[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Case]

Let me make something crystal clear here. I have apologized for nothing. I
have soften my position on nothing. I have answered your objections several
times in a couple of threads and this has gone past boring. I have advanced
two central points in these discussions.

First, at the level of discussion about the fundamental nature of reality,
metaphysics, there is no certainty or even clear direction as to what to
believe or even what constitutes evidence. Reasonable people can disagree in
sincerity and good faith. I personally adopt a scientific view I find this
personally satisfying. You adopt a perennial philosophical view and it seems
to suit you. I think it is wrong, misguided even, but I can see why it would
appeal to you and anyone else who adopts it. I regard theism in the same
light. All three of these options have elaborate structures of culture and
systems of thought built around them. They have coexisted for millennia
sometime peacefully, more often not. But I have learned from many
discussions with many people of different persuasions that when a person
says that they have elected to value one belief over another that pretty
much ends the discussion. No amount of reason or evidence matters. My
brother believes that money makes the world go round and that all that
matters in politics is that the oil is flowing and cash registers are
ringing. Any attempt to explain that there are other values at work or that
mutual cooperation and codependence are important just elicits a smug
dismissive stare. People chose their fundamental beliefs mostly by default.
They take what is handed to them and get on with their lives. Telling them
they are irrational is irrelevant if rationality in not important to them. 

This leads into my second point. You are behaving irrationally. You
apparently have a hard-on for theists. You constantly rant against them with
inflammatory language that is disrespectful, uninformed by frequently funny
has hell. You insist that I have dodged a point or ignored a question. These
are rhetorically tactics that you seem to use reflexively and frequently.
But since they are patently not true you can shove then where the sun don't
shine. I have answered your points several times. I believe I have made my
position on the matter crystal clear. If you disagree, fine, have a nice
day. Continue ranting and labeling people. Be dismissive and hostile it
seems to be working for you. My own position is that I do not have to become
a Muslim to learn about Islam. I am curious about a belief system that
attracts so many followers and motivates them to act as they do. I have
studied Christianity in some depth because it is dominant in my neck of the
woods. I disagree almost violently with the Christian right but there are
Christians and branches of Christianity that I respect and admire. Having
said that, I think what I dislike most about the religious right and this
applies to fundamentalist true believers of any stripe is their insistence
that they are Right; with a capital R. More than that they are Right and
anyone else is wrong. It is this sanctimonious clinging that is galling.
Frankly bucko you seem like a Fundamentalist Monist. A post or so ago I
thought we were about to go all kissy face. I was about to slip you some
tongue and you bit my lip.

This has gone past ridiculous. We disagree. Fine. We know why we disagree.
Fine. We were talking about safety glasses before but I am guessing anyone
who with the patience to bother with this has been wishing for hip boots. 




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:19 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

Case said to dmb:
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 tht 
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.

dmb says:
See, the Oxford quote was used to support my assertion that there is a 
distinction between theism and a certain kind of mysticism, one that doesn't

do well within theistic religions. The quote supports this assertion insofar

as it is included in an encyclodedic entry on the word "Mysticism". And your

response here is basically to soften it as much as possible because, I 
suppose, you can see that an outright denial would simply be to 
unsupportable. Why say its much ado about nothing, that there's a difference

between suspicion and accusation, that sometimes this sort of heresy is 
tolerated? You're just fudging here, man. Come clean, admit it. Certain 
kinds of mystic really piss off the church dudes, and everybody knows it. 
Why is this like trying to get an apology out of Archie Bunker? Yes, 
religious history is full of complex blends of various cultures and there 
are exceptions to every generalizaton and cases that don't fit into the 
standard taxonomy. That doesn't render the distinction useless. So, strickly

speaking, I don't think you really responded to the quote. I was hoping 
you'd pay more attention to the specific differences described there rather 
than just look for a way to make it seem ambiguous as possible.

Case also said:
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:
Your disagreement might be respectful, but it ain't too respectable. I mean,

aren't you even going to try and say WHY you disagree, what part you 
disagree with or anything?  Are we expressing ideas and opinions here or are

we just taking a vote? Okay, everybody who thinks we should take a vote 
please raise your hand.

Case said:
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:
I agree that the social sciences are extremely helpful. We can see Pirsig 
mixing some of that in. Doc McWatt's undergrad work was in the social 
sciences and figures into his thesis. And personally, I just started an 
interdisciplinary Master's program in the Humanities. I don't know if I 
think about the perennial philosophy in terms of the common need for 
survival, however. I think its just a simple matter of the fact that 
enlightenment has been experienced by all kinds of people in all kinds of 
cultures.

Case said:
...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:
Theists have developed their own vocabulary and techniques? Don't you mean 
theistic theologians? The graduates of divinity schools and such rather than

regular believers? And even with that correction, I'm extremely suspicious 
of any discipline with such dubious starting point. I mean, its seems there 
are good reasons for their relatively isolated position in the intellectual 
world. There's a difference between theology and, say, comparative religious

studies so that the latter in included in the Humanities department and the 
former is off at its own school. It seems more an adjunct of the churches 
that a part of the Universities. I realize there are tons of (Notre Dame) 
exceptions, but the point remains. Faith based beliefs are not considered as

valid in science or in scholarship. I think this is good and right. And I 
suppose you do too. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to convince me that 
theism is like science.

Thanks.
  dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Try the new Live Search today!  
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLM
TAG

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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/