From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2005 - 18:22:51 GMT
Ron,
> 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.
Actually, I was very loosely paraphrasing Wilber, but my argument does not
depend on any particular means of gaining enlightenment (nor does Wilber
think that entering monasteries is necessary). The point is there is no
straightforward recipe for verifying a mystical claim, and I think
"empirical", when used to back up philosophical claims, becomes devalued
unless the recipes are straightforward.
>
> 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.
My point is: why doesn't he? Why does he accept some mystical reports and
not others? I would think empirical evidence (which Swedenborg's is
according to Pirsig's use of the word empirical) that there is life after
death would be of great relevance to a discussion of morality. (Please note
that I am not expressing an opinion on the matter of whether there is life
after death or not. I am questioning the use of the word "empirical" in 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.
My thoughts and feelings are not 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.'
.In short, if the mystical experience agrees with the MOQ it is valid, and
if not, it has been filtered through authority or something to make it
invalid. I am, to put it mildly, skeptical of this argument.
> 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.
The question is not what I do with an experience I might have. The question
is can reports of such experience be called "empirical" when used to bolster
a philosophical claim.
>
> 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.
And how is any of this supported empirically? I'm not (at this point)
denying it. I'm questioning the use of the word "empirical" as justification
for it.
>
> 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.
Is this claim based on empirical evidence, or is it based on authority? It
sounds to me like the latter. And if it is "quite simple", why do people
struggle for years, in Zen monasteries and out.
>
> 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'.
Umm. Pirsig, at some point, said that he regards "Quality" as the same as
the Buddhist use of Nothingness, not as encompassing it, but nevermind.
What is your means for convincing a skeptic that the mystic experience is
DQ? Is it an empirically determined fact? If so, how has is it been
determined?
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 18:26:51 GMT