Krimel: As for mysticism I have asked for three years for someone to say what it is and why it should be taken seriously, what distinguishes it from other kinds of spirituality? What kind of knowledge is it supposed to provide? Why that knowledge should be taken more seriously than other forms of knowledge? How are we to decide between the conflicting accounts of mystics? What make eastern mysticism "better" than western forms of spirituality? Frankly, I think the whole focus of spirituality is purely emotional. Not irrational but emotional and it is easy to confuse what feels right with what makes sense. If all you want is a good feeling why bother trying to justify it at all?
Ron prev: The focus on science is also purely emotional. It simply values a different set of criteria. The focus is on value, for that is what mysticism and science hold in common even though science is reluctant to admit it. Scientists are mystics. [Krimel] This seems a bit of over generalization. Surely you can discriminate between the quest for knowledge that at least seeks to neutralize "point of view" and one that makes is the be all and end all. Knowledge as inter-subjective consensual agreement as opposed to knowledge as pure subjectivity. Ron: This criticism may be leveled at both views and when you present it in this way it is really difficult to make a distinction between the two. They both seek to nuetralize "point of view" and knowledge as subjective, inter or pure seems to be verging on semantics in context of the broader meaning I'm aiming at. [Ron;] The point James is making is that primacy lies not in method but in meaning. Eastern forms of mysticism lean toward science, the inquirey of perception. Western forms tend toward paganistic dogmatic devotion and avoid inquirey and skepticism. [Krimel] This seems all backwards or I am not at all getting what you are talking about. Meaning is reduction in uncertainty. Ron: Reduced down, meaning is value a desire. Since percept and concept is one expereince meaning is derived from their distinction not from the primacy of one over the other. Krimel: Western paganism? Isn't paganism relative terms? The Romans thought early Christians were pagans. And I hardly think western traditions have avoided inquiry or skepticism. Consider the sheer number of, for example, protestant denominations. Diversity, as always, equals health. Ron: If health is measured in conflict and war, justified in the belief of one and only one way, the rest are going to hell, then yes it is very healthy. When was the last time you went to church and asked questions? The philosophical aspect to christianity became more pronounced when challenged by scientific inquirey, it sought to justify it's position through rationlization. [Ron:] How do we decide between conflicting scientists? [Krimel] Mostly we let them sort it out. That's their job. To sort for ourselves requires the discipline and practice of a shoulin monk. Ron: Why would'nt that discipline apply to scientists too? and do not shaolin use the same method on mystical matters? [Ron] All life is wanting a good feeling, justifying it is an attempt to understand this value. [Krimel] Too often justification is just a way of preserving the feeling. Reason as slave to passion... Ron: But who is the slave and who is the master? or do they play good cop/bad cop in our explainations. ________________________________ From: Krimel <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:52:57 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism 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/
