From: Ron Winchester (phaedruswolff@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 03 2005 - 02:05:49 GMT
Hi Scott,
It appears my reply is not going to post.
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)Empirical is not used as a recipe for verifying a mystical claim.
Empirical is used as a term to explain the mystical experience is not
derived from somewhere out there. I think Wilber would agree.
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)The use of the word empirical would avoid the idea of some 'Out there'
experience such as life after death.
Scott;
My thoughts and feelings are not experienced through the senses.
Ron)What thoughts are not experienced through the senses?
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)A mystical experience can be defined as DQ, but DQ is not limited to
mystical experience. It is not filtered through authority other than the
static patterns. If it is DQ, it should, but would not always remain the
static patterns that make up the social/intellectual patterns. The same
would hold true for the mystical experience; once experienced, it becomes a
part of the individual's or society's static Quality.
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)No. The experience does not point to the philosophical claim; the
philosophical claim points to the experience.
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)Once again, the experience is not supported empirically. It is defined
as empirical -- limited to the senses, but not object or subject only. It is
not limited to material, solid objects.
Scott;
Is [enlightenment] 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)The monks don't see it as stuggling, but as awareness which they accept,
and are grateful for. The simplicity comes from not needing to struggle --
not needing to desire -- not needing period. Enlightenment in most Eastern
Philosophies and religions comes by stripping away what keeps you from
awareness. By stripping away the ego, you strip away the prejudices that
keep you from seeing through 'New eyes' or 'Baby's eyes'. It removes
authority as opposed to looking toward authority.
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)Pirsig does say this Nothingness is the closest to Quality, but says
Quality comes before Nothingness, Oneness, Being, etc.. Quality does not
depend on either or all of these.
Scott;
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?
Ron)It is no 'Fact.' Neither is anything else. Facts are temporary, like the
'Flat Earth.' Facts can only be supported as such until something better
comes along. Facts are also not supported in all cultures and beliefs.
Anything experienced is not dependent on a view from anyone besides
yourself, unless you cannot think for yourself and require someone else to
think for you.
I have been told "No!" so many times by those who think they know, I feel
like a toddler myself. I don't consider myself a mystic, but I have
experienced things that are far from the mythos of the day; that as opposed
to being supported by academics, is considered to be proven false by the
academics. The MOQ would say my experiences were DQ at the time I
experienced them, and are now static Quality. Whether or not they are high
static Quality or low static Quality will be determined when those who have
read my thoughts see what I said has proven itself true or false in their
view. This same thing holds true each time you read a philosopher or
scientist or play-write who offers you a different view on what you thought
you knew for a fact. This view making a 180 turn is a mystical experience.
If it makes a 360 turn, then the mystical experience has proven itself to be
of low Quality.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
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 Feb 03 2005 - 02:09:12 GMT