[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Case]

[gav]
seeing things as composed of discrete parts is a
rougher approximation - a poorer analogy - of how
things are than seeing things as coherent integrated
wholes. the latter view is better supported by the
empirical eveidence.

simple.

empirical evidence 1.: we experience reality as a
coherent whole; not as a piecemeal jigsaw puzzle
relative to different constituent parts.

[Case]
Where are you getting this from? Clearly we see things as parts and as
wholes. First of all our perception is divided in five senses which have to
be integrated to make a whole. Secondly even if you only consider the
dominant sense of vision were still see pieces that must be assembled into a
whole. We perceive parts and create wholes out of them. 

What analogy are you talking about? Empirical evidence is sensory data.

[gav]
i think wilber is verbose; way too verbose for me (you
seen the size of 'sex, ecology, verbosity'?. i tried
reading him but fell asleep everytime.

[Case]
I have listened to a couple of lecture series he has done. I liked the holon
thing and he gave a nice summary of Piaget's work in child development. But
then he drifted off into levels and lines and stages and color coded
spiritual levels and I lost interest.

[gav]
do you mean arthur koestler? i liked his novels: 'scum
of the earth' and 'darkness at noon'.

[Case]
I have not read Koestler but apparently he is the same dude.