I've been thinking lately of the fact that a lot of people, many intellectuals included, pretty much dismiss of any kind of "mysticistic" practice.
I'll put the general definition from Wikipedia for "mysticism":
Mysticism is the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.
The second, highlighted part is more important. So, aside from the stuff that relates to magic, myths, rites, legends, that definition seems very similar to what practical philosophy, or more precisely practical aesthetics (in the context of art as revealer of Nature for example).
I'd like to ask then, how do we separate mysticism from practical philosophy? How do we say which is "legit" philosophically, and which is simply nonsense?
Edit: According to Philip's suggestion, I'd like to emphasize that the practical philosophy I'm talking about is, for example, the sort of philosophy of nature that talks about connection to Nature, like Aristotle's "nous", Kant's (and the rest of the German Idealists) "Genius"/"Intellectual Intuition" via art.