Hello, Ken.
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Ken Clark wrote:
>
> "The doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths
--that gets into the whole "What is 'truth'" question. Zen
Roshi's typically insist they have no "philosophy," no "outlook"...
Similerly w/ Hegel (frequently called 'mystic') who had no truths
(positions, resting points) but rather had a movement of thought--
>believed to
>transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the
>soul with God
--gets into "what do you mean by 'God'?" Buddhists have no
'God,' of course, but you can say they're mystics--
>through contemplation and love."
>
> The second is the American Heritage dictionary of the English Language
>which gives the definition:
>
>"Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual
>apprehension but central to being and directly accessible by intuition."
That's probably closer to what Pirsig was using.
>
> When we read these two definitions we see that mystical is equated with
>supernatural by these two dictionaries.
Well, now I'd have to ask what you mean by 'supernatural' and we
can see the downward spiral here. Most people use that word to indecate
something that doesn't follow or defys physical laws...
...but of course the laws (values) of nature are only one type of
law in the MoQ. Maybe, strictly speaking, the laws/values of the jungle
and society and intellectual proof are 'supernatural' -- but they are REAL
arn't they? And what about that "Code of Art," DQ? It's of the highest
value/most real.
Personally I don't find the natural/un(super)natural
distinction of great help here.
>
> In your second statement you equate philosophy with mysticism.
I don't mean that. The "mysticism" we are trying to talk about is
a type of philosophy. The more important question, however, is what's
philosophy because that's really the source of our disagreement.
>
> You go on to equate mysticism with science
--compare, by way of analogy... not equate, obviously--
>and then compare the two
>with political theory, literature, visual art. "Does painting contradict
>poetry?. You must know that these are not the same questions at all.
Actualuy in my mind they are perfectly (or highly) analogous
situations.
>We
>are talking about a predictable (science) process as opposed to an
>unpredictable (mysticism) process.
I'm not. I'm talking about 1st philosophy as opposed to 2nd
philosophy -- generally: science as opposed to metaphysics.
One is trying to create a correct picture of the world through the
process of proof.
The other is asking questions about the nature of this picture,
truth and proof.
"SCIENCE IS TRUE!"
Okay, but what does that mean? True how? Obviously it's not
scientifically true, that's redundant. Maybe (and I think this is the
MoQ's answer) it's true (just) because it's a method of proof of very high
moral value and generates worldviews w/ great intellectual quality.
Science is not true because it coincides w/ the "facts of the
world," the "outside world"... whatever. Again, how could you ever prove
that, and what means of proof would you use? Scientific proof? That makes
no sense.
See that's the difference between science and philosophy
(especially metaphysics) -- they are not compeditors but are rather two
difrent undertakings w/ different rules. Philosophy isn't ever going to
"disprove" science any more that science will ever disprove philosophy
(any philosophy, including a mystic one).
I don't buy that "Philosophy is the handmaid of science" junk.
Philosophy doesn't exist to serve science any more than the converse. Both
are fine on they're own.
>
> When I said that the old philosophers were not playing with a full deck I
>meant it as a sort of complement. Think of the conclusions they might have
>reached had they had our (still limited) understanding of the operation of
>the universe.
It wasn't that you might be insulting them that bothered me -- I'm
bothered because you're missing a very major point:
You're saying, 'Boy, if Plato and Aristotle lived today they'd
make great scientists.' You're still comparing philosphers w/ science and
(OF COURSE) finding them comming up short. I don't think these past
thinkers -- not many of them -- necessarily would make good scientists
today. Certainly Plato would not. What they were doing was something
totaly different. They weren't even interested in costructing an
objective, scientifically acurate picture of the world. For the golden
age Atheninas (for example) the question was how to save the failing
city-state. It was a political issue. For the Stoics, Epicurians, and
Skeptics it was about how to find personal, "inner-peace" in a world gone
to hell. Mideval theologins didn't do science for (much) the same reason
Mideval artists didn't paint naturalistic perspectival space: Yes, they
didn't have thet best tools for it, but also they weren't intrested in it.
That wasn't the point.
>
> I agree that science is a means of communication and of proof. Whatever
>counts as proof, and philosophy is fine, must be based on the bedrock of
>our understanding of the way the physical universe works.
--what counts as scientific proof, perhaps. But that wasn't true
of the kind of proof Plato/Socrates used. That makes the bad scientists,
yes, but so what? They wern't scientists.--
>Mysticism is
>fine if it amuses you but it has no place in our understanding of our place
>in the universe.
Now that's just rhetoric! Perhaps for Shakyamuni (the historic
Buddha) science was unhelpful in understanding his place in the universe.
Certainly Buddhism seemed to work for him. And Mideval theologens found
they're place by use of a "Great Chain of Being" that was rather
scientifiaclly inacurate -- But that's like saying that a winning baseball
team is nothing more than bad football. You have different sports played
by different rules at work here. The point is not to "rate" them against
us... The point is to realize that the correct picture of the world is a
MORAL structure, one that has changed throughout the centuries, and
inquire as to the why of it.
> Now give me your understanding of what mysticism means.
I'm using, basically, the same definition Pirsig gives in LILA
which has been sighted and quoted many times (especially by Lithien):
There is an ellement that is, by it's very nature, unknowable to the
noramal, Aristotilan logic of daylight consciousness. It can't be
apprehended in disections or hierachies. It can be believed in by way of
Faith or else experienced directly as an intuition, perhaps... but not put
into words and concepts. In the MOQ this is called DQ.
Because it can't be put into exact words (or numbers) it is often
communicated by way of analogy -- through symbolism, art and mythology.
I believe as Pirsig said: Truth is always allegorical.
I believe as Kant said: All metaphysical claims should be assumed
to be proceded by the terms, "Play as if-".
And I believe what Hienrich Zimmer said:
"The best things canot be said; they are beyond words. The second
best things are always misunderstood because they are metaphors taken
literally."
That's what I mean by "mysticism." It has nothing to do w/
unpredictability, "supernatural" forces (in the sense of ghosts, vampires
and gremlins), or contradicting science. Science is still a very moral
proof and a very high quality intellectual pattern-matrix.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:44 BST