[MD] Definitions.

[david buchanan]

Marsha said:
...So RMP is explaining that "mysticism is not something alien" and he wrote the MoQ as a  "connecting link" to a part of ourselves which had always been suppressed by cultural norms.  In other words, he is trying to explain and pointing to experience not limited by concepts and language

dmb says:
Yea, I know. But so what? We're talking about definitions, particularly YOUR contradictory definition. The topic is the importance of definitions to reasoning, to intellectual quality. Mysticism is a worthy topic but it is a different topic than the one being discussed. 

Maybe you're tempted to repeat the idea that mystical reality is not conceptual and so concepts cannot capture the mystical reality. But what's the point unless somebody had said that concepts CAN describe DQ? This is simply not in dispute and it's irrelevant to the topic. To say we ought not use terms in a contradictory way simply has nothing to do with mysticism. It's about definitions and coherence of thought. It's about static intellectual quality. Nobody can get mystical experience from an email, from the assertions made in a discussion group. In this situation, static patterns are all any of us get. 

As I see it, the quote about mysticism not being alien to the American culture means that we don't need to get exotic or otherwise import foreign philosophies like Buddhism. Sometimes he gets fancy about it, talking Taoism or Eckhart, but then it almost always comes back to some common folk wisdom or some old saying that already says what he wants to say. We see this not only in native American concepts of the divinity, like Manito for example, but also in the counter-culture jargon. Just shut up and kindly dig it, man. But these quotes are irrelevant to the topic, which is not mysticism.