Krimel said: He [dmb] says that people are capable of having a particular kind of experience which he calls mystical. The question I have asked over and over again is, "So what?" we have all kinds of experiences what makes this kind special? Does it produce greater certainty or meaning? Certainty about what?
dmb says: The central point was to make a distinction between second-hand belief systems and the original experience which gives rise to them. To site fundamentalism as an example of mystical experience would certainly show that this distinction is quite lost on you. [Krimel] Shouldn't a belief system be judged by the amount of original experience it gives rise to? I am no more willing to condemn Christianity because some believers claim to experience God by handling snakes; than I am to condemn Taoism because some of its faithful believe drinking their own urine will give them long life. When people claim to feel the personal presence of God you condemn them because they don't meet some historical test of the true mystic? What is this test? How can anyone in the present have the original experience that gave rise to the second hand belief system, if the second hand belief system does not foster the original experience? How could anyone have the original experience when it had already been had? Isn't the belief system there to guide the believer on a path towards an original experience of their own? [dmb] There is an interesting book called "The Chemical Muse" that documents the fact that the ancient Greek culture, especially the mystery religions, we saturated with hallucinogens. The Native American Church uses peyote. And I don't discount either as genuinely mystical simply because it involved chemicals and I think it would be reductionistic to do so. [Krimel] Stating that certain chemicals produce perceptual distortion is not reductionist. It is a comment about a static pattern. There is a direct correlation between the quality and quantity of the substances and the degree of distortion experienced. As I have said this has been known to all people everywhere since before anyone was anywhere. Animals drink fermented fruit every chance they get. Alteration of brain chemistry produces dynamic effects on thinking and feeling. It creates a sustained Gestalt shift in what Zappa called, "conceptual continuity." Sometimes, often even, such shifts result in new understanding. But these understanding stand or fall on their own merits. The Chemical Muse has produced a lot of crap as well. Should chemical mysticism be condemned for its excesses? Do I need to start listing them? Ever heard of delirium tremens? [dmb] I saw a film last night called "Jesus Camp" and watched little kinds babble and writhe on the floor in church. It broke my heart and made me sick. It was apparently an intensely emotional experience but it was also clear that they weren't speaking any kind of language and it otherwise looked like a put on. That's certainly NOT what I'm talking about. [Krimel] I saw that movie about a year ago. I too found it a bit disturbing but not at all surprising. But please tell me how does this differ from what you are talking about? The only difference I see is that you like certain forms of mysticism but dislike others. My memory of the movie is not as fresh as yours but let me speak to what underlies the practices it shows. Speaking in tongues is a manifestation of the indwelling and out pouring of the Holy Spirit. When people are really taken up in the Spirit they are given a "prayer language". It doesn't have to be nor is it necessarily supposed to be an actual language. The believer becomes open to the Spirit and speaks as the Spirit guides. Others who hear the unknown tongue may be similarly moved by the Spirit to interpret the words of others. Speaking and interpreting tongues are listed by Paul as being among "the gifts of the spirit" others include: Wisdom, Knowledge, Discerning of spirits, Prophecy, Faith, Working of miracles and Healing. Ecstatic utterances are common in many traditions and in many times and places. They occur when people feel in direct communion with the fullness of things, the divine presence, or at one with the universe. What qualifies you to judge the validity of someone else's experience? There is no doubt that, given the social pressure exerted at such meetings, many attendee fake it. But many are led into a deep and abiding faith that creates positive changes in their lives and the lives of their families. Others have profound mystical experiences at such meetings and forget about them the next morning. Jesus has a parable about the sowing of seeds on fertile and rocky soil. He explains it pretty well. Don't get me wrong here I don't buy into any or at least not much of this. I found the movie disturbing because it reminded me of Richard Dawkins claim that religion is a mental virus passed from the old to the young. But I don't see any qualitative difference between the experiences you advocate and the explanations for them you give and those you condemn. They differ in form but not substance. These people have these experiences individually and collectively. They derive from them a certainty about the meaning of the world and their place in it. They can relate this belief to deeply felt and profoundly spiritual way. Where's the perennial philosophy, Dave? Aren't we all just blind men describing the same elephant to each other? You are on the high ground cause you grabbed the trunk and Christians are wrong for hugging a leg? Jesus, Dave come over here and pull my finger and I'll tell you how I'd describe the difference. 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/
