From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 01:21:29 GMT
Sam and y'all:
In response to my "set and setting", Sam said:
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:
Scientific language? I think that's too generous. It was based on casual
observation. My only point was that this need for "tradition", as you call
it, was independantly confirmed even by neophytes. The bit about the wheels
was lost on me, so we'll skip ahead to....
Sam said:
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.
dmb says:
I accept it for what it is, a list a commonly found features of the mystical
experience. It is useful and correct as far it goes. I've read James and
would recommend him to friends, but he's also a bit of an antique and a
Victorian. Not exactly my greatest hero. I don't know if I'd attatch myself
to anyone's framework in particular. I'd like to, but they won't have it.
Just kidding. I do like Wilber's work quite a bit, but have learned
something from everyone I've read on the topic, even if what I learned is
that the author is full of hooey. Adding books to my own experience has led
me to a few conclusions about mysticism and the mystical experience. But
this stuff is famous for being indescribable and anything I say will just
sound like gobble-dee-gook, expecially if you've not had a mystical
experience yourself. Anyway, I think the mystical experience is the origin
of all mankind's religion. Its perfectly natural, healthy and even vital.
Its an experience that exposes you knowledge that goes way beyond brains,
facts and ideas. This noetic quality is what I find most compelling. Its
like sticking your head into god's skin. Its like plugging into the main
power station. All of creation is shot through with astonishing beauty.
Every little thing seems so brilliant and wise, perfectly designed and
flawlessly executed. I tend to think about the depressing things too, that
isolation and loneliness that so many philosophers talk about becomes an
acute sensation rather than an abstact idea. At the same time, as Pirsig
mentions, the mind is drawn to the analysis of complex metaphyscial
realities, consciousness expands to include all matter of sensation, feeling
and thought all at once in a sort of boundless awareness. Oh, so many ways
to try and get at it, but none of them feel right. But one conclusion a
person can walk away with is that the expansion of consciousness is what the
game is all about and that every little thing in the universe is a
manifestation of consciousness, a small piece of the universal ground of
being, which is like pure silent potential.
Thanks.
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 : Sun Nov 10 2002 - 01:21:33 GMT