Hi Scott,
As you said rightly put it, corrections. I'll cut and paste this a little
out of order, getting rid of the easy stuff first.
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott R <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
Scott: > 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.
>
>[ Scott]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.
GARY: My apologize for mis-reading you. Did not do it intentionally. I
didn't realize that we agreed: "all we can know are maps." But if all our
beliefs, ideas, theories, etc can be called maps- this is all the that we
can know, then why is there not a territory? Isn't the making of maps, our
attempts at describing the experience of living , all about referring to a
territory , a thing external to our internal experience? Help me out here,
I don't understand.
Scott: > 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.
>
> [Scott:] 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.
GARY: Hmm. I guess I seriously mis-read and mis-understood something you
wrote.
Scott: > 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.
GARY: I was quite impressed when the essay wrote the following: "Wolff
emphasizes that these propositions, like his philosophy as a whole, are
conceptual symbols of an ineffable Reality. [An aside: it seems that his
conceptual symbols = map and to me it seems that "ineffable Reality" =
territory/Quality] Moreover, Wolff acknowledges that the Realizations upon
which his philosophy is based are not necessarily ultimate, and are
authoritative only for Wolff and anyone who has had similar Realizations. "
Wow! That are words spoken by a truly great and wise man.
>
[Scott]> 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.
>
GARY: I am quite impressed with Merrell-Wolfe. I printed his material from
the part that starts "Franklin Merrell-Wolff's Realizations" and onward.
Thus I missed the part that talked about his background. From reading that
section he talked about his mystical insights as all about insights into
pondering Hindu ideas, that is what I read. Hence I referred to him as a
Hindu. The first two of his three premonitory recognitions as described on
the site were all about Atman, Nirvana , which is why I thought he was
studying Hinduism and or was a Hindu believer before his insights. I was
not trying to besmirched the guy. I am quite impressed with him. I emailed
you yesterday asking for a book recommendation.
I was pondering these connections: What do you think:
Nirvana = Quality as Goal of Being
Consciousness-without-an-object = Quality as Ground of Being
The words and their meanings seem to correspond. Although I have only these
few pages of text from the web site to go on.
> 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.
>
GARY: This is an example of me being shaped by my experience. Being Jewish
and studying the writings of Christian scholars analyzing both Judaism and
Christianity I have gotten a definitely skewed view of things. For the most
part the Christian scholars show little respect for Judaism. And they can't
wait to harp of how Christian insights and teachings have so far surpassed
those of the "primitive Hebrews". At least for me, after reading this stuff
I have developed a large chip on my shoulder. I have not read much of the
primary texts of Christian mystics or Church leaders, but have read the
secondary scholarship. They definitely convey a smugness and a feeling of
being superior to us ancient Hebrews. Now, the mystics were perhaps more
humble, the scholars were not in the least. The second hand stuff gives the
impression that the mystics thought they had experienced the territory and
not a mere map.
But quoting from the web site essay, this is from the Three Fundamentals of
the philosophy of ... #3:
"When activated, introspection provides immediate, categorical knowledge
that transcends the subject-object distinction, i.e. it is not a relational
knowledge of something by something else, but a knowledge through identity
in which there is only knowledge itself that includes and transcends both
knower and known." This seems to imply that Wolff is saying that mystical
insight is direct experience of the territory. And seems to imply that the
knowledge so gained is not inaccurate but is absolute truth. Again, all I
have is a short essay and I may be mis-reading it.
[Scott]> 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.
GARY: Here you seem to point out the same thing. Transcendent knowledge is
certain knowledge. Now, it is okay for him to believe this. It is okay for
you to believe this. Hey, I believe a lot of what the Rabbi's taught, not
all, but a good deal. I also believe what Pirsig wrote and Lao Tsu. But,
real honesty leads me to say that belief does not make it true. A
willingness to believe is a leap or step of faith. We are human, as Vicktor
Frankl points out we all are searching for meaning. And without a sense of
meaning we will stop living. But, faith and belief does not make any true.
Even if everyone on the planet believe an idea, so long as it was an
abstract idea, all that belief does not make it true.
We can find certainty when we are dealing with concrete sensory experiences
or at least come closer to certainty the more we are referring to concrete
things. The more abstract the thing/idea the more a leap of faith to
certainty it is. Try to have certainty of Quality or Freedom or even
theory. I recall a recent thread were everyone was trying to define the
word 'theory' to each other. And they all got stuck. Abstract terms are
hard to pin down, hard to describe with precision and hard to get 100%
agreement on.
This is what I am getting at. I believe in Pirsig's metaphysics. Does this
make it true? No. It makes it true for me, and all of us here on this
discussion group. We can't make it true by believing in it. We can get
other people to accept it as valid and true for them. Is it 100% completely
and totally descriptive of the total true nature of reality? No. It is
not, it can not be. Pirsig is just one guy and his map can only describe a
part of reality. Other peoples maps describe other aspects of reality.
Reality is infinite and thus theoretically we may need an infinite number of
maps to accurately describe and understand reality.
Just trying to work toward clarity, and not intentionally mis-reading you,
Gary
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