Hi Dave and Krimel. I hope you don't mind if I jump in with a couple of questions and observations.
First, I am a big believer in James' pluralistic universe. As I recall, he stated that pluralism is more useful, and has fewer philosophical quandaries such as "free will". With that said, Is the philosophy of Quality monistic? That is, does everything spring from Quality, or are there other things which act in concert at the same level with Quality? Or does Quality not qualify for such an interpretation? Second, reductionism, expansionism, deduction, induction, or dividing down from our present experience, assimilating up from our current experience, all require the concept of cause-effect. Many mystical expressions and feelings are outside of this System. To try to reduce such things is explaining one. reality with another. I'm sure mystics can explain science with their own set of rules, William Blake does with poetry. An example outside cause-effect would be the feeling of individuality that I have been asking about, the "I". It cannot be described in a reductionist manner. At least no one has so far. I am not talking about the expression of the "I", but the ultimate personal feeling of the "I". We all know what this is. There is no scientific connection between the sense of I, and the physical brain. Finally, on the topic of Mysticism. William James was one of the fathers of modern psychology as you know. In Varieties of Religious Experience he uses this tool towards analyzing religion. In the lecture on Mysticism he describes his experience with nitrous oxide and states "Looking back on my own experiences, they all converge towards a kind of insight to which I cannot help ascribing some metaphysical significance." He describes this as a pathology of consciousness, rather than an apprehension of Truth. Quality is described as creating increased betterness. I would imagine that this applies to states of consciousness. From descriptions of mystical states that I have read, there is a sense of extreme positivism, inspiration, and the absolute goodness of the world. Is this not a trend towards a state of mind which is better? Does not Quality actually point towards this type of consciousness? I will sign off with a quote from the end of James' lecture on Mysticism: "Mystical states indeed wield no authority due simply to their being mystical states. But the higher ones among them point in directions to which the religious sentiments even of non-mystical men incline. They tell of the supremacy of the ideal, of vastness, of union, of safety, and of rest. They offer us hypotheses, hypotheses which we may voluntarily ignore, but which as thinkers we cannot possibly upset. The supernaturalism and optimism to which they would persuade us may, interpreted in one way or another, be after all the truest of insights into the meaning of this life." Sounds like Quality at work. Cheers, Willblake2 On May 31, 2009, at 8:15:29 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: Krimel said: ...Really, Dave if you are going to reason from "authority" you ought to make sure the authorities agree with you. dmb says: Well, if you think that contradicts what I've been saying then you haven't understood it. James is more tolerant of theism. I'm more with Pirsig and Dewey on that point. Why you think there is a contradiction is beyond me. [Krimel] Maybe you didn't read it but I thought I spelled out a lot of contradictions. dmb says: The health benefits of thinking happy thoughts? Huh? I don't understand what this has to do with anything. I've ignored it because I deem it irrelevant. Can you explain the relevance? [Krimel] My question has always had to do with what metaphysical or philosophical insights you think can be derived from mysticism. Since the only benefit I see are health benefits, I have been urging you to enlighten me as to any others. Instead you seem to devalue the only value I see any evidence of. Like James I think that value is considerable. [dmb] My interest in mysticism, and my insistence on it's centrality in the MOQ, has nothing to do with health benefits unless MAYBE if you mean psychological health in a quasi-Jungian sense or sanity in a Buddhist sense. Why is it always biological with you? I'm not talking about medical science or sociology and I don't go to church, dude. This is a philosophy forum. Does anything I've said hinge on whether church-goers have fewer heart attacks or not? You want me to produce evidence that mysticism provides some tangible benefit beyond physical fitness? How very American of you. [Krimel] My point here came from the article you cited but let me repeat it since you seem to have missed it: "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.)" So if truth really isn't the issue, are you seriously saying that a central tenet of the MoQ is that truth doesn't matter as long as we are happy? You are saying that mysticism is really important to you although you don't know why but I am a dunce because I think biology is important. How does that square with pluralism? [dmb] In mythology the successful hero finds a great treasure of gold and jewels, wins the day, wins the throne, restores the kingdom, gets the girl. These are symbols for the benefit you're asking about. It can mean almost anything, depending on who you are, depending on your particular journey. Despite the undefined, multivalent meaning of those symbols, they suggest something extremely valuable, fateful or even auspicious. The best way to answer your question is to just let you take that as a clue. [Krimel] I will save for another time any discussion of your confused views on the problems of the modern Mythos of for that matter on the significance of the Mythos in general. [dmb] On a more practical and immediate level though, the benefit is philosophical coherence. Ignoring the MOQ's mysticism would be like ignoring Ayn Rand's individualism. It's not the whole thing but there's no way it'll work without it. [Krimel] This might be nice if you bothered to say how mysticism provides "philosophical coherence" because otherwise what you have is the MoQ being about as significant as Rand. I don't think you really mean that. [dmb] I think it refers to states of consciousness, transformations of consciousness and that sort of thing. Mystical states of consciousness are related to this. James, Jung, Pirsig and I all think that it's bogus to make claims about the nature of reality based on these experiences. You seem to think otherwise and thereby construe this mysticism as a kind of supernaturalism. In all cases, the only claim is that the experience itself is a psychological fact, an empirically valid fact. [Krimel] Ok, there are various states of consciousness and they are all psychological facts. All I am asking is, so what? How is this the basis for constructing a philosophy and why are mystical states any more useful to that end than say sleep or intoxication? [dmb] And maybe you noticed James's little nod to the perennial philosophy in that quote. Since mystical experiences of all kinds have been reported from all times and places, it's perfectly reasonable to take it as a natural human phenomenon. Pirsig and Jung both make a case that our religions have grown out of this experience. That's where the supernatualism comes in. In that sense, I think, theism is a misunderstanding of natural facts, a distortion of what's actually known in experience. All this is consistent with the limits of radical empiricism: all experience counts and needs explaining and say nothing at all about what's beyond experience. [Krimel] Ok but this leads me to ask again what I asked gav awhile back: "You seem to be saying that the eastern spiritual tradition offers a set of practices, ceremonies, beliefs and rituals designed to produce not only spiritual experiences but an interpretation of them. It seems to me the western spiritual tradition does the same thing. Other than "amenability" you have offered nothing to suggest to someone with an ear for a western tones, why they should find harmony where you do or why someone with an eclectic ear should listen to one to the exclusion of the other." Isn't that the point of the MoQ? What gives your view a privileged claim to Truth or even truth? 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/
