[MD] New Model Army, Mystic(DQ) Experience, and Religion (SQ) as Power

[david buchanan]

Ian said to dmb:
Interestingly since starting this response I see Case has also chimed in 
with the point I was actually making as politely as I could with someone I 
already agreed with,  that social contexts do not necessarily exclude the 
mystical - far from it. There a good and bad quality social contexts as I 
know both you and Ant already know. Sorry if it offends for me to point that 
out.

dmb says:
I'm not offended. I'm just frustrated. Here you have done it again. Ant did 
not say that social contexts necessarily exclude the mystical. Once again 
you are disputing a point nobody made. And what makes it even more 
frustrating is that you have failed to grapple with the point that is being 
made. If Ant and I already know, then what's the point of saying it?

As to the actual point... Do you recall the description of mysticism that I 
took from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy the other day? Let me repeat 
and focus on the relevant sentence from that. It says, "Strongly monistic 
mysticism, however, is harder to square with a Christian view, and when such 
mystics have themselves been Christians they have often been suspected of 
heresy."

Think about that for a minute. Heresy. Blasphemy. And then think about the 
MOQ's emphasis on the role of contratians in the evolutionary process. Think 
about Pirsig's central criticisms of SOM, especially the way it excludes 
mysticism from the world. The capitalists and the socialist didn't see it. 
Scientific materialism doesn't see it. The positivists ruled it out and the 
neo-pragmatists think its just a language game or whatever. See, the MOQ is 
designed to re-incorporate an area of human for which Western culture has a 
huge blind spot. I think this is the point. This is why "seeing for 
yourself" is so unlikely so long as we adhere to traditional religion in the 
West. This is why theism is different from mysticism, because traditionally 
the theists burn them at the stake.

And I think this is why this point is so important in understanding the MOQ. 
The MOQ is supposed to address this blind spot so as to get rid of it. You 
know, it all began back in that teepee. "..current research and discussion 
are clouded by political and social issues". I mean, Lila spends some time 
talking about the cultural filters, the ones that filters some things OUT. 
That's what Jung was getting at when he said that religion forestalls 
experience. See, theistic Christianity basically prohibits it. The Church 
doesn't kill people over it anymore, thank God, but its still unlikely to 
help people with it.

Now, Ian, please. If you're going to distort this point so as to turn it 
into some kind of black and white absolutism, then please don't bother to 
respond at all. That's just a pointless waste of time. If you are willing to 
respond to what I've actually said, however, then I'd be thrilled to chat 
about it. Then we'd be having a real conversation on the actual topic.

Thanks.
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/