From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 18:53:13 BST
Sam and all:
Sam said:
...However, I think we need to discriminate between the attempt to capture
DQ
"as a whole" and the attempt to capture a particular insight of DQ. If there
was no way of capturing particular DQ innovations, there would be no static
latches, and therefore no SQ. SQ is the sediment of accumulated DQ, ie those
bits which have been captured. My argument is that there is *some*
determination of what is captured by what has already been captured, ie that
SQ influences what is statically latched from DQ. (I think this is a variant
of what johnny moral has been arguing for, but I could be wrong).
dmb says:
Hmmm. DQ is involved in the evolutionary process from top to bottom, and the
mystical experience can certainly lead to evolutionary changes, but I think
that unmediated experience and the evolutionary process are two different
topics. I mean, I don't think we can rightly say that biological evolution,
for example, depends on the mystical experience as such.
Sam said:
You said earlier that "myth and religion is supposed to support and guide us
in that adventure, to awaken in us the realization - Thou art That". What's
the point in having a support and guide if it can't say 'hang on, that's
wrong, that won't get you there, that's a mistake'?
dmb says:
Since we are talking about a living experience, it seems quite absurd to
tell somebody that its a mistake. Its not so diffferent from telling the guy
who just jumped off the hot stove that his ass is NOT really on fire. There
is nothing you or I can say that will convince that smoldering guy that he's
NOT in severe pain. He doesn't give a damn what we might say about it. All
he wants is to get off the stove. (And a block of ice on which to sit.)
Beside that, myth and religion itself can't tell a guy he's wrong about this
or that. Only people who think they know the experience better than the
experiencer, as absurd as THAT would be, can do that. Myth and religious
symbols guide us in a natural sort of way. (Remember the idea that these are
affect images that strike a responsive chord in us?) But the main reason I
think its absurd for religious authorites to decide who has and who has not
had a mystical experience is based on what Pirsig says from beginning to
end....
"Then the huge peyote illumination came: They're the orininators! It
expanded until he felt as though he had walked through the screen of a movie
and for the first time watched the people who were projecting it from the
other side." P40 (1000 slips on this insight.)
"Americans don't have to go to the Orient to learn what this mysticism stuff
is about. It's been right here in America all along." "Phaedrus remembered
saying to Dusenberry just after that peyote meeting was over, 'The Hindu
understanding is just a low-grade imitation of THIS! This is how it must
have really been before all the clap-trap got started." P408
Sam said:
NB I don't equate 'church' and 'tradition', although they do overlap. As I
understand it, equating them is the definition of the Roman Catholic
perspective, ie the leader of the church is the person who tells you how to
read the tradition (that also happens in fundamentalism of course, except
that instead of 'church' equating to 'tradition' you have 'Scripture'
equating to 'tradition', and the church leader is the the person who tells
you how to read Scripture). Anglicanism has three sources of authority:
reason, scripture and tradition, and they are supposed to critique each
other so that the Spirit (DQ) can emerge from the interplay.
dmb says:
Hmmm. Anglicanism is unusual and you are pretty odd duck too. You've put
reason first, but I suspect that even in this tradition scripture and
tradition are almost never negated by reason within the Church. Is that
fair? Tradition and scripture are considered to be pretty much unassailable,
no?
Sam said:
Imagine Jesus without the religious tradition of the Hebrews. It can't be
done. The whole reason for the conflict between Jesus and the religious
authorities of his time was that (in the Christian view) the authorities
were neglecting the claims of the tradition, ie they were corrupt. And they
did tell him he was delusional, it's just that sufficient people recognised
his Quality (S and D).(continued in part #2 because it doesn't seem to get
through on its own)
dmb says:
You're missing the point here. I'm only saying that Jesus was a contrarian,
one whose mystical experience trumped tradition. And if you think the
religious authories of his time were any less corrupt than the same figures
today, then you're just not paying attention. Religious leaders today, not
all of them certainly, but way too many, are leading reactionary and
regressive movements. To most Christians, esoteric, ecumenical and mystical
religions are considered bizzare, wrong and even demonic. (Not to mention
the pedophile priests.) For the most part, then, those who defy the claims
of the churches have very good reasons for doing so. We need another Jesus
right about now.
To Be Continued..... Stay tuned for the next exciting episode. :-)
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 May 03 2003 - 18:53:56 BST