[MD] Un-Pure Experience

[David Thomas]

On 10/27/13 9:18 PM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> dmb  says:
> Well, no. Pirsig says Dynamic Quality IS a direct experience and it IS the
> mystic reality

[Dave]
Ok, just show me where James suggests that "pure experience" IS the mystic
reality.

What James does say is that "mystic (religious) experiences" are real,
transient, ineffable, noetic, and passive. But they are only one type of
experience and given these characteristics should not be taken to be the
sole authority or better authority of "reality as it really is."

In fact James isolation of "religious experience" has been specifically
criticized as NOT conforming to Buddhist non-duality here:

"The notion of "religious experience" was adopted by many scholars of
religion, of which William James was the most influential.[7][note 1]

Criticism

"The notion of "experience" has been criticized.[12][13][14] Robert Sharf
points out that "experience" is a typical Western term, which has found its
way into Asian religiosity via western influences.[12][note 2] The notion of
"experience" introduces a false notion of duality between "experiencer" and
"experienced", whereas the essence of kensho is the realization of the
"non-duality" of observer and observed.[16][17]"

Many authors then goes on to directly ding James' idea:

"Pure experience" does not exist; all experience is mediated by intellectual
and cognitive activity.[18][19] The specific teachings and practices of a
specific tradition may even determine what "experience" someone has, which
means that this "experience" is not the proof of the teaching, but a result
of the teaching.[20] A pure consciousness without concepts, reached by
"cleaning the doors of perception",[note 3] would be an overwhelming chaos
of sensory input without coherence.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMohr2000
284-25

An if you look at numbered notes they are all from writer's talking about
Zen and viewing James "pure experience" negatively in relation to Zen.

So you and Pirsig can jump up and down and claim that James intended his
"pure experience" to be mystical, analogous to kensho, satori, nirvana etc
but it just ain't so. And you have given me NO references in James work that
he says this is what he meant.

The Introduction to "The Writings of William James-McDermott" says:
"We should pay special heed to the warning of Julius Bixler: "the isolated
reference from James is always unreliable." [because] "They have led us into
reading his popular works without benefit of the complex reasoning process
that enabled him to offer such imaginative and relevant philosophical hints"

This is exactly what Pirsig does and you defend. And we haven't even got
into James distrust of "monism," defense of "pluralism" or arguments against
the "rationalist" approach to philosophy which Pirsig's process closely
resembles.

But I'm not really interested in pursuing this because no amount of evidence
will sway your fervent faith. And that's what belief in both Zen and the MoQ
require. If James were alive he would catalog both as the results of some
variety of religious experience, but not philosophy. But he would also
defend your right to believe either one or both.