hi, donald, you explain to ken:
gets into "what do you mean by 'God'?" Buddhists have no
'God,' of course, but you can say they're mystics--
lithien:
that is precisely my point. one does not have to be talking about god to be
a mystic. but many people confuse that. its as if that definition is taken
away from them, then they can no longer hold their ground.
you continue:
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.
lithien:
that is closer to pirsig's definition and the one that i subscribe to.
i thank you from the bottom of my heart for writing such a clear and
"logical" email about mysticism. maybe now our input will be just as valid
as theirs.
Lithien
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald T Palmgren <lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: MD Defining Mysticism.
> 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
>
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