From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 05:08:26 BST
Matt,
I think I will concede, at least to the extent of acknowledging that I am
begging the question to the extent of having a broader definition of
metaphysics than yours, which is not to say that I am inclined to narrow it.
That is, I think my definition is a more useful one. My reason for calling
Darwinism a metaphysical position, even if only held as a hypothesis "until
something better comes along", is that I see it as only the latest case of
the same sort of thing that is found in what Rorty includes under
metaphysics, that it is a way of demystifying that which is necessarily (to
our limited intellects) a mystery, namely the character of life and
consciousness. (Of course, this depends on that "necessarily", but I've
separately given my reasons for that, that business of transcending space
and time.)
Returning to the subject of the thread, I have some objections to the
notion that mysticism is a case of an appearance/reality dinstinction like
the sort made by traditional metaphysicians. The first, which I think DMB
put forth, is that a mystic's Reality is empirical, not hypothetical. But,
of course, one can accept this only if one believes the mystic, so there is
no point in pursuing it.
The second objection is one I mentioned earlier, that if the mystics are
correct, then we are insane in the narrow sense of being out of touch with
reality (aka God or Quality). The point here is that, whether or not one
accepts what mystics say, the philosophy based on what they say has a
different sort of a/r distinction than in other philosophy. That difference
is that while a traditional metaphysics simply states that Reality is other
than appearance, mystical philosophy says that, through the appropriate
discipline (or God's grace or what have you) one moves into that Reality.
Lastly, in mystical philosophy (at least the kind I like) the
appearance/reality distinction is transcended, rather than, as Rorty would
have it, dismissed. There is the Zen bit:
Before studying Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers.
While studying Zen, mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers.
After studying Zen, mountains are again mountains, and rivers are again
rivers, but you are a foot off the ground.
(Something like that, I hope I haven't butchered it too much).
What I am getting at is that maya is not illusion in the usual sense, like a
hallucination. It is more like becoming lucid while dreaming. One is still
dreaming (appearances haven't changed), but now one knows that one is
dreaming. So, on Awakening, one learns that all appearances are contingent,
that all reality (small r) is appearance, that the Reality behind it all has
no meaning except that it creates small r realities (and that "it" should be
crossed out).
To put it another way, the a/r distinction is too limited a concept to
characterize mystical philosophy.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt the Enraged Endorphin" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: MD Mysticism and the appearance/reality distinction
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 Apr 05 2003 - 05:09:25 BST