subset. Divine and spirit both include god, gods, higher powers, personal spirituality, etc. They could be combined into "divine spirit" for a score of 20 that matches ultimate reality.

which gives the defintion "conscious awareness of or communion with ultimate reality, divine spirit, or God." FuelWagon 15:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

why delete God?

Divine spirit is synonymous with any form of god, unified or not, hence i beleive it is appropriate to remove the redundancey of the word. Gabrielsimon 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy? How about you make 2 lists. Pro's and cons. One would be the reasons to include mention of God in the intro, or more specifically, mentioning "the pursuit of achieving communion with, or conscious awareness with God". The other against.

For many people aware of mysticism, or "mystics" (I would argue nearly all), that would be an accurate description. Of the mystics thruout history, you must admit that a mighty portion of them found their focus in God. The idea of excluding a major segment (near unanimity) of mystics, those who are ment to be described in this article, is absurd. I don't focus on "the divine"... who does? You cite some mystics who specifically "achieve communion with, or conscious awareness with "the divine", and I will at least accept the inclusion of the term in the intro. As it is I feel it is an unnecessary reference to a tattered and redundant article, in the intro of this, a far better article. Can we move on and make some agreeable edits to the articles benefit? This discussion isn't helping us, or the article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam, in one paragraph you forward unsourced, original research that a "mighty portion" of mystics commune with God, yet agree to negotiate if someone can cite a source for a mystic who communes with the "Divine". Where is your source for "mighty portion"? Where is your source that such mystics are "near unanimity"? You're doing original research, unsourced edits, and pushing your POV. That isn't helping this article. Wikipedia does not define a word based on your personal experience with mystics whatever that may be, nor does it base it off of anecdotal evidence. Based off of all the online dictionaries I combed through, I found the prevalance of terms that define mysticism. They are sourced, and they are reliable. And they use "Divine", so it belongs in teh definition. please respect wikipedia's guidelines. FuelWagon 20:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Don't quote policy at me, do some real research. I don't know of any mystics who worship "the divine", they all worship God, and I study mysticism everyday. It isn't original research to state that in a talk page. What do you want? A citation? How about 600,000? The 2nd link describes Paul the apostle as a mystic. The Kabbalah is a book of mysticism. Vedanta is a form of metaphysics and mysticism. Sufi Islam is a form of mysticism. All of these major schools of mysticism have God in common. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you quote parts of policy that support you and ignore the policies that don't suit you. You are correct that wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that very same policy also states "an article can and should always begin with a good definition" and if you follow "defintion", it cites dictionaries as the first source. It doesn't say "define the word with anecdotal evidence". And it definitely does not say "ignore dictionaries and find some other source of definitions". So, lets follow policy on this one, define the word based on two dozen online dictionaries, and then you can explore the various subtleties within the article itself. FuelWagon 13:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

dictionary or nbot, divine spirit, and divine, both overlap the concept of god, and to be nnon pov, god should be deleed , because it comes solely from abrahamic erligions,, and is literally a repitition of divine spirit. Gabrielsimon 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to intercede, but this revert war is plain silly. What is wrong with having on the sentence "God" as one of the elements of conscious awareness seeked by Mysticism? ≈ jossi ≈ 00:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

its an obvious overlap with whts already there, i considerthe version thatsthere now more elgant. Gabrielsimon 00:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That is not a substantial enough argument to delete. I am reverting to Sam's version.≈ jossi ≈ 01:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

reposted from above:

Divine spirit is synonymous with any form of god, unified or not, hence i beleive it is appropriate to remove the redundancey of the word. Gabrielsimon 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

is that substantial enoug? Gabrielsimon 01:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand the reason for the disagreement. Many would argue that "God" does not have a synonym... Your interpreation is WP:NOR. In reading above, I see a solid argument by FuelWagon, so I am reverting to his version. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

intuition and insight

Because of all the reverting going on around the definition, I went through the dictionaries again and noticed that a component of the defintion of mysticism is that this communion or awareness of the divine is attained through subjective experience (intuition or insight) rather than rational thought. It was a common theme in various dictionary definitions, so I added it to the article. FuelWagon 15:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

changed "subjective" to "direct, personal" and "personal". subjective isn't a good word to be using here, as supposedly you are communing with ultimate (non-subjective) reality, supposedly an experience that would be pretty much the same for everyone. but you do have to have it personally, and have a direct experience- mysticism is not about reading books and learning theories, but personally and directly communing. --Heah (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

works for me. FuelWagon 16:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is problematic. Among other things, it has some bad English (which is not my native language - and I'm not a linguistic genius) and suffers from vague definitions. I tried to improve on this, but have now lost my momentum. Please do revert or improve, if you think it helps. Kind regards, --Twisturbed Tachyon 20:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)