[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Dan Glover]

Hi Case

Thank you for your patience. Things do get contentious here at times and I 
think it's good not to get too serious about the ideas we're discussing. 
While I believe we should always keep the MOQ in mind (as this is after all 
moq_discuss), sticking to the point too closely tends to stifle creative 
thinking -- at least in my personal experience.

Often times I find that the answers to my questions are so simple and plain 
that when I happen to stub my toe on them I wonder why it was that I didn't 
see them all along. Usually it's because I rejected the answers out of hand 
on account of the baggage I'm carrying.

Once again, thanks for your patience, and perhaps we will talk again one 
day.

Dan

>From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?
>Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:42:30 -0400
>
>Dan and dmb,
>
>It is tempting to continue debating the degree of negativity we are 
>slinging
>at each other with words like hearsay and narcissism or the relative degree
>of prejudice revealed in the use of second person pronouns or whether true
>education is an active or passive process. But it seems to me that what we
>are discussing is, if not important, then at least more interesting than
>that. My summary of all of the above is that it has been my observation 
>that
>you guys have no problem disparaging the beliefs of others but get really
>snippy when the tables are turned. Ok, I do that too...
>
>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. Somehow I have been
>cast as a religious zealot because I think people should be educated about
>religion. By that, I do mean all religions. I support the work of the Jesus
>Seminar because that is their mission too. They are all academics not
>zealots. Their efforts have been directed toward Christianity because that
>is their field of academic study. But for what it is worth, they are
>detested and feared by the religious right precisely for the reasons that
>dmb isn't. What their works shows is that the religious right is wrong on
>its own terms and in its own language.
>
>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? 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?
>
>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:
>
>At one point a few months ago I thought Dan and I were pretty close to an
>understanding. I thought we had agreed that the MoQ says that both
>materialism and mysticism are pretty good ideas. Dan concluded by saying
>that this was true but mysticism is better. Instead of taking this with a
>nudge nudge wink wink I'm afraid I took this comment seriously, for that I
>apologize.
>
>Still I think that if all the MoQ has to offer is a description of the
>conflict 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.
>
>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.
>
>p.s. to dmb: Thanks for the warning without the safety glasses I coulda 
>lost
>an eye.
>
>p.s. to Dan: Look I like Hemmingway and Bogart too for that matter. But
>Faulkner bagged a Nobel for a little tale called the Sound and Fury. I 
>think
>it is an astounding piece writing. Frankly, I think Fitzgerald was robbed.
>
>
>
>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/