[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[ian glendinning]

Brilliant Case.
"A hard on for theists" ... so much more offensive than my
limp-wristed "almost crusading" attempt.
Fundamentalism (any one thing in opposition to any one other) is
indeed the problem. It's GOF SOMism, rather than the dynamically
balanced Yin & Yang of MoQism

Ian

On 10/2/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
> 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/
>