[MD] Food for Thought

[david buchanan]

Case said to dmb:
The realization that Thou art That sounds all fuzzy and profound but it 
really doesn't take much effort or thought to bring about the realization.

dmb says:
Hmmm. I thought it would be pretty much impossible to misunderstand, but 
apparently I was mistaken. See, one of the two major themes in all those 
quotes from all those various thinkers is that the realization CANNOT be 
understood intellectually. And here you are saying it doesn't take much 
thought to realize it? I mean, the whole point is that this realization 
can't be "thought" at all. This is why its called names like pre-linguistic, 
pre-intellectual and non-rational. I mean, dude, you missed that point by a 
mile.

case said:
...When for example James says, "But thoughts in the concrete are made of 
the same stuff as things are." I do not think he means that things are 
ephemeral. My point about James was not that he should not be read as 
philosophy but that to read him as only a philosopher is to miss his point.

dmb says:
James is saying the same thing as Pirsig here. Again, thoughts and things 
are derived from the primary empirical reality in the same way that subjects 
and objects are derived. Thoughts are subjective and things are objective. 
They are just using slightly different terms but the concept is the same. 
James' background as a psychologist does not alter this in the slightest. 
Here we are talking about the epistemology developed by James and adopted by 
Pirsig. As I see it, your objection that I ought to read his empiricism as 
something other than empiricism is 100% bogus.

Case said:
The idea of experience prior to or beyond language is a similarly not 
transcendental.

dmb says:
Huh? I guess I don't know what you mean by "transcendental". As I understand 
it, experience that is outside or beyond language is a transcendent 
experience in the sense that it transcends language. It goes beyond or comes 
prior to thought.

Case continued:
It is no mystery that much if not most cognition is nonverbal. While there 
maybe some personal benefit to recognizing and exercising these functions, I 
see no basis for ascribing cosmic significance to them. Language may indeed 
be the way that we fundamentally divide the undivided but we also make these 
divisions based on experience. It is hard to see why we would Value the 
undivided over the divided since they are both kinds of experience.

dmb says:
Non-verbal cognition is still cognition and is not to be confused with the 
mystical experience. What you seem to be refering to isn't non-verbal or 
pre-intellectual so much as sub-vocal and un-selfconscious congnition. And 
its not that the MOQ is trying to assert the value of the Dynamic over the 
static so much as it's aimed at recognizing that DQ has been de-valued in 
the West. As Matthew Fox and so many others have pointed out, the West is 
alienated from its mystical roots. Pirsig calls this a blindspot. The MOQ's 
expansion of rationality and its radical empiricism are aimed at ending the 
exclusion of the Dynamic but not at excluding the static.

Case said:
One of the reasons to divide things into language is so that we can 
communicate them. To claim that experiences that can not be communicated 
have some metaphysical superiority over ones that can, similarly does not 
make sense. The difficulty in communicating mystical experiences is 
legendary and it would seem prudent to be skeptical of information 
communicated about that which is beyond communication. I would suggest they 
teach us more about the fundamental nature of psychology than of reality.

dmb says:
Again, its not about making one superior to the other. The word "primary" in 
the phrase "primary empirical reality" does not mean superior. It means 
basic, primative, fundamental, first in a sequence and that sort of thing. 
(If that's where you got the idea.) And the mystic prudence about sharing 
"information" is famous. They say you gotta see for your self, that it CAN'T 
communicated and has to be experienced dierectly.

Case said:
To claim to have arrived at Truth through such experience is much like 
Bohr's complementarity of Truth and clarity. Such an ultimate truth would be 
nearly devoid of clarity in much the same way that seeking clarity through 
science may indeed point one away from Truth. I recommend bifocals.

dmb says:
Arrived at the "Truth"? With a capital "T"? Huh? I didn't say any such 
thing. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. As I understand it, 
there is no such thing as thee Truth.

Case said:
As for the universality of belief in the Perennial Philosophy one finds all 
sorts of beliefs that are similarly held; ghosts, phantom limbs, angels and 
demons. Universality of belief is not a standard for correctness of belief.

dmb says:
Again, you're missing the point by a mile. The perennial philosophy is 
expressed through many different belief systems. Again, we find it in the 
core of all the world's great religions. I think this is simply a result of 
the fact that people all over the world have had mystical experiences. 
People all over the world also experience hunger, parenthood and generally, 
they all tend to have ten fingers and ten toes. While these "facts" might 
deserve the name of "Truth" with a capital "T", I think its safe to say that 
it would be incorrect to say they're incorrect of untrue. As far as 
universality goes, that's about as close as we'll ever get.

Case said:
There are various ways to induce mystical states from years of meditation to 
psychedelics, from the spinning of the Sufi to the fasting of Christians. 
But as Bertrand Russell observed, "From a scientific point of view, we can 
make no distinction between the man who eats little and sees heaven and the
man who drinks much and sees snakes."

dmb says:
Well, that's exactly why Pirsig sought to expand rationality and waged an 
attack on scientific materialism. I would also argue, as Pirisg does, that 
this conclusion is based on certain metaphysical assumptions, assumptions 
that have been used to exclude mysticism from Western theology and from 
Western science.

Case said:
The chief bone of contention in this debate is whether mystical experience 
is superior to a theistic experience. I have tried to tell you many times I 
see no more basis for denying your belief in the experience of oneness than 
I see for denying a Christian's belief that he has experienced the presence 
of God. They are equally valid ways of describing indescribable experiences.

dmb says:
As I understand it, Westerners who describe their mystical experience in 
terms of an encounter with God (rather than in terms of an identity with 
God) are at a distinct advantage when it comes to avoiding torture and 
execution. On top of that, there is a world of difference between having an 
experience and attributing that experience to a supernatural entity. As the 
Campbell quote explains, theism, by definition, insists that God is other, 
is seperate, is not us. Its a dualistic religion of relationship rather than 
unity. Its like the guy who claims to have been abducted by aliens. Lots of 
people report this experience and I have no doubt that these people had a 
powerful experience. But I think there is no reason at all the believe they 
were actually abducted, that there are extraterrestrial space ships or 
aliens here on earth. And so it is with "theistic experience".  There is no 
denying they had an experience but its not much of a trick to point out that 
this does not verify the existence of God. That explanation is just that. 
Its a static interpretation that comes after the fact. I mean, you say it 
doesn't matter and they are equally valid, but its an historical fact that 
the church thought it mattered a great deal and was even willing to kill 
those who disagreed. See, we're not just talking about metaphysical 
assumptions here, but cultural bias, hateful prejudice, suppression of that 
which comes naturally to people all over the world. We're talking about 
centuries of religion supported by cops and armies, institutional 
resistance. So, you are in effect, comparing social level static quality 
with DQ. You are in effect saying that there is no problem when DQ is 
interpreted as social level static quality. This, my nerdy friend, is not 
just incorrect. Its evil.

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place!  MSN Shopping 
Sales & Deals 
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639