Hi Bard, Platt, John B, all,
> > "The central mystical experience may be fairly (if somewhat poetically)
> > described as follows: in the mystical consciousness, Reality is
apprehended
> > directly and immediately, meaning without any mediation, any symbolic
> > elaboration, any conceptualization, or any abstractions; subject and
object
> > become one in a timeless and spaceless act that is beyond any and all
forms
> > of mediation. Mystics universally speak of contacting reality in its
> > 'suchness', its 'isness', its 'thatness', without any intermediaries;
> > beyond words, symbols, names, thoughts, images." (p 5-6)
I've been meaning for a while to write something substantial about the use
and misuse of the word mysticism by Pirsig and (some of ) the members of
this forum. I have every hope that I will have been able to write something
substantial by the week after Easter (this being a busy time of year for
me).
But put briefly, the assumption made is that mysticism is about a subjective
experience which is both ineffable (unable to explained in words) and noetic
(purveying some cognitive content). This derives ultimately from Kant, going
via Schleirmacher and through (crucially for our purposes) William James.
This understanding of mysticism is wholly Modern and has no continuity with
Christian mysticism as it existed before c 1600. "In earlier times, one
might speak of a 'mystical interpretation' or of the 'mystical body of
Christ', but not of a 'mystical experience'. Similarly, 'the mystics' were
not those who had particular states of consciousness, but those who were
able to elucidate the spiritual interpretation of a passage of scripture,
say, or who were faithful participants in the Eucharist" (Grace Jantzen).
Put differently, the Christian mystics cannot be understood apart from their
context within the overall religious tradition that formed them.
I cannot comment authoritatively on whether Wilber's use of the word
mysticism to describe the Eastern traditions is accurate or not. I can say,
however, that it is NOT accurate as a description of the work of the
Christian mystics. When Wilber writes with such confidence 'Mystics
universally speak...'; etc, you should be aware that he is mistakenly
including the Christian tradition. (But I say that only on the basis of that
quotation, not yet having read any of his work for myself).
In my paper I hope to spell out some of the consequences of this for
understanding Pirsig's development of the MoQ - because he shares James'
misapprehensions about what mysticism consists in.
Sam
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 - 16:01:58 BST