From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 01:03:04 GMT
Hi Sam,
I think this;
"I think a mystic is someone who is able to discern the deeper truths within
a tradition, thereby
enabling that tradition to develop."
fits well.
I believe where you are disagreeing with me is on 'experienced' as opposed
to mystic. As our cultures have developed, I would feel 'experienced' would
have come to mean 'anything' experienced, and not S/O only. That is how I
meant it.
Mysticism may very well need to be dropped, except in the sense you are
relating to someone's definition of mysticism from your readings of
philosophy -- that which maybe you feel covers the whole meaning of
mysticism, which I don't feel any does. If you relate mysticism to a certain
philosopher, then you are denying that other philosophers are mystic. If you
think about it, your definition of mystic covers quite a few philosophers.
When I offered the quote from James, I didn't mean to refer to James'
mysticism, but this is how you read it. Right?
> "No Mystics (at least before the [20th] century) believed in or practiced
'mysticism'. They believed
> in and practiced Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism), that
is, religions that
> contained mystical elements as parts of a wider historical whole."
> (Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian
Mysticism)
Why make this distinction? Mysticism is mysticism. In religion, if you
receive a vision, then this is mysticism. The same would hold true no matter
theist/anti-theist. Possibly the only thing keeping you from a mystic
experience would be your intellect.
What happened to Pheadrus with Lila is a good example. When his inhibitions
were in check by the influence of alcohol, he experienced a mystic
experience with 'The lila.' This was the lila that he was infatuated with as
opposed to the biological Lila that was touchable, and far from the lilaness
that aroused his mystical experience. As he denied 'Lila's Quality' he lost
his mystical experience. Had he been able to see though the package to the
'The lila' underneath, maybe he wouldn't have been so inclined to give the
Lila that represented this lila up so readily.
It is my belief that it was his sobriety, his intellectual hang-ups, and not
the Lila that represented this 'lila' that held him from his happiness --
and hers. Rigel may have been the one who recognized the DQ in this
situation. At least from what was offered in the story, it seems to me that
Lila offered something that both could use -- a changing of the garmets as
mentioned in the little story I offered "Children's eyes - childrens
mouths."
It seems to me there might have been a bit too much Pirsig, and not enough
Phaedrus.
Notice the 'mays' and 'mights' of what I am saying. All I am trying to get
at is that there is more to Lila than intellectual or biological Quality if,
or not it is there. There is a mystical presense that may be found by
looking past the package, just as there is a mystical presense in all of us.
It is more than just looks, and it is certainly more than just intellect,
and it most, most certainly is more than just Victorian Principles.
It is the package that holds us from the DQ; maybe the prejudice along lines
of race, culture, religion, and yes intellect as well. If you take away all
the differences in the peoples of the earth, there is nothing left -- except
maybe a biological animal feeding and keeping warm.
If you wake up in the morning to the same old, same ole, Lila lying beside
you, that has been lying there for 20 years or more, and all of a sudden she
is beautiful, would this not be a mystical experience? -- I know it can be
explained away in biological terms, but why just the one morning or many or
every morning after?
Maybe this doesn't qualify as mystical -- maybe it does. To the person it
happened to, it does, and to the blue-haired ladies at the church, when the
minister's words reach out so strongly that people in the church start
speaking in tounge, and these blue-haired propper ladies' faces light up --
when you read the simple words of someone like Pirsig, and it turns around
the way you view the world . . .
Life is full of mystical experiences, and the person who can see these
experiences is a mystic, whether she changes the world or not from one
mystical experience -- maybe two -- maybe the fact that everyday holds a new
one, and everyone around her is touched by her Quality.
OK, so I have gone well past what you wanted defined -- sorry.
Your definition of mystic is fine. Do we need a better one?
What if we include a tradition of one -- maybe two?
Then would the mystical experience need to change the tradition, or would it
allow us to live in the same tradition until the tradition caught up to us,
or them naturally by the experiences it caused to fan out around them?
What is DQ other than a mystical experience? -- an event is
experienced(?) -- if allowed.
Maybe we don't need a new word(s), just new ways of saying them.
Chin (Sorry, I know I go off the deep end)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
> Hi Chin,
>
> As you might have expected I have a different understanding of mysticism.
I would uncouple mysticism
> from experience completely - I think the emphasis on experience is Modern
and based in
> subject-object metaphysics (which I've gone through lots of times with
DMB, I'm sure we'll come back
> to the why - see my essay, newly posted on moq.org, with which I began
this thread).
>
> But a quick positive account of how I understand mysticism, then a
suggestion.
>
> I think a mystic is someone who is able to discern the deeper truths
within a tradition, thereby
> enabling that tradition to develop. To put that in MoQish, a mystic is the
one who is sufficiently
> open to DQ that they are able to develop new static latches which shift
the existing static patterns
> forward in a higher quality direction. The thing is, to be recognised as a
mystic, you have to be
> within the tradition in the first place, in other words you can't get to
the fourth level of Quality
> without having gone through the third level first (DQ guiding the process
all the time).
>
> It's been suggested before that we drop the word 'mysticism' because of
this sort of disagreement as
> to what counts or doesn't count as mystical. I'd be happy to drop it, as
it probably does generate
> more heat than light. How about we call the view that it's about having an
experience (or, about
> what follows having had the experience, what I've elsewhere called
'mysticism-in-the-Jamesian
> sense', or 'the modern synthesis'), let's call that 'noeticism' or 'the
noetic view of mysticism',
> so that the person who undergoes such a [putative] experience is a
'noetic'; and lets call the view
> that it's about being rooted in a tradition, and developing that tradition
further, 'praxis' or 'the
> praxis view of mysticism' so that the person seen as a mystic from this
point of view is a
> 'practitioner'.
>
> I think this distinction may enable a clearer discussion. What do you
think?
>
> Sam
>
> "No Mystics (at least before the [20th] century) believed in or practiced
'mysticism'. They believed
> in and practiced Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism), that
is, religions that
> contained mystical elements as parts of a wider historical whole."
> (Bernard McGinn, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian
Mysticism)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron Winchester" <phaedruswolff@hotmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 5:54 PM
> Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
>
>
> > Hi Sam,
> >
> > --- A quickie - in as few words as you can manage! - what do you mean by
> > 'mystic', when you say that
> > Socrates is one?
> >
> > Mystic - beyond the realm of an accepted base for knowledge or wisdom.
James
> > might have defined it best. "Everything real is experienced somewhere.
> > Everything experienced is real somewhere." If something is not commonly
> > accepted are reality, but you have experienced it, then you have had a
> > mystic experience.
> >
> > How would that work with what you are calling mystic. Like all terms we
use,
> > it is good to define the term - understand the term between all who are
> > involved in the discussion.
> >
> > Thanks for asking.
> >
> > Chin
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Thu Dec 16 2004 - 01:17:44 GMT