From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 21:18:18 GMT
Sam, Mari and y'all:
I (dmb) had said:
> I have to confess that your theology lesson made little sense to me, but
> thanks for expanding my vocabulary. And I don't see how the exercise you
> described has anything to do with mysticism.
Sam replied:
I was trying to explain where I'm coming from; ie from a tradition which
takes the teaching of, say, Meister Eckhart, seriously. Of course, you're
welcome to say that this isn't 'mystical experience' but that is part of my
point - the Christian mystics had a completely different understanding of
the nature of 'mysticism' to that current today, of which you are a paradigm
representative.
Now dmb says:
Today's mysticism? Oh, how soon we forget. I'm sure it would be nice if you
could simply dismiss my case as a trivial fad, but I think you can't
honestly do that considering that in making the case for mysticism I have
included the myth of Orpheus, elements of which "predate the human species
itself", the 9,000 year old peyote fragments and alter found in a Pecos
region cave, the pagan mystery religions of ancient Greeece, the Soma
drinkers of the ancient near east. Further, I have a small stack of book
about contemporary Christian mysticism that I've not yet mentioned. If you
want to talk about what is current (besides the MOQ itself) I can certainly
do that too. Perhaps I shall bring them in next weekend and dish some up. As
I recall, these current descriptions don't match your idea of Christian
mysticism either. But my main point here is to remind you that the case I've
been making for mysticism is historical and universal, not trendy.
Sam said:
My larger point is that there is difference between Christian mysticism
(Eckhart, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, the Cloud author etc etc) and
what often passes for contemporary 'mysticism' (not all of it, just the
'Jamesian' understanding dominant in the West, which may or may not be that
which Pirsig holds). We could then have an argument about which one is
'best' but I don't think that would be particularly fruitful. That was why I
named this thread 'traditions of mysticism' - I wanted to articulate the
difference between those two.
Pirsig says:
"The MOQ associates religious mysticism with DQ but it would certainly be a
mistake to think that the MOQ endorses the static beliefs of any particular
religion sect. Phaedrus thought sectarian religion was a static social
fallout from DQ and that while some sects had fallen less than others, none
of them told the whole truth. His favorite Christian mystic was Johannes
Eckhart, who said, "wouldst thou be perfect, do not yelp about God". Eckhart
was pointing to a profound mystic truth, but you can guess what a hand of
applause it got from the static authorities of the Church. Ill-sounding,
rash and probably heretical, was the general verdict. From what Phadrus had
been able to obseve, mystics and priests tend to have a cat-and-dog-like
coexistence within almost every religious organization. Both groups need
each other, but neither group likes the other at all. There's an addage
that, 'Nothing disturbes a bishop quite so much as the presence of a saint
in the parish'." I agree that it would not be very friutful to choose one
brand of mysticism over another, but I think so because that would just be
picking some sectarian static fallout of DQ. Mysiticism is about DQ and the
static fallout is always going to fall short. This is why I totally disagree
with your idea that the mystical experience is unimportant. I terms of
religion, if one is to avoid all that low-grade yelping about god, a
mystical experience is the MOST important thing.
Sam said:
Still, I think I've said enough about this for now. Other people (Mari?) can
come back about the substantial post if there are elements they want to
explore. Hopefully in a week or so I'll get cracking on a 'starter' post
about ritual and the intellect. Unlike you, Pirsig sees ritual as fourth
level ;-)
DMB says:
Uh, oh. Me thinks your starter post is a non-starter. Wish I had a
consolation prize for you. Thanks for playing. From the end of chapter 30...
"These rituals may be the connecting link between social and intellectual
levels of evolution. One can imagine primitive song-rituals and
dance-rituals associated with certain cosmology stories, myths which
generated the first primitive religions. From these the first intellectual
truths could have been derived. If ritual alway comes first and intellectual
principles always come later, then ritual cannot always be a decadent
corruption of intellect. Their sequence in history suggests that principles
emerge from ritual, not the other way around."
As you can see, Pirsig sees ritual as a social level connecting link to the
intellect, but not as intellect per se. This goes along with the point that
I have tried to make many times, that all our intellectual constructs are
culturally derived.
As a side note, I heard about a book that traces the origins of music and
dance, our song-rituals and dance-rituals if you will, all the way back to
its biological roots. The book points out that the animal world is filled
which songs and dances and that these are primarily about rank, territory
and sex. And while its clear that human music and dance has become, at its
best, an art form, its still plays this original role to a certain extent.
We've got military marching bands and crooner makeout music, which is about
territory and nookie. So it seems to me that these ancient rituals are not
only the connecting link between social and intellectual levels of
evolution, but also between the biological and social levels. This is even
easier to see when one considers the heavey emphasis on fertility, of the
land and of the people, in primitive religions. Indeed, to this very day
Hindus are ritualistically pouring milk over a phallus. In any case, ritual
is at the social level.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
PS to Mari: Yea, I've had some mystical experiences. Pirsig had one wherein
he first concieved of his metaphysical system and this is primarily what I
find so attractive about his MOQ. It puts mysticism at the center of things
and reconciles it with Western philosophy.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 Nov 24 2002 - 21:18:39 GMT