Hi David B., Roger and all,
To David B. - Sorry for being the scoundrel who forced you to
cross-post, but I do think that it is a good idea to continue the
discussion here. Perhaps I didn't make it quite clear that your "pretty
good answer" that you first posted to the MF list doesn't really
satisfy:
I must be extremely dense, because I still don't understand your
argument as to why that teepee experience should be considered mystical
and the bar-room experience not.
DAVID B.
> At the bar he was motivated by biology, which doesn't care about how
> loud, rude, tacky or fake she is. There's conflict with "that bitch
> Debbie" and the Victorian moralizer doesn't like it much either.
Excuse me, but the bar-room isn't a biological pattern, nor the music
nor the dancing.
The "bitch" label put on poor Debbie is a social label, and the
"Victorian moralizer" is playing a social role. Dave, it seems to me
that you conveniently label the bar experience as merely biological so
that you can downplay it vs. the teepee ceremony that you call social+
(a repeat of another thread when you delegitimized a certain historical
decision by labeling it as merely social rather than intellectual.)
As for Lila's fake painted fingernails, are they more fake than the
paint on the Indians' faces? IMO, the emphasis on the teepee and peyote
and the dismissal of the bar scene is a clear example of romanticizing
the exotic.
As a final point, I note that Pirsig's novel presenting the MoQ was not
entitled "John Wooden Leg" nor "Ten Bears" and not named "Dusenbury". He
called the book "Lila", the name of the woman he picks up in the bar.
ROGER asked us to define our view on mysticism and here I agree with
DAVID B. that the dictionary definitions are completely inadequate. My
dictionary defines mysticism thus:
"1a. A spiritual discipline aiming at union with the divine through deep
meditation or trancelike contemplation ..."
[Not a useful definition unless we can agree what the divine is]
b. The experience of such communion, as described by mystics.
[Now I see - for a definition of mysticism, just ask a mystic!]
2. Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or
intellectual apprehension but central to being and directly accessible
to intuition.
[Rejected by radical empiricism which regards intuition as a legitimate
part of perception]
3. Confused and groundless speculation; superstitious self-delusion.
[Obviously you favourite Dave;-)]
None of the above provide a suitable working definition for our
purposes. (Neither do any other Dictionary definitions I have seen). One
solution is to avoid the word mysticism altogether.
However, if Roger insists on an answer, I would have to say that
mysticism relates to experience that is inaccessible to rationality. I
would further say that Pirsig's mission is to EXPAND rationality, and
the effect of such an expansion will be to demystify the mystical.
Jonathan
P.S. Let me remind everyone that we had extensive discussions on
mysticism in December 1998 and again in April-May 1999. It's all in the
archives, and I think some re-reading is called for.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:41 BST