Let me say right here that I AM NOT A MYSTIC. I don't have firsthand experience of Brahman (yet). I am not a master of meditation. I am only a philosopher (at least I like to think so) attempting to understand different states of consciousness, and applying rationality to the insights gained in what little meditation I have done. There are a few reasons as to why I think this is a legitimate thing to do:
1. Direct experience does NOT translate into correct rationalization, though it may help it along. Many of the arguments and rationalizations of mysticism and non-duality, etc. are unconvincing or missing important aspects or unable to be squared with dialectical Marxism, which I hold at this point as the basis of truth/reality (in other words, I know it works, in whatever non-utiliatarian way I might possibly mean by that).
2. There are certain intellectual aporias that characterize different ages of thought, and I believe ours to be the subjective/objective or identity/difference or whatever name you want to ascribe to the duality. It must be transcended, and this must be done on its own terms, a historical continuity. The question of our historical period must be answered. It must be sublated. This is obviously very difficult and I doubt I can do it, but why not try?
3. I like mysticism and I like Marxism, so that's a pretty good justification, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment