Shadee Elmasry – Shaykh Hasan Spiker Explains Mystical Knowledge

When you talk about mystical knowledge, a lot of people have

trouble with mystical knowledge. Because when we speak, speech and

reason are intertwined, yeah. Could you elaborate a bit on how?

What What exactly is mystical knowledge? If it's something that

seems to

be different from Rational and empirical knowledge? Yeah. So

could you elaborate on that a bit?

Well, absolutely, people raise an objection, which I think is based

really quite straightforwardly on a misunderstanding, that mystical

knowledge, according to the prescription of the of the

advocates of mystical knowledge is a total water illogical, you know,

it's a it's a stage of domain to level it's a world beyond the

actual.

And therefore, how can that be used as a premise in rational

thinking? How can that be, in any way? Knowledge which, where it

might be interesting to read about people's claims of their

experiences? But how can it form part of our overall picture of

reality, which is supposed to be accessible to everyone, for

example? Well, I think this is based on a basic misunderstanding

of what being a power beyond the occult means. For one thing,

there's a distinction between the discursive Apple, which is the

apple, which essentially reasons in a straight line, you know, one

plus one equals two, every ASB every B and C, there is C, that

kind of logical, strict, you know, discursive, linear reasoning.

And there's a lateral man has a workable, which you might call the

receptive intellect. And that's the apple which simply discerns

distinct objects, right? So whether those are intelligible

object, as in pure context, let's say universals here, they've got

this universal and you've got this universe, you've got the, the

universal of human being, and the universal of just purely abstract

concepts like Unity and multiplicity and things like that.

And because you can distinguish between them, they are distinct

and themselves, you can end as an intentional object, that one or

that one, the same as sensible objects, you you distinguish

between them.

And the thing is mystical experiences exactly the same,

because the mystical experience is distinct. So what I'm trying to

make is

yes,

mystical experience is a tower beer is a stage or domain or world

beyond the discursive Apple, right there that will Richard reasons in

a straight line in that fashion. But so as to the sensible world,

just as much the sensible world is also a toll beyond that discursive

Apple, right?

So the point is, people have these misconceptions about reasoning,

which are may be insufficiently philosophical, as if, you know,

Reason is somehow this, this self explanatory thing? Well, in fact,

reasoning is just a form.

Right? It's a form, which requires matter. So in logic, you have this

distinction between logical form and logical matter. So logical

form is just, you know, that, say, the figures of the syllogism, you

know, the fact that you have to have, you have to have a first

premise, you have to have a premise, you have to have a

conclusion. And then how do you get from the premise to the

conclusion where it's by the middle term? And then what, what

position is the middle term, in the first premise, if it's in,

let's say, the predicate position, then, you know, it's the first

figure, if it's the predicate position of the first figure in

the first premise, and etc. So. And if it's the subject position

in the second premise, then it's called the first figure, that's

the form. Now, that in itself is completely empty. That's the

logical form does not get you anywhere, except seeing that, you

know, that logical form has to produce a true conclusion. But,

but but at this stage, because we're only at the stage of logical

form, we don't even know what we're reasoning about. You have to

be reasoning about something. Yep. Right. So, the idea is that you

can include mystical knowledge. Well, if you can include sensible

knowledge, if you can reason about sensible objects, right, which are

not which are again, a total beyond discursive reason. You

could also reason about mystical objects elaborate for us on where

would we place mystical knowledge in epistemology, will it be

downgraded? Because it's something we'd all don't have access to, to

it and to checking it

Well, there's a distinction obviously, between metaphysics and

epistemology, which is really a narrative body

distinction, but doesn't make it not real. So it's perspectival.

But you can have perspectival properties which are real

because it's about your means of approach to

reality, right? So saying which one has priority metaphysically?

mystical knowledge has ascendancy over sense knowledge and merely

rational knowledge.

But epistemology epistemologically, we're talking

about priority in terms of sequence, how do you get to the

conclusion that you're going for? Now, mystical knowledge is of

absolutely no use, if it's not regulated by the other aspects of

human experience, because we're not just spiritual beings. We're

not a sorceress. It's not only mystical knowledge. Now, that's a

mistake that a lot of modern people who are very interested in

spirituality tend to make, they might be total modernists about

philosophy, they might be even really methodological skeptics,

they might not even believe you can prove the existence of God

using reason. But there are soft wrists. As you know, I can get on

with just making money and being in this world and being totally

worldly, because none of that really matters. The secret access

that I have is to this mystical knowledge, which that's the only

the true knowledge, right? I don't mean totally worldly, obviously,

in the sense of, you know, being ahead. And it's because of their

spiritual, they're unlikely to be like that. But I mean, in the

sense that I, you know, there's no integration between my

metaphysical view and my reason, right is your soccer ism. Other

than that, I'm just, you know, it's just the world. It's just,

it's, it's just the, you know, the world which is somehow out,

opposed fundamentally to the spiritual. And

so,

the point is, I'll give you an example the center's critical

Janee says, In shuffle, more active, mystical experience cannot

be used to prove the Creed on a public level. Something very

interesting, it's because the Jews and the Christians and I think

he's particularly confined to the Jews and Christians, maybe he says

other religions as well, but they also have spiritual experiences,

by which they that they claim somehow prove the truth of that

creed. Correct. That's what says,

mystical knowledge has to be supplemented by rational work by

rational arguments, correct, right? Because we believe in

reason we believe in rationality. So the point is, yes, no, I mean,

in terms of the first stages of knowledge of the world, if that

we, you know, you know, when, before teaching someone how to

read and write and how to raise and basic stuff, and how to use

their senses, we just put them into a hallway and that's how they

get to know everything right to the degree, the rational

framework, you know, proofs for the existence of the of God Allah

to Allah,

of prophet hood

of

you know, the basic items of creed that has to come first and that

absolutely has to serve there as a foundation.