From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Nov 20 2004 - 23:56:30 GMT
Sam, Scott and all MOQers:
dmb asked:
The perennial philosophy is "spiritual masturbation"? What is that supposed
to mean?
Sam answered:
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.
dmb says:
Separate from social intercourse? Four words? That's it? That's your idea of
an explanation? You really expect me to understand what you're talking about
here? And as I already explained (in the post to which you're responding),
the perennial philosophy does not SUPPORT the social level, it is the
universal wisdom gleaned from the world's great religons....
dmb had said:
the perennial philosophy does not SUPPORT the social level, it IS the social
level, or rather the HEART and SOUL of the social level. ...As Huxley
explains, its like a chemically purified extraction, its 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.
dmb continues:
And why would you think ANY philosophy SUPPORTS the social level? I really
don't know what you mean, but I'm pretty sure the question is based on some
confusion, is not a real question and can't be answered. I only have a
four-word explanation, but I can guess what you're getting at based on
previous posts and such. When you complain that this philosophy is "separate
from social intercourse", are you complaining that there are those who dare
to approach god outside of the Church? Is that it? Are you saying its not
legitimate to climb that mountain alone, like a lone wolf, say? This really
would be so much easier if you'd be more direct and, I dare say, open. I
mean, explanations that can be contained in one sentence can only come from
those who are playing things very close to the vest, don't you think? Like
I've said before, this is not a poker game, its a discussion.
Sam replied:
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.
dmb says:
Its more an abstraction than anything like a logical equivalent. But don't
get too confused, where only talking about an intellectual philosophy that
preserves and includes the wisdom of the social level. We're talking about a
form of spirituality that values social level religions, but is NOT limited
to them. As an intellectual approach, by definition, it transcends the
limits of ritualistic and theistic religions. See? It is a form of
spirituality that is based on experience and not "faith".
Sam Norton asked:
...if the central truth of mysticism is an experience?
dmb answered:
No. The central truths of mysticism ARE REVEALED in an experience.
Sam was surprized:
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.
dmb says:
I can't imagine where you got such an impression. Did you think I was
talking about a warm fuzzy feeling free of content? Did you think my
discussion about the transcendent ultimate Self was devoid of content? What
did you think James meant in describing one of the experience's essential
elements as "noetic"? What did you think of Pirsig's descriptions of his own
"vision quest"?
And just what the heck is an "experience 'as such'"?
Sam continued:
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).
dmb says:
I already provided lenghty answers to questions (a) and (b) last weekend.
And the last question can only be answered if i undertand what you mean by
"accepted separately from having the experience". Do you mean we should
accpet them on faith until one is graced by the experience? Do you mean we
can accept it because the experience has been had and verified by others,
but not me personally, as in the case of most scientific assertions such as
E=mc2? In any case, I think the question is confused. One of the central
assertions of philosophical mysticism is that the mystical reality is beyond
words, concepts and definitions. So in order to really KNOW these truths is
in a transcendent moment. You gotta taste it for yourself. Otherwise, all
you can really know is a metaphorical description of what it is or an
intellectual description of what it is NOT. But it is really only seen with
that third eye.
Sam said:
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?
dmb says:
The rituals of the perennial philosophy are pretty much the same as the
rituals of any philosophy. And the biological forces that it is most
concerned with include the desire to lick the bowl while making a cake and
the desire to nap. But seriously, these questions can't answered. Ritual is
a social level thing, it effects a part of the mind that preceeds the
rational. Ritual, in the normal sense of the word, is a series of symbolic
gestures that evoke emotional responses and are intended to carry one beyond
thought. Ritual have no part in philosophy except as a subject of
investigation. Social level morals are not part of the perennial philosophy
for a similar reason. Remember how Pirsig says that intellect cannot
directly control biology? Well, the only connection between biological
forces and the perennial philosophy would be if we intellectually determine
that some social level values, in the attempt to control biology, also
control intellectual values. In other words, we can use the intellect to
examine social level morals and adjust them accordingly. But the perennial
philosophy is much more specific than that. It does not replace the whole
social level, it only extracts the spiritual message at the core of our
religions. Since these are various static portratis of DQ at the social
level, the intellectual level can see what they are all pointing at and
grapple with the same reality at a higher level. It represents a
spirituality that doesn't require faith, obedience, social approval, rituals
or anything like that. Lila demonstrates all this. And so is the answer to
your other question along these lines...
Sam asked:
How do you know that "The distinction between myth and fact is a distinction
between social and intellectual"? Can you explain why you think this is
true?
dmb says:
This is really disappointing, Sam. This question was already answered in
some Wilber and CAmpbell quotes I recently dished up and I must have
presented the relevant Pirsig quotes at least a half a dozen times by now.
Surely you see that Pirsig has made this clear throughout Lila? If I say the
distinction between sex and celebrity is the distinction between the
biological level and the social level, does that make sense? Well, its the
same idea. Mythos and Logos. Socrates questioning the existence of the gods.
Take another look at chapter 30 of Lila. Pirsig explains briefly what
CAmbell explains in great detail. It not only gets at the nature of a
mystical experience, but also shows a bit about how myth and ritual existed
for maybe 50,000 years before intellect was born. You are free to disagree
with it of course, but I do get a little irritated when a guy as smart as
you seem to be goes asking me about what has already been well explained in
the books. You have read the books?
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 : Sun Nov 21 2004 - 00:03:49 GMT