From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 24 2004 - 18:46:15 BST
Sam and all MOQers:
Sam Norton said:
My position is:
(i) the mystical element of the Christian faith is *the* essential core and
what it's all about;
(ii) I don't think it is profoundly misleading to talk about mysticism as an
'experience';
(iii) the intellectual tradition that sees it as an experience (within which
DMB unreflectingly
situates himself; derived through William James, and which dominates - and
vitiates - most
contemporary discussion of the subject) is a SOMish distortion of Christian
mysticism, as it has
been understood and practiced through the centuries.
dmb says:
You don't think its misleading to talk about mysticism as an experience, but
the traditon that sees it as an experience is a SOMish distortion? This
contradiction could be removed by changing (ii) to "I DO think", but then
you wouldn't be able to deny the charge that you've "basically dismissed the
mystical experience as unnecessary", which you described as a "self-serving
falsehood". (I guess Sam is a graduate of the I'm-rubber-and-you're-glue
school of debate.) What shall I do? I don't see how to remove the
self-contradiction without saving the admission. Sam looses either way, so
I'll leave that up to him. But since you mentioned "self-serving
falsehoods", I should remind you that I already explicitly told (off-line)
you that William James has nothing to do with my point of view on mysticism.
As you know already from the "systemic about the sophists" thread,
philosophical mysticism goes back to Plato and even the pre-Socratic
philosophers, so your vague and unexplained assertion that such a view is "a
SOM distortion" makes no sense.
But I think the main problem here is that you are talking about mysticism as
it is seen WITHIN theistic religious traditions. This is quite different
than what I'm talking about, which is what Pirsig is talking about. He's
saying that one has to cut through the clap-trap and low-grade yelping and
your reply seems to be a defense of the clap-trap and low-grade yelping.
Have you ever had a mystical experience, Sam? Do you know what you're
talking about in any first-hand way?
Sam said:
Christian mystics truly are a rare breed - they are otherwise known as
saints, people like John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, Teresa of Avila,
Julian of Norwich and all the other 'doctors of the church' (in other words
they are the people acknowledged as the main teachers of the faith). ...So
you are claiming to be one of their number, despite, to my awareness, never
once displaying any
familiarity with their work. Wow.
dmb says:
Right. I wasn't describing my point of view. I was claiming to be a Saint.
That's plausable - in the twilight zone. But seriously, I think its obvious
to any honest reader that I was NOT claiming to be an acknowledged teacher
of the faith, but in fact the opposite because, like Pirsig, I think faith
is crap. Thus my emphasis on experience and evidence.
DMB also said, in another post:
Philosophical mystics do not believe in a personal god with whom we can have
a relationship, while theists do.
Sam replied:
Which is why you're a philosophical mystic (at best) and not a Christian
mystic. I'm astonished that you feel the need to claim otherwise. I look
forward to you sharing your insights from the Way. ..."And the one who
exalts himself shall be humbled, and the one who humbles himself shall be
exalted."
dmb says:
Astonished? Well, obviously that's because your idea of a "Christian mystic"
has little to do with what I was saying. The esoteric core of all the
world's religions contain this same non-theistic mysticism and it is
depicted in their myths. Since I am an english speaking Westerner, it only
makes sense that I would turn to the christian mythology first. That how I
read the christian myths. Its and interpretation shared by philosophical
mystics. You may recall that I presented that view to you, Sam, and you
dismissed it. Anyway, I'm a christian mystic only because adopting a
mythology from outside my culture feels like a bit of a put-on to me, an
affectation. Of course I wasn't saying that I'd been cannonized by the
church or otherwise talking about grandiose personal achievements. We're
talking about "faith" in the MOQ and I'm sorry if that doesn't work for you
Sam, but Pirsig is clear on this. There is no way your brand of religion can
be justifed in the MOQ.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sun Oct 24 2004 - 19:53:19 BST