From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2002 - 09:19:32 GMT
Hiya David, part 2 :-)
> Sam said:
> Can I take it, then, that you accept the necessity for "tradition" (or an
> equivalent alternative descriptor of your choice)? So you agree with me
that
> it is a necessary element in discriminating 'mystical experiences'?
>
> DMB says:
> I'm glad you raised the issue again because I left some things unsaid. The
> "set and setting" aspect is not what first came to with respect to
> "tradition". As I said before, the comtemporary forms of tradition tend to
> frown on mysticism and some even see it as evil. But if we go back far
> enough, before the Inquistions and the Christianization of Europe, there
> were various kinds of Pagan mystery religions. They had a highly developed
> "technology" to induce powerful experiences. Evidence of this kind of
thing
> can be seen in the neolithic architechture in Sicily, Crete, Malta,
Scotland
> and other places. And there's a world-wide shamanic tradition that reaches
> way back tens of thousands of years into pre-historic times. The religions
> in our culture ignore and/or reject all that. And, as you can see, all
that
> goes way beyond "set and setting".
>
As always, it's difficult to work out whether your extended answer counts as
a 'yes' or a 'no' or a 'mu'. You claim that 'contemporary forms.. frown on
mysticism' which I think is a largely unsupportable claim. Contemporary
forms of what? If you said Protestantism you'd have a case - not a total
case, but a reasonable one. But if your point is 'contemporary forms of
Christianity' then you're simply wrong. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and -
yes - Anglicanism all take mysticism deeply seriously. But they have a
different understanding of mysticism to you, of course! And you talk about
the Pagan mystery religions with such confidence, as if we really know what
the people who built Stonehenge were up to! We've got some ideas, sure, but
sufficient certainty to justify your claims? I think not. In any case, I
couldn't give two monkeys about 'set and setting' - they were terms that you
introduced to justify your position against me, which I thought was daft
because you were actually reinforcing my point, as you continue to do. So
any chance of a straight answer - do you see 'traditions of understanding'
as important in understanding 'mystical experiences'?
> DMB says:
> It seems to be the origin of religion for two reasons, either one of which
> is not quite enough to make the claim. The first is the extremely ancient
> tradition I sketched above. It would be too much to claim a cause and
effect
> relationship. The long history of the use of entheogenics within the
> evolving religious traditions could be explained as mere concomitance or
> concurrance. But the second reason suppliments the first and comes from
> experience. This gets at the noetic AND ineffable qualities at the same
> time. It feels like I know it more certainly than I know anything else,
but
> I can't say how or why I came to this knowledge. It just seemed suddenlyly
> plain. It was an "Oh! Of course!" kind of thing. These two reason roll
> together into one and suddenly the sayings of the mystics and saints make
> sense. Sure there are differences, but the vast majority of that is
> attributable to the cultural differences of the one describing their
> experience.
In this I think you are exhibiting the unquestioned commitments of your
paradigm, which are what I am trying to excavate (this is why I want you to
be just as 'intellectually dishonest' as I have been). What grounds do you
have for saying "the vast majority of that [differences between the mystics
of different traditions] is attributable to the cultural differences of the
one describing their experience."? Obviously it's an axiom for you, but why?
In what way can you run together the Christian mystics with, say, Hindu
gurus? What evidence do you have for this? Other than your own certainty, of
course.....
> The other question is partly answered by this same cultural effect, only
> more so. A mystic of the East is bound to be more advanced than we
> Westerners. Where saints and sages are the exception in the West, the East
> has continued to develop a "technology" of consciousness within its
> religious traditions. (Don't get me wrong. The Eastern tradition has its
> share of fundamentalists and such.)
So the West has not developed a 'technology' of consciousness????? The mind
boggles. Have you ever actually examined what the Christian tradition says
about these things? Augustine for example? It's precisely this sort of
comment which makes me talk about the 'comfortable cliches' which I think
dominate your understanding - you've accepted a verdict on Christianity at
second hand, without actually looking at things for yourself. For if you
had, you would appreciate just how crass that sounds. Perhaps your
'midWestern Baptist' education in Christianity was a particularly bad one?
> Still, just as in comparative mythology
> and comparative religion, we can see past the outer cultural garments and
> find the common traits. They began the journey as a shamanic culture too.
> That's one thing all cultures seem to have in common, witch doctors. Maybe
> this is unremarkable to you, but I discovered fairly recently and find it
to
> be pretty damn astonishing.
>
One of the interesting things about Jung, for me, is that he gives a useful
way of describing the repetition of different characters in alternative
cultures over time. I'm sure if I'd been born in a different culture, I
would still have ended up in a quasi-shamanic position. That's the way I'm
made (at the biological level). But I wouldn't have the same understandings
that I have now.
I still want you to justify your claim that 'we can see past the outer
cultural garments and find the common traits'. I think that's a prior
assumption, and one, moreover, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. So I want
to know _why_ you believe it to be so. I think it's a modern mythology that
kicked in after the Enlightenment. It's the same 'axiom' that I mentioned
above: the assertion that there is a common 'mystical experience' underlying
all religious expression. Why do you believe that?
> Thanks.
>
Thank _you_.
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 : Mon Nov 11 2002 - 09:16:13 GMT