Philosophy: Mysticism is for those who can't do the math

[Ani_Ibi]

Physicist Stephen Hawking has remarked that mysticism is for those who can’t do the math. (Sorry can’t find the link.)

What are the ends of math?
What are the ends of mysticism?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Some help for the incurably curious.

mysticism: a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation or ecstasy.

math: The study of numbers, equations, functions, and geometric shapes (see geometry) and their relationships. Some branches of mathematics are characterized by use of strict proofs based on axioms. Some of its major subdivisions are arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and calculus.

mysticism: St Bonaventure, The Journey of the Mind into God

If you should ask how these things come about, question grace, not instruction; desire, not intellect; the cry of prayer, not pursuit of study; the spouse, not the teacher; God, not man; darkness, not clarity; not light, but the wholly flaming fire which will bear you aloft to God…

math: Philip J. Davis, A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology

Two deep and general points about ancient cultures are often underrated: that people saw themselves as part of nature, and mathematics was central to life. ~ Ivor Grattan-Guinness

All is number. ~ Pythagoras

 

[Truthstalker]

Phooey.

Math is for those who can’t do the mysticism.

All is for the end of knowing God and enjoying Him forever.

I believe in an integrated creation without division of the natural and the supernatural. There is only one creation, not two. Math and mysticism are methods of moving towards the Creator, specifically by discovered knowledge. Real calculus will inspire worship; real mysticism will inspire topology.

So there.

 

[jman507]

Maybe one day I’ll be able to do enough math to figure out why Hawkings said that, but I’ll be glad for both.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Physicist Stephen Hawking has remarked that mysticism is for those who can’t do the math. (Sorry can’t find the link.)

What are the ends of math?
What are the ends of mysticism?

Almost certainly he doesn’t know what “mysticism” means. To be fair to the Professor the term has been hijacked by purveyors of crystal healing sets and horoscopes. It means direct apprehension of God with the mind, and occasionally with the senses.

 

[Hilde89]

To have mysteries is to acknowledge that even though we can’t understand everything and measure everything, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true or doesn’t exist. The statement is very arrogant i think.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I thought Hawking gave up years ago - on the math, I suppose it would be.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Phooey.

Math is for those who can’t do the mysticism.

All is for the end of knowing God and enjoying Him forever.

I believe in an integrated creation without division of the natural and the supernatural. There is only one creation, not two. Math and mysticism are methods of moving towards the Creator, specifically by discovered knowledge. Real calculus will inspire worship; real mysticism will inspire topology.

So there.

I agree with you. So stick that in your hat and smoke it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Anyone read the Davis article, A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology ? It’s not as involved as the Bonaventure book and it gives a good overview to the OP questions, which are:

What are the ends of math?
What are the ends of mysticism?

Let me suggest a new start point by reframing the questions as follows:

What does math do?
What does mysticism do

Thoughts?

 

[Everstruggling]

I’m actually going to respond to the original two questions, if that is okay?

First off, are you sure that this is a quote from Hawking? It is unusual for a Brit to say “math” instead of “maths”. Also, it seems unusual for a physicist to suggest that “maths” are the route to ultimate understanding. Also, I know that he isn’t a believer, but as far as I have heard, he doesn’t usually make disparaging comments to those that do believe. It could be him, it just seems a little out of character.

Personally, I think that the statement is right. I also think that it is correct that maths are for those that don’t possess the capacity for mysticism. I think that there are many other paths to pursuing the same goal as well. (I’m in the unenviable position of being poor at maths and mysticism.)

People disagree on the starting point, people disagree on the destination, and people disagree on the reason for the trip in the first place. But ultimately it’s the same journey. The end of these diciplines are the Truth, or Heaven, or Enlightenment, or NIrvana, or Peace, or, or, or…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Everstruggling:

I’m actually going to respond to the original two questions, if that is okay?

I did try to be conscientious and find a link, but couldn’t. :crying:

Everstruggling:

First off, are you sure that this is a quote from Hawking?

No.

Everstruggling:

Also, it seems unusual for a physicist to suggest that “maths” are the route to ultimate understanding.

A physicist would not ordinarily frame his/her ends as ‘ultimate understanding.’ However what do you propose physicists mean by The Grand Unified Theory if not ‘ultimate understanding’?

Everstruggling:

Also, I know that he isn’t a believer, but as far as I have heard, he doesn’t usually make disparaging comments to those that do believe.

Because of his illness, he ‘writes’ in images. He quite frequently refers to God in a dispassionate manner as a figure of speech to explain his physics.

Everstruggling:

It could be him, it just seems a little out of character.

Fair enough. It doesn’t change the concept in the OP, though. Let’s attribute the quote to Hillary Clinton.

Everstruggling:

Personally, I think that the statement is right.

Could you give us reasons so that we can follow you?

Everstruggling:

I also think that it is correct that maths are for those that don’t possess the capacity for mysticism.

Could you give us reasons so that we can follow you?

Everstruggling:

I think that there are many other paths to pursuing the same goal as well. (I’m in the unenviable position of being poor at maths and mysticism.)

But therefore in the enviable position of proposing an alternative route? Like: Mysticism and math are for those who can’t do the _____ .

My proposal is Mysticism and math are for those who can’t flip a flapjack.

Everstruggling:

People disagree on the starting point, people disagree on the destination, and people disagree on the reason for the trip in the first place. But ultimately it’s the same journey. The end of these diciplines are the Truth, or Heaven, or Enlightenment, or NIrvana, or Peace, or, or, or…

Kewl!

 

[cpayne]

I usually intensely dislike posts which derail threads. HOWEVER–I thought I’d stick in:

Nope. Those seeking Nirvana are not seeking Heaven. Those seeking Heaven are not seeking Enlightenment. Those seeking Enlightenment are not necessarily seeking Peace (or Nirvana, or Heaven, etc.). Nirvana is the state of consciousness beyond suffering, the going out of the self–doesn’t really have anything to do with Heaven.

As a line from one of my favorite singers puts it, “I’d rather be forgiven than enlightened.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

As a line from one of my favorite singers puts it, “I’d rather be forgiven than enlightened.”

I would say that that is a very enlightened point of view.

 

[Everstruggling]

A physicist would not ordinarily frame his/her ends as ‘ultimate understanding.’ However what do you propose physicists mean by The Grand Unified Theory if not ‘ultimate understanding’?

I didn’t say physicist weren’t concerned with understanding, just that they would probably view physics instead of maths as the best route to it. I have no reason to think that though. Let’s just say that I have a gut reaction that Stephen Hawking wasn’t the source of the quote.

Fair enough. It doesn’t change the concept in the OP, though. Let’s attribute the quote to Hillary Clinton.

We can attribute it to Innocent III if you like.

Could you give us reasons so that we can follow you?

Seeking to find meaning or understanding is one of the defining characteristics of being human. The environment we grow up in, our genetic code, how we are raised, and the choices that we make previously in our lives all affect how we will go about it, and what we expect the outcome to be. The answers we get depend on the questions we ask, the questions we ask are based on what we think we understand. What is really interesting is that people will sometimes radically abandon one search in order to start another. (Saul changing on the road to Damascus, Bhudda sitting under the bodhi tree, George Fox walking through the meadow.)

If he had been influenced by other people, and grown up in a differnent environment, JPII might have become a behavioural scientist. Einstein might have become Pope if the circumstances had been different. The same sort of drive for meaning is found in both of them. I am convinced that we don’t chose which route seems the most fruitful to us, or at the very least, we don’t have an unfettered choice.

But therefore in the enviable position of proposing an alternative route? Like: Mysticism and math are for those who can’t do the _____ .

…idle speculation on random message boards? Yes, my cup truly does runneth over.:doh2:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Everstruggling:

I didn’t say physicist weren’t concerned with understanding, just that they would probably view physics instead of maths as the best route to it.

Please distinguish between math and physics.

Everstruggling:

Let’s just say that I have a gut reaction that Stephen Hawking wasn’t the source of the quote.

I’ve already conceded that I don’t know. Knowing the author is not pivotal to the thread.

Everstruggling:

Seeking to find meaning or understanding is one of the defining characteristics of being human.

Yes. For survival and for life as found in God. Here I make a distinction as they do in French between existence and life.

Everstruggling:

The environment we grow up in, our genetic code, how we are raised, and the choices that we make previously in our lives all affect how we will go about it, and what we expect the outcome to be.

:yup: And as for outcome, I raised this question here: Philosophy: The future influences the present just as much as the past does

Everstruggling:

The answers we get depend on the questions we ask, the questions we ask are based on what we think we understand.

And what we understand is based on what we observe and what we observe is based on our first hand experience. We literally cannot see what experience does not prepare us to see.

Everstruggling:

What is really interesting is that people will sometimes radically abandon one search in order to start another. (Saul changing on the road to Damascus, Bhudda sitting under the bodhi tree, George Fox walking through the meadow.)

It only seems that way. See my comments here on Jean Piaget .

Everstruggling:

If he had been influenced by other people, and grown up in a differnent environment, JPII might have become a behavioural scientist. Einstein might have become Pope if the circumstances had been different. The same sort of drive for meaning is found in both of them.

See my comments on the role of first hand experience in observation here 34 , 35 , 51 , 55

Everstruggling:

I am convinced that we don’t chose which route seems the most fruitful to us, or at the very least, we don’t have an unfettered choice.

Where do propose the balance lies when we don’t choose which route seems the most fruitful to us?

 

[Everstruggling]

Please distinguish between math and physics.

No. It has nothing to do with this thread at all.

I’ve already conceded that I don’t know. Knowing the author is not pivotal to the thread.

I never suggested it was. That is why, after saying I didn’t think it was him, I went on to discuss the answer without reference to the author. I’m ready to drop it anytime you are.

Yes. For survival and for life as found in God. Here I make a distinction as they do in French between existence and life.

Actually, you can come to the conclusion people seek meaning just by observing them.

:yup: And as for outcome, I raised this question here: Philosophy: The future influences the present just as much as the past does

Okay.

And what we understand is based on what we observe and what we observe is based on our first hand experience. We literally cannot see what experience does not prepare us to see.

Oh my God!!! WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!!! :extrahappy:

It only seems that way. See my comments here on Jean Piaget .

Why can’t you paraphrase it? If it is relevant, it should bare repeating.

See my comments on the role of first hand experience in observation here 34 , 35 , 51 , 55

I got the impression that you were asking me to expand on MY points so that you would be able to follow my arguments.

Where do propose the balance lies when we don’t choose which route seems the most fruitful to us?

I don’t understand your question.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Everstruggling:

No. It has nothing to do with this thread at all.

You made this claim:

Everstruggling:

I didn’t say physicist weren’t concerned with understanding, just that they would probably view physics instead of maths as the best route to it.

I didn’t understand why you separated physics from math. That’s why I asked you to clarify the distinction.

Everstruggling:

Why can’t you paraphrase it? If it is relevant, it should bare repeating.

I’m not paraphrasing it because I have already taken the time and trouble to explain it. And I have gone to further trouble to search for the posts and provide the links here so that folks could read my explanation.

Everstruggling:

I got the impression that you were asking me to expand on MY points so that you would be able to follow my arguments.

Yes. I was. And I am also expanding on my points. Why? Because it’s a discussion.

Everstruggling:

I don’t understand your question.

This is what I understand you to have said: A person has a choice of solutions to a problem. One choice stands out as the most fruitful. But the person does not choose the most fruitful solution.

Correct? Is that what you said?

Earlier, we spoke about survival and the search for God. You spoke about the search for meaning. And I understood that the search for meaning could include survival and

the search for God.

So, is there some other thing which people seek that causes them to not to choose the most fruitful route to meaning?

Here is some help from Philosophy: Genuine tragedies

cpayne:

About “hierarchical goods”: What I had in mind was Aquinas’s arrangement of natural law principles from the most general, like “Good is to be done and evil avoided,” to more specific ones that have more or less binding force depending on the specific application and situation. (In case anyone was going to ask: No, this is NOT moral relativism. ) If I remember correctly, the hierarchy of goods goes from life and self-preservation, to family and procreation, to knowledge and education, to socialibility and recreation. They are hierarchical because each depends on the previous ones, except for life and self-preservation, which is a necessary good for anything else to follow.

Ani Ibi:

A psychologist put forward a similar theory. It was called the Mazlow Hierarchy of Needs

.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/hierarchy.gif

These categories also seem to fit under your concept ‘the search for meaning.’ Agreed? Are you referring then to the idea that sometimes folks make irrational choices? As in this thread: Philosophy: You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into

If you are referring to irrational choices, the I would be very interested to hear your views on why folks make irrational choices.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If number were an idea, then arithmetic would be psychology. But arithmetic is no more psychology than, say, astronomy is. Astronomy is concerned, not with ideas of the planets, but with the planets themselves, and by the same token the objects of arithmetic are not ideas either. – Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic