So the experience of others and learning from others is not part of your approach here? In the case of the Mystic Experience we have some resultant beings with extraordinary messages and exemplary ways of being which are well documented. At a minimum one would expect you to agree that there is (not just evidence for a claim that there is) a unique experience with significant transformation power. Whether or not God is involved can be a question for further discussion.
Hmmm, I'm having quite a bit of trouble understanding how "learning from others" is relevant here. Or that some extraordinary men have had the "mystic experience". It's also true that extraordinary men, especially those of a philosophical and/or artistic disposition have shared many other types of experiences not attributed to anything mystical (ranging from inspirational and transformative experiences to experiences connected to mental illnesses and misuse of drugs and alcohol...). Unfortunatelly, I must re-emphasize the issue of interpretation here. Unless you are able to conclude that the interpretation (or the experienced "instance", if you're more comfortable with that) is indeed a consequence of the same phenomenon, you are still dealing with common interpretations of those "instances" and passively disregarding others. So I'm affraid I can't just accept the premise that there are "mystic experiences" - a type of experience that differs in some relevant way (beyond interpretation) from other types of experiences. I'm sure you'll be very annoyed by me repeating this position.
From my view at this point the hallucination explanation has been slain. Can we not agree, Commoner, that the Mystic Experience is not a hallucination? From my own experience of the Mystic Experience it can be offered that the defining characteristics for a hallucination are not present in any way. One characteristic of the Mystic is absolute honesty. You either consider me truthful or not, fut if so, my testimony should add a smidgeon of evidence with what has already been presented for the removal of the hallucination from your equation. However, delusion requires more discussion.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Certainly, we can agree that your explanation of what you call a "mystic experience" is not a hallucination. But I must re-state that I never meant to use "hallucination" as the de facto explanation of the mystic experience, only to compare the attributes of each type of experience.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yes, the ‘delusion’ is closer. However, it is interesting that you chose Karl Jespers for your definition. He came under considerable criticism for the manner in which he proposed that delusion should be defined and diagnosed. Without going into detail, it is interesting also that the criticism was that using Jespers’ approach could lead therapists into assuming that because they do not understand a patient, the patient is deluded. That is what one feels is happening in this thread, Commoner. So, this loving patient requests greater understanding from you.[/FONT]
Jaspers certainly was criticised, but not for anything relevant to our discussion. His position was that psychopathology was an expression of underlying physical (biological) problems, where environmental conditions only served as triggers - not "shapers" of the particular symptom. He therefore argued that these "symptoms" could not be understood by themselves but point to an underlying disorder - and that's where the "danger" was - that that could be misinterpreted as meaning that anything that could not be understood pointed to a mental disorder. But this is more of a logical mistake that it is a mistake in Jasper's description.
Contrary to that, his critics proposed the source of psychopathology to be environmental (social, cultural,...circumstances) and could therefore be understood by themselves, without a need to establish an underlying disorder. So while I partially agree with you, I don't think this is relevant to our discussion, as we are (or I am) examining the characteristics of delusions not the actual sources of delusions.
[FONT="]A more common definition is ‘delusions are false beliefs that are firmly held. The views of the Mystic have never been proven false and have held for thousands of years. In fact, some very unusual aspects in the earlier years have been verified to be true by science.[/FONT]
Well, under such a broad definition I dare call anyone delusional. I would find it unusual if, in order to diagnose a delusion, one would need to disprove the belief. I mean, certain beliefs clearly cannot be disproven. It has never been proven false that invisible pink unicorns exist, yet we would call anyone asserting that delusional. I must, even though I know you'll object, put the burden of proof on you. You are, after all, asserting that the "mystic experience" is something special, something that differs from our normal experiences, so I feel perfectly justified in expecting you to prove that your assertion is not false, without feeling an overwhelming need to prove that it
is false before calling it delusional. Huh, science? Please tell me more!
Ahhh, but the Mystic has no such lost touch in your reality. Please give permission mentally for one to offer refinement to your perception about why we are having this conversation. It is not due in any way to the Mystic's inability to see your reality exactly as you see it. The Mystic has been through it. This conversation is due to your inability to see reality as the Mystic sees it.
What's the difference? Either I see reality differenty than the mystic, or the mystic sees reality differenty that I. Seeing "more" than the reality most people see can still mean a "loss of touch with reality" if whatever is "added" to the perception is false. So as far as I can see this argument comes down to pure semantics.
[FONT="]If one may offer a counter view to the bolded part above, it has been pretty clearly shown that the mental disorders do not have the same characteristics. There are key differences. Also, one appreciates your ingenuity of debate, broad knowledge, and propensity to grasp anything negative to associate with the Mystic Experience but caffeine overdose and claustrophobia have little to do with our discussion. Claustrophobia is an anxiety fear and is not even a psychosis. But, no matter, you are trying to generate an understanding of a way that the Mystic Experience could be consistent throughout different cultures, time periods, etc. However, you miss the obvious answer as a possibility: the Mystic Experience is a realization of the ultimate truth which is available to anyone at anytime at any place.[/FONT]
Clearly I must have missed the "key differences" and still don't see even one attribute of the "mystic experience" that differs in any relevant way to common human experiences. You seem to think that I'm arguing that your "mystic experience" is a psychosis, but I'm not. I'm saying that,
at most, it shows some characteristics as "unusual" as being the subject of the study of psychopathology.
You're also missing the obvious fact that while I have given a speculative explanation of why the mystic experience might be consistent (which I maybe shouldn't have, even though I tried to stress it was pure speculation), your conclusions are just as speculative but much more extraordinary. Humans have shared many things that have been consistent throughout history and cultures, I find it surprising that this would seem unusual to you - or that finding this consistency in something would prompt you to label it as "special".