Harris dispenses with the common definition of mysticism used here and is referring to practical methods, such as meditation and rationality as the proper tool instead.

He certainly doesn't do that in this blog post. No indication of him doing any of that, or using the term in any way different than a standard definition.

You disagree? Source please.

The discussion that Harris and Goldstein were having has nothing to do with "mysticism" as it is commonly used in a religious context and I will continue to object to that term.

When we are talking definitions, we have to be exact: What is "mysticism" as it is commonly used in a religious context exactly?

Does Harris mention the standard definition he disagrees with anywhere?

Does he explicitly say that he is not talking about that standard definition of the term anywhere?

What is the alternative definition he offers in his own words?

Where does he say that we have to go by this specific alternative definition in this specific text we are talking about?

If he doesn't say that, why should we assume this special definition (if it exists) should be used here?

When you claim that a special definition of a word given by the author is to be applied, then you have to prove that the author gave that definition, and that it is to be applied to the text in question.

I don't see any indication of that anywhere, so I have to ask...