From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Nov 16 2002 - 23:14:00 GMT
Sam said:
I thought 'demythologisation' precisely _was_ putting things into a larger
context, ie by abstracting and comparing common features. But as you said
yourself that we couldn't avoid living out the archetypes,...
DMB says:
OK. That's about right. But let me be perfectly clear. The dictionary
definition I have includes phrase like, "to divest of legendary attributes"
and "to make less mysterious". I expect most dictionaries would describe the
meaning in dismissive language much like this. The word has a connotation
that were just "taking the magic out of it", being more grown up about it.
But, as I hope I demonstrated with the Orpheus/Christ comparison, the kind
of de-mythologizing I'm trying to do here only elevates the myths and the
mystery remains fully intact. I mean, I think the usual sense of the word is
something like "rational deconstruction", whereas I'm talking about a way to
see them as a universal human truth, as a true thing in ways more varied and
profound than we previously imagined. This kind invests the myths rather
than divests. See?
Sam said:
Why don't you believe it? From my (necessarily biased) point of view, I'm
resisting intellectual-level distortions of Christianity, yes, but from a
higher level intellectual/mystical point of view. I still think you've got
me packaged in that box marked 'Conservative Christian', and you're not
actually engaging with _me_ or what I think.
DMB says:
Not engaged with you? Ouch. That hurts. I've spent the vast majority of my
time and attention on conversations with you. Are you resisting from an
intellectual and mystical point of view? As I've mentioned, all the various
kinds of Christianity fit into the MOQ. As I understand it, the churches are
social level things, comparative religion, mythology and stuff like that
would be intellectual level stuff and Pirsig even has a favorite Christian
mystic. Perhaps I'm not "listening" that well, because I don't really hear
the intellectual or mystical in what you're saying, at least that's not the
thrust of it. What I see are various attempts to paint social level values
as intellectual ones. This is usually where I jump in to try to explain why
they can't rightly be called intellecutal. So its not that I put you in a
box, these are conclusions based on what you've written here, often directly
to me. At this point I should tell you that I certainly don't take you for a
reactionary, a fundamentalists or anything like that. Not at all. The values
you mistakenly present as intellectual are the very finest examples at the
social level and you seem to hit on the one's that don't contradict
intellectual values. The one's really worth keeping. You strike me as a
classicist, a well educated and intelligent person. But still.... as
wonderful as it is, the social level is no longer the most wonderful thing.
The most wonderful thing includes all that, is built on that, AND has
something more.
About me and the 60's, Sam said:
I owe you an apology. I was operating under the impression that you were
significantly younger than me. You're not. Oops. But my point was that your
arguments were current at that time, and seem redolent of that era, that's
all.
DMB says:
I have read some Alan Watts, who was something of a 60's guru (And an
Anglican priest) but Wilber and Pirsig are the strongest influences. I think
about most other stuff using a combination of their terms and ideas. Wilber
is so current that he's probably writing at this moment. Both of them talk
about the same problem with the quasi-Zen, LSD fueled mysticism of the 60's,
the same thing that bothers me. It was mostly nihilistic, regressive and
anti-intellectual.
Sam said:
But the whole point of 'active listening' is that you explain how YOU
understand my position, in YOUR OWN WORDS, and wait for me to say if you've
understood my point or not. Obviously we can't get to perfection, but we can
get much closer than we're getting now. As I say, I don't think you've
understood my perspective. It's perfectly possible to continue disagreeing
with me in all sorts of ways (I outlined three major ways in one of my
posts, there are probably more) so you won't be risking anything if you
accept my challenge. But it might lift our dialogue out of its rut.
DMB says:
I'm swamped. Still have 74 unread posts to read. I should know what those
three major ways are, or at least where to find them, but I'm drowning in
posts and only vaguely recall that invitation. But I think its fair to let
me disagree in my own way. I am certainly trying to read carefully and
respond honestly, but you seem to avoid my objections. I don't wish to seem
childish and merely say. "no I'm not! You are! But I also feel you're not
hearing me. For example, to my objection that you've begun with a conclusion
you simply responded by saying this objection only shows that I didn't get
your point, but then you say nothing more about it. How did I miss the
point? I get it. You're resisting Pirsig's depiction of Christianity. You've
begun with the conclusion that Pirsig is wrong and that the church, at least
your church, is an intellectual level thing and it stands for intellectual
values. Is that not it? I get that. And if that's it, I think you're
incorrect.
P.S. I should have included the following quote in the "traditions of
mysticism" post because it answers your question about the inner meaning and
the outer cultural differences. It answers you question about the
universality of the mystical experience and its role in the origin of all
religion. It answers your objections about the west's lack of respect for
mysticism. From page 408, the very end of Lila....
"Maybe when Phaedrus got this metaphysics all put together people would see
that the value-centered reality it described wasn't just a wild thesis off
in some new direction but was a connnecting link to a part of themnselves
which had always been suppressed by cultural norms and which needed opening
up. He hoped so. ... He hoped this Quality metaphysics was something that
would get past the immune system and show that American Indian mysticism is
not some thing alien from American culture. It's a deep submerged hidden
root of it. ... Phaedrus remembered saying to Dusenberry just after that
peyote meeting was over, 'The Hindu understanding is just a low-grade
imitation of THIS! This is how it must have been before all the clap-trap
got started.'"
Religious clap trap is the static form created in the wake of Dynamic or
mystical experience. In the west this original spark is all but denied,
stamped out, called crazy, made illegal and otherwise suppressed. What's
left is the clap-trap, but because of this suppression, hardly anyone knows
what its about. That's how it becomes meaningless, empty and dies. Pirsig's
MOQ is an intellectual static form of this same orginial insight. Its fresh,
fouth level clap trap, which is much better. I know, the common impression
is that atheism goes hand in hand with the intellectual values, but as
Pirsig and Wilber aptly demonstrate, this is not necessarily true. I think
the only way that our mythological heritage can be saved from the clutches
of the hopelessly stupid literalist and fundamentalist interpretations is to
integrate it into the intellectual level, as is already being done by many
different kinds of scholars.
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 : Sat Nov 16 2002 - 23:14:05 GMT