Dear John,
I think that you have read far more into my comments than was intended. The
problem that I have with the term "mysticism" is that it is a term that seems to
be used to describe a pantheon of practises which the practitioners would never
apply to themselves. Zen followers and Taoists, more likely, would refer to
themselves as realists, hardly mystical. IMHO, the term is about as meaningful
as the European explorers referring to indigenous American inhabitants as
"Indian". Thank goodness, that we finally refer to the American Natives as
Native Americans, not Indians. Let's hope that we can start referring to people
who seem to grasp the full potential of the Universe as something other than
mystics.
Regards,
The Bard
John Beasley wrote:
> 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
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 - 16:01:59 BST