Marsha It is my impression that the mystical experience is without self and objects, in the land before language. How does science deal with that?
[Krimel] First I don't think the illusion of no-self is any more or less valid than the illusion of self. They are both ways of framing experience. To quote you, "They are just conventional conceptual patterns." But science has quite a lot to say about the land before language. Language is a special human adaptation localized in particular regions of the brain. We do lots and lots of things and have lots of experiences than make no reference to or use of language whatsoever. From Freud and Jung to Gazzaniga and Damasio people have thought about, talked about and studied the nonverbal, non-conscious, unconscious workings of the human mind. At 04:34 PM 2/2/2009, you wrote: >[Marsha] >An excellent post, Dave! > >[Krimel] >I keep looking for the excellent parts. Maybe you can help me out. He 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? > >Christians have a boat load of mystical experiences that they serve up in >church every Sunday. Particularly in the more fundamentalist congregations >every service ends with an invitation to have the mystical experience of >being born again. That is to cast aside an old way of thinking and adopt a >new one, to become a new person in personal communication with the divine >presence. There are often outbursts of babbling from the congregation called >speaking in tongues. Often someone in the house will answer outbursts of >speaking in tongue with a translation into the common tongue. This ability >to translate is also a mystical experience. Believers claim that healing is >possible through a mystical experience with the divine. And yet >Christianity, almost steeped in mystical experience is ridiculed and >declared anathema to the MoQ. > >WTF? > >"Mystical" experiences can be produced with some reliability by altering the >chemical composition of the brain and yet talk about brain chemistry is off >limits because somehow it is SOM. Profound mystical experiences can result >from frontal lobe epileptic seizures. What conclusions can we derive from >experiences like this? Why should they be regarded as special. Sure they >feel good. They seem life changing. Have you ever talked to a recently >converted Christian? But are they really to be taken at face value? I must >doubt every other kind of experience but this special kind is infallible? > >If you really see excellence here, help me out cause I just read it and say >WTF? > >By the way the conflict between priests and prophets is well documented in >the Old Testament. The priestly class formed an orthodoxy around the Temple >and the Temple rituals, while the prophets or Nabbi held sway in the >Northern part of the Kingdom around Galilee. The tension between them is >pretty obvious when you know what to look for. Much of the Old Testament was >pieced together by an editor when wove them together to provide an illusion >of harmony where there was clearly discord. > > > > >At 03:29 PM 2/2/2009, you wrote: > > >"The whole stance of science is hostile to > >mysticism." (letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, March 29th, 1997) > > > >Marsha said to Michael: > >I like the quote very much, but I do not think > >it is relevant to theism because mysticism is not dependent on theism. > > > >Paco said to all: > >Can/will there be a metaphysics or ethics that > >can handle handle mystical experience and the transpersonal world? > > > > > >dmb says: > >Yes, the MOQ is meant to handle mystical > >experience and that's one of the reasons it > >rejects traditional empiricism for radical > >empiricism. And DQ (the primary empirical > >reality) refers to mystical experience. That's > >why I find assertions of theism so objectionable > >in this forum. Chapter 30 of Lila is especially > >rich. There Pirsig writes, "Phaedrus thought > >sectarian religion was a static social fallout > >from DQ and that while some sects had fallen > >less than others, none of them told the whole > >truth. ...From what Phaedrus had been able to > >observe, mystics and priests tend to have a > >cat-and-dog-like coexistence within almost every > >religious organization. ...In all religions > >bishops tend to gild DQ with all sorts of static > >interpretations because their cultures require > >it. But these interpretations become like golden > >vines that cling to a tree, shut out its sunlight and eventually strangle >it." > > > >William James puts the same idea this way; "A > >survey of history shows us that, as a rule, > >religious geniuses attract disciples, and > >produce groups of sympathizers. When these > >groups get strong enough to 'organize' > >themselves, they become ecclesiastical > >institutions with corporate ambitions of her > >own. The spirit of politics and the lust of > >dogmatic rule are then apt to enter and to > >contaminate the originally innocent thing; so > >that when we hear the word 'religion' nowadays, > >we think inevitably of some 'church' or other; > >and to some persons the word 'church' suggests > >so much hypocrisy and tyranny and meanness and > >tenacity of superstition that in a wholesale > >undiscerning way they glory in saying that they > >are 'down' on religion altogether." He also > >says, "when a religion has become an orthodoxy, > >its days of inwardness are over; the spring is > >dry; the faithful live at second hand > >exclusively and stone the prophets in their > >turn. [They] can be henceforth counted as a > >staunch ally in every attempt to stifle the > >spontaneous religious spirit, and to stop all > >the later bubblings of the fountains from which > >in purer days it drew its own supply of inspiration." > > > >I think this idea goes a long way toward > >explaining how the MOQ can be anti-theistic and, > >at the same time, a form of mysticism. I think > >it's worth pointing out that when James says > >"religious geniuses" he's not necessary talking > >about people with extremely high I.Q.s, although > >that's certainly the case with Pirsig. He's > >talking about those who have a fresh and > >original vision, who've actually had a mystical > >experience or otherwise seen it for themselves. > >This is what Arlo is getting at, I think, in > >following Campbell and saying we don't need > >faith if we have experience. Here, faith refers > >to those static interpretations or, as James > >refers to them, orthodoxies. Not only do the > >exoteric religious forms "stifle the spontaneous > >religious spirit", they even sometimes kill > >people for saying the sorts of things that > >Pirsig, James and even Jesus said. (I and the > >father are one.) Socrates was killed for not > >believing in the state sanctioned gods too. How > >many other geniuses have we lost this way? > > > >And so what is the mystical experience, exactly? > >Well, you can't say in advance what it will be > >like. That's what makes it fresh and original. > >That's what makes it Dynamic as opposed to > >static. That's what makes it ineffable and, like > >mel was saying in connection with Taoism and > >Judaism, why the divine cannot be named. > >Enlightenment is different for every person. > >They are, so to speak, tailor made for each > >person and so it totally depends on who you are, > >where you are and when you are. It'll present > >itself in such a way as to be meaningful for > >you. So it's not a singular or specific > >event. It's more like a category of experience. > > > >Sadly, the golden vines that strangle and darken > >the original vision are very lethal in our own > >time. For the most part this pollution take the > >form of concretizaton. So much of the bloodshed > >we've all seen in the middle east comes from > >taking a symbolic idea literally, namely "the > >promised land". It has been taken to mean that > >an actual supernatural being likes to make a > >gift of actual real estate. What is supposed to > >be a symbolic reference to a transformation of > >consciousness is confused with dirt. Same thing > >happens in India with the Ganges river, which is > >taken as a literal source of the divine so that > >now it's littered with corpses in an attempt to > >make the trip to heaven shorter, or some such > >nonsense. And in our own culture we have a > >situation where almost every Christian believes > >that Jesus literally rose from the dead but this > >again is a symbol of that transformation of > >consciousness. Even "transformation of > >consciousness" is a static idea and can be taken the wrong way. > > > >"In every country and in every age, the priest > >has been hostile to Liberty." Thomas Jefferson > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Windows LiveT HotmailR.more than just e-mail. > >http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_how >itworks_012009 > >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/ > > >_____________ > >QUESTION EVERYTHING!!! > > > >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/ > >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/ _____________ QUESTION EVERYTHING!!! 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/ 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/
