[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Case]

dmb and Dan,

Between the demands of real life and expansion in the land of Norrath time
is in short supply in both my worlds. Sorry for slacking on my responses.


Case said:
Theism is anthropomorphic mysticism and mysticism is narcissistic theism.

dmb says:
Sorry, but its hard to take this seriously. If I were to pretend that
you're not just yanking my chain and that you were try to make an acutal
point, I'd object by saying, "your assertion, sir, is pithy but its also
full of nonsense'.
1) Theism need not include an anthropomorphic concept of god.
2) The word "narcissistic" is just an insulting alternative to
"anthropomorhic". It introduces no meaningful difference and it is not a
reasonable mirror image either.
3) Putting BOTH of the central terms (theism and mysticism) on BOTH sides
of this equation has a slightly humorous effect, but in terms of an actual
philosophical discussion you are merely begging the central question.

[Case]
1. Any theism tends toward anthropomorphism because it is about man’s
relationship to God. This inevitably leads to an understanding of God in
personal terms. Christianity and Judaism certainly follow this pattern.
Even the pantheistic Lakota speak of the Great Spirit as “Grandfather”. Do
you know of a theistic religion that does not do this?
2. Perhaps I have misunderstood but eastern religions that call for one to
see through the illusion of the material world and identify with the whole
ask you to see that you are the cosmos. To elevate oneself to Godhood
certainly seems narcissistic to me.
3. My point is that there is often no clear separation between the two and
that neither view can claim philosophical superiority over the other.

dmb says;
Well, here you seem to be supporting the Oxford quote after all. The fact
that Judaism would regard the assertions of mystic as a blasphemy sort of
shows you what it means to say that theism and mysticism are incompatible.

[Case]
Jewish mysticism involves study and deeper understanding of the Torah. To
Jews such mystical assertions are not blasphemous but to claim to be God
or to identify the self with God would be blasphemy. Again their
understanding of what mysticism is does not square with yours.

Case said:
Theists on the other hand are definitely concerned with their relationshipto
the eternal and in the Judeo-Christian tradition they are concerned about
how men related to God. By ascribing to him human traits they make this
relationship more accessible to just plain regular folks.

dmb says:
As I understand it, the MOQ is aimed at that very problem. The expansion of
rationality was motivated, at least in part, by the fact that mystical
experience has been excluded by the limits of the traditional "means of
testing". I have worked up some pretty good answers to this objection, if I
do say so myself, but it takes lots of explaining. Maybe later. And Ian's
hole is another huge one all by itself.

[Case]
Perhaps Pirsig’s goal is as you have stated it but for me this involves
attempting to understand in what sense moral values can be quantified not
trying to figure out whether atoms and amoebas have likes and dislikes.

dmb says:
Tell me what it means to be an associate of the Jesus Seminar, will you,
you Jesus freak? I've been interested for years as well.

[Case]
You can find out all about the Jesus Seminar at
http://www.westarinstitute.org/. I actually became interested in this
after reading and article in Atlanta Magazine in the ‘80s call Who do Men
Say that I Am? The question I came away with is how did this set of story
take root? What is there in this that appealed to people in the first and
second century that led to these stories shaping the course of western
civilization? I am still working of the answers.

[Dan]
This is assuming there was a historical Jesus to actually say something,
of course. I am sure you know there's not one single shred of evidence to
prove such a man ever lived. Everything we know about Jesus is hearsay. So
tell me: can a person who never existed actually say something?

[Case]
The existence of the man Jesus of Nazareth is as well documented as the
existence of any of his contemporaries. The New Testament canon includes
at least six separate sources. There is a reference in Josephus and
Tacitus as well. It don’t think there is any disagreement in the Jesus
Seminar about whether Jesus existed or not. Their aim is to assess the
historical reliability of the documents we have relating to Jesus. The
stated aim of the Jesus Seminar is to promote religious literacy.
Personally I think that in itself is a worthy goal.

[Dan]
Old Testament bullshit.

[Case]
This reflects ignorance about both the content and function of the Old
Testament. This anthology contains writing that span at least a 1000
years. Parts of it are excruciatingly boring. But other parts are
hysterically funny. For pure philosophy one would be hard pressed to find
a more compelling assessment of the nature of human existence than
Ecclesiastes. From a functional or evolutionary perspective the Old
Testament has guided Jewish culture for nearly 3000 years. Whatever it is,
bullshit it ain’t.

dmb says:
It seems we have different ideas about what mysticism is, because I don't
see how these early disputes have any relevance to mysticism or our
conversation about it. See, I'm talking about a non-theistic mysticism,
one where a debate about the relative humanity and divinity of Jesus
wouldn't even make sense because it is a stance which asserts identity as
opposed to that duality. That's badly put, but basically this is a debate
that can take place only after that monistic, non-theistic mysticism has
already been rejected. It’s not even on the table in that kind of debate
because it rejects the distinction between god and man as the illusion to
be overcome.

[Case]
Each mystic has his own view of what mysticism is. I think there is a lot
of similarity between eastern and  Neoplatonic mysticism but maybe not.

I must add, I was tempted just to respond: Navel-gazing bullshit.