From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Feb 05 2005 - 21:25:06 GMT
Scott, Ron, Matt and all thread followers:
Scott said to Ron:
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.
dmb replies:
You don't BUY the expansion of the word "empirical"? But if we are talking
about making claims based on experience, what else can we call it? I'd like
to remind you that epistemological pluralism came BEFORE the limited
empiricism of the enlightenment, BEFORE Modernity and SOM. This is one of
the key features of the perennial philosophy and goes quite nicely and
coherently with the levels and with mysticism. In any case, it is NOT that
Pirsig or Wilber have expanded the meaning of the word "empiricism" so much
as Modern SOM has collapsed it. Epistemological pluralism is a restoration,
not an innovation. The fact that you and Matt are sticking with SOM's narrow
epistemological framework is, I think, just one more instance of exhibiting
that Western blind spot. Apparently, it can't be cured by reading Pirsig's
books or even by repeated corrections by by jerks like me. Bummer.
Scott defended the point:
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.
dmb says:
How "straitforward" is the empirical experience of splitting an atom? By
your reasoning, there can be no advanced physics because it takes time to
acquire the knowledge and skills to preform such experiments. Is that your
postion? That the only valid knowledge is that which can be obtained by any
schlubb to bothers to glance in the right direction? Ridiculous. I think
you're bending over backwards to deny a very sensible idea; If you want to
see for your self, then find out how to search and then go take a look. I
think it takes a rather weird and tortured sort of logic to deny something
so clear and simple as that.
Scott said:
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.
dmb replies:
Yes, there is a wide variety of static interpretations and depictions of the
mystical experience. So what? The MOQ is a form of Philosophical mysticism,
one that adopts the perennial philosophy, which accepts and celebrates that
variety of expressions. The only ones who have a problem with that are the
ones who insist on a single exclusive version, which is one of the major
reasons Pirsig rejects theism, because theisms are exclusive. As for ESP,
channelling and the other occultish new-agey Swedenborgisms, you can try to
verify them if you like, I guess. Good luck there. You'll need it.
Think of it like this. There are tons of UFO "sightings" and people continue
to report UFO abduction "experiences". There is not a shread of "physical"
evidence, no bodies and no ships. And so I think a reasonable person has to
include these reports in an account of the world. They are not "verifiable"
in the sense that we take them at face value, as evidence for the actual
existence of proctologists from space, but it is evidence of something going
on - psychologically if nothing else. Its worth looking into even if we
fully expect to find no evidence of alien life forms or their anal
intentions. Personally, I think its the symptom of a collective dream, some
energy from the collective unconscious expressing itself in contemporary
forms. Anyway...
Scott wonders about Pirsig:
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.)
dmb says:
Hmmm. Pirsig rejects some reports and accepts others based on Empiricism,
which is a standard that applies to all claims without prejudice. What's
wrong with that? Seems fair and reasonable to me. Well, its fair and
reasonable so long as we don't take "empirical valid" to mean "whatever a
person reports". Its not always so simple as reporting a blue sky. As with
any kind of empiricism, at any level, varification entails repeating the
experiment, repeating the experience, peer review and such.
Ron said to Scott:
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 replied:
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.
dmb says:
I think your characterizaton of the argument is entirely misleading. That's
not Pirsig's postion at all. Theism deny's the validity of mystical
experiences outside of its own terms, except when it denies the very
existience and possiblity of ANY union with the divine. Pirsig is not
excluding Chirstianity per se, but he is rejecting the exclusivity claims of
theistic and ritualistic religions.(No man cometh onto the Father but by
me.)Quite the opposite from what you suggest, Pirsig's perennialism is far
more open and inclusive than any religion in the West, which isn't much a
trick.
Scott asked some questions:
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. ...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. ...Is this claim (Zen's claim that enlightenment
comes by stripping away predetermined prejudices of the ego) 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. ...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?
dmb says:
Yes. Its based on empirical evidence and is corroborated by countless
reports...
"In the spiritual traditions of both East and West - I am thinking not about
particular religions, but about the mystical element to be found in them all
- we find the claim that eventually one must let go of the activites of
thought and imagination in order to enter a region of consciousness that
such symbolic activity cannot reach." Guidebook to ZAMM, p22
"Then even 'he' disappears and only the dream of himself remains with
himself in it. And the Quality, the arete he has fought so hard for, has
sacrificed for, has NEVER betrayed, but in all that time has never once
understood, now makes itself clear to him and his soul is at rest." Pirsig
in ZAMM, p354
In LILA he shares the story of his peyote experience too. This is a
different level of mystical experience that, instead of dissolution of the
little self, involves "the contemplation of complex metaphysical realities"
and other forms of consciousness we might mistakenly identify with static
intellect. But if there is one thing all philosophical mystics agree upon,
its that "truth is indefinable and can be apprehended only by non-rational
means", as Pirsig puts it. Or in Plotinus's terms, "of this One no
descripton nor scientific knowledge is possible." Here is Plotinus saying
the same thing as Pirsig, that it is non-rational and that its validity
can't be measured in terms of sensory data. This is a reflection of the
pre-Modern epistemological pluralism I mentioned at the top too...
"he who wishes to contemplate what is beyond the Intelligible will attain
the contemplation of it by letting go everything intelligible, though this
means learning THAT it is, abandoning the search for WHAT it is. To tell
what it is would involve a reference to what it is not, for there is no
quality in what has no particular character. But we are in painful doubt as
to what we should say of it; so we speak of the ineffable and give it a
name, meaning to endow it with some significance to ourselves so far as we
can. Perhaps this name 'The One' implies merely opposition to plurality.
...But if The One were given positive content, a name and significantion, it
would be less appropriately designated than when one does not give any name.
It may be said that description of it is carried this far in order that he
who seeks it beginning with that which indicates the simplicity of all
things may end by negating even this, on the ground that it was taken simply
as the most adequate and the nearest description possible for him who used
it, but not even this is adequate to the revelation of that nature, because
it is inaudible, not to be understood through hearing, and if by and sense
at all by vision alone. But if the eye that sees seeks to behold a form it
will not descry even this."
Pirsig relates his own experiences and he provides some clues at to where we
might look for answers, but he offers very little in the way of specific
prescriptions. There is no picking sectarian sides. He just says that if we
listen carefully and don't take the clap trap too literally, there is
something to be found in all forms of religious mysticism. If you don't want
to take up meditation or are otherwise impatient for a glimpse, go find
yourself a teepee. How hard could that be?
It seems clear to me that actually finding a way to let go of the ego and
its prejudices is really the only way to convince a skeptic. Westerners like
us need strong medicine to overcome the blindspot. Both the religious and
secular cultures tell us its all a bunch of hooey. But I am rather
disappointed that Pirsig's readers don't "BUY" it. In my opinion you really
should know better by now.
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 : Sat Feb 05 2005 - 21:29:50 GMT