From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 02:00:41 GMT
Hi Sam,
It seems we may be a bit further apart than you thought.
Sam)I would absolutely not want to 'explain this away in biological terms',
I would want to talk about, eg, the revelation of an underlying truth which
had been obscured, and I'd be very happy for 'mystical' to be used in the
description of what had happened. Where I think the 'experience' language
goes awry is the assumption that mysticisms are everywhere one and the same,
and that there is the same truth being revealed in every 'experience' (and
therefore, if those particular truths are not revealed, then it's not a
mystical experience....) So when you say:
> Why make this distinction? Mysticism is mysticism. In religion, if you
> receive a vision, then this is mysticism. The same would hold true no
matter
> theist/anti-theist. Possibly the only thing keeping you from a mystic
> experience would be your intellect.
I would want to argue (along the lines of MSH's recent post) that
bus-driving can be a mystical experience if it is done in the right way, as
can seeing your hand after a stroke, or seeing your beloved afresh after 20
years. These are all wonderful examples of Quality breaking through our
static patterns. What I object to is the metaphysical baggage that gets
tacked on to it all, so that our lives get distorted through its framework.
In other words I see the Jamesian approach as saying you've got to tune
yourself in to get THIS experience (as described by William James etc) and
if you don't have THIS experience then you're a benighted good-for-nothing
stuck in conventional thinking, and you'll never understand the truth about
life - that Quality is THIS particular set of static intellectual patterns.
Whereas if you do tune in to THIS experience then suddenly all will be
clear, you'll be enlightened (aka you'll get to share those static
intellectual patterns) and peace and
harmony will rein etc. I see this as a case of arrested spiritual
development, or if I'm feeling rude: 'spiritual masturbation', as it seems
to correlate quite well to the physical sort - in so far as I understand
either ;-)
Chin says - masturbation can be a mystical experience if it is done right.
Spiritual masturbation, intellectual masturbation, what's the difference?
> I believe where you are disagreeing with me is on 'experienced' as
> opposed to mystic. As our cultures have developed, I would feel
> 'experienced'
would
> have come to mean 'anything' experienced, and not S/O only. That is
> how I meant it.
Sam) Whereas I think the reverse - the impact of empiricism has meant that
'experienced' has acquired a narrower sense, and it is the narrow sense
which I see as entirely a product of S/O, and underlying the Jamesian
understanding of mysticism. If everything is 'experienced' then talk about
'experience' doesn't add anything to the description (which is my view)
whereas if 'experience' acquires philosophical status as a result of the
empiricist approach, then it *does* add something to the description, and it
is the addition which I object to.
Chin says - Sorry, I didn't realize James was that much an icon in the
philosophy world. I like his down to earth way of looking at things, but
never considered idolizing him.
> Mysticism may very well need to be dropped, except in the sense you
> are relating to someone's definition of mysticism from your readings
> of philosophy -- that which maybe you feel covers the whole meaning of
> mysticism, which I don't feel any does. If you relate mysticism to a
certain
> philosopher, then you are denying that other philosophers are mystic.
> If
you
> think about it, your definition of mystic covers quite a few
> philosophers.
Sam) Of course it does. I'm wanting to say that mysticism is a baggier,
looser sort of word that does not correspond to a specific, definitional,
Platonic 'essence of mysticism' - which I see as deluded, even if it has
been accepted by various venerable authorities. I'm
*disagreeing* with the idea that
mysticism can be captured by any one philosopher, or school of philosophy. I
think there are interesting resemblances between the spiritual disciplines
of the various religions, but I don't take that to mean that they are
necessarily describing the same thing - I think that is a simple mistake.
Chin says - I agree, unless this "same thing" is the universe, known as
Quality to Pirsig.
> Life is full of mystical experiences, and the person who can see these
> experiences is a mystic, whether she changes the world or not from one
> mystical experience -- maybe two -- maybe the fact that everyday holds
> a
new
> one, and everyone around her is touched by her Quality.
Sam) I think to be a mystic is to be more engaged with the truth of the
world than otherwise (ie to be more open to Quality) and I think this is a
*relative* phenomenon, which can't be understood apart from the wider
culture.
Chin says - If by "wider culture" you mean a universal world culture where
no one is denied their religious or cultural beliefs but all are accepted,
and even considered, or as Pirsig said dusted off to see if they benefit
society - I love the idea of a Utopia, all people of the world tuned into
the same Quality truths that would hold no need for DQ, but would we not go
mad with all this happiness?
> Your definition of mystic is fine. Do we need a better one?
he he he - ask DMB ;-)
Chin says - I think you carried it out too far, as opposed to leaving it
defined in its general sense, and this is where you and he had differences.
I fear this is where we are having ours. Maybe it just needs to be left
defined in simple terms.
> What if we include a tradition of one -- maybe two?
Sam) I don't think 'tradition' can be restricted to a single person - it
becomes a solitary vice in that case
> Then would the mystical experience need to change the tradition, or
> would
it
> allow us to live in the same tradition until the tradition caught up
> to
us,
> or them naturally by the experiences it caused to fan out around them?
Mystics are those who know the tradition so well that they are free to
develop or change it; or, to bring out and make explicit those Qualities
within the tradition that had previously been hidden. It's what Pirsig talks
about when he describes the welder, or when he describes the art of
motorcycle maintenance - the motorcycle and the mechanic are one, and there
is a complete fluidity, a complete absence of constraint - but it is
*specifically* built on all that has gone before. I think this is also what
Mark Maxwell is talking about when he describes the 'sweet spot' of coherent
static patterns. Which is why I don't think you can get to that stage unless
you have first attained some sort of mastery of the accumulated static
patterns; it would be like a novice mechanic getting 'with it' and shearing
the threads off a screw because he hadn't yet acquired the basic 'feel' for
how tightly to twist it. Such a novice mechanic, if they then turned round
and claimed to be 'with it, going with the flow, in tune with the cosmos
etc' would be considered a right prat - (we're back to my spiritual
masturbation point again) - in other words there are always criteria for
assessing the Quality of what is claimed to be mystical.
Chin says - it seems you are describing DQ as opposed to a mystical
experience. It would be my belief that a mystical experience is not limited
to any knowledge, or preparation, except unloading the baggage that keeps
you from being touched by it. I fear this baggage might resemble something
like what we are doing here -- philosophology -- or being weighted down by
something like a preconceived religious or cultural opinion which keeps us
from seeing the truth or the good when it slaps us in the face. So if we
master our religious, cultural, scientific, or cultish nature, maybe this
would hinder us, as opposed to prepare us.
It is my simple belief that if we give ourselves up to the secrets of the
universe, whether it comes through God or from an opening in the Black Hole
and the Universal Sun bringing us up to higher enlightenment, we become
capable of mystical experience.
To me, it really does not matter what you 'Think' will happen, only that you
are not tied down to the prejudices that have built themselves into your
psyche over the years.
I would think that there is something -- value, Quality, Nothingness,
Oneness, Source, God, or Allah, and it doesn't matter what you call it -- it
is just there. 'Universe' suits me fine. When you lose focus of the fact
that you are no more than a spec of on a spec of The Whole - The Universe,
you lose the ability to be touched by the force of the universe. Once you
become out of touch, then you lose your natural ability to see what it is to
live with nature, or the nature of things.
Then you have to go searching for universal (or immortal) truths to fill the
void. Quality seems as good a word as any I have come across to help keep
this universal connection in perspective. The metaphysics is secondary, and
only as a way of explanation so that this Quality can be accepted, and can
rid of this need of religious and intellectual masturbation.
This is what I meant by Socrates was a mystic. He defined Quality before
Pirsig, he just didn't call it anything. No divisions were needed, and none
would be needed now if we hadn't been so intent on dividing, or defining, or
naming it to begin with. Since Aristotle first went his separate way,
questioning Plato, it seems we have not advanced much in philosophy. At
least that is how I see it.
Sam) Sorry if this sounds like a rant. I'm back on my hobby horse.
Chin says - What rant? :o)
Cheers back atcha,
Chin
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 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 03:00:38 GMT