{"id":1571,"date":"2019-09-21T17:10:16","date_gmt":"2019-09-21T16:10:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/?p=1571"},"modified":"2019-09-21T17:10:16","modified_gmt":"2019-09-21T16:10:16","slug":"response-to-roman-glass","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/?p=1571","title":{"rendered":"Response to &#8220;Roman Glass&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>This follows on my <a href=\"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/?p=1566\">&#8220;Looking through Roman Glass&#8221;<\/a>. I posted a link to that piece in the closed facebook group dealing with the course Pete Rollins is running, and which prompted that writing. Pete then came up with a very spirited response, which was as follows:- <\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p><em>&#8221; I tend to think  that mystical experience is a very common (I&#8217;d even say universal) human  experience. I&#8217;ve always like Gabriel Marcel, who in his essay &#8220;On the  Ontological Mystery&#8221; brilliantly shows how mystery (which he calls the  &#8220;ontological need&#8221;), is at work always  in the subject, even though it is often in a repressed or minimal way.  But it is experienced at various times when (to name only a few), in  morality we are caught up in the experience of an act that is beyond  utilitarian value, in love, which moves us beyond the assessment of  someone in terms of their qualities, in religion, who one feels absolute  dependence, in art, when one is taken into the iconic nature of the  work&#8230; etc. Because I believe the mystical experience &#8211; or ontological  need &#8211; is a universal, I am very skeptical of anyone who claims  privileged access to it. Like Tillich, I would say that we only need to  pay attention to our lives in order to see our participation in it &#8211;  even if this participation is rudimentary. So, I&#8217;d lay aside the idea of  a special class of people who experience something that others do not,  and turn to the question of what this experience is. In the worlds of  Perennial Philosophy, Psychedelic Enlightenment, New Age, and even in  Kant. the mystical experience is an experience of a limit (the Kantian  Sublime). But I think that even a conservative like Marcel sees this as  wrong, mysticism is not the limit&#8230; the seeing through a glass darkly,  it is the seeing &#8216;fully&#8217; that Paul talks about. I write about this in  The Divine Magician, but to sumerise, the misreading of Pauls &#8216;Dark  Glass&#8217; is the assumption that there is something behind it, rather than  the idea that the dark glass is what creates the illusion that there is  something behind it. The conservative reading that Paul is saying that  the dark glass refers to &#8216;General Revelation&#8217;, is then closed to the  truth than the liberal idea that it refers to our current state. Paul is  saying that &#8216;Specific Revelation&#8217; is the moment in which we see through  the dark glass. The mistake of confessional theology is to think that  this is the point at which we see that substantive reality is there,  when the revelation is that substantive reality is subject. This is all  very provisional and would need unpacked. I was thinking about doing a  seminar on the Dark Glass, maybe I&#8217;ll try that for the next pyroseminar.&#8221; <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>My own response to that was this:-<br> <br>Well, that&#8217;s an interesting and forceful rejoinder.<br><br>I  might make a distinction between mystical experience and peak mystical  experience here (and when I refer to people as mystics, I mean those who  have had peak mystical experiences and whose worldview is largely  shaped by those).<br><br>Looking around in the 60s for  fellow mystics, I found very, very few. I did, however, find quite a  number of theologically minded people who basically denied that  mysticism existed (they&#8217;d not experienced anything like that, mystics  were unable to tell them exactly how to have such an experience, so  obviously it didn&#8217;t happen). Others tried to downplay the impact of a  peak mystical experience, probably aided in that by mystics saying  &#8220;well, it&#8217;s a bit like&#8230;&#8221; Yes, there are parallels with, for instance,  aesthetic appreciation (I list a few in my post), and most people can  relate to one or all of those, but they are not equivalent to peak  mystical experience in much the same way that a mild buzz from a glass  of good whisky is not the same as a psilocybin trip (and even that may  be too similar to express the experiential gap). <br><br>I  am, in other words, telling you what (for instance) William James  identified when studying mystics, that mystical experience IS a  particular category of experience which is not really very much like any  other, and that in my considerable experience of talking with people  about their spiritual experience, looking for other mystics, I have  found it to be very much a minority who have such experiences. That  said, there do seem to be more people these days who will state that  they have had a mystical experience than was the case 50 years ago, and  certainly more people are prepared to talk about mysticism as if it is a  particular mode of perception.<br><br>I have not seen the  detail of the questions used in surveys which return those results,  though, and I suspect that if the questioners set the boundaries of  &#8220;mystical experience&#8221; widely, they may be including in their figures,  for instance, those who feel a certain frisson when viewing a panoramic  view, or whose world is turned upside-down by falling in love. They may  be in some ways similar, but (using James&#8217; terminology) they tend to be  distinguishable as they lack the noetic quality. As, to my eyes, do the  examples you use above.<br><br>It may therefore be that  there is no room for further discussion here, as you invalidate the  means of perception which is the whole basis of my own thinking; if I am  not seeing something special, there is obviously no need to engage with  what I say about it. Indeed, I may be being very foolish in trying to  engage with your work at all. <br><br>However, for at least the time being I intend to persevere. <br><br>Now,  firstly, mystics will commonly report a very few peak experiences  during their lives &#8211; I know of a few who have only had one, but have  based their entire lives thereafter on that one experience. They will,  however, often report much more minor experiences which partake of some  of the quality of the original, and which revive some of the force of  it, on a regular basis. This may, I think, be analagous to the common  experience range which you talk of. These I have in the past described  as &#8220;an edge of&#8221; a full mystical experience, and I found myself that a  regime of meditation and contemplation could keep up such experiences on  a regular basis. The trouble is, from my point of view, these are  &#8220;mysticism lite&#8221;, mysticism without most of the information-carrying  aspect and without the transformative impact (though they might serve to  maintain a transformation).<br><br>Now, I am not a  philosopher by training, so I can&#8217;t engage with your comments about  Marcel or Kant, at least not at the moment, having not read them. I also  do not peg Tillich as a mystic, particularly as he seems (like you) to  reject mysticism. Paul, however, I can talk of a bit, particularly as he  is identified by several writers on mysticism as having been a mystic  himself (and, in some of his writing, I think I can identify that source  of inspiration). I can therefore unhesitatingly identify Paul&#8217;s writing  about &#8220;through a glass, darkly&#8221; as pointing at the distinction between  the noetic content of mysticism and the inability to express it  adequately (which James calls &#8220;ineffable&#8221;). I can very easily relate to  the information content of the mystical experience as &#8220;seeing clearly&#8221;  and that of the rest of the time as being &#8220;through a glass, darkly&#8221;.<br><br>Like  you, however, I tend to materialist readings, so I&#8217;ll be more generous  than you and not characterise your suggestion that there&#8217;s nothing  behind the glass as a misreading &#8211; it&#8217;s merely another reading. It&#8217;s one  which doesn&#8217;t resonate with me, but hey, the author is dead, so&#8230;<br><br>So,  why am I persevering here? Well, for one thing, I like your humour and  your putting of complex philsophical ideas in terms I can at least  sometimes (and somewhat) understand. I like the exploration of the  absurd and apparent contradictions. More, though, I look for you coming  up with forms of words which, while they may not analytically work,  nonetheless *do something* which brings one of those &#8220;aha&#8221; moments.<br><br>And I think you could probably do with a mystic harrassing you when you talk about mystics&#8230; <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This follows on my &#8220;Looking through Roman Glass&#8221;. I posted a link to that piece in the closed facebook group dealing with the course Pete Rollins is running, and which prompted that writing. Pete then came up with a very spirited response, which was as follows:- &#8221; I tend to think that mystical experience is [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1571"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1571\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1572,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1571\/revisions\/1572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eyrelines.energion.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}