From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 20 2005 - 00:45:17 GMT
Sam and anyone interested:
Sam said to dmb:
But what exactly are we arguing about? Surely you've not just discovered
your sensitive side and are grumbling that I've discovered my rude side? I'm
sincerely interested in how to 'crack' our dialogue, coz so often we talk
past each other. I had thought we'd made a bit of progress in that you
seemed to accept that Christian mysticism was different to philosophical
mysticism, but now you seem to be backtracking on that. So, which bit of our
discussion are you most interested in revisiting?
dmb says:
I'm fine with starting a new thread, but you nixed all references to the
original post and so I don't even know what you're responding to here. In
any case, its not a matter of my "accepting" the difference between
philosophical mysticism and Christian mysticism. As I understand it, the
problem is that I've been talking about one while you've been talking about
the other. That's what talking PAST each other is all about - at least in
this case. I mean, how many times have I expressed the hope that someday we
will actually be on the same topic and talking about the same thing? Lots of
times. Not only that, you seem to be in the business of asserting that
philosophical mysticism is some kind of fraud or something. This is certain
to result in talking past each other, don't you think?
Sam asked dmb to look at some options:
Option #1. Philosophical mysticism is 'Jamesian' (aka SOM). This is where I
need to answer your assertion that what James is doing is what Plotinus was
doing.
dmb says:
Right. You've never given a response to this. And of course it is not just
Plotinus. Your assertion is very easily defeated by simply providing
examples of philosophical mystics that are not Jamesian. We can go East, we
can go back to a time long before James and we can find out what
contemporary philosophical mystics think of the Ancients, the East and
James. There are a gazillion examples and lots of thinkers who are happy to
point them out. Frankly, I think you should have admitted defeat on this
point long ago.
Sam's option #2:
Philosophical mysticism is present in all world religions, rather than
brought in by the intellectual assumptions of the observer.
dmb says:
So I'm saying its in the object but you're saying its in the subject? Nice
try, pal, but that ain't it at all. We are simply talking about an
experience that has been reported widely and in many ways. And the
suggestion that the perennial philosophy is some kind of bogus projection is
just too vague to be taken seriously. It's not much different than saying,
"Oh, you just feel that way because you're crabby". Its condescending,
dismissive and generally begs the question. Besides, as I already mentioned,
there is an avalanche of examples to cite as evidence and a host of thinkers
that have yet to be seriously disputed; Campbell, Smith, Wilber, Northrop,
Huxley, etc. One could spend a lifetime and still fail to finish such an
inquiry. But if you'd care to get specific...
Sam's option #3:
My interest in the MoQ is illegitimate because there is no correspondence
between Christianity and the MoQ. (Which contradicts 2 I think - but hey,
who cares about consistency these days?)
dmb says:
I'd go further than simply asserting that there is no correspondence between
the MOQ and your christianity. I'd say the MOQ is OPPOSED to your brand of
christianity. Your interest in the MOQ is one thing, but the validity of
trying to fuse it with your faith is quite another. I don't know if
"illegitimate" is the word for it, however. It seems to me that you're
trying to fit an anti-mystical theism into an anti-theistic mysticism. This
is what's promted my repeated complaints about putting square pegs into
round holes. If I had to pick a word, I guess I'd just call it "wrong".
Sam's option #4:
The status of the ego as an illusion, or whether there is something as
real as an 'apple' there, and how that fits in to a metaphysics.
dmb says:
As I understand it, we can't reject SOM and still hold onto the ego self
they way you are. And as I've pointed out more than once, the idea of self
as an illusion is not to be construed to mean that you are just a
hallucination or a mirage. Your ego is very real, as real as any static
patterns. Its your little self and you need it. The illusion comes in
thinking that this little "subjective" self is THEE self. And this sense of
the self is consistent with the mystical view, but strikes horror in the
hearts of theists. This is part of the same problem. Seems I recall that you
recently made a distinction between this ego-self and your idea of
individuality. But I would remind you that my complaints about this ego-self
is directly aimed at your assertions on individuality. Let's not talk past
each other on something so simple, eh? I'm talking about the everyday
self-consciousness that we all know. Some people and cultures might be more
individualistic than others, but we are only talking about normal
consciousness and our ordinary sense of self. When I say "Ego-self" it is
not just some adolescent complaint about arrogance or excessive pride.
Humility usually makes it grow. No, I'm talking about the self that fears
death. I'm talking about something that can't be fixed as easily as mere
hubris.
I wonder if that helps.
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 Mar 20 2005 - 00:51:41 GMT