Talk:Rational mysticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 November 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Spirituality Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality. This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rational mysticism article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Deletion proposal 2 Introduction 3 Problems with cites 3.1 Cite #1 3.2 Cite #2 3.3 Cite #4 3.4 Cite #5 3.5 Cites 9, 10 4 Some citations which were removed 4.1 More about edits 4.2 Article issues template 5 WikiProject class rating 6 Tags 7 Original Research? Notable? 8 Tag Removal 9 Added New Tag 10 A Challenge 10.1 Reply to Challenge 11 Great! 11.1 Tips for Updating the Article

[edit] Deletion proposal

I have read Horgan's Rational Mysticism, and there is nothing in the book to insinuate that this is little more than the title of the book. There is no "rational mysticism" movement, theory, or otherwise. Nothing of this sort was mentioned in the book under any "rational mysticism" headline.

Essentially, "rational mysticism" has been mentioned by name twice in history in two unrelated meanings and through original research this article was created.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 06:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

“Rational mysticism attempts to understand mystical manifestions through the use of scientific and rational methodologies. For example, it asks how trance, visions, prayer, and other mystical and religious manifestions work in light of our understanding of neurology and psychology.”

It is my opinion that this encyclopedia article's introduction (portion quoted above) needs to be rewritten and more fully cited. — Athaenara ✉ 22:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I welcome any reliable third party cites that can establish some notability, and that can corroborate that there is actually a rational mysticism area of thought beyond a couple of phrases in the entire history of the literature. I am striving remain neutral on this issue, and if this can be established then I would welcome the article's existence.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with cites

It is telling that for such as small article there are so many cites, most of which are in my opinion dubious at best and not supportive of a notable rational mysticism movement. You must be careful to avoid creating a synthesis of cites which supports a claim not mentioned in the cites. This falls under original research.

[edit] Cite #1

What does cite #1 [1], the have to do with a rational mysticism movement? Where is this movement mentioned? Where is the phrase "rational mysticism"?

[edit] Cite #2

This is a summery of a talk. Nowhere within is a "rational mysticism" movement mentioned. This easily falls under science (neuroscience or neurotheology) and religion, not a new separate movement.

[edit] Cite #4

That phrase was not attributed to Einstein but the editor. Please stop obfuscating the truth and notability with misleading cites. I am removing this cite and the phrase, until it is re-written truthfully.

[edit] Cite #5

Same issue. Where did Plotinus utter the phrase "rational mysticism" or imply an area of thought called that? All I say is the summery of an article in which the author makes the phrase "rational mysticism" in describing some ideas by Plotinus. The utterance has little relevance and that phrase is not the highlight. I am removing this until you can come up with a cite directly from Plotinus, or change the article to reflect the cite.

[edit] Cites 9, 10

These are simply reviews of the book "Rational Mysticism" by Horgan. They are redundant and slightly misleading, but valid I suppose.

--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some citations which were removed

Rational mysticism, a term which was in use as early as 1924,^[1] has been attributed to Albert Einstein^[2] to 3rd century Greek philosopher Plotinus,^[3] and to 20th century South African philosopher John Niemeyer Findlay,^[4] among others.

References

I'm just stashing the above paragraph (not sure which citations were removed and which weren't) for now because I don't have time for more discussion or editing today.

Please note that the quotation (“In creating his radical cosmology, Einstein stitched together a rational mysticism…”) is directly from Powell's book. Powell, who is the author of God in the Equation, is also the executive editor of Discover. My syntax in the citation was confusing—I hope to have time tomorrow to rehash it properly if another editor hasn't done it first. — Athaenara ✉ 04:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[I got back to it later. The intro still needs work.] — Athaenara ✉ 04:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright I guess I was unclear about what you meant by "attributed". My mistake.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More about edits

I identified Powell's position at his magazine because there isn't a Wikipedia article about him which does so. By the same token, I removed "former senior writer for Scientific American" from the Horgan line because the linked Wikipedia article about him gives that information.

In the same edit, I removed a citation: if it's a reference for Horgan I can't see how. If it is, will whoever put it there please speak up here to explain it? Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 09:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[The citation referred to ↑ above: Charles C. McCauley (2005). Zen And the Art of Wholeness: Developing a Personal Spiritual Psychology, 54. ISBN 0595339204. ]

Hi Athaenara, I'm not sure what you mean - provided you are able to view the book page it should be fairly obvious. I'm not sure why a secondary source discussing Horgan and his book requires detailed justification, especially in the context of a "needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications" clean-up tag. Addhoc 23:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's ok—could you tell us what p. 54 of the McCauley book about Zen says which applies to the Horgan book? — Athaenara ✉ 23:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the heading "Rational Mysticism" onwards - I'm guessing you can't view the page? If so, you obviously could view the page by creating a google account if you wanted. Or if you click here then you at least get some confirmation of the subject being discussed. Addhoc 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I use Google book search, but I don't like to because those pages over-stimulate my computer fan ;-)  I hoped you would simply tell us which statement or statements are supported by your citation. — Athaenara ✉ 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the first paragraph is:

In Rational Mysticism: Spirituality Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment, author John Horgan examines the scientific quest to explain the transcendent, but science mainly attempts to do so by reducing the transcendent to something physical. We can use the term Rational Mysticism in an even larger scope. If the immanent arises out of the transcendent, it is in effect contained in the transcendent. Since science examines the immanent reality, it cannot be a full scientific explanation of the transcendent per se, both elegance and mystery found in the physical world hint at something magnificent, something we can only begin to imagine.

Addhoc 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! — Athaenara ✉ 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article issues template

Hypergeometric tagged the article (diff) a few days ago for {{articleissues}} which included:

1. {{citecheck}} for inappropriate or misinterpreted citations
2. {{notability}} in question, may be listed for deletion
3. {{original research}} or unverifiable claims
4. {{POV}} neutrality disputed
5. {{primarysources}} for independent sources
6. {{cleanup-rewrite}} for complete rewrite
7. {{synthesis}} for unpublished synthesis of published material not verified by sources given
8. {{weasel}} for weasel words

I think all of these issues have been addressed effectively. Time to remove the tags? — Athaenara ✉ 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already removed everything but synthesis and notability issues, which were agreed upon by others to still be relevant here. All of the rest have been addressed. Rest assured though, that I will be keeping close eye on this article for any editors that attempt to add the weasel words and original research back in.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 05:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, I never thought this article, which I began, would generate so much heat and controversy. But, perhaps the intellectual heat generated is an indicator of the significance of the concept! Richard Dates 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

If there continues to be no consensus that the article be deleted, at what point should the tags be removed? There are 5 for keeping the article, 3 for removal and one neutral. That is certainly not consensus. Richard Dates (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In my humble opinion, the article is of low notability, and this can be communicated in the template at the top of this page - article tags should be used only for clean-up. Addhoc (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when does an article's lack of notability dismiss the basic issues surrounding the content of the article? The article has been deemed to still have these issues by the admin who determined the "no consensus". The notability of the article doesn't change the fact that it still has these issues. Until a consensus is obtained that it doesn't have these issues, the tags should remain.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The tags should be removed when the issues are solved. Is this that hard to comprehend? The only thing that was determined is that people can't agree that this pathetic article should even exist. This is hardly a mandate to remove clean up tags. In fact, you should encourage the existence of these tags...perhaps it would drive people to improve the truth of this article. Right? *wink*--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's stay focused and not use subjective terms like "pathetic". Please be polite and assume good faith. Thank you. Richard Dates (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research? Notable?

According to the Wikipedia definition "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." An objective observer will note that this concept is not a synthesis of unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements or theories. The concept is clearly actively used in published work by notable authors. Aside from John Horgan, John A. Buehrens former president of the Unitarian Universalist Association and author of several widely circulated books and Sam Harris noted and controversial author have discussed this concept at length. See the links now provided in the article.Richard Dates (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you invoking Sam Harris and John Horgan again? Is this some sort of joke being played on me? Are you serious? Did you even read these articles? Did you even read Rational Mysticism? Are you reading any of the sources you are citing? These sources DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARTICLE. Please stop this nonsense, I beg of you man.

You are literally going to drive me insane. You can't honestly be making this same arguement...there is no way.

JUST BECAUSE IT IS "VERIFIABLE" DOESN'T MEAN IT IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Do you understand this? Let me give you an example. Suppose that I want to write an article on my new physicis theory called "loop theory". In the article, I cite sources, quote physicists, and so forth about the nature of matter. I then arrange this data in order to put forth the existence of my theory. All of the FACTS in my article are verifiable, yet the article would be original research, because it is the assertions that are original.

Your assertion in this article (if it even has one, after I edited the intro statement), is that there is some "rational mysticism" movement. This is the original research, in my opinion, nothing of the sort can be found in the literature. No mention of it was made in any of your cited books. You are implying something that was not implied in the cites You can cite every single word in the article and it won't change anything about the factuality of your assetion.

The only reason your article even exists right now, as well as hundreds of others of this type, is there are not enough experts in this area to make a consensus, so your article is effectivly in limbo, since wikipedia is a appearantly a "include until proven deletable" system. You should be happy this article even exists in its current state...just look at it man...it is a random assembly of facts strung together. It's synthesis is barely even disguised. You should welcome the cleanup tags because this article is completely unencyclopedic at this point. Or maybe you don't welcome the tags, because you want this article to be as "true" as possible.

If you want to conduct academic research, by all means, do so on your own time. Do not use wikipedia for this purpose. Please.

You don't know anything about me, or what I care about, nor do I about you. I for one, actually read Rational Mysticism, so that should say something. All you know is I am absolutely commited to the deletion of articles like this, preventing the undermining of wikipedia, not because it has any great quality (I wish), but because it has become the number one reference among people of my generation. Spreading half-truths, and starting movements, in what is supposed to be a neutral place of verified knowledge is the most pernicious forum of vandalism and you should be ashamed of yourself as a wikipedian.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hyper, your posts frequently violate civility and assume good faith policies as well as the etiquette guideline. That really should stop. — Athaenara ✉ 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypergeometic2F1(a,b,c,x, I have read the material that I cite. This is not "my article"...I started it, but almost all of it is the result of contributions by other persons. I am concerned about your inappropriate statement "You are literally going to drive me insane" which suggests a far too subjective and nonacademic approach to the material. Also, do not misquote me, I do not believe there is a rational mysticism movement. Also this article is not a result of my academic research and your personal attack on me concerning this is also inappropriate. This is simply an article about a topic or concept, not a personal attack, movement or philosophy Richard Dates 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag Removal

I have no vested interest in this article whatever. I have not contributed to it, nor do I plan to contribute to it. I have not authored any books or articles on mysticism, so I have no pet theory or agenda to promote. A google search returns 15,000+ entries that contain the term "rational mysticism". This shows the term is being used in common language. The term "rational mysticism" can be dated back to at least 1911, when Henry W. Clark wrote an article entitled "Rational Mysticism and New Testament Christianity" in the Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 311-329. It may date back even earlier. This is just the earliest I have come across it. It may be the case that not everyone agrees on what constitutes rational mysticism, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes mysticism in general, and yet we have many books and articles on the topic. The majority of people have voted to keep this article. If you wait to remove the tags until everyone involved in the discussion agrees, the tags may never be removed. This could become an abuse of the system--that is, a way for a single person to keep a tag on the page in hopes of getting readers to question its validity because that person does not like or agree with the content of that article. The article still needs to be cleaned up, so other tags requesting cleanup may be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.166.7 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, 15,000 entries for a term is actually a pretty small number, google wise. Especially considering that Rational Mysticism was the title of a best selling book recently.

Secondly, congrats on finding another usage of "rational mysticism", you might as well add it to the pile, because right now we have a pile of statements appropriating the term for a bunch of different diverse topics.

Thirdly, "mysticism" has been studied, defined, written on, research on, etc, while "rational mysticism" has been used for book titles, has not been even attempted to be defined as an area of thought, movement, philosophy, etc, and has not been exclusively researched except in the context of other unrelated ideas. You can't seriously be comparing the validity of the two terms at this point. --Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added New Tag

I added a new tag that indicates a concern for lacking information. (1) I was able to find an early use of the term 'rational mysticism' without too much effort. See Henry W. Clark's article entitled "Rational Mysticism and New Testament Christianity" in the Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 311-329. This wikipedia article should contain other early references to give an indication of the age and original use(s) of the term. (2) I was able to find a couple articles where the writers used the term rational mysticism in different ways. The fact that the term 'rational mysticism' is not used the same way by all writers should be documented and discussed. (3) I was able to find cases where writers applied the term 'rational mysticism' to the views of different philosophers, a use that may not coincide with what most people think about when they think of mysticism. This needs to be documented and discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.166.7 (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the appropriate, academic contribution.Richard Dates 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The tag is appropriate enough. Essentially a rewording of the synthesis tag.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Challenge

I have a challenge for all of you who are in favor of keeping this article; find a workable definition for the term "rational mysticism".

By "workable", I mean a definition, given by a 3rd party that is corroberated by the other cites in the article (or at least not contradicting them).

As of now, the article is a semi-random assemblage of statements by various people. Right now there is NO rational mysticism. Find someones definition that can be used, and that fits with all of the content here. That is my challenge.

Until someone has actually defined or attempted to define what rational mysticism is, there is no rational mysticism as far as I can see. The article continous to be about absolutely nothing.

If this challenge is met I will change my mind and support the article.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Challenge

The term mysticism means different things to different people. For example, surveys show that one out of three Americans say they have had a mystical experience, yet only a few of these people actually have experiences comparable to those of traditional religious mystics [see Thomas, L.E., & Cooper, P.E. (1978). Measurement and Incidence of Mystical Experiences: An Exploratory Study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17(4), 433-437.] In addition, a debate persists in scholarly studies whether mysticism is perennial or constructed [see Short, L. (1995). Mysticism, Mediation, and the Non-Linguistic. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 63(4), 659-675.] Some say mysticism is perennial, which means all mystics have the same basic experience, and only afterwards do they interpret their experiences in terms of particular religious or philosophical traditions. Others say mysticism is constructed, which means that, since social learning influences and shapes every experience, there are as many different mystical experiences as there are social traditions of mysticism. Where one stands with regards to this debate influences how one defines mysticism. It simply may not be practical to offer a single definition of rational mysticism that satisfies everyone--any more than it is possible to offer a single definition of mysticism in general that satisfies everyone. Yet, people still talk about it, monks still practice it, and scholars still study it.

Below are three working definitions of rational mysticism supported by previously published works.

1. Rational mysticism is mysticism practiced to achieve an ultimate intellectual insight concerning reality.

Cooper, E.J. (2007). Escapism or engagement? Plotinus and Feminism. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 23(1), 73-93.

"I define rational mysticism as the thesis that the climax of rational thought is an experience of union with ultimate reality. The means of reaching this climactic experience is rational inasmuch as it proceeds via reasoning to demonstrate both the structure of reality and the path that leads to knowledge of this structure. The experiential goal of the path is mystical, insofar as it is said to transcend knowledge and to obliterate the ordinary distinctions between subject and object, uniting the knower with what is known." Cooper, 2007, p.74

Cooper goes on to explain how the Egyptian-born Greek philosopher Plotinus presented a rational mysticism of the kind she defined.

"According to plotinus’s teaching in the Enneads (the name given to plotinus’s collected works), embodied existence for the human soul can lead to forgetfulness of its divine nature and of the source of its being, the One. The remedy for this condition is to strive to become godlike, a state he defines, quoting Plato, as becoming 'righteous and holy with the help of wisdom.' the whole of Plotinus’s teaching aimed at helping people achieve this end, and he offered a method by which a person can progress, through steps of moral and intellectual training, to awareness of the source of reality through awareness of the true nature of the self as a rational soul." Cooper, 2007, p. 76

This is comparable to a mid-eastern view of mysticism by Ibn Bijja.

Hawi, S.S. (1976). Ibn Tufayl's Appraisal of His Predecessors and Their Influence on His Thought. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 7(1), 89-121.

"Like Aristotle and the Hegelians, Ibn Bijja believed that thought is man's higher function. His conception of ultimate happiness is a curious blend of the views of the First Master and those of the neoplatonic philosophers of the Muslim East. He based this conception on one of Aristotle's essential themes embodied in the Nichomachean Ethics. In this Aristotle declared that human felicity is the rational organized activity of the whole man. Happiness goes primarily hand in hand with the excellent operation of man's distinctive activity, which is contemplation. Like most Muslim philosophers preceding him, Ibn Bijja incorporated this view in his Neoplatonic scheme of things. Man's utmost beatific state, he says, is realized through the contact or conjunction of the human intellect with the active intellect, which is the last intellect to emanate from the Necessary Being and which constitutes a bridge between the world of separate intelligences and the sublunary world. It is imperative that man stimulate, train, and develop his intellectual faculties to the full so that he can achieve contact or conjunction with the active intellect which directs the phenomenal world and from which genuine knowledge emanates to human intellects. In such a conjunction the particular nature of the human is submerged in the universal character of the active intellect through which man achieves lasting happiness. This experience one may categorize as a pure intellectual mysticism: a conjunction with the active intellect and not union with God. It is not hard to see why Ibn Tufayl does not reject such a peculiar view of rational mysticism." Hawai, 1976, pp. 109-110

So, in this view, rational mysticism refers to a mysticism that is achieved through the rational mind and involves an intellectual insight about ultimate reality.

2. Rational mysticism is mysticism practiced to support and confirm the rational understanding of a religion.

Clark, H.W. (1911). Rational mysticism and New Testament Christianity. The Harvard Theological Review, 4(3), 311-329.

"Rational, indeed, New Testament Christianity is, or claims to be; and to show its harmony with reason (provided that the thing be not pushed too far) is one of the chief objects that Christian apologetics may well keep in view." Clark, 1911, p. 311

"And yet that the linking of the three things-mysticism, reason, and the New Testament conception of Christianity-that the linking of the three would, if we could but accomplish it, be most welcome, probably no one would deny." Clark, 1911, p. 312

"Mysticism, then, when it understands itself aright and explains itself truly, remains entirely reasonable just because it does not attempt to substitute itself for reason, but does what, according to reason, requires to be done. It supplies reason with the final fact, and, in doing this, justifies itself in reason's eyes. The mystical experience is reasonable, although not a process of reason, nor something put in place of a process of reason. It does not interpret the system of things -it completes it. And inasmuch as this completing of the system of things is precisely what reason waits for, mysticism links itself with reason in separating itself from reason and in realizing what its own particular mission is; and in speaking of 'rational mysticism' we do but call the mystical experience by a title to which it has a perfectly valid claim." Clark, 1911, p. 322

Clark's concept of rational mysticism is a mysticism that supports belief in the rational understanding of religion. Mysticism is not rational because it employs logical reasoning, but because it produces a feeling that rationally understood religious beliefs are factually valid. The idea that mystical experiences help convince people of the truth of religious beliefs was noted by psychologist George Coe in a 1909 article entitled The Mystical as a Psychological Concept.

Coe, G.A. (1909). The mystical as a psychological concept. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 6(8), 197-202.

3. Rational mysticism is mysticism practiced with a psychological or neurological (i.e., scientifically rational) explanation of mystical experiences.

Robert Masters and Jean Houston outline a series of games or exercises that use hypnotic trance to explore the capabilities of the mind. Their last set of exercises explore mystical experiences, which they consider to be products of the human mind.

Masters, R., & Houston, J. (1972/1998). Mind Games: The Guide to Inner Space. Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House

"In the games to come, there will be the possibility of extremely powerful experiences occurring, including some which may resemble or be the same as those traditionally called 'satori,' 'samadhi,' 'nirvana,' 'cosmisc consciousness,' 'mystical experience,' and others apprehended as 'ultimate reality,' and of the 'integral level.' Powerful, expanded and intense states of consciousness, and the effects of these, can be extremely beneficient, with important breakthroughs and advances in the players' development and movement to self-realization. ...You have learned from the games you have played up till now not to be fearful, but to be respectful of the contents and processes of your own mind, and of the human mind-body system in general." Masters & Houston, 1972/1998, pp. 147-148

Dr. Ronald Havens, a psychologist who has studied hypnosis and mysticism for several years, has recently written a book explaining how to use hypnosis to achieve mystical experiences. He clearly states his approach to mystical experiences is strictly psychological.

Havens, R.A. (2007). Self-Hypnosis for Cosmic Consciousness: Acheiving Alteres States, Mystical Experiences, and Spiritual Enlightenment. Bethel, CT: Crown House Publishing Company.

"My foundation position is that the experiences described in this book are generated by and occur totally within the brain. I do not believe that we are tapping into some external source of light, or energy, or wisdom, nor do I believe that we are opening a connection to one god or another or communicating with the spirit of some ancient guru or ancestor - although that obviously is how many people have interpreted such experiences in the past. No matter how it 'feels' or what it reminds us of, I have no reason to believe that what we are experiencing during a mystical episode (or during any type of so-called 'psychic' or 'supernatural' event for that matter) is anything other than what the brain is inherently capable of generating or experiencing on its own." Havens, 2007, p. xii

Eugene d'Aquili and Andrew Newberg describe their approach to mysticism and to religion in general as rational.

Eugene d'Aquili, E. & Newberg, A. (1999). The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience. Minneapolis, MN: Fortran Press.

"Faith may involve the beginning assumption, but theology itself is always a rational process. We justify the use of theology, as in neurotheology, because it brings all the elements of religion, even those formerly considered irrational and thus not within the purview of theology, under a single rational explanatory mechanism, namely, neuropsychology. Thus, for neuroethology, rationality resides not so much in the logical inferences and deductions from myth as in the fact that other elements of religion, formally considered irrational, can now be explained rationally in their causes and consequences." d'Aquili & Newberg, 1999, p. 12

d'Aquili and Newberg thus claim to have a rational perspective because they are applying a rational science (neuropsychology) to understand religious and mystical experiences.

"In the first place, the idea that the brain and the mind are mystical suggests that the function of the brain and mind can lead to mystical experiences. We will consider the details of how this occurs in a later chapter, but it is necessary here at least to acknowledge that this is part of the overall intent of this book. The implication is that the brain and the mind either generate mystical states or allow us to experience mystical states. Differentiating whether the brain and mind actually cause mystical phenomena or are merely the necessary occasion for them is most difficult. The former implies that mystical phenomena are completely caused and contained within the functions of the brain and the mind. The latter requires that mystical phenomena exist 'out there' in the external world, which can then be experienced by human beings through the brain and mind." d'Aquili & Newberg, 1999, p. 48

Ultimately, d'Aquli and Newberg suggest the mind and brain have evolved in such a way as to give people access to some kind of ultimate reality that exists "out there." This is not the view shared by Havens in his book Self-Hypnosis for Cosmic Consciousness or by Masters and Houston in their book Mind Games. These latter authors view mystical experiences as being generated by and contained entirely within the mind and brain.

John Horgan, by the the title of his book Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality, gives the name "rational mysticism" to the scientific interpretation of mystical experience. A fair portion of his book deals with the psychology and neuroscience of mystical experiences.

Horgan arrives at an essentially negative and disappointed view about mysticism as a result of approaching it from a psychological perspective. Despite suggestions of d'Aquili and Newberg to the contrary, explaining mystical experiences in psychological and neuroscientific terms does not provide the foundation for metaphysical knowledge that Horgan had hoped to find.

However, this is not a negative outcome for others who interpret mystical experiences in psychological and neuroscientific terms. Mystical experiences have psychological and social benefits. People can benefit from mysticism even though it has no validity as a source of metaphysical awareness or metaphysical knowledge. Dr. Haven's book Self-Hypnosis for Cosmic Consciousness, and Masters and Houston's book Mind Games, provide examples of this perspective.

So, I have offered three working definitions of rational mysticism, all supported by previously published works. I think the Wikipedia article should make clear that the concept of rational mysticism does not mean the same thing to all people, and discuss at least the three views of rational mysticism I have described above (other views as well if someone wants to do to the research and document them). I don't think the fact that people have conceived rational mysticism in different ways is a justification for deleting this article...if anything, it's a justification for insisting the article be expanded to include these alternative views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.166.7 (talk • contribs) 21:23-21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great!

Now we need someone to put those ideas in the article in a concise manner. Sorry, I don't have the skill for that.Richard Dates (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't write Wikipedia articles anymore in protest of the 'cult of the layperson' mentality that has arisen in our individualistic culture. The cult of the layperson is the mistaken belief that, because everyone has an equal right to express their opinions, all opinions are equal. It's the idea that the opinion of an uninformed layperson is just as valid and valuable as the opinion of someone who has devoted years to formal study and empirical research on a topic. It isn't. People who put in years of study do, in general, have more valid and more valuable opinions in their areas of expertise than relatively uninformed laypersons. Wikipedia fans the fires of the cult of the layperson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.166.7 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We are laypeople, or at least I am. This is what bothers me about the article. Those are good definitions, and are backed up. The problem is, to synthesize those definitions into one concept would be conducting original research on wikipedia. As laypeople, we should stand back and let an expert do this for his/her dissertation or whatnot, and THEN put it in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place of academic research.

Still, those are good definitions and I applaud your work...it is just that, as of now, rational mysticism seems to be an emerging neologism that perhaps one day will solidify into something workable. Right now, it is at least three different concepts.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All articles in Wikipedia suffer from being open to editing by laypersons. This cannot be taken as a reason for deleting an article, since it would require deleting all articles in Wikipedia.

Mysticism itself is not a unitary concept. The Wikipedia page on Mysticism mentions three general categories of mysticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism#Types_of_experience

One of those three categories is religious mysticism. The Wikipedia article on Mysticism also lists over a dozen different kinds of religious mysticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism#Mystical_traditions

So the idea that there has to be just one concept of rational mysticism, one way of viewing rational mysticism, is simply incorrect. There can be different traditions of rational mysticism just as there are different traditions of religious mysticism. The fact that there are different traditions of rational mysticism does not invalidate the idea of rational mysticism, any more than the fact there are different traditions of religious mysticism invalidates the idea of religious mysticism.

Grouping the different views of rational mysticism into three sections does not by itself constitute a theory or new synthesis. Grouping previously published works into into three sections is just a literary device to help organize the article. A disclaimer can be added to article stating such: "This article contains three sections discussing different views of rational mysticism. The three sections are merely a literary device to help organize the article. The three sections are neither a theory of rational mysticism nor a comphrehensive list of all views of rational mysticism."

The uses of the term "rational mysticism" I reviewed above are not original to me. Cooper (in my review) and Findlay (in the original article) specifically use the term "rational mysticism" to refer to mysticism that is achieved through rational thinking and involves a rational insight. This is not my interpretation. This is how the authors themselves use the term in their published works. Harris specifically uses the term "rational mysticism" to refer to mysticism in which the experiences are interpreted psychologically (with no metaphysical implications) and result in purely psychological benefits (not metaphysical insight or spiritual growth). This is not my interpretation. This is how the author himself uses the term in his published work. Horgan specifically uses the term rational mysticism in the title of his book, in which he explores modern attempts to study mysticism using rational science. The title and content of the book was not my idea. The title and content of the book were determined by the author. McCauley (in the original article) specifically uses the term "rational mysticism" to describe the modern attempt to study mysticism using scientific rationality, and he specifically refers to Horgan's book as the source of the term "rational mysticism" as used in this way. This is not my interpretation. This how the author himself used the term in his book. My review thus refers specifically to the term "rational mysticism" as found in previously published works, and my review uses the term in the same way the authors of those published works used the term. The claim that I am creating original research or a new synthesis in my review is simply unjustified.

Finally, I invoke the first policy of Wikipedia, which is to ignore all other guidleines if it makes Wikipedia better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

This is considered a global policy to consider before all other policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.71.212.251 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote an expert saying in essense what you just said. Quote an expert talking about all of these facets of "rational mysticism". Quote an expert discussing how these far ranging unrealated books that happen to use the same neologisms are warranted to be grouped together in a meaningful concept. Until you do this, you are conducting original research.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not appear familiar with the literature on mysticism. Katz has argued that social learning influences all experiences, including mystical experiences. This means, according to Katz, there are as many different types of mysticism as there are different ways of interpreting mystical experiences. So Christian mysticism is not the same as Buddhist mysticism is not the same as Hindu mysticism is not the same as Jewish mysticism and so on. This view, known as the social constructivist view, has become quite popular among scholars studying mysticism (though, of course, some scholars disagree with Katz). The constructivist view in principle applies to all forms of mysticism because the constructivist view asserts there can never be a mystical experience uninfluenced by social learning. The idea there are many different ways of looking at mysticism depending on how the mystics interpret their experiences is well-established in scholarly literature. If you would like to learn more about the constructivist view, start with Steven Katz's book Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (1978).

According to the policy page: "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." It is therefore NOT original research if the term "rational mysticism" is found in previously published sources, and the discussion of that term is true to the way the authors themselves used it in those previously published sources. I've already shown that several of the authors use the specific term "rational mysticism" and use it in a way that refers to mystical experiences and mystical practices. So, if the article simply talked about these authors and their views, the claim that the article refers to unpublished facts would be patently false.

Don't use my working definitions. Take those off the table. There are still several authors who have used the term "rational mysticism" and use it to refer to a form of mysticism. These include: Cooper, Harris, Clark, Findlay, MCauley, and Horgan (as a critic of the metaphyisical implications of rational mysticism). Just talk about these authors and their views.

I again invoke the global policy of ignore the rules. This policy trumps the policy of no original research. I invoke the global policy of ignore the rules because it would make Wikipedia better to improve this article rather than delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.166.7 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tips for Updating the Article

Here are some tips for updating the article. Start with a simple definitional type statement. Perhaps something like:

Rational mysticism in its most general sense attempts to define a relationship between rational thinking and mystical experience. Different people define this relationship in different ways. This article discusses three ways of relating rational thinking and mystical experience.

Divide the article into three sections using the three working definitions in the reply to the challenge above. Copy and paste the material from the working definitions, adding a few sentences to fill out the text and putting the references in the references section.

Here are suggestions to incorporate some of the article's current references into the three working definitions/sections:

4. Donald Jay Rothberg, Sean M. Kelly (1998). Ken Wilber in Dialogue: Conversations with Leading Transpersonal Thinkers. Quest Books, Chapter 1, p. 2. ISBN 0835607666. ‘…what is arguably the core philosophical and religious lineage of Western culture—what we might call a “rational mysticism” (Findlay 1970) [Ascent to the Absolute]’ (Quoted here, full text on Google Book Search.)

A tribute page to Findlay claims: "He believed in what he termed 'rational mysticism' and held that it was possible for the philosopher to use reason to 'ascend to the absolute' and arrive at those 'places' which traditional mystics intuit through non-rational means." http://www.jnfindlay.com/ A page with a few quotes indicative of Findlay's rational mysticism can be viewed at: http://www.jnfindlay.com/findlay/rational_mysticism/index.html

Findlay's rational mysticism falls in the 1st working definition of mysticism practiced to achieve an intellectual insight of ultimate reality.

7. Sam Harris (March 2007). Rational Mysticism. Free Inquiry. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_25_6

Harris uses the term rational mysticism to refer to mysticism practiced for psychological benefits of personal insight and meaning in life. Rational mysticism is rational because it eliminates irrational religious interpretations and focuses instead on psychological benefits. This fits into the 3rd working definition in which mystical experiences are interpreted in terms of rational science (e.g., psychology).

15. McCauley, Charles C. (2005). Zen And the Art of Wholeness: Developing a Personal Spiritual Psychology (Google Book Search), iUniverse, Ch. 3, p. 54. ISBN 0-59533-920-4. Retrieved on 2007-11-12.

Contains a section entitled "Rational Mysticism." In this section McCauley, describes John Horgan's book, Rational Mysticism, as an attempt to reduce what is experienced during mystical experiences to physical events that can be explained by science. But McCauley defines the term rational mysticism a little differently. McCauley wants to combine the insights gained from mystical experiences with the insights gained from rational scientific inquiry to arrive at a greater synthesis of understanding. He definitely applies the term "rational mysticism" to his views about mysticism.

McCauley would probably fall under the 1st definition of a mysticism practiced to achieve an intellectual insight.

The following references should be researched better before being included in the article:

2. William Kingsland. Rational Mysticism: A Development of Scientific Idealism. London: Allen & Unwin, 1924, description at Weiser Antiquarian Books. Scientific Idealism, or, Matter and Force and Their Relation to Life and Consciousness. London: Rebman, 1909, OCLC number 9226308 on WorldCat.

This is something to research further before including in the article. I don't think it's appropriate to simply say Kingsland related rational mysticism to scientific idealism. This sounds like a guess based on the title.

6. Jeffrey J. Kripal. Introduction (p. 3) Roads of Excess, Palaces of Wisdom: Eroticism and Reflexivity in the Study of Mysticism. University of Chicago Press, 2001. ISBN 0-22634-578-2. “The Sanskritist and Indologist Frits Staal long ago made an eloquent plea for the “rational mystic”… A rational mysticism is not a contradiction in terms; it is a mysticism whose limits are set by reason.”

This is something to pursue. It might fall under the 3rd working definition in which mystical experiences are interpreted in terms of rational science (psychology, neurology, and so forth). Scientific rationality sets the limits of interpreting mystical experiences. However, I have not read Kripal's material, so I can't say for certain this is a viable interpretation of what he wrote. It needs further investigation.

Finally, I suggest dropping the following references from the article:

5. John Herman Randall, Jr. (January-March 1969). The Intelligible Universe of Plotinos. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 3-16 (JSTOR). “In one sense indeed, Plotinos is the most consistent “naturalist” in Greek thought; though of course he is not an empirical and functional naturalist, like Aristotle, but rather a rationalistic and structural naturalist, like Spinoza. Spinoza, in fact, is the one philosopher among moderns with whom Plotinos can be most validly compared. Both Plotinos and Spinoza are rationalists with overtones of rational mysticism.” (Journal article adapted from a chapter in Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis, Columbia University Press, 1970, ISBN 0-23103-327-3.)

Randall makes rather tentative use of the term to form a thematic group of philosophers. He doesn't pursue or develop the idea of rational mysticism apart from discussing the philosophies he has thus grouped together. I don't think this should remain in the article.

13. Corey S. Powell. 2002 first edition: God in the Equation: How Einstein Became the Prophet of the New Religious Era (ISBN 0-68486-348-0). 2003 paperback edition: God in the Equation: How Einstein Transformed Religion (ISBN 0-68486-349-9.) Both editions New York: Free Press. Chapter 3, p. 43. (God in the Equation on Google Book Search. Science News book review.)

This doesn't belong in an article on rational mysticism. Powell uses the term "rational mysticism" purely as an adjective to describe Einstein's theories of the universe compared to the more mechanistic theories of the universe that came before him. This is nothing more than a colorful use of language.

14. Dick Teresi (23 March 2003). Book review: Dude, Where's My Karma?. The New York Times.

This is one among many available reviews of John Horgan's book Rational Mysticism. Unless a review adds something to the concept of rational mysticism not found in Horgan's book, or unless a review documents the history of rational mysticism, I would not include reviews like this in the article. It can be an attempt to make the article seem more credible by inflating the number of references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.166.7 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)