From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2005 - 00:40:50 GMT
[DMB from another post in this thread]
>But if the mystical experience is included
>as verifiable, empirical evidence, then we are most certainly expanding
the
>notion of empiricism. I've tried to explain this several times already
Scott replies;
The point is that Matt and I don't buy this expansion. It is certainly the
business of a philosopher to shift the meanings of key words, but then the
marketplace (other thinkers' reactions) has to accept it. I don't buy it for
two reasons. The first is that it makes the old meaning of empiricism lose
value. With the old meaning, if I claim something, and someone else says "I
don't believe you", then I can say, "well, go look (or perform this
experiment)". With mystical experience, the "go look" becomes "go join a
monastery, sit in meditation for a few years, and maybe (there are no
guarantees), you will see for yourself". The difference is too big to be
covered by one word.
Ron;
My first thought is that you can't be serious. Zen Buddhism does not require
sitting in a monastery for years. In fact, doing so does not offer anything
other than enlightenment and/or awareness. This is limitted to the monks.
The average everyday family man simply leaves themselves open to
enlightenment, and in fact, is told not to seek enlightenment, but only be
open to it, as desiring enlighenment can bring false enlightenment.
Enlightenment simply fills a need.
Scott continues;
The second reason is, what if I forget to specify that they join a Zen
monastery, but instead join a Christian one, and they come back and say "You
were wrong, I didn't experience "no-thing-ness", I experienced Christ within
me.". That is, the variety and interpretation of mystical experience is very
wide. Is it empirically evident that we can speak to the spirits of the
dead, since Swedenborg (a mystic that Pirsig mentions) did? Why is only
"pure, undifferentiated experience" regarded as empirical and not life after
death, reincarnation, channeling, ESP, Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg says his
conversations happened in Heaven)? All this and more is reported by mystics,
with the claim that anyone can have these experiences.
Ron;
Swedenborg is not Pirsig, and Pirsig does not rely on Swedenborg for
clarification of the MOQ.
The reason it is referred to as "pure, undifferentiated experience" is
because in his view, this is what it is. Everything experienced is
experienced through the senses. The reason Pirsig avoids 'Christian
mysticism' (my opinion) is that in philosophical mysticism, if you have an
enlightening experience, you accept it, and move on. You may share it in
your own words that point to the experience. In Christian mysticism, if you
have an enlightening experience, someone else must explain it to you, and
'Tell' you whether it was a Christian experience or the devil's work through
your 'Evil Flesh.'
(So called) Mystics can claim pretty much anything they want, and there will
always be someone gullible enough to believe it; just ask Miss Cleo.
If you experince the pure (raw) undifferentiated experience, then it is your
experience. No one can tell you what you are going to experience, and no one
can tell you whether or not it was a legitimate experience. All anyone can
tell you is whether or not it fits in with the Mythos of the day.
You are right in that the variety and interpretations of the mystical
experience is very wide. There is no 'Ready-made', 'Hand-me-down' guides to
understanding the mystic; as the word 'Mystic' might lend to logic, it can't
be known ahead of the experience itself. All Pirsig is saying with
undifferntiated experience is that it is not limited to Subject and Object.
Subject and Object do exist, and they play a key role in explaining/wording,
but all experiences do not depend on an already defined S/O.
It is quite simple if you do not allow your predetermined prejudices to get
in the way of your understanding and advancement in understanding of the
world around you. All Zen Buddhism says is to strip these predetermined
prejudices and ego away, and you are capable of enlightenment.
Quality does not depend on No-thing-ness, or Oneness, or Being. Quality is
before all this, and encompasses all this. What the mystic experience is, is
DQ. Once experienced, it is no longer mystic. It doesn't need
interpretation; it has already been interpreted. It is 'Pure (raw)
Experience'.
>From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
>Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:13:43 -0700
>
>DMB et al,
>
> > dmb says:
> > Pirsig's mysticism is descended from Plato and Plotinus, from the East,
>from
> > Native American mysticism, but not from the Modern Romantics.
>
>Since Plato and Plotinus felt that the "way" was through the intellect to
>Intellect, while the Romantics (and James) tended to disparage the
>intellect, as Pirsig does (with respect to spiritual advancement), I wonder
>how you can claim this.
>
>[DMB from another post in this thread]
> > But if the mystical experience is included
> > as verifiable, empirical evidence, then we are most certainly expanding
>the
> > notion of empiricism. I've tried to explain this several times already
>
>The point is that Matt and I don't buy this expansion. It is certainly the
>business of a philosopher to shift the meanings of key words, but then the
>marketplace (other thinkers' reactions) has to accept it. I don't buy it
>for
>two reasons. The first is that it makes the old meaning of empiricism lose
>value. With the old meaning, if I claim something, and someone else says "I
>don't believe you", then I can say, "well, go look (or perform this
>experiment)". With mystical experience, the "go look" becomes "go join a
>monastery, sit in meditation for a few years, and maybe (there are no
>guarantees), you will see for yourself". The difference is too big to be
>covered by one word.
>
>The second reason is, what if I forget to specify that they join a Zen
>monastery, but instead join a Christian one, and they come back and say
>"You
>were wrong, I didn't experience "no-thing-ness", I experienced Christ
>within
>me.". That is, the variety and interpretation of mystical experience is
>very
>wide. Is it empirically evident that we can speak to the spirits of the
>dead, since Swedenborg (a mystic that Pirsig mentions) did? Why is only
>"pure, undifferentiated experience" regarded as empirical and not life
>after
>death, reincarnation, channeling, ESP, Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg says his
>conversations happened in Heaven)? All this and more is reported by
>mystics,
>with the claim that anyone can have these experiences.
>
>- Scott
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 01:26:48 GMT