[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Case]

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]
I previously responded with regards to the Oxford quote:

"I think you are making much ado about nothing with this quote. To be
suspected of heresy is not the same as being accused of heresy. While
private mystical experience is not emphasized in many Christian traditions
it has always had its place from the Apostle Paul to Thomas Merton. It can
in fact be argued that Christianity is in large measure a synthesis of
Judaism and Platonic mysticism. Ideas like the immortality of the soul and
the God-Man have no place in Judaism. The conception of the material world
as evil and ugly compared to the eternal ideal is similarly Greek in
origin."

I guess my point is that Christians have been suspicious of their mystics
for sure but they have tolerated them as well. The only other specific quote
you have offered but was from Pirsig about the MoQ is anti-theistic and my
response is that if that is what he said, I respectfully disagree.

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]
One way to look at the agreement you see in all of the religions of the
world might be the soap bubble principle. If you blow a soap bubble there is
only one shape it can take. The conditions that allow the bubble to exist
dictate its shape and size. On a more complicated levels if humans are to
live together and survive in the wild certain conditions must be met. One
would expect to agreements as well as differences across culture. And you
would expect agreement and similarities in those areas closest to survival.
But you are right, however one accounts for this, the study is fascinating.
But I thought the study of it would involve anthropology, or sociology,
psychology well all of the social science... It seems too cross disciplinary
to be confined to philosophy, mystical or otherwise.

dmb says:
[Snip]
Does that make sense?

[Case]
I am new to Wilbur. I like his thing with holons and I enjoys his review of
Piaget but he starts to loose me when he breaks all taxonomic and by the
time he gets to the spiritual I am gone. But I am still giving him some more
attention. All I have said on this matter is that Theists too go through
their rituals and rites of passage in training. They develop their own
vocabulary, descriptions of experience and techniques. Theists, mystics and
scientists are alike in this. 

dmb says:
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. 

[Case]
You keeping seeing that I have a dog in this fight and you are right. Mine
is a Tao Dog. I see no serious conflict at all between Taoist metaphysics
and modern physics. I am pretty orthodox though and much prefer ZMM to Lila.
For me the idea of a metaphysics is to find a set of rules that work no
matter what. I think there are no compelling grounds to select among to
three options above. Or at least I can see that this is an area were sincere
people disagree.  In Taoist metaphysics there is a central undefined. From
it proceed the active and the passive. The interaction of these makes the
world go round. I have always thought this is what Pirsig says and to the
extent that he does, I love the man.

[dmb]
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]
I second that motion and call for a vote.