From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 10:37:50 BST
Hi David,
Thanks for the substantial response. I do think this is an important
subject.
> dmb says:
> Whew! I'm tempted to break that paragraph up into more managable chunks. I
> disagree with the notion that we "just see it", but getting into that
would
> take us off the topic.
I'd be delighted if you wanted to start up a separate thread on the matter.
I'd certainly join in.
> I'd really like us to focus on the nature and meaning
> of unmediated or mystical experiences.
Cool.
> I think there are some key phrases in your paragraph that show a certain
> leap of logic. You say typically people are "unable to describe" a
mystical
> experience and that in any attempt at a description one "inevitably uses
the
> language and images" of one's culture. I'm with you that far. In MOQ
terms,
> this is explained by the fact that none of our static forms of expression
> are built for the static world and are not adequate to capture DQ, which
is
> not static. This is exactly why try to capture DQ into a metaphysical and
> intellectual description is considered degeneate in the MOQ. It is a case
of
> the lower form, intellectual static patterns, trying to get a handle on a
> higher sort of Quality, Dynamic Quality.
I think there is a typo in the middle of that paragraph, but I get the gist.
However, I think we need to discriminate between the attempt to capture DQ
"as a whole" and the attempt to capture a particular insight of DQ. If there
was no way of capturing particular DQ innovations, there would be no static
latches, and therefore no SQ. SQ is the sediment of accumulated DQ, ie those
bits which have been captured. My argument is that there is *some*
determination of what is captured by what has already been captured, ie that
SQ influences what is statically latched from DQ. (I think this is a variant
of what johnny moral has been arguing for, but I could be wrong).
> So I agree. The experience is really beyond myths, symbols, words, ideas
and
> all that static stuff, but that's all we have, so we use them anyway. But
> you take a leap from there, saying, "the experience is incorporated within
> an ongoing tradition of interpretation" and turn up the heat with, "SQ
> traditions determine the incorporation of DQ". I think this goes too far.
It might go too far. If there was full determination then there would be no
DQ; there is DQ; therefore there cannot be full determination. I think we're
arguing about where to strike a balance?
> If
> it is degenerate to reduce this experience to intellectual forms, how much
> more degenerate is it to insist that religious tradition? Don't get me
> wrong, I certainly agree that the one who has such an experience would be
> best served by really understanding what happened, exploring its meaning
and
> integrating it into one's life in a lasting way, but you almost seem to be
> insisting that its just no good unless the church approves. Here again I
> might use the word preposterous in an almost scientific way. ;-)
You said earlier that "myth and religion is supposed to support and guide us
in that adventure, to awaken in us the realization - Thou art That". What's
the point in having a support and guide if it can't say 'hang on, that's
wrong, that won't get you there, that's a mistake'?
NB I don't equate 'church' and 'tradition', although they do overlap. As I
understand it, equating them is the definition of the Roman Catholic
perspective, ie the leader of the church is the person who tells you how to
read the tradition (that also happens in fundamentalism of course, except
that instead of 'church' equating to 'tradition' you have 'Scripture'
equating to 'tradition', and the church leader is the the person who tells
you how to read Scripture). Anglicanism has three sources of authority:
reason, scripture and tradition, and they are supposed to critique each
other so that the Spirit (DQ) can emerge from the interplay.
> dmb says:
> I think this is a stronger version of the same mistake. Tradition
determines
> which experiences are religious and which are delusional? Sounds like a
job
> for a psychiatrist, not tradition. ;-) But seriously, it seems like you
want
> tradition to be some kind of gatekeeper on DQ. That's backward or upside
> down or something. Imagine if Jesus had lived by that standard. Imagine
the
> Christ coming back after his temptations in the desert and the religious
> authorities told him he was delusional. Imagine how sad it would be for
> Christianity if they'd convinced him it was just an hallucination. What if
> the Buddha had attributed his enlightenment experience to an undercooked
> potato?
Imagine Jesus without the religious tradition of the Hebrews. It can't be
done. The whole reason for the conflict between Jesus and the religious
authorities of his time was that (in the Christian view) the authorities
were neglecting the claims of the tradition, ie they were corrupt. And they
did tell him he was delusional, it's just that sufficient people recognised
his Quality (S and D).
(continued in part #2 because it doesn't seem to get through on its own)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> I think what Jantzen is saying is that we have a problem
That is your view which you are reading into the Jantzen quote. It runs
> dmb says:
Actually, that's precisely what I thought you were doing. You said, "I think
> and nobody
I don't have a problem with the peyote trip (which was undertaken in the
Cheers
"Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 10:35:45 BST
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - u tell the difference? (between a fun ride and the spiritual path?)
> because the static forms of the tradition have lost their connection to
the
> mystical experience, which is supposed to be, and ought to be its central
> reality.
strongly against the overall argument that she makes.
> If it is wrong to stay on drugs for the rest of your life, then religious
> tradition can't be reduced to mysticism? Right. And if you're running down
> the hill and your wheels fall off, then there are seven frogs in the oven.
> But seriously, nobody is trying to "reduce" religion to mysticism
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."
> is suggesting that chronic drug abuse is the proper path to God. Pirsig is
> just talking about what the traditions look like to one who has had the
> experience. He wants to help sort of the low grade yelping and clap trap
so
> as to see what its all about. And I think Pirsig example of peyote use is
> perfectly responsible. He did it once, not for the rest of his life.
(Anyone
> who tried such a peyote hook-up would likely be dead within a few days.)
As
> the myths have it, the hero's journey, one's mystical quest is only
> successful and complete when one returns to the world to share the gift,
to
> bestow the secrets learned on those who were left behind.
context of native american tradition and ritual of course). My point was a
more philosophical one. If an EXPERIENCE is the goal of all the religious
traditions, and that EXPERIENCE can be gained from chemical sources, why
can't we do away with religious tradition and just have the drug? If there
is something wrong with that, then then, logically, EXPERIENCE isn't the
sole goal of a religious tradition. Seems like a pretty clear deduction to
me. What's wrong with my logic?
Sam
have gained a great deal." Wittgenstein, 1948
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
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html