Hullo Bard, Sam, Squonk
There seems to be something incongruous about a Bard who seemingly
misunderstands mysticism. (Oops, sorry, mustn't use that word.)
Seriously though, what are you saying? My dictionary defines mysticism as
1. belief in or experience of a reality surpassing normal human
understanding or experience, esp. a reality perceived as essential to the
nature of life
2. a system of contemplative prayer and spirituality aimed at achieving
direct intuitive experience of the divine
3. obscure or confused belief or thought.
If you have a problem with 'mysticism', which you say is "a word that by
definition means "other-worldly" or "mysterious"", then the problem is, I
suggest, yours. Pirsig certainly does not share your concern. Nor do I.
Actually, the meaning of words is not something held in dictionaries, but is
constantly evolving. The word 'mysticism' used to have a perjorative meaning
for many people, as indicated in the third definition I quote above, but I
would argue that the writings of people like Pirsig and Wilber are changing
that. Mysticism is a concept that is clearly coming of age.
This is where I would beg to differ with Sam as well, who says,. "'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)." By this definition anyone who attended Mass regularly was
a mystic. Even if that was once the meaning, and I find that hard to
believe, it is not what we mean today by the term. While the derivation of
words can be interesting and enlightening, it is ultimately their current
usage that makes them more or less appropriate in our discussions.
To return to the Bard. You speak of approaches "that are more integrated
with the physical world and everyday life (therefore, science)". Perhaps I
misunderstand you, but if you are trying to structure the world and
discourse about it in terms of science, you are an anachronism in this
forum, since it is just the value free world of science that Pirsig
challenges. If you read my post of 15.3, you would realise that most of the
dominant physicists of last century were mystics by persuasion, and were
quick to point out the limitations of science, which they correctly saw as
unable to tell us about reality, but instead explores a mathematical model
of reality. You appear to have a severe dose of 'scientism', and there are
now many good books which can help you, but since you have read Pirsig
apparently without absorbing his message, I wonder if you are yet ready for
treatment. However, I recommend John Wren-Lewis' article which can be found
on the internet, entitled 'The Dazzling Dark'.
Wren-Lewis offers many terms for the experience that changed his life so
dramatically, including 'God consciousness', 'mysticism', 'a radical
consciousness shift' and 'the dazzling dark'. Mysticism seems as good as any
of the others to me, though I agree with Squonk's term 'transcendence', as a
good alternative, also 'enlightenment', though it seems to be pointing to a
finished state, which is perhaps creating even more problems. I also agree
with Squonk when he says "Words are rather inadequate so let us not get too
upset by them"
Regards,
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 - 16:01:58 BST