[MD] Mystics and Brains

[David M]

Hi DMB

Some interesting suggestions below. I think you are right
here and Case's talk seems to make the mistake of reducing experience to
sensations. For me we need to consider what we know is the full
richness of experience and how we interact with the contents
of our experience. Sure we have sensations of light and smell and
touch that allow us to make out different static and dynamic qualities
in our experience, but what do these do to us? We do not experience
only colours and light, or pressures on the skin. We find what we
experience to have value and meaning within a complex context.
So the person coming towards us with a knife, may not generate
fear, she may be a kind doctor come to help us, and we may not only
take her to be a doctor, but maybe she is an attractive doctor, and
some of those love reactions may get going to. I think trying to
understand our experience in causal terms looks pretty useless
if a few million photons being absorbed because they have bounced
off the skin and clothing of an approaching human being are supposed
to cause the stuff going on in our experience. Of course there is stuff to
consider here about the physical state of the recipient/creator of these 
images,
but the dynamic process that such a being is going through, and which we
call living, is so far from the methods, ideas and metaphors of a science
that is still gripped by mechanism and machine metaphors when it comes to 
looking
at sensations that it is a non-starter. Of course, you can get into
evolutionary psychology to say more interesting stuff, but not that
much more interesting. Biography and fiction remain vastly more
interesting at understanding human experience.

This is does not mean stop the science, but get it in perspective
and see it with its currentlyn huge limits.

Regards
David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:59 PM
Subject: [MD] Mystics and Brains


> Case and y'all:
>
> This conversation came from the "Food for Thought" thread.
>
> dmb said:
> .., 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 replied:
> (James, brains Psychology quote), ...More nonsense induced mystery. 
> Language
> transcends the inability to communicate. How one can possibly expect to
> achieve an understanding of experience without an understanding of brain
> physiology? Now that is indeed a great mystery. Language is a direct 
> product
> of brain processes. If specific areas of the brain are disturbed, language
> ceases to be produced and or understood. Concentrating or meditation on 
> the
> non-rational or nonlinguistic aspect of experience may indeed heighten
> aspects of perception that are not normally called upon.
>
> dmb says:
> See, I would not dispute the idea that thinkers need brains and language
> requires a brain, but at the same time you are simply reasserting 
> scientific
> materialism here. As I keep saying, this is normal and rational, but not 
> in
> this context. Since we are talking about a metaphysical system that wants 
> to
> get past this sort of thing. The notion that language and intellect can be
> reduced to brain activity is, in my opinion, soul-murdering bullshit. The
> MOQ was built to replace that empty, meaningless, ugly worldview. See, I'm
> trying to explain an alternative to this and so it is just about the last
> thing in the world that would persuade me. As I see it, the worldview that
> would reduce mystical experience to a brain-state is the problem we're
> trying to solve. Or so I thought.
>
> Case said:
> When I say cognition, I refer to mental processes, brain activity. Some 
> are
> verbal some are nonverbal. If you are asserting that mystical experience 
> is
> not a function of brain states or if you see some subtlety to the term
> cognition that escapes me, fine. Insert brain state for cognition.
> Sensation, motor activity, perception, experience... do not occur in the
> absence of brain activity.
>
> dmb says:
> See, that is just classic positivism. Experience is defined here in terms 
> of
> sensory experience and from that it follows that we can know something
> important about experience by studying the senses and the nervous system 
> and
> especially the brain. I think this view is seriously flawed. I think thid
> kind of reductionism is typical and normal, but again, we are talking
> metaphysics here. I'm not saying we should throw neurology out the window.
> Its fascinating and it saves lives too, but its not JUST about tissues and
> chemicals. And all that fancy explantion means very little compared to the
> experience itself.
>
> Case said:
> Matthew Fox must be an oxymoron for you. Isn't he a Christian mystic? I
> thought you said they didn't exist. '
>
> dmb says:
> Did I say that? I doubt it. Actually, I consider myself a christian 
> mystic,
> at least in some sense of the word. What I think is contradictory is a
> mystical theist, not least of all because a mystic is supposed to 
> understand
> that all the gods and heavens are within them. Also, once upon a time the
> church would kill a guy for that sort of thing.
>
> Case said:
> But one could as easily assert that the West had made the advances in 
> human
> understanding that it has precisely because it has transcend its own
> mystical tradition. Or it could be said that mystical traditions are at 
> our
> roots precisely because they are of more primitive origin. Seeking a 
> return
> to them is hardly an expansion of rationality.
>
> dmb says:
> Uma Thurman's (Robert) dad is a academic Buddhist type. As he explains it,
> the West has a powerful science that looks outward and it has carried men 
> to
> the moon. But the East has an equally powerful "science" that looks inward
> and it has carred men to equally impressive heights in that dimension. Now
> imagine what could happen if the strengths of East and West were combined 
> so
> that we could combine Zen with something like.. oh, let's say motorcycle
> maintenance.
>
> dmb said:
> ...They say you gotta see for your self, that it CAN'T communicated and 
> has
> to be experienced dierectly.
>
> Case replied:
> So what are we to make of these mystic revelations? For the scientist they
> are, after all, not uncommon. Many scientists have spoken of ideas that 
> came
> from dreams, thoughts that coalesce like seed crystals into larger
> structures of thought. The point is not that scientists don't have them. 
> It
> is what they do with them that counts.
>
> dmb says:
> Well, there is something kind of magical about those moments of 
> inspiration
> and insight, but that is not a mystical experience as i understand it.
> Apples and oranges.
>
> Case said:
> Kekule did not say, "Aha, if you sit by a fire and meditate on snakes, you
> will achieve an enlightened understanding of chemistry." No, he translated
> his mystical understanding into something that could be shared with the
> scientific community.
>
> dmb says:
> There is a film called "Larenzo's Oil" in which the father literally 
> dreams
> up a solution to his son's medical problem, a problem that stumped all the
> doctors. The father was not trained in medicine but was highly motivated 
> and
> had been doing research on his own when he fell asleep in the library. The
> point is that this is certainly a way to introduce some profoundly 
> creative
> thinking, but its not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an
> experience in which all differences and distinctions are dissolved, not a
> moment of insight about differences and distinctions, which is what you 
> need
> to come up with an idea of any kind. Also, the mystical experience does 
> not
> impart any kind of scientific knowledge. Its not like you automatically 
> get
> a PhD in everything. Enlightenment and education are two different things,
> maybe even opposite things in some ways.
>
> Case said:
> So out of this mystical incommunicable experience you get what? No truth
> from it, no ability to share it, a warm fuzzy of no significance?
>
> dmb says:
> Well, I guess I don't know what you're asking. There is no particular
> benefit. There is no paycheck, diploma, certificate of authenticy or even 
> a
> pat on the back waiting for you at the end of the road to enlightenment. 
> It
> just seems that certain people have made this discovery and afterward
> thought it was something worth while. Religions and cultures have grown up
> around such people and so it seems to be at the heart of things.
>
> Case said:
> One could also conclude from this that they are of evolutionary
> significance. Religion serves biological and social functions that 
> enhances
> survival and ask relevant questions about the nature of those functions.
>
> dmb says:
> Yes, I think that mystics have been among the most creative people on the
> planet and have always done far more than their fair share when it comes 
> to
> social and intellectual evolution. The MOQ's contrarian theme is probably 
> my
> favorite.
>
> Case said:
> ..By externalizing and personalizing God, the Jews were framing their
> experience with God and nature in terms of personal and social
> relationships. They made very little effort to rationalize this. And yet 
> by
> doing so they evolved a culture that could with stand conquest, captivity
> and Diaspora. By claiming a set of assumptions that ceased to question the
> minutia of metaphysics they got on with life and living.
>
> dmb says:
> Well, I'm not so sure that's true. But assuming it is, this would simply
> describe some of the details as to how and why this "religion" is just a
> bunch of social level moral codes and has very little to do with spiritual
> realizations or enlightenment. Personally, I don't think this would be
> anything to brag about. This is exactly why I'm opposed to theism. It
> confuses the divine with mere social decency, not unlike the Victorians. 
> And
> when we look at those social codes today they look quite insane and
> depraved. Stone your children to death for being sassy? Don't eat lobster?
> That's just crazy talk.
>
> Case said:
> Again, it is much more fruitful to seek after the biological and social
> functions of religion and mysticism that to take them as meaningful in and
> of themselves.
>
> dmb says:
> Well, I think that's confused and that its important to sort out the 
> various
> functions. I would say that mysticism isn't supposed to have any 
> biological
> or social functions. The MOQ claims there has been lots of confused 
> thinking
> and the key distinctions are designed to sort out these things.
>
> Case said:
> I maintained at that time that I accept the assumptions of science which I
> have since listed as:
>>1. Nature is orderly.
>>2. We can know nature.
>>3. All phenomena have natural causes
>>4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.
>>5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
>>6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
>
> dmb says:
> These are the assumptions of science? Looks to me more like the 
> conclusions
> of scientific materialism. When I think of science it is generally the
> scientific method and the process of peer review because the conclusions
> come and go. As Pirsig says in Lila, the MOQ does nothing to alter the 
> data
> and has no quarrel with the method. But we are talking philosophy of
> science. I thought the topic here was about the metaphysical assumptions
> (SOM) behind all that. I mean, radical empiricism rejects those 
> assumptions
> and expands the notion of what counts as valid empirical evidence so that 
> we
> are no longer limited to sensory experience. This allows for the 
> possibility
> that we can develop a science to study unusual states of consciousness and
> other experiences that have do not come to us through the senses per se.
> There are interesting correlations, but I think neurology and such can't
> teach us everything we might like to know about experiences of that type. 
> I
> mean, isn't that approach kind of empty and meaningless even for something
> as common as falling in love. The chemistry and activity of the brain can 
> be
> measured and we can see correlations between that and the experience, but
> what does that really tell us about love? Not a damn thing. It only tells 
> us
> about brain activity and chemistry. It might be useful for medical 
> science,
> but everybody knows that poets know a lot more about love than does any
> brain surgeon. And so it is with mystical experience. There is stuff going
> on in the brain and these things can be measured, but the gal having the
> experience is going to know a lot more about it than the technicians
> watching her brain waves slow down. They are just watching the monitors 
> and
> collecting the data the same as any other scientists. They are still
> limiting themselves to sensory experience and trying to explain experience
> in terms of physical strutctures while the mystic is doing somthing
> completely different from all that. I think the idea of developing a 
> broader
> notion of the scientific method would require the scientists in this area 
> to
> have expertise in collecting both kinds of data so that mystics could file
> reports with other mystics the same way that physicists write papers for
> other physicist to scrutinize, etc. I'm not saying this very well, but the
> idea is simply that experimentation, the collection of data, the process 
> of
> peer review and all that can remain the same in essence even if we want to
> study states of consciousness instead of brain states. We can't see states
> of consciousness with the eye or with the scientific instruments that 
> extend
> our senses, but we ought not let that keep us from studying them.
>
> All my teachers would be happy, if I only had a brain.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! 
> Get
> it now
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
>
> 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/
>