From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 19:04:53 BST
Hi John B,
Good to have you back. A long time ago (well, about six months ago), we had
a disagreement about mysticism, on which subject I promised to get back to
you. I've been held up because I wanted to re-read Zen and Lila, in order to
establish for myself what Pirsig's position was, so I could establish
clearly whether I was disagreeing with him or just with you.
In my post of 16 March I first copied in a quotation from Wilber:
"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)
And then continued:
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.
>>>>
Now firstly, I would like to confess that I was libelling Pirsig when I
wrote this. Although I still think he doesn't have the first idea about
Christian mysticism, he's not alone in that, but crucially he doesn't share
the Jamesian mistake of seeing mysticism as essentially concerned with
having exotic experiences - I guess primarily because he is genuinely
familiar with Hindu mysticism.
Two things:
ONE: Pirsig's understanding comes out most clearly in Lila; in Ch 24 (the
beginning of part 3) and in an extended discussion at the end of the book.
In the first instance he is discussing the hippies, who have rejected social
and intellectual patterns of value. In that situation they can go in one of
two ways: to the biological level, or directly to DQ. Pirsig pithily points
out that the Hippies confused the two options into one, and that to get to
DQ *depends* upon strict social practices (according to traditional Zen
teaching): "Japanese Zen is attached to social disciplines so meticulous
they make the Puritans look almost degenerate."
So: the experience of DQ is not to be equated with a biological Quality
(which is the distinction I was drawing between traditional mysticism and
Romantic mysticism, whereby the latter is a quest for particular experiences
and/or feelings)
TWO: He expands on this in his discussion of religious mysticism at the end
of the book where he states explicitly "The MoQ identifies religious
mysticism with DQ." (p381 in my edition) He goes on to describe the practice
of dhyana, which is the evacuation of static patterns from conscious
awareness (in traditional Christian mysticism this corresponds quite closely
with apophatic prayer) and then grounds out his thinking in his discussion
of ritual, and the Indo-European roots of Rta, pointing out that the Zen
monk's daily life is 'nothing but ritual'.
So: Pirsig is arguing that you get to DQ through high quality social and
intellectual rituals; in a Christian context, as I originally quoted, "'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".
I would therefore argue that - broadly speaking - my understanding of
mysticism tallies with what Pirsig writes in Lila, and not with what Wilber
is saying. (Although, as I said I haven't read any Wilber, so I could be
libelling him too.) However, this needs to be drawn out more fully -
hopefully in a way that you will have sympathy with. In what you then said
in your response, you said:
>>>
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.
[and you go on to say, with regard to my Eucharist quotation]:
.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.
>>>
Putting my argument into MoQ language, I am saying that the traditional
understanding of mysticism centres on the ability to develop the static
pattern of the faith in a DQ direction (those who can elucidate the
mysteries of the faith). The value of the DQ lies in the ability to move the
static patterns (of the church) forward, not in the experiences themselves.
Indeed, a strong case can be made that a central part of the traditional
Christian mystical methodology is precisely to interrogate and disown the
ideology of 'experience'. And indeed that is not so surprising, for to talk
of experience is to already be into the SOM ego level. What is crucial to
the mystical path is the DQ that is thereby generated - to the benefit (ie
to improve the value of) the underlying social and intellectual patterns
(Church and Faith).
Your dictionary definition (would you deny that it is written by SOM
dominated objectivists?) centres upon the experiences, not the relationship
that those teachers had to their wider context. And that is what I object
to.
However, I'm hopeful that you'll be sympathetic to what I am saying, and
that is because of your concern with the importance of a praxis, through
which to develop ourselves morally and spiritually - to get us closer to DQ.
Pirsig does not provide any material for doing this, even if he does point
in the direction of American Indian mysticism at the end of Lila.
To my mind, our practices need to be shaped by an established religion, for
they 1. have the resources for it, having developed over thousands of years
and 2. the modern secular scientistic alternative is vitiated for all the
reasons that are familiar to people who understand the MoQ.
This post isn't as clear as I would like it to be, but hopefully it makes my
point.
Sam
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:52 GMT