From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:00:28 BST
Hi David,
Thanks for some feedback on this, although it would be good if you had a
chance to come back about the Katz issues. Comments on your comments below.
> DMB continues:
> How you square the first two with the third one is a mystery to me, but
what
> I really wonder about, and object to, are the ideas that mystical
experience
> is "irrelevant to theology", "not religiously significant" and that the
> fruits of it are "to be found in increased social engagement".
>
> In the first two you seem to be demanding that these experiences are only
> relevant and valuable to the extent that they are domesticated by
> theological doctrine. I'd agree that the trick is translating the
experience
> into a lasting improvment, a real impact on the experiencer, but you seem
> too willing to dismiss it on these grounds. If its irrelevant to theology,
> but vital to one's spiritual life, then I'd say that's exactly what's
wrong
> with theology.
>
> I have more sympathy for the third, but that only means I hate it less.
:-)
Let's try and keep it in MoQ terms. The question is (and it's relevant to
one or two other debates at the moment) how to recognise Quality, whether DQ
or SQ. I'm not sure that Pirsig gives any alternative answer, ultimately,
than the one given in ZMM, ie 'you just see it'. It's a commonplace that
those who have 'mystical experiences' are unable to describe what has
happened; when they do, they inevitably use the language and images
prevalent in the culture that they were raised in - so a Christian with a
religious experience describes it in Christian terms, a Muslim in Islamic
terms, and so on. In other words, the experience is incorporated within an
ongoing tradition of interpretation. Now clearly a tradition can become
ossified and immune to continual DQ innovation - in that situation there is
revolution or reformation - but that seems to me to be the point which makes
the case. Not only do SQ traditions determine the incorporation of DQ
insights, but the openness to creative engagement with DQ is the primary
means of assessing the quality of different SQ traditions. So when I say
that mystical experience is 'irrelevant to theology', I am referring to the
experience in and of itself, not the (SQ) teaching or innovative language
which such an experiencer then provides to the tradition.
...
> I think you've misread Jantzen to make this point.
Have you read Jantzen for yourself or are you just using my extracts?
> She says....
>
> 'Instead of referring to the central, if hidden, reality of scripture or
> sacrament, the idea of "mysticism" has been subjectivised beyond
> recognition, so that it is thought of in terms of states of consciousness
or
> feeling.'
>
> You characterize this as a "transition from the public realm to private
> sensation", but I don't think that's what she's saying at all. I think its
> clear that she's refering to the loss of mysticism is the central and
hidden
> reality of the scripture and sacrament, and that this realization has been
> lost, relegating mysticism to the realm of the "merely" subjective.
I don't understand this (possibly due to the typo around 'is' in the
middle?).
> 'It was only with the development of the secular state, when religious
> experience was no longer perceived as a source of knowledge and power,
that
> it became safe to allow women to be mystics...The decline of gender as an
> issue in the definition of who should count as a mystic was in direct
> relation to the decline in the perception of mystical experience, and
> religion generally, as politically powerful'.
>
> I the paper, this quote is presented right after you say, "so part of the
> effect of this shift has been to minimise the impact of women's voices". I
> disagree with this characterization too. I think she's just saying that
> women were allowed into the club only after the club came to be seen as
> unimportant and powerless. The issue became moot because there wasn't
> anything left worth protecting from women.
I don't understand why you think that you are disagreeing with me here. You
seem just to be rephrasing Jantzen's point, which I explicitly agree with.
Put differently, I have no problem with how you are characterising Jantzen.
> At about this same time, kooties
> were declared theologically invalid at the council of sugar and spice.
Since
> then, women have been increasingly accepted into mystical orders, are
> published in the field and in the more liberal demoninations, it is even
> admitted that some women are "kinda cute".
I'd love to know what kooties are. I've come across several references to
them recently, and I'm baffled...
> In short, I think the central importance of the mystical experience to all
> the great religions can hardly be overstated. I think the mystical
> experience is the goal of everyone's spiritual adventure. As Campbell
> wrote...
>
> All, mythology, whether of the folk or of the literati, preserves the
> iconography of a spiritual adventure that men have been accomplishing
> repeatedly for millennia, and which, whenever it occurs, reveals such
> constant features that the innumerable mythologies of the world resemble
> each other as dialects of a single language.
>
> And that myth and religion is supposed to support and guide us in that
> adventure, to awaken in us the realization - Thou art that.
If mystical experience can be induced chemically, eg through LSD or peyote
or whatever, is there anything wrong with just hooking up to the chemical
and 'blissing out' for the remainder of a life? If there is something wrong
with that, then there is something in a religious tradition which cannot be
reduced to 'mystical experience'.
Anyone who wants to look at the original paper can point their browser to:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/elizaphanian/unmediated.htm
Cheers
Sam
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 Apr 23 2003 - 15:14:05 BST