Gary:
Some more corrections. You say: " They tell us that their maps are pure
and without bias, since they come directly from that intercourse
experience with the Divine."
Merrell-Wolff says the opposite. He says that the Knowledge is -- when
in the mystical state -- absolute, but that when it comes time to relate
it, the relating is necessarily incomplete. Others have said the same
thing. I'm not sure who you are talking about who claim that their maps
are absolutely correct, but that is enough to tell me that they aren't
worth much.
You then say they are self-deceived. No doubt many are. Not all. You
then go on at great length, quoting Scholem (whom I've read), to tell us
what anyone with some acquaintance with the mystic literature already
knows: that Christians become Christian mystics, etc. You then say that
Merrell-Wolff became a Hindu mystic. Not true. His background was in
Western philosophy and mathematics, and he knew a fair amount of Eastern
philosophy/religion as well, and ALL of that is used in his
descriptions. True, he uses Sanskrit words (Nirvana, etc.), but that is
because they are good words. He also uses mathematical analogies and in
general compares and contrasts his position with current (at the time:
the '30's and '40's) Western philosophy. That is not Hinduism.
So he knew that his descriptions and explanations were not complete and
perfect maps of his mystical experience. He also says that any
description or explanation of mystical experience is fallible, including
that of the mystic. You, on the other hand, appear to believe that
mystics HAVE complete and accurate maps of THEIR EXPERIENCE. So,
according to you, the map IS the territory in their case.
Now as to whether the mystic's knowledge is certain. Merrell-Wolff says
it is (the transcendent knowledge, remember, not the map). You say it
isn't. How do you know? I don't know that it is. But I'll take
Merrell-Wolff's word over yours. And that is because what he does
describe and the way he explains it makes more sense than your metaphysics.
Then you get really out of touch:
[Gary:] Thus mystic union is not a means to escape the map/territory
word/thing observer/observed divide.
I never said it was a means to escape the map/territory divide. I do
believe it transcends the observer/observed divide. They are not at all
the same thing. My point about the map/territory divide is that it
doesn't exist in the first place (all we can know are maps).
You have apparently totally missed the reason why I do not like the
phrase "The map is not the territory". In fact you seem to think that I
believe there is such a thing as a perfect map. I don't know where you
got that idea. I know I have never said there is.
And then there is this:
[Gary:] All that stuff you, Scott, wrote about Hindu mystical maps as
describing the True nature of reality, as if it was not mediated by the
fact of human maps/word contextual occurrences, is just not so.
Where on earth did this come from? I never wrote any such thing, and
can't think of anything I have written that could remotely be
interpreted in this way.
- Scott
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:29 BST