3WD, Rod, Scott, (Glenn),
3WD
You asked "Is the subject/object fantasy a universal phenomena? Has it, and
does it prevail in non Western cultures? In India or China or Tibet or
Japan?"
My understanding is that studies of developmental psychology show the
subject/object polarity is a normal development in childhood in all
cultures. It may not fully develop in autism, as Rod suggested, though my
understanding of autism is that it is the inability to see the other as a
self like myself that is defective. While many mystic traditions tend to
denigrate this development, it seems fairly obvious that it is essential for
the development of language and culture as we know them, and is probably an
evolutionary advance that comes at a cost. The Garden of Eden myth shows
this in poetic form. This myth also suggests that subject/object
discrimination has emerged at some stage in the evolutionary process, rather
than having always been characteristic of living things. (Though I am not
totally convinced of this.)
Some modern mystics, notably Ken Wilber and Hameed Ali, argue that the
development of the self is not inherently a bad thing, merely a stage of
growth that is helpful in operating in the world, but which can be
transcended. So Ali says "we believe that spiritual development must be seen
not only as a correction to normal experience, but more importantly, as
further development of the self. Much spiritual work functions to correct
the delusions of the self regarding its true nature and the nature of the
world by encouraging disidentification with self-concepts. However, we
understand the natural unfoldment of the soul to lead to one becoming
discontent with, and seeing through, one's identifications. This unfoldment
need not involve a rejection of the capacity for conceptualizing; it can
simply allow and increasing transparency of mental concepts as the
appreciation of our nature as essential presence reduces our identification
with self representations." ('The Point of Existence' p183)
I'm no expert on feedback, but the person I found most fascinating to read
in this area was Gregory Bateson. I have his book, 'A Sacred Unity', which
has many references to feedback, but I suspect there are better sources of
his thought on this. He was, incidentally, one of Margaret Mead's several
husbands.
Rod:
Great to see someone enjoying the debate. I really have no argument with
your detailed input. Just a query. There are rare cases of adults blind from
birth recovering the ability to see. What do they see, if all the neural
pathways are established by age 5? Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his fascinating
book 'The Natural history of the Mind', quotes your data on cats and goes on
to describe a man whose sight was recovered in 1959 and how he learnt to see
by feeling objects, such as a screw cutting lathe, which he ran his hands
over, naming the parts, and then announced "Now that I have felt it, I can
see it." (p 195)Obviously he was able to discriminate, since he was very
surprised by a crescent moon, having imagined a quarter moon looked like a
quarter slice of cake. (However this man had had sight until the age of 10
months.)
Scott:
"one can write about those experiences, and what they imply. The latter is
theology (albeit non-theistic), and I see nothing wrong with that. Isn't
that what Wilber's books are?"
I thought I would get a bite on my "just theology" comment, and I'm glad you
responded. I'm not quite sure I follow your argument, though. Wilber makes
the comment in the introduction to his big book, 'Sex, Ecology,
Spirituality', that metaphysics can mean "thought without evidence" (p x)
and it was this sense of theology I was intending, rather like the medieval
arguments about how many angels might dance upon the head of a pin. Wilber,
in this regard, goes on to say "there is not a metaphysical sentence in this
entire book". He clearly sees his system as evidence based, though I wonder
if statements such as "Greater depth equals greater value" (I quote from
memory) aren't just a teeny-weeny bit metaphysical.
I don't know Franklin Merrell-Wolff's *Experience and Philosophy*. It will
go on my list to read some day, though I must admit I do very little reading
now. I am more interested in synthesising what makes some sort of sense for
me.
Glenn:
I found this comment by Glenn in another thread made sense to me
"the reason science has an eraser is because ideas can be tested and thrown
out if the evidence is incompatible with the idea. Religion doesn't have
this, but the reason it lacks such a 'mechanism' isn't a defect; it's just
that the issues theology deals with and the ideas created to explain them
aren't amenable to testing. That's why religious doctrines stick around.
They can't be disproven, only
discredited."
Wilber, as I read him, denies this for mysticism. He argues that a mystical
experience is just as real, and equally demonstrable, as any experiment in
science. Where religion and theology are concerned, I agree with Glenn that
belief is not amenable to testing, hence dogma can't be disproven, but only
discredited. Well put, Glenn.
The upshot of all this is that mysticism is not a sub-set of religion. It
has little to do with belief, and much to do with experience.
Must go,
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST