Greg Stafford:
> I don't consider the TV version of Shaolin Buddhism to be the type of
> mystic that I am talking about either. Great TV show, great character
> type, but not mystical as I have defined it.
I'm more concerned about the ShaoLin version of ShaoLin, personally, which I also get the impression you're saying can't be "mysticism".
I'm still unclear what 'the definition' a la Greg of mysticism actually is (perhaps possibly because this thread has landed here unannounced, and is missing some original context from Another Place), though I think I'm getting a feel for it by osmosis. But even from this single message, I get different nuances:
> attaining enlightment through transcendant means.
I think a better definition would be attaining transcendence by _any_ means. If one has 'transcendent means' at one's disposal, one has already solved a significant portion of the mystical task; if one hasn't, by your definition one has a "can't get there from here" difficulty. (A bit like saying that a "theist" is someone that knows a god's secret, and thus anyone worshipping a god in order to gain that secret isn't practising "theism" per se at all.) Or in a narrower sense, perhaps "attaining transcendence through ascetic means".
> Sure there is! It's because they are not using the defined use of mysicism,
> which is "transcendance of the material and immaterial."
This is _much_ different different from, and broader than, the previous.
> Yep similar it is. Those are transcendant methodologies, BUT THEY ARE NOT
> MYSTICAL.
... and this seems to again imply a difference in means/methology, but
doesn't specify what that difference is.
> Thje analogy is bad, and I'll tell you you are absolutely right that
> there are people whose practices are beleived to be mystical but in fact
> are theist, animist and sorcerous. That is, they are not mystics.
Oh, I completely agree with _that_...
I think the Sturgeon's Law is a serious underestimate when it comes to mysticism, but I fear that you're going to try to turn a Quality Error into a Category Error, on the part of these errant types. I'd much rather have a rules system that deals with people that have a "mystical look and feel", not have one system for Good Mystics, and another for Bad Mystics. Especially if I happened to be playing a Lunar or Kralori game in which 'which is the true mystical path?' was intended to be a central theme. If this means different terminology to finesse the whole issue, fair enough.
Nils Weinander:
> So, what is this schmysticism? :-)
It's hereby defined to be the working title of that set of things previously implied by Greg to be "mysticism", understood by a working plurality of Digest-heads to be "mysticism" (speaking hypothetically in this case, obviously...), and which will eventually get described in some HQ supplement as Something Other Than Mysticism, whatever the preferred terminology ends up being. Taraltarans, Kralori dragonists, Mairnalists, etc.
Cheers,
Alex.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail