From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Dec 22 2004 - 14:44:24 GMT
Hi Chin, (with a note to MSH at the end)
Thanks for the response. I think a little more clarification is in order, even if it only reinforces
our differences.
> Sam earlier) - It's the emphasis on 'mystical experience' as such which I think is
> misleading.
> Chin) This is pretty much our difference. In considering what is/is not mysticism;
> you want to add guidelines. There are none, and the path you take to a
> mystical experience has nothing to do with the experience, and the path does
> not matter, nor is the path necessary.
> This is why I do not need to compare the definitions/philosophies of
> mysticism, as I see no philosophy in mysticism, nor definitions needed in
> mysticism. A mystic experience will define your philosophy, as opposed to
> the other way around.
> If you have to ask what a mystic experience is, or you need someone to tell
> you, then you have not had a mystic experience.
It's that last sentence which expresses what I disagree with so much. I believe that different
people across all sorts of backgrounds, spiritualities, cultures, civilisations - all have had
experiences which might be described as 'mystical', and I'm quite happy to say that there are family
resemblances amongst them. What I cannot accept is that they are all expressions of the same thing -
this is what I think is the 'common core' hypothesis, which I also call 'Jamesian mysticism', or
'essentialism'. I think that way of approaching things is entirely a product of Western rationalism,
subject- object metaphysics, Modernism, Cartesianism, Kantianism - all that stuff which we're
supposed to have thrown off.
So paradoxically enough, I'm wanting to argue *against* there being guidelines. When you say "There
are none, and the path you take to a mystical experience has nothing to do with the experience, and
the path does not matter, nor is the path necessary" it seems to me that a) you are putting
boundaries around what can count as a legitimate mystical encounter, b) privileging the Western
rationalist understanding of mysticism, and therefore c) denying my own experience of mysticism.
Because I *would* claim to have had 'a mystical experience' - I just drew completely different
conclusions from it than the ones which the Jamesian tradition says that I should have done. I *was*
a militant atheist, very much a fan of Jung and Joseph Campbell (and, implicitly, William James)
etc, and afterwards I switched to taking Christianity seriously, and I've been pursuing that path
ever since (about 15 years now, although it took me a good few years to reconcile myself to 'being a
Christian'). I've slowly been unpacking what was given to me at that moment - as you put it so
correctly, "A mystic experience will define your philosophy, as opposed to the other way around."
So when you say "If you have to ask what a mystic experience is, or you need someone to tell you,
then you have not had a mystic experience" I think this is a rhetorical strategy to privilege your
(Jamesian) understanding of what mysticism must be, if it is to count as genuine mysticism - and
that is PRECISELY to put boundaries and definitions around it, which - funnily enough - is exactly
what you claim to be opposing. And DMB is right to pick up that I get resentful, for the logical
implication of the position you are arguing for is that the experiences I have undergone, and all
that I have learnt in my lifetime etc etc is of no worth compared to the Jamesian approach (it
means, logically, that my experience was not a mystical experience, which makes the argument
completely circular). Now if the Jamesian approach were manifestly more coherent, richer in
spiritual insights, more encouraging of the moral and social transformation of our world, then I
would accept that 'I am but an egg', and that I still have much further to go (which I think is true
in any case). But I think the truth vis a vis mystical experience is exactly the opposite: that the
Jamesian tradition is part of Western rationalism, that it is narrow, spiritually sterile,
politically impotent, incoherent logically, demonstrably false in the claims it makes about
Christianity, still captured within the Kantian metaphysical system, and generally a very long way
from Quality. It claims to have a privileged position from which to assess religious or spiritual
paths, so a Hindu guru or a Christian saint are not the authority on their own path; in contrast, an
intellectually abstracting understanding from those paths gives a superior understanding to their
insights. It is patronising, condescending and imperialistic, and it gives no respect to the lived
experience of those who are actually trying to climb the spiritual mountain.
The point I keep trying to make about 'tradition' is not that there are rules that must be followed
in order to gain an 'experience' - although that may be true - but that we need to take what the
spiritual authorities say seriously, and that means NOT trying to shoehorn them into a metaphysical
box designed in the West. It means we must allow the Buddha to be Buddha, we must allow Gandhi to be
a Hindu, we must allow Meister Eckhart to be a Christian, and not just turn them into ingredients
for the Western rationalist sausage machine, and so churn out standard 'gurus' in bite-sized chunks.
Note to MSH: reflecting on my own mystical experience, although I experienced it as a 'bolt from the
blue', I can see in retrospect that there was quite a lot going on in the months before the
experience leading up to it - a bit like termites nibbling away the foundations until there is a
sudden collapse. I think the same is going on with me at the moment with respect to non-violence,
that's why I'm putting energy into our discussions on Iraq. That's not to say that I'll end up
agreeing with you and Chomsky (although I might), my sense is more that the 'holy' non-violence
strand (which I associate with Wim here in the forum) is more where I may end up going. Stanley
Hauerwas - have you heard of him? His book 'The Peaceable Kingdom' has made a big impact on me.
But I've started blethering. Sorry to take up so much time and space on this forum.
Sam
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 : Wed Dec 22 2004 - 14:46:24 GMT