From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 19:17:42 GMT
Hi David,
> dmb says:
> Right. The first experimenters with LSD discovered this right away. They
> referred to personality and mental state as the "set" and the actual
> location as the "setting". It became clear very quickly that having the
> right set and setting went a long way toward preventing "bad trips".
A renewal of acquaintance with a basic truth, just one transposed from
theological language to scientific (SOM) language. Not necessarily an
advance in understanding. You could say that what I am talking about when I
refer to a 'tradition' is what those scientists were relying on when they
were determining what the 'right' was with regard to the set and setting.
> dmb says:
> I think you're bringing in the issue of social evolution here....
Not really. I'm wanting to say that people don't have to reinvent the wheel,
and that if, in fact, the wheel has already been invented and has evolved
into really quite a sexy sort of wheel (with pneumatic tyres and flashy
hubcaps) then going back to smooth stones and saying 'look, wow, it rolls
man!' is not very exciting - so people may not recognise it as having
Quality. It may well be something of a breakthrough for the individual
concerned - all well and good - but I would say that is because the culture
the individual grew up in was particularly backward when it came to
assessing wheels. If you are steeped in a culture (a tradition) in which
wheel making has been developed into a fine art, then you're not going to be
too impressed with a 'rediscovery' of smooth stones.
>
> dmb says:
> James' description is basic and I have no problem with it, but there's a
> long-lost history and many good writers since James too. If you want a
name
> for my position on mysticism, you can call it "fascinated enthusiasm".
> Remind me to tell you about Santa Claus and the shamanic tradition.
Orpheus
> is connected to this realm in a big way too. Blake, Huxley, Morrision. The
> list goes on and on.
I'm sure the list does go on and on, in the face of a complete absence of
critical comment in most cases. ("Whaddaya mean my stone isn't original?")
But it would be good to pin you down: you 'have no problem' with James'
account, but does that mean you accept it as a framework for your
understanding of mysticism? If you reject it as a framework, do you have an
alternative framework, or do you reject all frameworks in principle as
mistaken? If Wilber is your preferred framework, please give a brief precis
of his account, as I am not directly familiar with his writing.
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 : Sat Nov 09 2002 - 19:14:27 GMT