Matt said: Yeah, I think that's right. They don't exactly address the same problems. But, as monists, particularly mystics, like to point out, the world is all interconnected. In this regard, I used to like to say that clearing up economic/political problems should be the priority, but now I'm coming to think that it might be a precondition to really actually making progress on spiritual problems.
dmb replies: Really? I tend to think its the other way around. Seems to me that the most intractable social problems are symptoms of a more basic problem. Like Pirsig says, its no good to tear down the factory or try to reform "the system" because we'll just build more factories and more systems just like them. That's why I said the problem is big and pervasive, the cultural manifestations of SOM. The complaints about being cut off from nature, for example, might sound like walden's pond romanticism or some other trivial thing but I think we see it in global warming, deforestation, pollution, etc.. As Heidegger paints it, Western man is a control freak who's forgotten how to let things be what they are. You could say this basic attitude causes all sort of problems, problems that won't go away until that attitude changes. Likewise, Pirsig quotes Emerson on how we've traded power and control over the earth for a place in it. Alienation, homesickness, and many other terms have been used to describe this dis-ease. Matt said: Dewey used to like to say that his philosophy was at bottom a philosophy of education, out of which everything else unfolded, metaphysics, epistemology, etc. I think Rorty ended his career in a similar position, except I think he might have formulated it as political philosophy as the root. They both saw that the process of socialization was the key to everything. As I see it, politics comes first because it is the thing that has the ability to destroy all of humanity. Change can occur very quickly on the political level. dmb says: Yea, Dewey says pithy things like, "life is development and vice versa". Life IS growth. He thought it would be nice if things were arranged around that fact and so do I. Many, many good things would follow from a thoroughly educated and fully developed citizenry. But I like this scenario because I think it represents improvement from the grass roots upward rather than a quick political fix from the top down. Matt said: So what's the trouble? 1) I don't think "illness" rhetoric is the best kind of language to use because I think it sounds a little Platonic--health is our natural state, illness a fall that we must recover from (Plato used the "health" metaphor especially in the Republic) and 2) I don't think the thing that helps us spiritually is necessarily radical empiricism or mysticism. dmb says: 1) t seems you can find Platonism in just about any word, any metaphor. I'm beginning to detect a certain Platonism in your aversion to Platonism. In this case, I think such philosophical paranoia is unwarranted and even a little bit annoying. Seriously, illness doesn't have to contrasted with some ideal state, an otherworldly notion of perfection, the eternal form of health or anything else. Health and illness are known in experience. They're as real as rocks and rain. When we describe a culture or society as ill we're not talking about fevers and coughs of course but its not a metaphor either. Its just a way to characterize the pervasive, systematic nature of certain problems. Real concrete problems. Anxiety; its not just for existentialists anymore. How many millions of people in this country eat medicine for anxiety and or depression? And that's not counting the regular drug addicts, alcoholics, sex addicts, workaholics, and all the other neurotics. (Not that I'm above that sort of thing.) This goes with what I was saying about social, economic and political problems being symptoms of a more basic problems. 2) Right, I don't mean to suggest that James has the only answer or anything like that. Even James recognized "radical empiricism" was his own version of what others were doing, mentioning Dewey and Bergson by name. Likewise, one of my favorite things to do is find other versions of the same; Northrop's version, in Taoism, in myths, in religions, and lately I've re-inforced Dewey and added Heidegger. That's one of the best features of philosophical mysticism. Its not a specific or particular thing. Its more like a category or an array of positions. Their essentially anti-essentialists and in the West that means anti-Platonists and anti-Catestians. Matt said: ...But whatever: I'm happy we are all anti-Platonists. In the second case, I think radical empiricism and mysticism are far too specific for "solutions" to a spiritual crisis. I'm not even sure the language of "crisis" and "problem" are good ones to use in this respect. dmb says: I'm trying to get you to make a connection here. What if SOM and Platonism ARE the spiritual crisis? Then it starts to look more like we're on the same side. In that sense, so-called enlightenment is the realization that SOM is not only way to see things and the so-called eternal truth is right here in front of your nose. Understanding this as a philosophical proposition doesn't quite have the same impact as seeing it for yourself, of course, but this is how it all connects, I think. Matt said: I think we've learned from history that religion is (or used to be, or rather, will hopefully soon be "used to be") the type of thing that says, "This is _the_ answer to _everybody's_ spiritual problem." This is why so many things, over the course of the 20th century, have been "accused" of being a religion, like Marxism and various "ideologies." If we identify _Platonism_ as that thing that says, "There is one answer for everyone," then we can say religion will survive because it can be de-Platonized. dmb says: Let me interrupt here, where we still agree. I'd add Dewey's idea that the desire for certainty is the intellectual version of the physical desire for safety. I mean, in a very real sense this sort of Platonism isn't a philosophical position so much as a personality disorder. Nobody wants to go around feeling disoriented all the time, but we've all seen red-face zealots and true believers. The content of belief is irrelevant as this attitude attaches to almost any ism. I don't know that this is Platonic so much as simply neurotic. Matt said: ...Some people find happiness in philosophy. Some people in mysticism. Some people are able to bring them together. But I don't think there's a large cultural problem that will be solved by a philosophical position or mysticism. When it comes to stuff aside from economics and public policy, there are problems in our hearts and _that_ is why the epigraph of ZMM is "And what is good, Phædrus,/And what is not good.../Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" We have little groups that collude together, that have decided to together explore certain avenues of spiritual development, but I'm not going to tell my dad to give up the Cubs and start reading Plato. I've found it very useful to my life and my spiritual happiness to read books, no less books typically shelved in a section now called "Philosophy." But I'm not sure how helpful that will be to other people. dmb says: I think its inconsistent to say we need to de-Platonize the culture and then claim there is no large cultural problem to be solved philosophically. Again, if the problem is metaphysical, then the solution will be found at that level too. And as we see in Pirsig's portrait of the artist as an old mechanic, this solution doesn't necessarily involve reading philosophy books or giving up the Cubs. This sort of mysticism is perfectly consistent with ordinary experience and the epigraph of ZMM. Its not some Stalinist directive from the Department of Mysticism or anything like that. But if there were a global pope of radical empiricism, don't you think it should be me? I don't want to brag but some people say I look good in large hats. Matt said: Am I being patronizing by saying, "Mysticism is fine"? Well, from some points of view, perhaps, but I have the same view of my own searches, for the traditions that I like, and I wish others would have my view, too. Which is why I argue about it, trying to convince others to relax about certain things. I don't think mysticism will save me, I don't think it will help my spiritual life. I'm glad it helps some, but I don't think it is for me, and I take it as a sign that we still live in a Platonic culture when people get upset by that. So I accuse them of being crypto-Platonists. dmb says: I'm not recommending a self-help program or trying to interfere in your spiritual life. We're just talking about how to interpret what these various philosophers are saying. What does it mean to give up Platonism, certainty, fixed truths, otherworldly truths? It means living in the here and now, flexibly, dynamically, with eyes wide open to the ordinary world. That's the kind of mysticism I'm talking about. Its just the obvious alternative to what already bugs you. Its like you're only a fraction of an inch away by choice already and yet you recoil from it. It baffles me. It really does. Nice chatting with you. Thanks. _________________________________________________________________ E-mail for the greater good. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ GreaterGood Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
