[MD] Pragmatism and Philosophical Mysticism

[gav]

howdy philistines!

comments interspersed

> I've started a new thread but it is a response to John's
> post about the state of academic philosophy and Gav's post
> about religion and spirituality. As you know, I'm in the
> process of trying to make a case for philosophical mysticism
> within the confines of academic philosophy and so those two
> issues are all of a piece for me. This is so closely related
> to what I'm doing at school that this post practically
> constitutes a dress rehearsal for this week's homework
> assignment. Basically, we're supposed to write a three page
> explanation of our thesis. What is your claim and why does
> it matter?
> 
> Nobody around here will be surprised to learn that my
> thesis will claim what Pirsig claims. "Quality is nature",
> he says, and "there is no spiritual principle in man that
> makes knowledge possible. Nature does the whole job." This
> "is an atheistic outlook" wherein "no faith is required
> because there is no way you can disbelieve that there is
> such a thing as quality." This sounds worse than it is,
> though. This atheistic - even anti-theistic - stance also
> forms the basis of a natural mysticism. "Dynamic Quality",
> or "pure experience" as James puts it, is the
> pre-intellectual or pre-conceptual experience is something
> every infant knows, it is something which we always already
> constantly rely upon in everyday experience AND it the
> undifferentiated consciousness of the mystic who's achieved
> at-one-ment with the universe. This unitive mystical
> experience has been known and reported from all times and
> places and it is the seed germ of every great religion on
> earth. Well, I don't think I'll try to defend that last
> line, exactly, but Huxley's notion of a perennial philosophy
> will definitely get some treatment. 

mystical knowing is faith.

> 
> This is the position I've been defending around here for
> quite some time. I don't believe it or defend it just
> because Pirsig said it, of course. I defend it because I
> think it's true. I think it's a good way to have depth and
> meaning without losing science or rationality. I think it's
> a way to expand and improve science and rationality. That's
> really Pirsig's aim. He was to warm and moisten the cold,
> dry voice of reason without letting the religionist "sneak
> his goods in through the back door". 

freudian slip? goods instead of gods?

> 
> It seems to me that Pirsig's position on theism is quite
> clear and unequivocal. And yet people are shocked and
> outraged when I defend that position against theistic
> claims. I don't just FEEL that I've been unfairly treated.
> It's practically a scientific fact! Whenever I make a case
> that the MOQ is not compatible with theism a shit storm of
> abuse immediately ensues wherein I am a dick, an asshole, a
> McCarthyite censor and a closed-minded, knee jerking
> arrogant monster up on his high horse. And yet I'm only
> saying what Pirsig says. That's unfair. He says, "the
> selling out of intellectual truth to the social icons of
> organized religion is seen by the MOQ as an evil act" and
> "the MOQ drops spirit and faith, cold". Yet people wonder
> why anyone would object when they try to appropriate
> Pirsig's metaphysical system into their faith. That's unfair
> and incorrect.

life without spirit and faith is not life - it is hollow, soulless, nihilistic: it is what we already have in the west. pirsig's solution is more of the same?


 
> It doesn't take a subtle eye to detect the tension between
> science and religion in our culture. Is there some kind of
> philosophy that can help to sort out their opposing claims?
> You can't stop a suicide bomber with any kind of empiricism,
> of course. But the cops and armies that can stop them should
> be taking their orders from people who are capable of being
> persuaded by reasons and evidence. And if religious
> differences can be overcome by showing that they share a
> common central core, maybe the heat will get turned down
> some and fewer people will die. Maybe it'll be easier to
> view other religions with tolerance, be easier to see which
> religious institutions which foster growth in a healthy way
> and which ones breed division and hate. And if it can be
> shown that this claim about the central core is empirically
> based maybe guys like Dawkins will realize that religion
> isn't always as childish as he thinks. 

what is the difference between philosophy and theology? nothing i would say - philosophy should include theology. seems academic philosophy may have lost its soul when they divorced.
 
> 
> In short, I think we need a natural, empirically based
> mysticism because science is inhuman and religion is stupid.

oops! now that is a stupid statement

> It's not the science or religion that bothers me so much as
> the inhumanity and the stupidity. Given a choice, I want
> neither. I think that James and Pirsig give us neither.

well i disagree totally with both you and bob dave.
what is stupid is to generalise so awfully and in doing so ignore our wisdom traditions. philosophy is about wisdom remember.

my uncle was head of theoretical physics at oxford for many years; he is also very catholic. einstein held a spinozan pantheism to heart all his life. newton believed in an intelligence that governed the operation of the cosmos. max planck, mendel, galileo, copernicus...all religious scientists.

but my fave of all is bohm who brought science and spirituality together wonderfully with his implicate and explicate order - his holistic theory of the universe.

the moq is mystical yes? lovely equivalency with taoism (which is a religion); hindu and buddhist resonances....everywhere.
they are religions too
and the bible, the christian mystics, the apocrypha, spinoza... resonances everywhere in them too. 
sure some religion is a caricature; a lot of science is too (neo-darwinism for instance). the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

i thought pirsig was trying to integrate science and religion and art within a broader metaphysical framework...but all i am seeing is more pseudo-intellectual division at the moment.



 

> 
> 
> 
>     
>         
>           
>   
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
> 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/md/archives.html
>