Dearest Dave, Since I had time on my hands this morning I read the article in Atlantic Monthly that you recommended: "The Nitrous Oxide Philosopher" http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96may/nitrous/nitrous.htm
I do have a very serious question about this for you: Do you actually read these things that you cite as evidence for your position. This one does suggest that James was anti-dogmatic and probably wouldn't like Dawkins style but it really doesn't address the issue of substance. But what really interested my about the article is how clearly it opposes the positions you have taken on so many issues where you have cited James as being on your team. First the article shows that the revelation James got from nitrous was that, we are capable of have many different "states" of consciousness. He does not claim that chemically or mystically alter consciousness is any more or less "true" than the everyday state of consciousness. In fact the article emphasizes that what attracted him to nitrous was specifically that it allowed him to entertain false beliefs. As the author puts it: "Equally important to the mature Jamesian outlook was the thought that religious experiences are psychologically real--powerful and palpable events that can have important long-term consequences whether the beliefs to which they give rise are true or not." And there is this: "James's interest in the connection between drugs and religion was unusual in one crucial respect. Unlike other drug-using mystics, he did not see drugs as a means to understanding higher religious truths; on the contrary, he used drugs because they provided him with access to beliefs that were potentially false." And this: "Although as a philosopher James preached the "will to believe," as a man he was not always able to put this idea into practice. Without nitrous oxide he was a cautious scientist whose skeptical nature prevented him from experiencing the religious joys that his philosophy celebrated. "My own constitution," he said, speaking of mystical experiences, "shuts me out from their enjoyment almost entirely."" And then there is this one that stress that importance of "point of view" which I have been hammering on for quite some time either under the guise of "PoV" or "illusion": "James's experiences with nitrous oxide helped to crystallize some of the major tenets of his philosophy. His writings emphasize, for instance, the notion of pluralism, according to which "to the very last, there are various 'points of view' which the philosopher must distinguish in discussing the world." Nitrous oxide had revealed in the most dramatic way possible the existence of alternate points of view. Which was the "real" William James--the drug-addled visionary who spouted meaningless mystical drivel, or the sober, unmystical psychologist whose researches brought him international fame? James's philosophy was based on the thought that the good life--for society and, by extension, for an individual as well--involves a plurality of perspectives, of which the mystical and the scientific are only two." The article goes on to cite research into the positive health benefits of false belief with a wholes section on Positive Illusions. This is the same thing I have been asking you about for more than a year now. "Overall, the psychological consensus seems to be that there can be a reasonably widespread conflict between truth and happiness. The best beliefs, as James clearly intuited, are by no means the truest ones. (Toward the end of his life James came to use "true" almost as a synonym for "useful," but the early James had not yet taken this radical step.)" It also emphasizes that the effects James valued from his drug dabbling were emotional to the exclusion of reason: "This experience, which in James's words involved "the strongest emotion" he had ever had, remained with him throughout his life." James suffered from depression and this quote from the article illustrates why all of this would appeal to him personally: "Emotional health, they suggest, involves mildly overoptimistic presumptions and a corresponding insensitivity to failure, which result in a propensity to make straightforwardly false judgments. Perversely, the clinically depressed are often free of these cognitive illusions..." Really, Dave if you are going to reason from "authority" you ought to make sure the authorities agree with you. Let my conclude by repeating one of the questions you keep running from: "But what you constantly dismiss is the fact that the studies that have been done, suggest that religious observance provides a number of health benefits. They suggest that if you practice thinking happy thoughts you will get better at thinking happy thoughts and thinking happy thoughts is good for you. What, I continue to ask, do you think they provide that extends beyond this?" Krimel 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/
