Greetings,
David requests a rational definition of mysticism and here is my answer:
The reality or unreality of the mystic's world may or may not be a genuine insight,
conjecture on
this point is (by definition) futile. However, if that insight is untested by the
intellect then it
is not sufficient to support a world view, despite the fact that many of the most
important aspects
of human knowledge are first suggested by its means. Furthermore, the opposition
between mysticism
and rationalism is an illusion. Intuition leads to belief which subsequent reason
confirms or
denies. However that confirmation or denial rests upon how well that intuition accords
with other
intuitions. As Bertrand Russell puts it, (way back in 1918 and with roots at least as
far back as
Hume), "Reason is a harmonising, controlling force rather than a creative one."
Insight arrives at
what is new and reason harmonises and checks that insight by relating it to other
insights. (Hence
the strength of the mystic's argument)
Instinct and thus mysticism are, like all human faculties, liable to error. Those with
weak
reasoning will usually admit this in others but not in themselves and so an extreme
mysticism
degenerates into relativism. This is where reason has to step in and verify which
intuition accords
most with experience, which leaves the fewest 'platypi' and which has best economy of
explanation.
Without exception, every single posting on this forum concerning mysticism has
appealed to reason
for its veracity, while many have simultaneously espoused mysticism as a higher
level!! The irony
should not be lost on anyone who thinks about it.
Three very important points are salient here:
Firstly, mysticism is an approach and so cannot be a level, just as reason is an
approach and cannot
be a level. Many contributors have attempted to reduce Pirsig's intellectual level to
mere reason
which is plainly wrong.
Secondly, if the approaches within the intellectual level were to be subdivided,
mysticism would
rank as the lowest form of intellect for the reasons given above. Anyone not agreeing
with this has
no grounds for refuting it simply because if they do refute it they will be using
reason to do so
and their argument will thus only serve to establish my point.
Thirdly, it is clear that reason evolved from intuition not vice versa. One can
imagine a child
without rational faculty intuiting how the world is, but one cannot imagine a similar
child
rationalising the world prior to intuiting it. Therefore I would suggest that any
self-respecting
MoQite should be morally bound to move away from intuition and mysticism towards
reason and logic.
I am fascinated to see if a counter argument can be formulated which doesn't undermine
its own case.
Most of the debate around these issues has so far purported (usually implicitly) to be
a rational
elevation of mysticism, but I would contend that no argument can be modally stronger
than its
modally weakest part and so, upon the final analysis, most of the debate has been
literally
unreasonable.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
