From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 17:13:10 GMT
-----Original Message-----
From: David Buchanan
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 4:30 PM
To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
Subject: RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
Sam, Chin, msh and all MOQers:
This is part 2 of 2.
Sam defined a mystic:
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).
dmb says:
I can't agree with this description. I think you've characterized it as
being far more dynamic than it actually is. Just a few words on that. You
seem to have been careful to include an openness to DQ and claim that the
process is guided by the same, but I'm skeptical about that because you seem
to be putting the real emphasis upon the static forms, the tradition itself,
the mastery some very specific and predetermined set of existing patterns.
And I think its a matter of simple observation to note that religious
institutions are very slow to change. And besides that, learning enough
about a subject to advance to field describes scholarship much better than
mysticism. I mean, theoretically that is exactly what it means to earn a
PhD, one has somehow advanced the field. This is a good thing, but it hardly
seems like a spiritual achievement. I think Pirsig's idea of the contrarian
is a better example of someone who is truly Dynamic and who really changes
the culture. I can easily see how these culture-bearing figures could do the
same kind of thing within particular traditions and this it only makes sense
that that should be called church doctors and held up as important figures.
It seems to me that Pirsig is saying all cultures have these dynamic people
within them and the church wouldn't be some kind of special exception. But I
think its important to see that this evolutionary process happens in all
contexts, in all cultures, but getting the right balance between creation
and preservation is really what is at issue here. There is just a little bit
of common ground here too. If you recall the kinds of things Campbell said
(In the "code of art" thread) about the creative individual in our
contemporary world, its not so very different than the basic idea. Mastery
preceeds creativity. I think we agree in general, but when it comes down to
saying what that actually means, we go our seperate ways. You seem to think
that such mastery can only occur within the church, while I think the church
is only one of many, many cultural fields where real human progress can
occur. In fact, I think it is one of the least likely to be of any help
precisely because it is so static and antiquated. Its cosmology is entirely
obsolete and many of its symbols bear no relation to life as we live it
today and no longer move the heart. But that is another topic...
Sam said:
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?
dmb says:
This is roughly equal to the distinction between esoteric and exoteric,
between non-devotional and devotional religion, between jnani and bhakti
mysticism. The only thing I'd object to is calling it the Jamesian kind.
Sam quoted a mainstream theist:
"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)
dmb says:
I've seen this very same idea expressed by a Rabbi. As I keep trying to tell
you, this is the standard view in the West and it is not just that Pirsig is
trying to trash it all, but put it in a larger context so that this
blindspot can be indentified and over come. This is the claptrap that hides
DQ. As Campbell puts it, even in the exoteric religions such as traditional
christianity, the rituals and dogmas and all that are supposed to act as a
CATAPULT, they are supposed to lead us beyond the field of forms to a
transcendent experience. Instead, because of the emphasis on the tradition
itself rather than the psycho-spiritual realities to which they refer, they
tend to act as a snare rather than a bow. Instead of using them as a launch
vehicle to be jettisoned, the rocket itself becomes the destination and we
remain flightless.
Sam said:
What I most object to in your analysis is that I understood you to be
arguing, with Schleiermacher
and James, that Christian mysticism was the same as philosophical mysticism,
either explicitly
(asserting that Eckhart, for example, was a philosophical mystic) or
implicitly (genuine mystics
access a 'common core', therefore if they are true mystics, they will be
philosophical mystics). If
you're happy to let those two arguments drop, then I'm sure we'd move a long
way forward rapidly.
Although it would be asking a lot for you to let go of the 'common core'
viewpoint, I suspect.
Why don't we look at Eckhart in more detail? I'll try and find your post
that you refer to.
dmb says:
I think at least some of this is cleared up by the distinction between the
two kinds of mysticism made repeatedly in this post. But I'd also point out
that the perennial philosophy, the view that all of the world's great
religions have a common core, makes this same distinction. In fact, we could
very nearly say that the common core is that esoteric mystical understanding
and that in the West, this has been a very small and underground movement,
as the word 'esoteric' indicates. See the two kinds of mysticism can exist
side by side, but the mainstream Christian West has dominated almost
entirely so that the vert existence of this esoteric core is still called
into question, as you have done many times. And I should add that it is not
just you, Sam. I recently read of collection of critical essays about
Campbell and all but one or two of these academic types was confused about
this very point. One reviewer even explictily asked how there could be any
such thing as mysticism outside of a tradition and was genuinely
flabbergasted. Most of them were just plain angry. It was funny to see so
many religious academics exhibit the same attitudes and misconceptions that
I thought were yours alone, Sam.
Spend some time at King's website. Think about this distinction. Think about
the two kinds of mysticism and then think about why Pirsig might want to
reject one and rescue the other. Then we might actually be talking about the
same thing. Think about how nice that would be.
Thanks,
dmb
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 Dec 19 2004 - 18:29:55 GMT