The (lack of the) Mysterious

[DannyL]

You can still find the mysterious, mystical and occult in 'Western' societies if you look (just in different forms), and you can find rationalism and scientific enquiry in 'non-Western' societies.

The kind of "mysticism" (quotes 'cos I don't like the word) I'm most interested in is Hindu Tantra. I've shallowly dipped into the ocean of writing available, but any idea somehow "irrational", part of a binary against which you can contrast the West, is totally wrong . Reading someone like Ahbhivagupta for instance, is just as heavy as reading Betram Russell or Deleuze - he's logically consistent, extremly well argued and grounded in Eastern intellectual traditions that's totally invisble if we succumb to these cliches about the mystical East. IN fact, they are a product of intellectual traditions much older than ours - Abhinavagupta was writing in the 10th Century. It's as much as a challenge - if not more so - to read people like this as it is to grapple with any Western philosphies. The only way to make sense of it is if you totally reject these stupid binary divisions, and try and understand and value these things on their own terms.

 

[zhao]

no time (have to design album cover) but just a small correction for now:

China discovering gunpowder first

 

[nomadthethird]

You can still find the mysterious, mystical and occult in 'Western' societies if you look (just in different forms), and you can find rationalism and scientific enquiry in 'non-Western' societies.

The kind of "mysticism" (quotes 'cos I don't like the word) I'm most interested in is Hindu Tantra. I've shallowly dipped into the ocean of writing available, but any idea somehow "irrational" is totally wrong . Reading someone like Ahbhivagupta for instance - he's logically consistent, extremly well argued and grounded in Eastern intellectual traditions that's totally invisble if we succumb to these cliches about the mystical East. It's as much as a challenge - if not more so - to read people like this as it is to grapple with any Western philosphies. The only way to make sense of it is if you totally reject these stupid binary divisions, and recognise that's it coming from a completely different place intellectually, which has it's own challenges.

Bingo. Totally right. Wins thread.

How many times have I mentioned that I'm into tantra on here, at least as a general interest if not as a strict practice? And other forms of non-dualistic Hinduism from a philosophical perspective.

Quite a few. That's me, though, just dismissing every other rich tradition because I'm teh MEAN.

 

[nomadthethird]

no time (have to design album cover) but just a small correction for now:

Yup, those unscientific, non-rational Asian folk, making sure they don't use science to discover things, so they can keep the world mysterious--that's ancient China for you!

 

[baboon2004]

no time (have to design album cover) but just a small correction for now:

ah, fair enough, my bad! And China could've easily ending up colonising the Americas, for example, but for hisotrical contingency.

Okay then, discovering was incorrect - either way, the point that European hegemony over Africa proceeded from contingent military superiority.

 

[baboon2004]

You can still find the mysterious, mystical and occult in 'Western' societies if you look (just in different forms), and you can find rationalism and scientific enquiry in 'non-Western' societies.

The kind of "mysticism" (quotes 'cos I don't like the word) I'm most interested in is Hindu Tantra. I've shallowly dipped into the ocean of writing available, but any idea somehow "irrational", part of a binary against which you can contrast the West, is totally wrong . Reading someone like Ahbhivagupta for instance, is just as heavy as reading Betram Russell or Deleuze - he's logically consistent, extremly well argued and grounded in Eastern intellectual traditions that's totally invisble if we succumb to these cliches about the mystical East. IN fact, they are a product of intellectual traditions much older than ours - Abhinavagupta was writing in the 10th Century. It's as much as a challenge - if not more so - to read people like this as it is to grapple with any Western philosphies. The only way to make sense of it is if you totally reject these stupid binary divisions, and try and understand and value these things on their own terms.

can add Arabic and Chinese (and no doubt many others') scientific discoveries to this too, as above.

random article to illustrate: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200703/rediscovering.arabic.science.htm#

 

[mms]

Psychozoology, or cryptozoology, as Chaotropic seems to be describing it here is an ethnological/ethnographic project, which does have an empirical basis.

It's a form of data collection, really. Unless there's no data collected and it's just for fun, which is possible, in which case, it's probably a cool hobby, but it's not professional cryptozoology, which would be a little different.

yes all these things cryptozoology, ufo interest, ghosthunting etc, when the'yre not done by self serving egoists and wanna be phoney cult leaders, and the kind of people that come up with mad arguments in order to shun everyone else off as unspiritual, therefore illuminating themselves in the yellowish light of their own soliphism ahem...are mainly about investigation, witness collection, proof, myth collection, historical background, geography, background, possible explanation. A range of methods ( the fun part) to try to come to a sense of conclusion or many.

And yes britain like most other countries is full of these things, the big british one i guess is big cats.

Just wondering what you do when you see something deeply mysterious, do you just sit back and admire it?

 

[Mr. Tea]

The tags list for this thread includes "sweaty anal sex" (is there any other kind?) and "broad cumbucket". Now THAT'S mystery.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

i am only trying to make things a bit more balanced and point out some of the wonderful things about mysticism in some traditional cultures.

no, you also have a weird obsession with claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is some variety of close-minded, bigoted, etc. as well as advancing asinine, nonsensical arguments in the most arrogant manner possible.

let me be as clear as possible

you are not blowing anyone's mind with your incredibly lame, patronizing, 4th-rate take on spiritualism. you're soft-peddling some sophomoric version of all the same stuff we're supposed to be having our minds blown by. no one here is waiting for a Road to Damascus mysticism moment but you, b/c you're the only one who's so incredibly insecure about it.

it's particularly offensive b/c, once again, it's some arrogant Western dude claiming to speak for the traditional, or the indigenous. or whatever. you don't even know anyway. I guess it would be worse if you weren't so utterly clueless about how awful 90% of what you say sounds.

 

[grizzleb]

I'm starting to feel sorry for zhao, that was internet abuse of the highest order.

 

[zhao]

don't feel sorry for me! i'm not the one that should watch his blood pressure

if padraig wants to read a bunch of imaginary bullshit into my simple statements and get worked up about it that's his problem.

(was i ever trying to "blow minds"? no. did i claim to "speak for" anyone? no.)

i like some aspects of "superstitious" "spiritualist" culture, and think life would be richer with them. if that offends some people's progressive liberal sensibilities, well that's just too bad

people got their issues, if spewing bile makes them feel better, i'm all for it.

i know what i know. i love what i love. my inspirations inform my art, my convictions guide me through life. i will continue to seek and to create, and no amount of negativity and hate can change that.

 

[mms]

don't feel sorry for me! i'm not the one that should watch his blood pressure

if padraig wants to read a bunch of imaginary bullshit into my simple statements and get worked up about it that's his problem.

(was i ever trying to "blow minds"? no. did i claim to "speak for" anyone? no.)

i like some aspects of "superstitious" "spiritualist" culture, and think life would be richer with them. if that offends some people's progressive liberal sensibilities, well that's just too bad

people got their issues, if spewing bile makes them feel better, i'm all for it.

i know what i know. i love what i love. my inspirations inform my art, my convictions guide me through life. i will continue to seek and to create, and no amount of negativity and hate can change that.

yes as long as the whole experience has helped with your development as a superior being thts all good.

 

[baboon2004]

i like some aspects of "superstitious" "spiritualist" culture, and think life would be richer with them..

I think everyone here does have some fascination for the Mysterious, really - there's fairly unanimous agreement on that point. But (i) the Mysterious bleeds into the Rational (physics is a great example of this, as is what DannyL says on this page), and, (ii) even if they are taken as discrete concepts, both are present all over the world, with no one region/continent having a privileged position upon either of them.

 

[DannyL]

Actually people like Richard Dawkins (I kind of hate the way his name gets used in every one of these debates, as if one always has to think about and genuflect to his opinion) do seem to have a marked hostility towards the mysterious and the irrational. I was really enjoying his Unweaving the Rainbow until a slightly mad section where he claims the X Files functions as propaganda for "the irrational" and compares it to racism. That's not a man who is comfortable with mystery.

I would genuinely love to hear what he makes of something like surrealism.

 

[DannyL]

Not saying that about anyone here though, obvs.

And on reflection that book does spend too much time railing against his perceived ideological enemies - Blake and various others who advocated a romantic, anti-science position.

 

[scottdisco]

Not saying that about anyone here though, obvs.

And on reflection that book does spend too much time railing against his perceived ideological enemies - Blake and various others who advocated a romantic, anti-science position.

on his personal enemies tip, when Dawkins is bad, he's very bad. politically i've seen him write some foul stuff.

 

[baboon2004]

until a slightly mad section where he claims the X Files functions as propaganda for "the irrational" and compares it to racism. .

I always suspected the X-files was mad racist.

But seriously, you could take a worse example than the massive popularity of the X-Files (not all of it was down to Gillian) for the thirst for and openness to the Mysterious among the Western public. Simple example, but i think a good one.

 

[zhao]

Actually people like Richard Dawkins do seem to have a marked hostility towards the mysterious and the irrational. I was really enjoying his Unweaving the Rainbow until a slightly mad section where he claims the X Files functions as propaganda for "the irrational" and compares it to racism. That's not a man who is comfortable with mystery.

yep. that is what this thread was partially addressing.

i enjoyed one of his book on evolution too - had some good things to say about the dominance of "the discontinuous mind" - been meaning to make a post about that actually.

 

[zhao]

But seriously, you could take a worse example than the massive popularity of the X-Files (not all of it was down to Gillian) for the thirst for and openness to the Mysterious among the Western public. Simple example, but i think a good one.

sure... but commodified and relegated to the sphere of "entertainment", and thus rendered largely impotent, and the sense of mystery alienated from other aspects of life -- not intimately entwined in, and inseparable from, everyday life, like in many of the cultures i refer to (exoticize, romanticize, whatever LOL).

 

[baboon2004]

can you give some examples?