From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 22:54:15 BST
John,
John Beasley wrote:
>
> According to Ali, Scott's credo [Scott: "I think salvation lies in
> strengthening the intellect, and the intellect is strengthened by butting up
> against mystery. That which we understand is dead, while a nice piece of
> mystery keeps it alive and dynamic."] is still sophistry, since the emphasis
> is on the intellect, rather than on immediacy.
If "intellect" is interpreted in SOM fashion, you would be right, but
you continually ignore my protestations that I mean something much more
than SOM intellect, and in this greater meaning, intellect *becomes*
immediate experience, or to put it another way, mystical experience has
noetic content. The barrier to immediate experience is a SOM ego, not
intellect. Wordless concentration is a way of strengthening the
intellect. If John Wren-Lewis had not had a strong intellect, his
reaction to his experience would have, I would guess, been much less
instructive to the rest of us.
>
> Some supporters of the intellect may be annoyed to see their position lumped
> in with fundamentalism, but the more I reflect on this the more I am
> convinced that the difference is not so great. Both believe that there is a
> best answer, the one is 'revealed', the other 'discovered'. This whole
> outlook is fundamentally challenged by the postmodern understandings that
> have come to dominate modern thought in an obsessive way.
Again, haven't I said a thousand times that intellect without
transcendence gives no ultimate answers? (And transcendence allows no
ultimate description.) Why else did I emphasize that dogma must be
inexplicable? Otherwise one might believe that it contains answers.
>
> The mystic assertions of a reality prior to language are surely correct if
> we look at human infancy.
But other mystics assert the priority of God's language over our
(fallen) reality. In other words, immediate experience is hearing
(insert your favorite word here: Absolute, Quality, etc.) speak.
> I am not sure that the mystic position is 'true', but it seems to me the
> only viable option, given the weaknesses of the other approaches.
We agree fully (that mysticism if the only viable option). Now, which
mystics, those who are clearly immune to the pre/trans fallacy, or those
who sound more pre than trans?
- Scott
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