Krimel said: ...But holy roller services offer ecstasy and mystical union with the divine in many other forms including dancing, passing out into trance states, laughing hysterically, (becoming drunk in the Spirit) and speaking in tongues.
dmb says:You're talking about rituals and practices that define a social group. That is the static stuff of religion, stuff that happens every Sunday so regularly that you could just about set your watch to it. Yes, it's full of sound and fury and motion but that doesn't mean its Dynamic in the Pirsigian sense. That just means it's a loud public spectacle. [Krimel] I am talking about the dynamic personal experience of many who participate in the static rituals of the church. Those static rituals are what give rise to the dynamic experience. Again how is that different from static eastern rituals designed to produce dynamic personal experience? Krimel said: I do not see where any of those practices is likely to produce anymore in the way of "enlightenment" than a literal belief in the Bible. dmb says: Developmental psychology is one of my favorite ways to get at the difference. Basically, this only entails an extension of Kohlbergs model where there are increasingly sophisticated stages of moral reasoning. Pirsig's levels can be seen as a version of this same hierarchy, where the individual's development roughly recapitulates the evolutionary history of the species. [Krimel] I don't see much correspondence between Kohlberg's stages and Pirsig's levels. Biologists, anatomists and embryologists claim ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny but I don't see Kohlberg making that kind of claim. [dmb] In our extension, we simply apply these levels to the various kinds of religious understanding. Clearly, the concrete and literal interpretations would be relatively simple, even childlike, and it's no accident that the average American has the equivalent of a second-grade education in religion. [Krimel] Perhaps but there are many, many Christians who understanding of the stories in the Bible is not at all literal and concrete. I am not at all sure that in the end, owns understanding of the interpretation of stories has much to do with the quality of ones dynamic mystical union with God. Nor am I sure that your unnamed mystics are universally possessed of the kind of understanding of their symbol systems that you claim for them. [dmb] What's worse, the symbolic language of myth is misread when it's read as literal and concrete. This is always a problem but the West's scientific materialism and urban lifestyle makes it all the more difficult the read the symbolic language AS symbolic. The non-rational language of myth can be rediscovered, so to speak, by comparative analysis. [Krimel] For God sake man think about what you are saying. Non-rational rediscovered through analysis? When you analysis it you render it rational. You kill it through dissection. You want to resurrect it by crucifying it? [dmb] Not only can we detect patterns in the myths across the various cultures, there are similarities between myths and dreams. They speak the same language and are otherwise so similar that Joseph Campbell says, basically, that they are private and public versions of the same thing. They're cultural, yes, but on a deeper level they're psychological. In the same way, the hero's journey refers to the structure of drama and to the structure of psychological development. This becomes apparent when you read the symbols as symbols, especially in a comparative analysis. Alan Watts, for example, wrote a book called "Myth and Ritual in Christianity" wherein he shows how the hero's journey is symbolically represented in the West's mainstream religious tradition. He has to combine the overlapping myths and rituals of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches because both are incomplete by themselves, but together it's all in there. [Krimel] So there are sophisticated understanding of the Christian tradition? So why are so eager to through Christian mystical experience out of your perennial philosophy hoedown? [dmb] This psychological journey can be seen in Gilgamesh, Buddha and Alice in Wonderland, the myth of Orpheus, Star Wars or Apocalypse Now. The horror. The horror. The horror is that people take this shit literally and don't quite realize that its all about them and their growth as human beings. To steal a line from Socrates, its about the care of your soul. As Jung thinks of it, its about gaining an integrated personality, a wholeness that defines true health. [Krimel] I guess. But one can also say that for many believers it is their belief that allows them to participate fully in the myth. They are not analyzing it. They are living it. By believing in a God who loves. Them they are loved by God. They feel his presence and it confirms their belief. What exactly is it that you analysis offers that can replace that kind of deeply personal experience? [dmb] It's sometimes put in terms of quieting the mind or finding peace of mind, or even like nirvana as Bolte-Taylor described it. So anyway, when read symbolically and psychologically, rather than concretely and literally, the message is seen as referring to your own psyche rather than historical events or supernatural entities. [Krimel] When read symbolically and psychologically the symbols open themselves for endless variations of interpretation. The differences between these interpretations is stretched across the canvas of history. When you claim that there is a particular interpretation that binds them all together and smoothes over all difference you are deluding yourself. Furthermore some a "proper" reading of mythos is rendering it logos, no less than believing it literally. [dmb] And if these developmental theories are right, we can move to a new stage of cognitive development every seven years or so. In Jungian terms, the movement is an upward spiral so that you come back from each journey only to start a new one from the beginning, except you're starting from a "higher" position each time. Or hopefully so, anyway. You can also find this process of growth and integration and growth in Yoga, Tarot cards, Astrology, Alchemy, as well as Hollywood, religion and psychology. I mean, there is a wide-ranging variety of tools that support the MOQ's assertions about the differences between mysticism and theism. [Krimel] Of course there are differences between mysticism and theism but that by no means says they are mutually exclusive. It certainly doesn't mean that a theist's mystical experience is any less valid that a atheist's mystical experiences. [dmb] My Oxford Companion to Philosophy and Stanford's encyclopedia of philosophy both have and entry on mysticism and they both make an important distinction right off the bat. They distinguish between the theistic and non-theistic kinds, just like Pirsig, Jung, Campbell and so many others do. [Krimel] Duh, one is theistic and the other is not. For me at least this highlights the problem of taking either account very seriously. You want to give special status to your favorite incarnation of the irrational at the expense of some other incarnation of the irrational. Analyze away. Break out your decoder ring all you want but it seem flatly hypocritical from where I sit. This is slightly off topic but I think your view of the modern mythos is so ill informed as to be laughable. The modern mythos may be look dysfunctional from your point of view but it is far richer, more varied and detailed, more widely experienced with incredible clarity and detail by more people every day that ever before in human history. We are closer to our myths. We are more influenced by them. Do you think NASCAR fans aren't in touch with the mythos? Ever been to a comic book convention? Or Vegas or LA? How about Dodge City? Have you ever heard of soap operas or sitcoms? 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/
