[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[David M]

DMB/Case

Here's something that would set you boys straight,
in a good post-modern way:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0415336171/ref=sib_dp_pt/202-7730450-7198204#reader-page

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:18 AM
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 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.
>
> 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=WLMTAG
>
> 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/
>