A Platonic delusion: The identification of psychosis and mysticism
This paper discusses the frequently-made claim that psychosis and mysticism are identifiable. Noting the failure of attempts by others to define psychosis and mysticism, I present what I call the symptomatological case for identifying them, hoping in this way to give an idea of their essential featu...
| Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
|---|---|
| Τύπος μέσου: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο |
| Γλώσσα: | Αγγλικά |
| Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Φόρτωση...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Έκδοση: |
Taylor & Francis
2000
|
| Στο/Στη: |
Mental health, religion & culture
Έτος: 2000, Τόμος: 3, Τεύχος: 2, Σελίδες: 157-172 |
| Διαθέσιμο Online: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Σύνοψη: | This paper discusses the frequently-made claim that psychosis and mysticism are identifiable. Noting the failure of attempts by others to define psychosis and mysticism, I present what I call the symptomatological case for identifying them, hoping in this way to give an idea of their essential features. More general observations about the theoretical nature of the relationship between mental health and religion are made which might indicate an identification of psychosis and mysticism. It is then claimed that the idea of the identification often derives, though at times unconsciously, from an outmoded Platonic model. A short sketch of the intellectual history of the identification is presented. Finally, a more plausible basis for comparing psychosis and mysticism is offered, based on similar sociological origins or individual psychodynamic factors, before concluding that a fundamental difference in the conceptual status of psychosis as an illness and mysticism as a valued state of consciousness a priori precludes their identification. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-9737 |
| Περιλαμβάνει: | Enthalten in: Mental health, religion & culture
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/713685600 |