From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 02 2005 - 13:00:10 GMT
Hi Scott,
I sent a reply to this last night. Hopefully it'll post before the day is
out.
Ron
>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: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:22:51 -0700
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/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 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 13:07:25 GMT