[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[david buchanan]

Case said:
What I thought we were talking about here is a central point. That is, the 
conflict between science and religion or between theism and mysticism and on 
what basis one would chose between competing claims. ...dmb has said that 
philosophical mysticism makes empirically verifiable claims which theists 
are unable to do. I ask first, what is this philosophical mysticism? Which 
version of this are you espousing?

dmb says:
Finally, an actual question. An actual engagment with the topic. Man, is 
that refreshing. Thanks.

But I've already provided several different descriptions and you've only 
responded with dismissive insults. (Narcissism) If there is an exception to 
this rule, I do not recall it. Shall I break out my Oxford Companion and 
post that entry for a third or fouth time? Sigh. Maybe you'll do me a favor 
and just take a quick look at the stuff I've already said repeatedly. (Thou 
art That) In any case, I want to take your questions seriously and this is a 
pretty good place to start...

Case continued:
Second what claims do these philosophical mystics make and how are they more 
verifiable than the claims of theists. You seem to be saying that Christian 
and Jews and Arabs can not be mystics. While this might offend Trappists, 
Cabbalists and Sufis, I am merely curious as to why you would think this and 
what weight you think your dismissal of them has?

dmb says:
As I understand it, all the Great Religions of the world have an esoteric, 
mystical core. Sufis are a prime example of this. On this level, all the 
religions of the world are essentially in agreement. This common view, the 
one shared globally, is called the perennial philosophy. This is not the 
kind of thing you find spelled out in any particular religious text, but is 
more like something that can be chemically extracted from all of them, as 
Huxley put it. Its discovered by comparative analysis rather than being a 
religion or philosophy as such. As such, it is a view that includes all 
religions. As such, it will reject any claims about exclusive truth or the 
priviledging of one God concept over another. This is philosophical 
mysticism. And the cntral claim, I suppose, is that the distinction between 
God and Man is illusory. By contrast, theism says that distinction is huge, 
if not everything. And saying otherwise is blasphemy, madness, egomania, 
etc, etc..

Case said:
I thought you were basing this claim of empirical verifiability on Wilbur. 
He says that mystics offer testable claims but in the sense that he says 
that mystical claims are empirical so are the claims of Christians, Jews and 
Muslims. If the point of dismissing theists or at least shutting up about 
them is to let you finish whatever it is you have been trying to say, OK 
here is your chance:

dmb says:
Okay, here's a brief sketch of the big picture. And yes, Ken Wilber is very, 
very helpful on this topic. In "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" he explores 
the validity of a great range of claims made by theists and points out that 
most of them simply cannot be sustained. But I think his work only adds 
detail to what Pirsig is saying. The MOQ adopts the "radical empiricism" of 
William James and the hierarchy of static quality, along with its definition 
of intellectual truth, gives us a kind of epistemological pluralism. These 
are moves to expand the notion of rationality so that the mystical 
experience can no longer be so easily dismissed, as is the case in the more 
limited versions of empiricism, where sensory experience is the only kind 
that counts as valid empirical data. As I understand it, both of them 
subscribe to the perennial philosophy in some sense, and they both are 
willing to jettison any assertions that can't be empirically justified. They 
both assert that experience is where all knowledge begins, if you will. 
Along these same lines, Wilber points out that once we drop the limits of 
that positivistic sensory empiricism and the assumption that subjective 
contact with an objective world is the cause of all experience, then there 
is no good reason to assert that some experiences are off limits with 
respect to intellectual investigation. There is no reason why the mystical 
experience can not be reported and discussed by people just like anything 
else. Its just a matter of competence. A physicist has to learn a shit load 
of math, has to understand the scientific method, has to be able to design 
and conduct experiments and then to write about the data generated in such a 
way that other competent investigators can scrutinized the methods and/or 
repeat the experiment. All of this requires some training, demands that time 
and energy be devoted to achieving a level of competence. As we agree, 
religious scholars have to meet certain requirements and have to show the 
legitimacy of their methods. And here I would point out that this kind of 
investigation is NOT based on sensory experience so much as its based on an 
interrogation of the meaning. Eyes are not enough. They have to read and be 
competent explorers of an intersubjective cultural space, if you will. 
Investigating enlightenment or the mystical experience is no different in 
this respect. You just gotta know what you're doing, gotta be trained so 
that you know what you're talking about and then you gotta have the actual 
expereince or conduct the actual experiment or read the text, whatever the 
case may be. Does that make sense?

Case said:
Still I think that if all the MoQ has to offer is a description of the 
conflict (between mysticism and materialism) and concludes with both sides 
are right, it is pretty lame. If the MoQ has nothing in it to settle the 
dispute we have been having or nothing really to say about the kind of 
arguments Plat and Arlo have, it really doesn't say much at all.

dmb says:
I agree emphatically. There is plenty of room for debate and the MOQ rejects 
the notion that there is a single exclusive truth, but that doesn't mean it 
accepts everything or that we can use it to justify holding contradictory 
views. The MOQ is not a permit to be irrational or illogical or to abandon 
the ability to discriminate. And yes, it would be quite lame if it had 
nothing to say about the difference between mysticism and materialism. But 
it has lots and lots to say and I would insist that any equivocations on 
that point would only demonstrate a lack of comprehension as to what the 
whole thing is about. Mysticism and scientific materialism go together like 
peanut butter and thumb tacks, like cheese and firecrackers, which is to say 
not at all. The former has traditionally been excluded by the latter and 
that the problem to be solved in the expansion or rationality. I also think 
Pirsig does a mighty fine job of explaining exactly what political 
reactionaries are all about and, mostly, the people who don't get it ARE 
political reactionaries. I'm not saying that the MOQ supports liberalism 
exclusively or anything so simplistic as that, but the descriptions of the 
evolutionary conflict between social and intellectual levels the difference 
is pretty clear.

Case said:
I for one, support gav's vision of "...the evolution of the MOQ. the point 
is the transformative integration of the MOQ into the western worldview." 
But if the MoQ is just eastern mysticism wearing sunglasses that ain't gonna 
happen. My own view is that Pirsig took an outstanding first crack at a 
metaphysics of uncertainty. Clearly, few here agree with me on this but that 
is where I think transformative power of the MoQ lies.

dmb says:
I'm with Gav there too. But I think the MOQ has done more than just put a 
pair of sunglasses on Eastern mysticism. (I'm not so sure about your 
metaphysics of uncertainty either.) See, by adopting the perennial 
philosophy we can begin to integrate the world's religions and otherwise 
find some common ground among the world's cultures. (Notice there is just 
one kind of math, its not cultural-specific. I think genuinely spiritual 
experience is like that, only more so.) I think the hierarchy of levels also 
has an integrative spirit too. i think the idea is to get all the levels to 
work together in an integrated way, so that each is given its due, so that 
the conflicting values don't tear things up so much as serve as a moral 
code, putting these various kinds of values into perspective, into a context 
in which the point and purpose of each is understood and preserved to 
whatever extent possible.

Think about this integration of static values in terms of a person, in terms 
of what it means to be an excellent person, in terms of what personal 
virture meant BEFORE the Victorian prudes turned into a bunch of shallow 
bullshit and made it all about obedience to a social codes. If I understand 
what Pirsig is saying about the more classical sense of virtue, its a matter 
of integrating all the various kinds of good into something like a coherent 
whole. That's kind of what's going on here with this idea that we want an 
intellectually valid religion. That what it means to integrate the social 
and intellectual levels with each other and with DQ too. They don't have to 
be at odds, we don't have to be divided within ourselves so that we believe 
in God on Sunday, but believe the scientists on Monday. That's some kind of 
dishonesty or self-deception. Or maybe its just nuts. In any case, it ain't 
no good. We need to be rational and spiritual at the very same time, every 
freakin day of the week and from one minute to the next.

Case said:
p.s. to dmb: Thanks for the warning without the safety glasses I coulda lost 
an eye.

dmb says:
Safety first, that's my motto. Or at least that has been my motto ever since 
I got all those motes, beams and splinters in my eye. Man, that hurt like a 
bitch.

_________________________________________________________________
Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live 
Spaces   
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features