From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 20:15:05 BST
Sam and all:
Sam said:
I don't think that tradition is the only way to get at mystical experience;
but then, I think the tradition is more important.... :-) I think DQ on its
own is useless and pointless. It makes you feel good, but so does getting
drunk.
dmb says:
An encounter with the divine is no different than getting drunk?! To quote a
certain tennis star, "You CANNOT be serious!". Based on this assertion, I
can only conclude that (a) You've never been drunk or (b) You've never had a
mystical experience. To quote one of our own stars, I've known both states
and am here to tell you that they have about as much in common as "a blowjob
and bamboo under the fingernails". Mystical experiences are often quite
unpleasant and overwhelming, can be marked by dread and terror and is
otherwise quite the opposite of feeling good.
Sam said:
I'm not convinced that the language and vocabulary of modernism, especially
of psychotherapy, is an improvement on the traditional language of the
different faiths. I also think that some important insights are irreducibly
mythological - they resist translation. To say that 'it is not as ineffable
as it once was' is a variant of what I am arguing for, ie that we have
accumulated insights that help you get there. Perhaps this is the kernel of
agreement between us?
dmb says:
I'd very much like to see an example of what insights you think mythological
tradition offers. I'd agree that "Modernism" has little to say about
mysticism other than rejecting it. But I don't know of anyone who is saying
otherwise. We both agree that scientific materialism or SOM fails on this
score, but certainly we are talking about intellect in a broader sense, in
an MOQ sense. I mean, I think its safe to say that SOM is not compatible
with a mystical metaphysics.
SAM said:
I agree that religious ideas are only really understood when they become
transparent. I disagree that this was not the case with those who
transmitted the tradition. Who are you thinking of? For example, in the
Christian tradition the major transmitters in the West are Augustine and
Aquinas. In what way were the religious ideas *not* transparent to them?
dmb says:
Who was I thinking of? Well, certainly not Augustine or Aquinas. I was
referring to the churches and preachers of my childhood, which included
nearly every Christian denomination as well as Judaism. The only religious
thinkers I ever encountered that were NOT literalists, were those I
encountered later in life through books and conferences and such. As far as
I can recall, I've never heard anything that seemed true while inside a
church. That's what I was thinking of.
Sam said:
That is not what she is saying. I'd recommend reading the book (seems
bizarre to be debating how to interpret Jantzen when you haven't read her).
For her, the 'mystical' approach is that approach to scripture and liturgy
etc which allows right discernment of its meaning. There is not a separate
'mystical experience' apart from that experience of scripture and liturgy:
"...in the trial of Eckhart, the presence or absence of unusual states of
consciousness was not what the inquisitors sought to determine, but rather
the orthodoxy or unorthodoxy of Eckhart's life and teaching. It is only
latterly that the term 'mystical' began to be applicable to 'experience' at
all: in earlier times, one might speak of a 'mystical interpretation' or of
the 'mystical body of Christ', but not of a 'mystical experience'.
Similarly, 'the mystics' were not those who had particular states of
consciousness, but those who were able to elucidate the spiritual
interpretation of a passage of scripture..." (Jantzen, p332).
dmb says:
I know. It IS kind of odd, but I think you've misread her yet again. Here
she refutes the idea of mysticism as an experience only in terms of "what
the Inquisitors sought to determine" or rather vaguely "in earlier times".
Please tell me that you and the Anglican church are not defending the
Inquisitors!!! If you want to to believe Jantzen rejects such experiences in
favor of scripture or tradition, you'll have to find a better quote than
this. (Not that I would reject Pirsig, Wilber, Campbell or my own experience
because of any single assertion.)
Sam said:
How do you tell the difference? (between a fun ride and the spiritual path?)
dmb says:
Seriously? OK. Think about the scene in the bar with drinking and dancing.
That's a fun ride. Now think about the scene in the teepee. That's
spiritual. I think the contrast is so bloody stark and obvious that I hardly
know what else to say. If we can't make simple qualitative distinctions like
this, then all is lost.
Sam said:
That is your view which you are reading into the Jantzen quote. It runs
strongly against the overall argument that she makes.
dmb says:
In that case, I'd welcome a more accurate and representative quote.
Sam said:
I don't have a problem with the peyote trip (which was undertaken in the
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?
dmb says:
I'm putting the emphasis on one's personal encounter with the divine, on the
mystical experience itself. You seem to insist that the emphasis is on
drugs. Since this is very far away from what I've been saying, I can only
conclude that you're trying to demonize religious experiences. I think this
is not only incorrect, but also dishonest and offensive. Logically speaking,
this is not logical. It like saying that because some people get home on a
bus, then the bus is their home. The means of transportation are only
relevant in terms of whether of not they really get you there. Take a bike,
a plane, a car or walk there on your own two feet. It doesn't really matter
as long as we don't take to worshipping the bus.
As Wilber puts it:
It is only when religion emphasizes its heart and soul and essence - namely
direct mystical experience and transcendental consciousness, which is
disclosed not by the eye of the flesh (give that to science) nor by the eye
of the mind (give that to philosophy) but rather by the eye of contemplation
- that religion can both stand up to modernity and offer something for which
modernity has desperate need: a genuine, verifiable, repeatable injunction
to bring forth the spiritual domain.
Religion in the modern and postmodern world will rest on its unique
strength-
namely contemplation- or it will serve merely to support a premodern,
predifferentiated level of development in its own adherents; not an engine
of growth and transformation, but a regressive, antiliberal, reactionary
force of lesser engagements.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 : Sat May 03 2003 - 20:15:27 BST