From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 13:06:01 BST
Hi David,
: dmb says:
: Hmmm. DQ is involved in the evolutionary process from top to bottom, and the
: mystical experience can certainly lead to evolutionary changes, but I think
: that unmediated experience and the evolutionary process are two different
: topics. I mean, I don't think we can rightly say that biological evolution,
: for example, depends on the mystical experience as such.
Agreed.
: dmb says:
: Since we are talking about a living experience, it seems quite absurd to
: tell somebody that its a mistake. Its not so diffferent from telling the guy
: who just jumped off the hot stove that his ass is NOT really on fire. There
: is nothing you or I can say that will convince that smoldering guy that he's
: NOT in severe pain. He doesn't give a damn what we might say about it. All
: he wants is to get off the stove. (And a block of ice on which to sit.)
: Beside that, myth and religion itself can't tell a guy he's wrong about this
: or that. Only people who think they know the experience better than the
: experiencer, as absurd as THAT would be, can do that. Myth and religious
: symbols guide us in a natural sort of way. (Remember the idea that these are
: affect images that strike a responsive chord in us?)
In the late 70's and early 80's there was a man in England called Peter Sutcliffe who had a number
of religious experiences; in particular he had auditory 'hallucinations' which told him to go out
and kill prostitutes, which he did (13 of them as I recall) in a particularly grisly fashion - he
was called 'The Yorkshire Ripper'. Now, I think it is possible to say to him 'you might have had an
unusual experience, but it wasn't God talking to you' - because the Christian tradition has already
incorporated lots of insights about God, and they don't reconcile with butchering human beings.
Clearly, there is room for debate at the 'high end' of spiritual development - there comes a point
where a tradition has to shut up and say 'don't know' about whether something is from God or not
(and it is a sign of a healthy religious tradition that it can accept that) - but it seems extreme
relativism to say "myth and religion itself can't tell a guy he's wrong about this or that" - I
think that is *precisely* what myth and religion do.
: dmb says:
: Hmmm. Anglicanism is unusual and you are pretty odd duck too.
Quack quack ;-)
: You've put
: reason first, but I suspect that even in this tradition scripture and
: tradition are almost never negated by reason within the Church. Is that
: fair? Tradition and scripture are considered to be pretty much unassailable,
: no?
No. Have you ever read 'Honest to God' by JAT Robinson (an Anglican Bishop)?
Reason isn't first, it's one leg of a tripod.
: dmb says:
: You're missing the point here. I'm only saying that Jesus was a contrarian,
: one whose mystical experience trumped tradition. And if you think the
: religious authories of his time were any less corrupt than the same figures
: today, then you're just not paying attention. Religious leaders today, not
: all of them certainly, but way too many, are leading reactionary and
: regressive movements. To most Christians, esoteric, ecumenical and mystical
: religions are considered bizzare, wrong and even demonic. (Not to mention
: the pedophile priests.) For the most part, then, those who defy the claims
: of the churches have very good reasons for doing so. We need another Jesus
: right about now.
I agree with that.
: : 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.
I'm not saying that being drunk is the same as mystical experience - that was, in fact, my point. I
agree that mystical experience can be utterly terrifying (one of mine was :o) )
: dmb says:
: I'd very much like to see an example of what insights you think mythological
: tradition offers.
I'm amazed that you ask the question (given your reverence for Campbell) but I'll come back to that
point when I talk about the mythology of science.
: 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.
We agree on that.
: 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.
OK, but by this you are saying that your criticisms of Christianity are essentially criticisms of
the churches that you have experienced, rather than, eg, criticisms of the 'great' Christians. I
would imagine, for example, that you would be able to live quite happily in the Meister Eckhart
thought-world?
: 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.)
I have *no* desire to defend the Inquisition - rather the opposite. In the quote that I used,
Jantzen is denying that there was such a concept as 'mystical experience' until "latterly" - ie
primarily the twentieth century. She has a whole section detailing why she thinks that, and how the
notion of "mystical experience" became current - a genealogy going back from William James via
Schleirmacher to Kant. (It's not so much that she *rejects* mystical experience, she just doesn't
believe the concept had relevance to the mystics themselves, and I agree with her). So: "the
medieval mystical writers of the Christian tradition used language with great fecundity and
versatility, and if they claimed ineffability at all, it was the ineffability of *God* that they
were speaking of, not the ineffability of a subjective experience." This notion of ineffability (ie
the indescribable subjectivity of 'mystical experience') is one of her major targets in the book:
"contemporary philosophers of religion cannot legitimately assume that there is *one* thing that is
'mystical experience', or indeed that any discussion of mysticism and religious experience can avoid
taking a stand on the issues of power and gender"... "the ineffability of God should not be confused
with the alleged ineffability of subjective experiences with which contemporary philosophers are
preoccupied."
You wanted some extensive quotation, so here goes:
"I suggest therefore that it is necessary to look again at the claim of the ineffability of mystical
experiences, to see exactly why this claim is being made. It will be my argument that when mystical
writers of the Middle Ages protest about the inadequacy of language, they mean something very
different from what recent philosophers of religion attribute to them. The former are seeking to
convey something of what they find of the beauty and wonder of God; while the latter are trying to
support a particular understanding of mysticism within post-Enlightenment categories of epistemology
and philosophy of language. The mystics did not share these categories; and in fact they are called
into question... by a study of mystical literature." (pp279-281)
"The doctrine of divine ineffability... is a counterpart to the doctrine of divine revelation. And
it can hardly be over-emphasised that as these writers use it, and as it become part of the western
Christian tradition, that doctrine is a doctrine about God, not a statement about a quality of human
experience." (p284)
"...it is instructive to underline how radically the word {mysticism} has shifted in meaning since
patristic times. 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. Whether or not twentieth-century writers on mysticism would
subscribe to the letter of Idealist or Romantic epistemology, or are even aware of the debt which
they owe to it, the spirit of subjectivisation and with it a psychologising of mysticism rests upon
them." (p317)
"{modern philosophers - eg Wilber!!!} use an understanding of mysticism largely derived from teh
work of William James, which constructs mystical experience as intense private psychological states
having the characteristics of ineffability, a noetic quality, transiency and passivity. We have seen
how problematic such an understanding is, not least in regard to historical accuracy... If the
argument of this book has been anywhere near correct, then one thing that stands out is that, James
and his followers notwithstanding, there is no such thing as an 'essence' of mysticism, a single
type of experience which is characterisable as mystical while others are excluded. The 'mystical',
for those initiated into ancient mystery religions, was simply that part of thier initiation ritual
about which they kept their mouths shut. In the early Christian tradtion, by contrast, the
'mystical' was the hidden meaning of scripture, the meaning which saw its connection to Christ
rather than only its literal truth." (p331)
I could cite many more. Why don't you get hold of the book and read it for yourself? (Grace Jantzen,
"Power, Gender and Christian Mysticism", published by Cambridge University Press)
: 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.
Good analogy about the bus - it seems to be saying exactly what I was arguing for. You therefore
accept that it is possible to assess whether a particular mode of transport 'gets you there'. I
agree.
I'm sure this'll continue..
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 : Sun May 04 2003 - 13:09:10 BST