Hi John and Scott,
Here I would like to address "> Hence my [Scott] recommendation of an
exploration of differential mysticism, to > counter the tendency of the
above toward idolatry. "
Does mysticism, "differential' [not sure what that is?] or any kind give us,
we humans, a way to escape our "idols", our preconceived notions, fixations,
beliefs?
I tentatively think not. I am inclining to believe that, as I posted
earlier, when the mystic goes up and in to the communion with the Divine,
what s/he brings with him/her is what she brings back down. The experience
maybe a catalyst to some new insight, but it is an insight into ideas,
belief, etc that already were part of the mystic's background prior to the
experience.
I have been reading on Scott's recommendation Franklin Merrell-Wolff's
"Experience and Philosophy: A personal record of transformation and a
discussion of transcendental consciousness." Merrell-Wolff describes how he
spent months studying the writings of Shankara, who is "the greatest of the
Vedantic Sages. He is the founder of the Advaita (non-dual) philosophy."
[quote from the text.] And it is not surprising at all that Merrell-Wolff's
mystical insights are all framed within this context. It is an example of
GIGO, only it is not garbage in and garbage out, but specific cultural
symbolism of Goodness in means the same specific cultural symbolism of
Goodness will come out.
I think that traveling up into the infinite is dangerous for our finite
minds. Hence in order for us not too lose our way we only can experience
the infinite in terms of our pre-existing finite collection of symbols.
Hence the mystical way may not be the only or even the best way to gain
truly innovative new insights. Perhaps unique new perspectives is more
likely an outcome of encountering the finite. If that finite, be it a
person or a book, is different than your own pre-existing cultural "map".
[Here 'culture' is not only referring to the society of which we are a part
but of our own internal perspective-our inner culture of one.]
I think Wolff got it right when he said the following quote. What is his
mistake, which he repeats throughout his book is forgetting this insight and
trying to force the reader into accepting his views as the only truth.
>From page 325 of the 1994 paperback edition]
--------------------
Further, we have no right to assert dogmatically that, even though for our
science this theory should prove to be ultimately valid, then it must
necessarily be valid for any competent thinker whatsoever. In fact, it is
entirely possible, nay more, quite probable, that the scientist of an
entirely different culture, although of comparable capacity and supplied
with comparable resources for investigation, would none the less construct
an entirely different theoretical structure for the organization of their
corresponding experience. yet, this would not discredit the relative
validity of the foregoing theory for our present culture. [Note: What is
"our" culture? Hindu/Buddhist?]
The value of a theory or of any conceptual formulation lies in the fact that
it gives the intelligent consciousness a basis for orienting itself and for
achieving either purposive control of, or intelligent understanding in, the
sea of existences. In the strictly metaphysical sense, i.e., in the sense
that is not related to any concrete thinker, no conceptual formulation is
either true or false. It is simply irrelevant. Nor, on the other hand, can
experience prove the truth or falsity of any fundamental theory, though it
can check the various derivative theories.
If we regard the fundamental theories--the original bases or starting
points--as only assumptions, then the whole of science is grounded in
uncertainty and affords no security.
------------
All this is so very true! But all of it is thrown out the window by Wolff
in his very next sentence when he proclaims that his system of beliefs are a
way toward certainty! Wolff, like a good Buddhist & or Hindu thinker, has a
extreme dislike/mistrust in the physical realm of matter. Wolff goes on to
rhapsodize on about any idea built upon one's encounters with the physical
realm of perceived matter is not going to be true, but he proclaims, how our
encounters with the non-physical realm, the transcendent realm of
consciousness will yield truth. How? The mind that process the experiences
of the physical and the transcendent is the same mind! If it can't build
truth, then it can't build truth, period. No matter the source of the
experience.
>From the 1st person limit perspective of our menu's, of how we perceive
reality, any Quality Event will be processed in accordance with the Static
patterns we have before the event. A QE encounter with the Divine will not
yield anything different than a QE encounter with a good insightful book.
Although the emotional/feeling maybe much more intense with the Divine.
They both will get processed in terms of the Static patterns that exist in
our minds.
We have a tendency to build idols and Merrell-Wolff is no different. The
way out of getting trapped within our idolatry is to recall the process of
how we come to believe and build our idols. Wolff keeps forgetting or
ignoring that process, hence his insistence that he is right. He is right
for his vantage point only. It is the choice of any thinker whether to
accept an idea or not.
"In the strictly metaphysical sense, i.e., in the sense that is not
related to any concrete thinker, no conceptual formulation is either true or
false. "
The point is that faith/ belief does not ever equal TRUTH.
At least that is my belief,
Gary
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:24 BST