Mysticism

>>8127001
The ending of that movie was so fucking obnoxious.

>>8127008
>SOOM BACK, CAMÉRRA

Enjoyed it enough to let it slide though

>>8127001
Go to /x/ and check out Frater K's library on /omg/

Largest free collection of mystical and occult material available on the net by a longshot, as far as we know, and compiled entirely by a knowledgeable /x/phile

>>8127037
Yeah I use that, but I'm looking for some philosophical novels that deal with the subject rather than explicitly mystical texts.

>>8127052
Hmmm

Well, sort of depends what you're looking for specifically, but people like Yeats, Crawley and Dion Fortune all wrote occult or mystical novels.

Some of the Greek plays deal with it a bit I think?

>>8127060
I'm getting started with the Greeks, I'm following the chart from the wiki, don't care if it's a meme. Did any major philosophers tackle mysticism at all or is it more restricted to occultists and religious types?

>>8127075
Plato was initiated, Neoplatonism forms a major foundation for non-devotional mysticism in the West.

Pythoagoras was REALLY into it. Yeats was, though didn't produce much of worth. Arthur Machen too.

William S Burroughs was in the IoT iirc, so his work likely touches on elements of mysticism. I seem to remember hearing that Hunter S. Thompson was involved in some Chaos Magick group but can't remember sauce.

As for philosophers specifically, I'd say if you took a look at some of the 18th and 19th century European philosophers you'd find a few esoteric masons in there, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Oh, actually Bertrand Russell wrote a piece on mysticism, though I haven't read it. I'd expect fedora tipping, though

If you're asking if it's been examined in a rigorous way by a major philosopher, the answer is not really, no. The problem is that most mystical material depends heavily on personal experience (i.e., you don't 'get it' until you've undergone those experiences. John of Ruysbroeck's work is a lot like this), so theres kind of an upper limit to how rigorously it can be examined

Thomas Merton.

>>8127008
Dude the whole movie was obnoxious that's why I and other people love it

>>8127136
I'm quite willing to read stuff that relies on personal experience, I've been using various drugs and mystical methods with varying degrees of success, so if you've got any more suggestions like John of Ruysbroeck then I'd be grateful. I'll definitely have a look at Machen, Yeats, Thompson, Crowley and Fortune.

>>8127416
Jesus that's a long bibliography. Any suggestions?

PYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHONPYNCHON

>>8128403
If you can point me in the direction of a book where Pynchon discusses mystical concepts then I'll read it.

>>8128428
Gravity's Rainbow
Against the Day

>>8128362
Oh, well on that case, there's big fat stacks of Catholic mystical works. St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Brigid of Sweden, St. Julian of Norwich, Bl. John of Ruysbroeck, Marguerite Poerete, etc. And that's before you even start dipping your toes into the more heretical stuff

>>8127136
Bergson ? the two sources of moral and religion ? haven't read it myself but there's at least two chapter with mysticism in the title to say it quick.

>>8128362
>drugs

Mystic traditions that utilize drugs are the John Green of mysticism.

>>8128459
I'll check them out, looking forward to some dank heresy.

>>8128462
Looking into Bergson already.

>>8128478
Drugs are just a way of getting a bit of preliminary insight, I'm not advocating full-on psychedelic mysticism, I apologise for giving that impression.

File: v11.jpg (100KB, 370x493px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 370x493px

I would consider digging Dali if I were you. He was some kind of mystic.
Goethe, Chrétien de Troyes. Tzara is worth digging too.

>>8128552
How was Tzara a mystic? Nothing I've read of his gave that impression.

File: hellothere.jpg (16KB, 200x260px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x260px

>>8128657
Because, first of all, he wasn't a man of words.
He knew that thinking is made in the mouth, that there is no pragmatic truth nor ideal ones, and knew very well that he came a long way from chinese bouddhists. Like many of his time, he recreated a direction of thinking, spread it and lived through it. Evola, before studying Traditions, was involved in Dada and said himself that Dada had no continuation in Italy because no one else would understand the profound seriousness behind the mystifications.
Tzara was an accomplished occidental taoist.
The writings are inside jokes, as art is nothing before life. I enjoy it that way. He said himself " [...] what interest the dadaist is his own way of living. But here we approach the places reserved to great secret"
That said, he didn't age well.
René Daumal did a lot better.

Are there any good novels (regarded as literature) that feature the occult and have spooky cults? I'd love that.

>>8129012
>>8128657
He was a mystic in the sense that he recreated mysteries ; you will not find report of transcendal experiments nor any explanation. It is made to be understood or not. It is made to be teach without a word, like Lao-Tseu stated about the Tao. In Dada, Yes and No are as Ying and Yang are to each other. "Dada apply himself to everything, and yet it is nothing, it is the point were the yes and the no meet".
etc. surely there is english essay about that. It might seems a little bit spooky since he became communist and shit like that. But it's actually a great way towards, or back from traditional mysticism.

>>8127001
Sayings of the Desert Fathers.
The Philokalia.

File: ahux.jpg (23KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x400px

Philip K. Dick is possibly the most interesting mysticist author of the past century.

Also, Huxley has some interesting texts on the issue, especially his compilation "The Perennial Philosophy".

>>8127001
Evola, Jung, Eliade, Mishima, Heraclitus, Sophocles

À few personal favorites

>>8129785
Is Jung really considered mystic? Honestly asking and not criticizing, this whole mysticism thing is convoluted as fuck.
Yes, I know I am pleb.

>>8127037
>knowledgeable /x/phile
do these still exist? The threads are always complete shit top to bottom when I go there.

>>8130632
https://mega.nz/#F!AE5yjIqB!y7Vdxdb5pbNsi2O3zyq9KQ
You're right about /x/, except for the /omg/ threads. They have good discussions about mystical philosophy, with the occasional bit of weird magic stuff thrown in for good measure. That link is the library.

>>8129841
Check out Psychology and Alchemy by Jung. He's definitely a mystic.

>>8129785
>eliade
My nigga. I'll check out Mishima, pretty familiar with the others already.

>>8129755
>Philip K(olossal) Dick
Now we're talking. Love Huxley too.

>>8129673
Interesting stuff, I think I might have inherited a copy of the Philokalia from a dead relative but I never went through it.

>>8127001

This guy

>pic related

Or ask Chad

File: Austin_Osman_Spare.jpg (13KB, 220x316px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x316px

>>8131082

>tfw forgot to post pic

>>8131066
>https://mega.nz/#F!AE5yjIqB!y7Vdxdb5pbNsi2O3zyq9KQ
i think my dick gotta a little hard after opening this.

What does /lit/ think about Fourth way? I am reading my copy of In Search of the Miraculous and I think it's pretty interesting but it's obvious some of it is bullshit. I think trying to improve your consciousness seems like a positive thing and isn't really "spiritual" like a lot of other stuff. There is also a big demand on sacrifice and hardwork which is something I believe in, no just taking drugs and tripping out etc.