Shadee Elmasry – Shaykh Hasan Spiker Explains Mystical Knowledge
![Shadee Elmasry](https://artwork.muslimcentral.com/shadee-elmasry-150x150.jpg)
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
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.