[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[118]

Hi dmb,
Thank you for an explanation of your view.  I understand where you are
coming from.  In a way it appears to be a bit selective in terms of
experience.  I will explain more below.

dmb says:
> Radical empiricism says that any kind of experience can count as empirical
> evidence. It also says that philosophers have no business making any claims
> unless it is based on experience. It says that assertions about forces or
> entities outside of experience can never be more than speculation and such
> thing should not be admitted into our philosophies.
>

[Mark]
I understand, experience is needed rather than speculation.

>
>  dmb says:
>
> There is a wide range of religious experience and they can all be used as
> empirical evidence. To claim that some certain experience was the experience
> of God, however, is not empirical evidence but rather a conclusion and an
> assertion as to the nature and meaning of that experience. Theism is not
> simply the belief that people have mind-blowing experiences. It is a whole
> system of belief, a set of assertion, a world view with a particular course
> of development in history. Like I said to Ham, if you check out Stanford's
> article on mysticism you'll quickly realize that scholars distinguish two
> distinct types of mysticism. One is theistic and the other is not. Roughly,
> the theistic varieties construe the mystical experience in dualistic terms
> so that it is conceived as an encounter between the mystic and his God. In
> the non-theistic forms, by contrast, to be enlightened is to fully realize
> the lack of division between god and man. The non-theistic mystic doesn't
> encounter god. He realizes that he is god and everything else. Dynamic
> Quality is this undivided awareness.
>

[Mark]
It is fine to differentiate the types of mystical experiences especially if
you have had both. To differentiate based on here-say is speculation and not
based on empiricism no matter if they are so called scholars or not.  I
believe you would agree with that.  The fact that they do provide a class of
mysticism resulting in or from theism is telling.  A theist will also tell
you that there is no differentiation between God and Man.  Read some of
Eckhart's passages for example.  Encountering god does not have to be the
subject object form which you propose.  If you want to call such a thing
Dynamic Quality that is up to you.  Dig down to its roots and see what you
find.

>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Well, apparently I don't know what you mean by "God". In what sense did
> anyone ever experience God? Isn't more like you had a powerful experience
> and "god" seemed like a good explanation to you afterward? I once had a
> vision of Jesus and a whole bunch of other gods but I did not take it as
> evidence or their actual existence. It wouldn't explain a damn thing if
> somebody told me that vision was caused of given by god either. And yet it
> was something I'll never forget and it means quite a lot to me personally.
> On the other hand, this second-hand report isn't going to very compelling to
> anyone else. And rightly so. Why should my vision alter your way of seeing?
> I've heard lots of stories about alien abductions and the people who tell
> those stories are quite sincere. But I do NOT jump from this evidence to
> conclude that they really were kidnapped by creatures from space. It that
> were literally true we'd have more evidence than just stories. But all this
> fascinating psychological stuff might lead us astray because the MOQ denies
> no experience per se. It is radically empirical. But to be anti-theistic is
> to be opposed to something far more concrete. Theism is an institution in
> our culture and it has had a very specific form in the West for 2000 years.
> Let's not pretend that we're talking about anything different form regular
> old Christianity. In our world, theism means the church.
>

[Mark]
I understand you don't know what people mean by God.  It is a personal
relationship, could be also defined as a personal experience.  Your notion
of God is somewhat antiquated, it sounds more like old testament stuff.
 Many state that Jesus was a mystic, I can provide well regarded references
if you want.  To be anti-theist one must appreciate what it means. Now, I
have never been to church in my life, all that I know about Christianity is
what I have learned in my adulthood, mainly through books and discussions.
 I have no childhood bias for or against such a thing.  It was never
discussed in my family.  I trust what people tell me about such personal
experiences.

If one is to describe an experience as God, or as the Devil, or of Quality,
or Distasteful, are you suggesting that they are mistaken?  Unless you have
had the same experience you cannot comment or be anti-it.  Experience is the
basis, not its interpretation by others.  Something that has high quality to
me may seem humdrum to you.  By the specific form of Theism you are speaking
of religion, not the personal experience.  We could speak of art that way
too, as in the institutions of art.  This is of course different from art
itself.

If there is a path that you have provided so that we cannot go astray, don't
you think that is a bit presumptive?  Especially in regards to your
appreciation of experience.  I am not asking you to take my experience and
change your ways, I am asking you to describe your experience.  Let's take
Quality.  What is your experience of Quality?

>
>
> dmb says:
> There is a general trend in the West away from authorities and institutions
> and toward increasingly individualistic forms of spiritual development. But
> basically, it is simply a matter of obsolescence. How can we believe in
> heaven in the space age? How can we believe the world was created in a few
> day just a few thousand years ago. Virgin births and resurrection from the
> dead both defy everything we know about babies and death. Is there a
> rational case against theism?! Hell yes. Where have you been for the last
> century?
>

[Mark]
Yes, you can see heaven in a wildflower, to quote William Blake, who may
have been a mystic.  This is your choice.  If instead you choose to delude
yourself in another way, that is also your choice.  Unless you do not
subscribe to free will.  The trend you see is just the cycling of human
nature.  History demonstrates this.  From Greece to the dark ages and back.
 Any belief is based on agreement.  If you believe biblical stories
literally then you are in big trouble because the translation depends on the
times.  There is no such thing as a rational basis against theism.  One is
objective, the other is subjective.  Is there a rational basis against
liking Francis Bacon's paintings?  I don't think so.

And the quote you provided supports my contention.  Yes, static
representations destroy Theism.  I have stated this before.  The paragraph
is towards religion, I have said that as well.  The cat and dog metaphor is
exactly what is going on here, and this is supposed to be philosophy not
priesthood.  Are you disturbed by my presence here, unpredictable and
uncontrollable?  Are you a bishop of some kind?  You are subscribing to
static interpretations of MOQ, not me.  I wonder why you used that quote.

Cheers,
Mark

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>