From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 01:25:14 GMT
Matt said Shibboleth to Scott:
...I smiled and she's like, "Ah, I'm guessing you're a non-believer." Yeah,
militantly so. ...But how am I supposed to receive first-hand accounts like
that? ...But how am I supposed to take those personal experiences? Are we
to take any damn fool thing a person says seriously? This is what I call
the shibboleth problem. ...To tell the real mystics from the fakers, or
worse, the simply wrong, we need to be able to tell if they are saying
"shibboleth" or not. The problem isn't whether they are saying
"shibboleth," whether they are real mystics, the problem is _how would we
ever know if they were?_ How can we tell the Buddhas from the Call-In
Cleos?
dmb replies by quoting Ant McWatt:
.............................................it's a lot easier to verify a
mystic experience than, for example, verifying a particular scientific
understanding of reality from studying the quantum behaviour of sub-atomic
particles. The former can be verified by anyone (whether in a jungle,
Western suburb or mountain) with the right guide or with knowledge available
at any decent local library while the latter can only be verified by a small
industrialized elite with substantial resources and fairly esoteric
knowledge. I seem to remember Richard Feynman, the famous physicist and
Nobel Prize Winner stating that there is probably only a handful of people
in the world who understand quantum physics - and only to some extent.
Finally, mystics have more general agreement with each other than quantum
physicists do in their respective field - Pirsig's SODV paper is as good
indication of the latter's profound disagreements as any.
Matt figured:
The only answer I can figure is through conversation, but the end result of
that answer means that the only way we can tell a real mystic from someone
who hasn't penetrated appearance to reality is by behavior, which means that
they must be behaving according to the conventions of an established
tradition, a tradition that would deem them a mystic. The end result of
this line, I think, is that the only practical thing that matters, then,
isn't whether there was any penetration or not, but the results of the
conversation itself. The conversation is what matters, the inquiry is what
matters, not whether we say that they penetrated beyond appearances.
dmb replies:
I don't see the logic here. First of all, why is it only the practical thing
that matters? I mean, are you not trying to judge mysticism in terms of
utilitarianism or some wierd thing like that? And how do it follow that
conversation means judging mystics according to their behaviour or defering
to an established tradition? And in the MOQ appearance and reality are the
same thing. Appearance IS reality. And so characterizing the mysticsal
wexperience in terms of the appearnce/reality distinction seems quite off.
I think the answer is at least partly tied in with Pirsig's hieracrchy.
Huston Smith is very pithy on this issue. (He and Pirsig would agree since
they both subscribe to the perennial philosophy and that implies
epistemological pluralism.) As Smith puts it, "reality is graded, and with
it, cognition". That is to say that each level of reality is going to have
its own distinct means of verification. "Objects" are easy to confirm. Just
ask anyone with eyes that work. Scientific experiments require more
elaborate varification procedures and demand more from the peers who will
review the theories and lab procedures and such, as Ant's explanation above
makes clear. And to verify our mystical experiences we also check with those
who understand the tools of that field. Yes, it sound quite exotic.
Mysticism conjures up visions of ancient little men on mountain tops while
science looks more like a balding middle-aged nerd in a white lab coat, but
the fact is, mysticism is not THAT mysterious. There are practices and
practicioners. There are theories, schools and religions. There are gurus
and academic types. I mean, if you're suggesting that there is no way to
investigate the matter I'd simply point out that Mr. Google and a million
books say otherwise.
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 Feb 27 2005 - 04:10:08 GMT