On 10/27/13 9:18 PM, "David Buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> dmb says: > Well, no. Pirsig says Dynamic Quality IS a direct experience and it IS the > mystic reality [Dave] Ok, just show me where James suggests that "pure experience" IS the mystic reality. What James does say is that "mystic (religious) experiences" are real, transient, ineffable, noetic, and passive. But they are only one type of experience and given these characteristics should not be taken to be the sole authority or better authority of "reality as it really is." In fact James isolation of "religious experience" has been specifically criticized as NOT conforming to Buddhist non-duality here: "The notion of "religious experience" was adopted by many scholars of religion, of which William James was the most influential.[7][note 1] Criticism "The notion of "experience" has been criticized.[12][13][14] Robert Sharf points out that "experience" is a typical Western term, which has found its way into Asian religiosity via western influences.[12][note 2] The notion of "experience" introduces a false notion of duality between "experiencer" and "experienced", whereas the essence of kensho is the realization of the "non-duality" of observer and observed.[16][17]" Many authors then goes on to directly ding James' idea: "Pure experience" does not exist; all experience is mediated by intellectual and cognitive activity.[18][19] The specific teachings and practices of a specific tradition may even determine what "experience" someone has, which means that this "experience" is not the proof of the teaching, but a result of the teaching.[20] A pure consciousness without concepts, reached by "cleaning the doors of perception",[note 3] would be an overwhelming chaos of sensory input without coherence.[22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMohr2000 284-25 An if you look at numbered notes they are all from writer's talking about Zen and viewing James "pure experience" negatively in relation to Zen. So you and Pirsig can jump up and down and claim that James intended his "pure experience" to be mystical, analogous to kensho, satori, nirvana etc but it just ain't so. And you have given me NO references in James work that he says this is what he meant. The Introduction to "The Writings of William James-McDermott" says: "We should pay special heed to the warning of Julius Bixler: "the isolated reference from James is always unreliable." [because] "They have led us into reading his popular works without benefit of the complex reasoning process that enabled him to offer such imaginative and relevant philosophical hints" This is exactly what Pirsig does and you defend. And we haven't even got into James distrust of "monism," defense of "pluralism" or arguments against the "rationalist" approach to philosophy which Pirsig's process closely resembles. But I'm not really interested in pursuing this because no amount of evidence will sway your fervent faith. And that's what belief in both Zen and the MoQ require. If James were alive he would catalog both as the results of some variety of religious experience, but not philosophy. But he would also defend your right to believe either one or both. 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/md/archives.html
