From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 17:11:11 GMT
-----Original Message-----
From: David Buchanan
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 4:30 PM
To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
Subject: RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
Sam, Chin, msh and all MOQers:
Apparently this post was too fat to get through yesterday, so I've chopped
it in half to send it again. This is part 1 of 2...
Chin quoted Mike King:
Our understanding of Socrates is dependent on the distinction between jnani
and bhakti, and I believe that it is central to all understanding of
mysticism.
dmb says:
I think this distinction is very important in general and is central to our
debate in particular. As the JNANI website explains, Western religions tend
to be of the devotional sort and tend to deny that there is any other kind.
It seems pretty clear to me that this has been your position, Sam. Your
insistance that mysticism can only be found within the traditions and your
denial that mysticism is about the mystical experience itself plainly
expresses that position. And this stance is very far from unusual in the
West. As King's website explains, as Campbell describes, as Pirsig mentions,
there is a cultural blindspot with respect to mysticism. Some readers may
recall that I tried to explain this distinction in terms of EXOTERIC and
ESOTERIC mysticism. The same line has been drawn many ways. I think this
distinction is beginning to get through Sam's filters. I believe we may be
on the verge of a breakthrough and that we may finally begin a discussion is
which we are both talking about the same thing. Maybe...
Sam Norton said:
..............................it will ease a lot if we're clear that
'Christian mysticism' and
'philosophical mysticism' are two different things. However, this may
undercut the 'common core'
idea which you hold, but we can come back to that. I'm very happy that
Pirsig is a philosophical
mystic in the sense that you affirm, and that he is 'updating' that
tradition etc.
dmb says:
While its clear that we would be talking about two different things, I think
its important to step back and look at the larger field. See, its not just
that philosophical mysticism is different from christian mysticism, its that
those two kinds are representatives of the distinction King and Campbell and
so many others have made. All three of the West's great religions share this
in common. They are all ritualistic, theistic, dualistic, devotional,
exoteric, bhakti. The East, especially Buddhism, tends to reflect the other
side of this coin. This is why both Buddhism and philosophical mysticism are
compatible with the MOQ. This is the same reason Pirsig rejects faith,
theism, ritualistic religions and such. But its not quite so simple as
picking one and rejecting the other kind of mysticism. I think Pirsig's
static/Dyanamic split shows how these two kinds of mysticism are related in
all sorts of interesting ways, but lets stick to the differences for now,
lest our breakthrough be lost.
Sam said:
....it's still a prevalent claim that the Christian mystics were
mystics-in-the-Jamesian sense. Are you now happy to say that the vast
majority of people regarded as Christian mystics were NOT
mystics-in-the-Jamesian sense?
dmb says:
Sorry, but I just don't buy this stuff about "mystics-in-the-Jamesian
sense". The kind of non-devotional mysticism that corresponds to the MOQ is
better associated with Buddha, Socrates, Plotinus, Eckhart and other such
examples. But more to the point, I think what happens in the exoteric
religions such as traditional Christianity is that a few rare individuals
have a mystical experience DESPITE all the static interpretations that tell
him there is no such thing. People working within the dualistic religions of
relationship may have that view shattered by experiencing the divinity as an
identity, such as happened to Eckhart, but such persons are considered to be
blasphemous and such. But mostly, when the experience happens to a devotee,
it is INTERPRETED through that theistic view. And when it is not, there is
big trouble. In the old days, this is when we'd smell smoke. In other words,
Christian nuns do not have visions of Buddha and vice-versa.
Sam believes that:
1. Mysticism cannot be understood apart from a particular tradition, of
whatever sort (Christian,
Buddhist, Hindu, philosophical etc); in other words, mysticism is not first
and foremost about an
'experience';
dmb says:
No, no, no. This is the point you really need to get, Sam. The kind of
mysticism you're talking about is not the only kind and it is the OTHER KIND
the MOQ supports. The esoteric mysticims, the philosophical mysticism that
Pirsig is talking about is opposed to the kind of within-a-tradition
mysticims you claim is the ONLY kind. This is exactly what has caused so
much confusion on the topic.
Sam believes that:
2. Different mysticisms do not possess a 'common core' underlying surface
differences; there is no
'common essence', there are only 'family resemblances';
dmb says:
Here you are rejecting the perennial philosophy, but you don't seem to have
any reason or basis for rejecting it. Sorry, but I can only suspect that you
put Christianity above all other religions and so can not bear the idea that
other religions are depicting the same spiritual reality equally well, or
even better. Sorry, but without any further explanations or anything, I'm
forced to conclude that this stance is nothing more than sectarian bias, the
religious equivelant of nationalism or whatever.
Sam believes that:
3. More explicitly, 'philosophical mysticism' I see as a Platonic or
neo-Platonic strand of
intellectual enquiry and 'ascent'; I would put Pirsig's characterisation of
the MoQ in this
tradition;
dmb says:
I have no idea what you mean.
Sam believes that:
4. Christian mysticism critiques philosophical mysticism, especially the
intellectualism and the
emphasis on experience;
dmb says:
Based on what you've provided so far, it seems that critque is hopelessly
distorted by some rather profound misunderstandings and is blinded by a
hostile cultural bias. The great time and energy required to get you to even
gegin to see that there is more to mysticism than your church teaches is
evidence of this blind spot. We see the same blind spot among our secular
friends too. As far as scientific materialism and secular humanism are
concerned, mysticism is nonsense. They don't call it esoteric for nothing,
you know? Philosophical mysticism asserts unity, while both Western
religions and the secular West are fundamentally based on dualism. As mythos
shifted to logos, the dualism was retained. So if we are going to hang SOM
around somebody's neck, I think you better loosen your collar....
Sam believes that:
5. Schleiermacher and James (etc) are largely responsible for the common
understanding of
'mysticism' in our society today; they are philosophical mystics, but they
claimed that Christian
mysticism was the same; they are demonstrably wrong in that claim; they also
associate mysticism
with experience _in_a_novel_way;
dmb says:
Just to be sure I hadn't missed something big, I checked the index in the
back of some of Campbell's books, then Wilber's books and then the Oxford
Companion to Philosophy. There was no sign of Schleiermacher in any of them.
Never heard of the guy and I think it safe to say that Pirsig's MOQ and my
particular view do not rest on anything or anyone so specific. In any case,
this apparent rejection of the mystical experience is, I think, just another
misunderstanding of the same sort. I mean, until recently you thought this
experience was just a feeling free of content and you recently thought I was
claiming to be a Saint. These sorts of confusions can be cleared away by
getting that main point; there are two kinds of mysticism. You are rejecting
Pirsig's mostly, I suspect, because he has first rejected yours. The result
has been confusion and hostility.
Sam believes that:
6. There is evidence for a link between SOM and philosophical mysticism;
that's what my essay was
looking at, and that's what I'd be most interested in continuing to explore.
dmb says:
I'm pretty sure that line of thinking is not going to help. If there is a
link between SOM and philosophical mysticism, it is a dance of mutual
condemnation. You may recall that the MOQ began as an attempt to explain
Indian mysticism, which can't be explained within SOM. This is prehaps the
main reason we find his VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE so remarkable. It
sought to include a range of experience that is normally excluded by the
West in general and scientific materialism in particular. Also, I think that
we can safely assume that the Buddha, Socrates, Plotinus and the Native
American vision seekers had no knowledge of either James nor
Schleierwhathisname.
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 Dec 19 2004 - 17:13:56 GMT