From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 15 2004 - 16:12:07 GMT
Hi DMB,
I'm responding to your 'On Faith' points in this thread, as it seems the two threads are covering
the same ground.
> Sam asked dmb:
> Tell you what, as it seems to me that the perennial philosophy etc is
> virtually solipsistic and akin to spiritual masturbation, why don't you
> outline how it does support the social level? I don't think that it is
> capable of supporting the social level, but I'm happy to concede that you
> know more
> about it than me. So how does it do so?
>
> dmb reples:
> Spiritual masturbation? What is that supposed to mean?
That it is separate from social intercourse - a graphic way of putting across my main question,
which is 'how does the perennial philosophy support the social level?' As I say, I can't see a link,
but the invitation for you to put me right is genuine.
> But seriously, I provided a heaping helping of
> quotes that explain the perennial philosophy and point to some of the great
> thinkers who subscribe to it and you ignore all that in favor of a vague,
> and disgusting, insult? And, as Pirsig explains, if this message has
> appeared in virtually every time and place on earth and some of the greatest
> thinkers of all time have also found it to be true, then what possible
> reason could you have for thinking it is in any way solipsistic? Its pretty
> much the opposite of solipsim, its a source for universal agreement.
None of which explains a link to the social level.
> Somebody help me out. I need a reality check. Is it just me or is Sam being
> rude and obtuse here?
Er... I need a reality check. Is it just me or is DMB complaining about rudeness here??? Sorry, I
just thought this was the idiom you were most comfortable with ;-)
> In any case, to put it very simply, the perennial philosophy does not
> SUPPORT the social level, it IS the social level, or rather the HEART and
> SOUL of the social level.
Wow. That is not at all what I thought you'd say.
> Its that part of the social level that refers to
> the righteous order of the universe and the underlying ground of being. (Rht
> and DQ) As Huxley explains, it is like a chemically purifiy extraction, it
> is the common core message of all religions, of all myths. When we strip
> away the superficial cultural peculiarities, an underlying structure and
> meaning is revealed.
So let me be clear on this. The perennial philosophy is the 'underlying structure and meaning' of
'all religions, all myths' - but this is social level, not intellectual level? So the perennial
philosophy is not an abstraction from those religious/mythological stories, but is logically
equivalent? INteresting. Let's skip to my little summary of your views.
> Sam Norton asked if dmb believes...
>
> a) the central truth of mysticism is an experience;
>
> No. The central truths of mysticism ARE REVEALED in an experience.
Again, this is a very interesting development for me. I had been under the impression that it was
the experience "as such" that you were focussed on. If the main point about mysticism is the
revelation of truth then we can start to explore potential for common ground. However, some
clarificatory questions first. a) what sort of truths are the 'central truths of mysticism'? (Are
they propositional, for example?) b) are there criteria for establishing these truths as true, or
are they self-authenticating, or are they irreducibly private? c) can these truths be accepted
separately from having the experience (as with the structure of benzene being revealed in a dream of
an orobouros - we don't have to have the dream to understand benzene).
But for the time being, let us have a) as "The central truths of philosophical mysticism ARE
REVEALED in an experience".
> b) this experience is common to all the great religious and mythical
> traditions;
>
> That's about right, but maybe its better to say that the myths and religions
> are a static portratit of those central truths and are meant to lead us
> toward this relevation.
> Campbell's idea of "the hero with a thousands faces",
> for example, shows how Orpheus, Buddha and the Christ are all the same guy
> in different clothes, so to speak. They all took the same journey and serve
> as a model for us to do the same. And the actual content of that core
> message is pretty well depicted in Pirsig MOQ. It is a form of philosophical
> mysticism and concieves static reality in terms of levels. As Wilber
> explains, these are the two main elements that we find over and over. But
> the quotes I dished up already said all that, and so I can't really imagine
> what it is you don't understand. The perennial philosophy is not about
> picking and choosing whatever doctrines and dogmas we might find useful, its
> the wisdom we discover by looking at a wide range of pictures to determine
> what is common to all of them. This is an intellectual construct in some
> sense, but not particularly modern. The ancients had their library at
> Alexandria and such and they also saw this.
So how about we rephrase b) as: "the central truths of philosophical mysticism are common to all the
great religious and mythical traditions"?
> c) as such it represents a 'common core' underlying religious traditions;
>
> Right, commonalities are discovered and sifted out.
So c) stands as is.
> d) the religious traditions often prevent adherents achieving this mystical
> experience (ivy blocking out the sunlight);
>
> Right. For example, you seem to read Christianity the its myths in such a
> way that you can deny the very existence of such an experience and, oddly,
> insist that it is determined by subsequent behavior of one who had this
> experience, which does not exist. Makes my head spin.
Given the change in a), this needs to be rephrased. How about "the religious traditions often
prevent adherents discerning these central truths"?
> e) the tradition known as the perennial philosophy, or philosophical
> mysticism, is the intellectual level exploration of this experience, which
> is free of the problems in d);
>
> Well, intellecual descriptions have their own limitations and problems, but
> yes, to the extent that the PP represents an integration of the social and
> intellectual levels, it does escape the limitations of the social level
> while preserving its wisdom.
> In anticipation of a reasonable objection, I have to add that there is also
> the basic idea that one of the most central tasks of the social level is to
> control the biological appetites and such. The perennial philosophy does not
> deny or destroy this, as Pirsig's subscription tells us, but rather fits
> into the righteous structure, into the idea of static reality as a series of
> levels. The process of subjecting these kinds of social level morals is
> necessarily more culture specific (Coming of Age in Samoa and all that.) but
> is otherwise the same. We step back and, instead of rejecting or accepting
> them blindly, we are advised to examine them to discover their original
> point and purpose, to see what they're supposed to do, to see how well it
> works and sort them out from there. Doesn't seem too tough. Thou shalt not
> murder? You bet. Who doesn't buy that one? We certainly want to keep that
> baby.But Thou shalt have no other God before me? It likely that there was a
> point and purpose for that commandment somewhere in time, but its a lethal
> idea in our own time.
This is the really surprising bit. I had thought your view was that the PP was purely fourth level.
I don't (yet) understand how the PP is 'an integration of the social and intellectual levels'. For
example, I had thought that ritual was central to the social level - what are the rituals of PP?
(Other than confounding fat-headed priests with half-baked philosophies?) Are you saying that PP is
simply a cultural support system for the cultural elements which do repress the biological?
> f) Pirsig is a philosophical mystic in this sense; specifically, the MoQ
> uses the 'levels' of reality common to other descriptions of the perennial
> philosophy (and explored in more detail by, eg, Ken Wilber).
>
> Right. The idea of levels and the idea that the reality is dynamic,
> undivided and therefore beyond all thought categories - these are the two
> core notions. We can see the levels in the great chain of being, in Dante's
> Inferno and that5 sort of thing. And I've already explained how the
> christian myth can be read as a psychological or spiritual story of
> ignorance and enlightenment rather than of sin and redemption in an
> historical drama.
>
> Does that help?
Yes, very much (even though I don't have a clear understanding of your position, I'm much closer
than I was). Let me run through the list again, and then reiterate the questions. As rephrased, you
believe:
a) The central truths of philosophical mysticism are revealed in an experience;
b) the central truths of philosophical mysticism are common to all the great religious and mythical
traditions;
c) as such it represents a 'common core' underlying religious traditions;
d) the religious traditions often prevent adherents discerning these central truths;
e) the tradition known as the perennial philosophy (ie philosophical mysticism) is free of these
problems;
f) Pirsig is a philosophical mystic in this sense.
How do they sound?
Now, I'm interested in a few questions about the 'central truths', and then more generally in
exploring where the PP stands on the social/intellectual spectrum, so:
a) what sort of truths are the 'central truths of mysticism'? (Are they propositional, for example?
If so, what are the propositions?)
b) are there criteria for establishing these truths as true? (or are they self-authenticating, or
are they irreducibly private?)
c) can these truths be accepted separately from having the experience?
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 15 2004 - 17:45:42 GMT