From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Wed Dec 22 2004 - 22:01:16 GMT
Chin earlier)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.
Sam) - 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.
Chin) - There you go again trying to turn something I said into something
James said. None of this has anything to do with a mystical experience IMHO.
Sam) - 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.
Chin) - I said none of this, and I have not read anything about your
mystical experience, so I cannot deny it, unless I read something into what
you are saying. Then I would be the one trying to twist someone's words
around to mean what I want to as opposed to what you actually said. I won't
do that.
Sam) - 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.
Chin) - More of your ass-u-me-ing what I am saying has anything to do with
what James says about mysticism. Please read these words. I DO NOT THINK
JAMES HOLDS THE LEADING EDGE ON WHAT MYSTICISM IS ALL ABOUT. PLEASE DO NOT
COMPARE ME TO SOMETHING JAMES MIGHT SAY.
Sam) - 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.
Chin) - This also has nothing to do with anything I have said.
I stand by my words, as I mean everything I say in a straightforward way. If
I feel the need for confirmation from someone else over my own thinking
abilities, I will offer it. If I felt James was a mystic, then I would have
stated I felt James was a mystic. I haven't.
If you would like to discuss anything I say, I would be more than glad to
discuss it, as I know I cannot know everything, and most likely very little
of anything, but I do feel I have enough independent and critical thinking
skills not to need to rely on a certain philosopher to tell me what to say.
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 - 22:26:07 GMT