From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 02 2005 - 03:09:57 GMT
Scott;
Actually, I was very loosely paraphrasing Wilber, but my argument does not
depend on any particular means of gaining enlightenment (nor does Wilber
think that entering monasteries is necessary). The point is there is no
straightforward recipe for verifying a mystical claim, and I think
"empirical", when used to back up philosophical claims, becomes devalued
unless the recipes are straightforward.
Ron;
If the mystical claim is based on the idea that everything experienced is
experienced through the senses, this is pretty straightforward in my view.
When you claim something ‘Out there’ creates this mystical experience, then
it gets a little on the foggy side using reason and logic to describe it.
Don’t ya think?
Scott;
My point is: why doesn't he? Why does he accept some mystical reports and
not others? I would think empirical evidence (which Swedenborg's is
according to Pirsig's use of the word empirical) that there is life after
death would be of great relevance to a discussion of morality. (Please note
that I am not expressing an opinion on the matter of whether there is life
after death or not. I am questioning the use of the word "empirical" in the
MOQ.)
Ron;
Empirical is exactly that; relying on experiment or observation. The
mystical experience is derived from the senses; it is not a revelation from
heaven or the stars. It is simply something already known, but unknown to
the individual or the culture or the society or the logos of the day. It is
the recognition that the logos of the day is nothing but the mythos of the
day, or the myth of tomorrow. Anything real today is subject to
reconsideration tomorrow, and anything unreal today is subject to
reconsideration tomorrow. I think you may have already said it – ‘Reality is
a temporary concept.’
Scorr;
My thoughts and feelings are not experienced through the senses.
Ron;
Are they empirical? -- or emotions?
Ron earlier)The reason Pirsig avoids 'Christian
>mysticism' (my opinion) is that in philosophical mysticism, if you have an
>enlightening experience, you accept it, and move on. You may share it in
>your own words that point to the experience. In Christian mysticism, if
you
>have an enlightening experience, someone else must explain it to you, and
>'Tell' you whether it was a Christian experience or the devil's work
through
>your 'Evil Flesh.'
Scott;
.In short, if the mystical experience agrees with the MOQ it is valid, and
if not, it has been filtered through authority or something to make it
invalid. I am, to put it mildly, skeptical of this argument.
Ron;
I said philosophical mysticism, not MOQ Mysticism.
Ron earlier;
>If you experince the pure (raw) undifferentiated experience, then it is
your
>experience. No one can tell you what you are going to experience, and no
one
>can tell you whether or not it was a legitimate experience. All anyone can
>tell you is whether or not it fits in with the Mythos of the day.
Scott;
The question is not what I do with an experience I might have. The question
is can reports of such experience be called "empirical" when used to bolster
a philosophical claim.
Ron;
Yes, but the philosophical claim is not considered automatically 'Right' or
'Better than.' The Quality of this experience is not automatically decided
upon at the moment of the experience. To the individual, I would imagine it
is high Quality, otherwise, it could not be considered mystical. What the
individual considers DQ may not work its way through the static patterns of
society and/or intellect.
Ron earlier;
>You are right in that the variety and interpretations of the mystical
>experience is very wide. There is no 'Ready-made', 'Hand-me-down' guides
to
>understanding the mystic; as the word 'Mystic' might lend to logic, it
can't
>be known ahead of the experience itself. All Pirsig is saying with
>undifferntiated experience is that it is not limited to Subject and
Object.
>Subject and Object do exist, and they play a key role in
explaining/wording,
>but all experiences do not depend on an already defined S/O.
Scott;
And how is any of this supported empirically? I'm not (at this point)
denying it. I'm questioning the use of the word "empirical" as justification
for it.
Ron;
It is supported by DQ; the presence of Value that is not dependent on S/O.
SOM limits what can be considered empiricism as that which is derived from
object. I know this (Quality) is not what you want to hear, but I must ask
if you honestly think SOM is capable of defining all experience? If it is
experienced should it be denied as it doesn't fit SOM? If it is not denied,
is it empirical?
Ron earlier)
>It is quite simple if you do not allow your predetermined prejudices to
get
>in the way of your understanding and advancement in understanding of the
>world around you. All Zen Buddhism says is to strip these predetermined
>prejudices and ego away, and you are capable of enlightenment.
Scott;
Is this claim based on empirical evidence, or is it based on authority? It
sounds to me like the latter. And if it is "quite simple", why do people
struggle for years, in Zen monasteries and out.
Ron)
I wouldn't think the Monks consider it struggling. The 'Simple' comes from
accepting enlightenment. Predetermined prejudices are simply a blind spot
that does not allow awareness. As I write this, I must admit I am not an
enlightened one. I cannot speak for the monks or those who are Zen Buddhist;
just offering my limited understanding.
For empirical evidence, try QM. Does Quantum Physics not verify to some
extent Eastern philosophies; at least enough to consider what they have to
say?
Ron earlier)
>Quality does not depend on No-thing-ness, or Oneness, or Being. Quality is
>before all this, and encompasses all this. What the mystic experience is,
is
>DQ. Once experienced, it is no longer mystic. It doesn't need
>interpretation; it has already been interpreted. It is 'Pure (raw)
>Experience'.
Scott;
Umm. Pirsig, at some point, said that he regards "Quality" as the same as
the Buddhist use of Nothingness, not as encompassing it, but nevermind.
Ron;
He goes on to say that Quality is before Nothingness, Oneness, Being, etc. I
have made the statement in the past that he said 'Nothingness' fit in with
the concept of Quality better than the others. I must admit that I can not
say this for certainty as I do not consider Lila a bible, and do not hang on
every word as 'The Word.'
Scott;
What is your means for convincing a skeptic that the mystic experience is
DQ?
Ron;
The mystic experience is DQ, which then becomes SQ, which then either works
its way into the patterns or not. It can be DQ for the experiencer, and
cannot be DQ for the skeptic at the same time. The skeptic would need to
experience their DQ. If the skeptic is not capable of accepting DQ, then
there is no way I know of to convince them other than allowing your DQ to do
the test of SQ processes. There is nothing to say that my mystical
experience should be accepted by others. If I share, they must work it out
for themselves.
Scott;
Is it an empirically determined fact? If so, how has is it been
determined?
Ron;
It is a philosophical theory. It is not a fact. A fact can be temporary, and
philosophicl theory can be temporary, and should be viewed as temporary, and
a theory. Theory should not be considered a fact, but it seems in some
academic circles theories are mistaken for facts.
Pirsig's is a philosophical theory that lends itself to empricism, but does
not limit empiricism to SOM. Einstein and Bohr can disagree; so can we. It
is from this disagreement that the mythos of the day gives way to the mythos
of tomorrow.
Pirsig's MOQ is a 'Better' roadmap IMHO, and I think Pirsig would be the
first to believe the MOQ only temporarily. The 'Better' road map as
philosophy, like science, is, or at least should be open to new discoveries.
>From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@localnet.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
>Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:22:51 -0700
>
>Ron,
>
> > Scott replies;
> > The point is that Matt and I don't buy this expansion. It is certainly
>the
> > business of a philosopher to shift the meanings of key words, but then
>the
> > marketplace (other thinkers' reactions) has to accept it. I don't buy it
>for
> > two reasons. The first is that it makes the old meaning of empiricism
>lose
> > value. With the old meaning, if I claim something, and someone else says
>"I
> > don't believe you", then I can say, "well, go look (or perform this
> > experiment)". With mystical experience, the "go look" becomes "go join a
> > monastery, sit in meditation for a few years, and maybe (there are no
> > guarantees), you will see for yourself". The difference is too big to be
> > covered by one word.
> >
> > Ron;
> > My first thought is that you can't be serious. Zen Buddhism does not
>require
> > sitting in a monastery for years. In fact, doing so does not offer
>anything
> > other than enlightenment and/or awareness. This is limitted to the
>monks.
> > The average everyday family man simply leaves themselves open to
> > enlightenment, and in fact, is told not to seek enlightenment, but only
>be
> > open to it, as desiring enlighenment can bring false enlightenment.
> > Enlightenment simply fills a need.
>
>Actually, I was very loosely paraphrasing Wilber, but my argument does not
>depend on any particular means of gaining enlightenment (nor does Wilber
>think that entering monasteries is necessary). The point is there is no
>straightforward recipe for verifying a mystical claim, and I think
>"empirical", when used to back up philosophical claims, becomes devalued
>unless the recipes are straightforward.
>
> >
> > Scott continues;
> > The second reason is, what if I forget to specify that they join a Zen
> > monastery, but instead join a Christian one, and they come back and say
>"You
> > were wrong, I didn't experience "no-thing-ness", I experienced Christ
>within
> > me.". That is, the variety and interpretation of mystical experience is
>very
> > wide. Is it empirically evident that we can speak to the spirits of the
> > dead, since Swedenborg (a mystic that Pirsig mentions) did? Why is only
> > "pure, undifferentiated experience" regarded as empirical and not life
>after
> > death, reincarnation, channeling, ESP, Heaven and Hell (Swedenborg says
>his
> > conversations happened in Heaven)? All this and more is reported by
>mystics,
> > with the claim that anyone can have these experiences.
> >
> > Ron;
> > Swedenborg is not Pirsig, and Pirsig does not rely on Swedenborg for
> > clarification of the MOQ.
>
>My point is: why doesn't he? Why does he accept some mystical reports and
>not others? I would think empirical evidence (which Swedenborg's is
>according to Pirsig's use of the word empirical) that there is life after
>death would be of great relevance to a discussion of morality. (Please note
>that I am not expressing an opinion on the matter of whether there is life
>after death or not. I am questioning the use of the word "empirical" in the
>MOQ.)
>
> >
> > The reason it is referred to as "pure, undifferentiated experience" is
> > because in his view, this is what it is. Everything experienced is
> > experienced through the senses.
>
>My thoughts and feelings are not experienced through the senses.
>
> The reason Pirsig avoids 'Christian
> > mysticism' (my opinion) is that in philosophical mysticism, if you have
>an
> > enlightening experience, you accept it, and move on. You may share it in
> > your own words that point to the experience. In Christian mysticism, if
>you
> > have an enlightening experience, someone else must explain it to you,
>and
> > 'Tell' you whether it was a Christian experience or the devil's work
>through
> > your 'Evil Flesh.'
>
>.In short, if the mystical experience agrees with the MOQ it is valid, and
>if not, it has been filtered through authority or something to make it
>invalid. I am, to put it mildly, skeptical of this argument.
>
> > If you experince the pure (raw) undifferentiated experience, then it is
>your
> > experience. No one can tell you what you are going to experience, and no
>one
> > can tell you whether or not it was a legitimate experience. All anyone
>can
> > tell you is whether or not it fits in with the Mythos of the day.
>
>The question is not what I do with an experience I might have. The question
>is can reports of such experience be called "empirical" when used to
>bolster
>a philosophical claim.
>
> >
> > You are right in that the variety and interpretations of the mystical
> > experience is very wide. There is no 'Ready-made', 'Hand-me-down' guides
>to
> > understanding the mystic; as the word 'Mystic' might lend to logic, it
>can't
> > be known ahead of the experience itself. All Pirsig is saying with
> > undifferntiated experience is that it is not limited to Subject and
>Object.
> > Subject and Object do exist, and they play a key role in
>explaining/wording,
> > but all experiences do not depend on an already defined S/O.
>
>And how is any of this supported empirically? I'm not (at this point)
>denying it. I'm questioning the use of the word "empirical" as
>justification
>for it.
>
> >
> > It is quite simple if you do not allow your predetermined prejudices to
>get
> > in the way of your understanding and advancement in understanding of the
> > world around you. All Zen Buddhism says is to strip these predetermined
> > prejudices and ego away, and you are capable of enlightenment.
>
>Is this claim based on empirical evidence, or is it based on authority? It
>sounds to me like the latter. And if it is "quite simple", why do people
>struggle for years, in Zen monasteries and out.
>
> >
> > Quality does not depend on No-thing-ness, or Oneness, or Being. Quality
>is
> > before all this, and encompasses all this. What the mystic experience
>is,
>is
> > DQ. Once experienced, it is no longer mystic. It doesn't need
> > interpretation; it has already been interpreted. It is 'Pure (raw)
> > Experience'.
>
>Umm. Pirsig, at some point, said that he regards "Quality" as the same as
>the Buddhist use of Nothingness, not as encompassing it, but nevermind.
>
>What is your means for convincing a skeptic that the mystic experience is
>DQ? Is it an empirically determined fact? If so, how has is it been
>determined?
>
>- Scott
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 Feb 02 2005 - 08:36:41 GMT