From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 12:56:26 GMT
Hi Davor,
I suspect that I will enjoy Nietzche, given the 'fragments' of his thinking
that I've absorbed so far. But as for Evelyn Underhill, I haven't read the
book that you read, but she is something of a 'bete noir' for my
understanding of religious mysticism - or at least, the people who
articulate the understanding of mystical teachings that I find plausible and
of high Quality see Evelyn Underhill as someone who teaches great
distortions, descending from the 17th Century via William James, and
concentrating on the mystical as being about an experience, rather than the
generator of higher quality understandings. Do you know when in her life
that book was written? Apparently her position shifted over time, away from
a Jamesian emphasis.
For further clarification, I think that religious mysticism is the educated
cultivation of DQ - that DQ = God, by and large. Perhaps I should say
'Christian' mysticism, as that's really the only one I'm qualified to talk
about. At different periods in history, different things were DQ. The
beating down of biological urges in order to allow society to flourish (the
codification of moral laws, the internalisation of those moral laws, to be a
high quality social unit) that was a DQ innovation at one point, and indeed,
in a person's own growth one must go through that stage, and therefore to
that person God/DQ = that which frustrates the biological urge. Similarly,
the transcendence above the social level, to develop what I call the
'eudaimonic' individual, that was a DQ experience. (Re: the MD Jesus thread,
I understand Pauline theology - that is, freedom from the law, grace and
letting Christ be born in us - to be about the development of the eudaimonic
individual). Again, this is something which a person can move through for
themselves, following the 'lure' of DQ/God. This new 'fourth level'
individual - 'free' from the law, justified by faith, living by grace - is
still called to journey deeper into God, and the medieval mystical
tradition, as I understand it, is about the deconstruction of the eudaimonic
'self' in order to preserve the experience and transmission of Quality, or
God, and not get hung up on 'my GOD, aren't I WONDERFUL, look at ME'.
(Analagous to 'have I not drunk the soma juice' at the social level). (You
could read Luther's theology, of the priesthood of all believers, as the
consequence of the medieval tradition, and a repudiation of a church that
had got stuck on level 3.)
So the 'way of purgation' for a Christian is to first discipline the body
(biological urges: fasting, other forms of self-flagellation) and generate a
social ego, then to dismantle the social ego (desire for social goods:
giving up possessions, living in poverty, abandoning personal hygiene etc)
in order to generate a 'eudaimonic' ego, then to dismantle the 'eudaimonic'
ego (the integral human flourishing and actualisation, 'individuation' a la
Jung: the 'dark night of the soul', consciousness of sin, retreats,
contemplative prayer), in order to generate - at this stage of our
development - a profoundly wise and compassionate being able to transmit
undiluted Dynamic Quality to all with whom they come into contact. Those who
achieve this are called saints. They have haloes (at least, to those
existing at lower levels they do; if you're on the same level they wouldn't
be perceived as embodiments of DQ). It's what we're all called to be! :-)
(If the church actually functioned properly most of the first few stages
could be achieved through normal socialisation. But it doesn't function
properly.....)
My criticism of much contemporary writing about mysticism is broadly that it
mistakes the finger for the moon - the intense and dynamic experience of
growing from one stage to another becomes a search for intense and dynamic
experiences. To my way of thinking, it is only when the growth is embedded
in a tradition of understanding that it is possible to discriminate between
experiences which are exciting and experiences which actually foster
spiritual growth (ie growth in Quality).
Pirsig suggests that Zen is about seeking 'spontaneous' enlightenment (as
well as having some structured paths analagous to the Christian one), so you
don't have to have the guidance of a tradition. I don't fully understand
this, but I wouldn't want to limit God's freedom. I'm sure it's possible,
just unlikely. And just to REALLY stick my neck out - why not, may as well
be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb - my own view is that Theravada Buddhism
is really only about level 3......
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:35:56 GMT