Episode 14: Methodologies for the Study of Mysticism
If you thought magic was a minefield, wait until you meet mysticism. All terms in the study of religions have potential problems, and need to be defined with some real thought and nuance, but when we are talking about mystical texts, we are in an extra difficult terrain, because the texts themselves often tell us very paradoxical and bizarre things.
What is apophatic mystical writing, and how does it work? How can we interpret an account of an experience which we are told is utterly ineffable? And how do Rupert and Steve fit into all this? This episode addresses these questions.
[Corrigendum: in this episode I make the mistake — which we’ve all made at one time or another — of mixing up my Scotuses. My reference to ‘Duns Scotus Eriugena’ is meant of course to refer to John Scotus Eriugena, the great Irish philosophic theologian of the Carolingian period, not the inconveniently-names John Duns Scotus, who lived in the 13th century and wasn’t particularly esoteric.]
Works Discussed in this Episode:
- James, W., (1982). Marty, M. E. (Ed.). The Varieties of Religious Experience : A Study in Human Nature. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth/New York, NY.
- Katz, S. T., (2000). ‘Mysticism and the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture’. In: Katz, S. T. (Ed.), Mysticism and Sacred Scripture, Oxford University Press, pp. 18-20.
- Plotinus, Enneads, VI.8[39]8.8-15.
- Porphyry, Plot. 23 (This is Porphyry’s biography of his master, Plotinus, usually found at the beginning of any edition of Plotinus’ works).
- Sells, M., 1994. Mystical Languages of Unsaying. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. (Highly recommended!)
Recommended Reading:
- Katz, S. T. (1978). ‘Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism’. In: Katz, S. (Ed.), Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Keller, C. A. (1978). ‘Mystical Literature’. In: Katz, S. (Ed.), Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Kripal, J. J. (2001). Roads of Excess, Palaces of Wisdom: Eroticism and Reflexivity in the Study of Mysticism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
- Merlan, P. (1969). Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness. Problems of the Soul in the Neoaristotelean and Neoplatonic Tradition. Martinus Nijhoff, den Haag.
- Proudfoot, W. (1985). Religious Experience. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA.
- Sells, M. (1985). ‘Apophasis in Plotinus: A Critical Approach’, Harvard Theological Review 78 : 47-65.
- Stace, W. T. (1961). Mysticism and Philosophy. Macmillan, London.
- Turner, D. (1995). The Darkness of God: Negativity in Christian Mysticism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Themes
Apophatic Writing, Buddhism, Methodology, Mysticism, Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Rupert and Steve, Taṣawwuf
Kenneth Selens
May 25, 2020
I have always felt that mysticism was a fairly decent etic universal term, but I do see your point and the obscuring of manifold particulars. Are you saying that you want to give up on ‘mysticism’ for the role as a generalized convenience word, or are you saying you want to give up on the generalized concept all together? If it is the first one I would love to hear if you have a replacement vocabulary?
Earl Fontainelle
May 26, 2020
Dear Kenneth,
I want to do both things.
Generalised convenience word leads to lots of people talking about different things but thinking they are talking about the same thing because they are using the same word, when really they are discussing different things.
Generalised concept: well, what does the generalised concept ‘mysticism’ refer to, in your understanding of it? The fact that I need to ask (and would need to ask each individual person I spoke to) is a sign that maybe the generalised concept is problematic.
Needless to say, none of this has any bearing on things like sublime altered states of consciousness (or sublime normal states of consciousness for that matter), experiences of union, timelessness, visions, alphanumeric recombinatory exercises, or the arts practiced by Dr Strange (all of which, and more, have been called mysticism); it is just an argument for more precise descriptions of these phenomena. Or is Dr Strange doing the same things as Empedocles as Plotinus as the Buddha as Ibn al-‘Arabi as Aleister Crowley as that hippy you picked up hitchhiking who thinks it’s all ‘cosmic, man’? I have my doubts.
I hope that’s helpful.
Kenneth Selens
May 26, 2020
My thinking has been that esotericism and mysticism were nearly identical words. One distinction that I tended towards defined esotericism as doctrines and / or practices that were more or less concealed by the practitioners in the group. While mysticism was thought to be concealed by whatever ultimate reality the group in question conceived of. That being said, I did tend towards defining mysticism as some kind of extra-ordinary religiously altered state of consciousness caused by some level of increased approximation towards that ultimate reality. I’m not saying that this was right thinking but for better or worse this is the line of thinking that I tended towards.
Maybe I will change my thinking and call mysticism and inconvenient generalized term, because I think it’s here to stay. Many scholars that I respect use the term, and it doesn’t really bother me too terribly much. Probably because they do careful and thoughtful descriptions of the particulars once the generalized term sets the stage. I certainly think it would be wrong headed to steer clear of any scholarship that chooses to use the word mysticism due to some kind of academic prejudice. It certainly should be judged on the precision of their descriptions of the particulars on a case by case basis.
Kenneth Selens
May 26, 2020
I feel that I should clarify one thing. When I said that esotericism was more or less concealment by the group in question, the ‘less’ side of the concealment equation could be defined in name only.
Earl Fontainelle
May 26, 2020
Kenneth, I fully agree that scholars who use the term in their work, having defined what they mean by it, should be accorded the greatest respect; they are often writing about the most difficult and fascinating aspects of the human experience, and long may it continue! In this episode I mainly wanted to flag up the dangers of using the term without such rigor, and also mention the fact that I, personally, don’t use it because I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
The fact that one might think that esotericism and mysticism are basically the same thing does indeed flag up a major problem, right?
Kenneth Selens
May 26, 2020
I suppose I need to do more thinking on potential problems with my personal heuristic typology. This being said my area of study isn’t necessarily in western esotericism proper. My main area of study is in the foundational earlier history. Whether or not this even matters is another question. These are all good questions to ask oneself, though. I welcome any constructive criticism on my personal typology, I am not wedded to it. The only thing I will say is I do like good generalized terminology along with precise descriptions of the particulars. My ultimate goal is to be a precise communicator of a mindset that has integrity to stand on.
Kenneth Selens
May 26, 2020
Please do not be hesitant to critique. I joined SHWEP largely because of my desire for a contemporary version of Platonic dialectic.
Earl Fontainelle
May 26, 2020
I certainly have no criticism of the goal of being ‘a precise communicator of a mindset that has integrity to stand on’.
I don’t think we quite live up to the standard of a modern Socratic midwifery, but the fact that you even came here looking for that is a gratifying sign we’re doing something right.
Kenneth Selens
May 26, 2020
I will give a tangible example. Bear with me because it’s been a long time since I’ve read this title but, there is a work called Mysticism in the Gospel of John by Jey Kanagaraj that completely equated esotericism with mysticism with little to no qualifications that I can remember. I seem to recall him saying that at this time in this context they were virtually identical. When he delved into the particulars he gave one of the most complete expositions on Palestinian Jewish mysticism as contrasted with Hellenistic Jewish mysticism, in my humble opinion. His blunt bracketing of esotericism with mysticism ultimately really had no bearing on the comprehensive descriptions in the first half of the book. The second half of the book applied this foundational material to the gospel, and I personally found it to be wantig but, it was still good scholarship. I just hoped it would go a bit futher.