Selling mysticism

I’m not even sure how, but somehow in bouncing around the forums, I came across this from Uccisore. I think it’s very important:

I have a tendency, as some of you know, to consider things from a sales and marketing perspective (an occupational hazard). And it occurs to me that Uccisore is right. Eastern philosophy seems to have done a poor job of communicating itself to the West. There’s a tendency, of course, to blame the West for its lack of understanding. And yet a major rule that we have in marketing is that if the people aren’t getting the message, the problem is not with the people…the problem is with the message and how it is being delivered. Believing otherwise is arrogance.

Why has there been such a lack of communication? Why has Eastern philosophy not been able to put itself into a language that the West can understand? Oh sure, there have been the occasional exceptions like an Alan Watts or some such person, who empathized (a key characteristic one simply must possess if one is serious about communicating ideas) with his western audience, thus enabling him to translate ideas in a way that could be understood by that audience.

But this has been rare.

What’s the deal here? Why the lack of communication? Is it arrogance, self-absorption, lack of empathy, or something else? Why does Uccisore, in other words, have the perception that he does? Uccisore is obviously smart. One can’t simply dismiss the Uccisores of the world and say, “Oh, well, he’s just never going to understand.” That just won’t do, I don’t think.

Now, I use the word mysticism and talk of Eastern philosophy but the same goes for western brands of mysticism. Christian Mysticism suffers from the same problem, it seems to me, as I am sure Uccisore would agree.

Anybody care to comment?

i agree. but if you are interested, there’s a book called “tao of pooh” and “te of piglet” (sold together and seperately of course) which although it is complete and utter crap is at least plainly spoken.

You might have better luck going straight to the source for other stuff; read direct translations of eastern texts.

Hi oreso. I’m not looking for direction is this regard myself, you understand. I’m just lamenting the fact that eastern philosophy has been so poorly presented, in my opinion, to the west.

Hi Jerry,

I am no mystic (although I do find it an interesting subject) but I believe one of the problems is that the subject matter is difficult to discuss in a straight forward manner. Eastern (and Western) mysticism, from my limited knowledge, revolves a lot around experience, and ‘transcending’ the everyday mind/ego. Because these experiences aim to ‘go beyond’ the everyday mind (and hence everyday language), it seems to me that language will always have difficulty in describing such things.

What do you think?

anything that makes sense can be stated plainly, even if it is just a practical instruction

Do you believe language (and the human grasp on language) is so perfect that it can describe every experience with clarity?

Erm, well yeah.

Sure there are obscure sensations that are hard to get precisely, but even they are not impossible to relate.

Besides, im not asking for a specific description of a particular someone’s experience, i want to know about the universe, etc and what i should do about my place within it and why.

From my understanding, mysticism seeks to answer those questions through personal experience, not through second hand knowledge passed from one person to another.

Eh? thats why we have books, information no longer has to go from word of mouth, instead clever folk can record their findings for all to see. What prevents mystics doing the same?

I think there are several problems here,

1. The west entered eastern philosophy late in the game. Western philosophy has a specific language that it uses that, without history, sounds like complete gobbledegook. Try reading deconstructionist or certain Transcendentalist literature and you’ll see what I mean. If one were to translate these without their context, they also would not make any sense.
2. Missionaries. At least with Confucianism, missionaries translated the texts with a very specific agenda. This leads to some very clumsy renderings (li as principle, ren as benevolence, ect.).
3. Proto-logic. Since the translated texts we get are either very ancient or very modern, we are either exposed to early proto-logic (mostly influenced by Mohist logic, where the basic principe was A, A; B, B, where A related to B as A relates to B). Or it is very modern, see 1.
4. Traditions are presented as monolithic wholes, when they are not. Laozi (not a single person, btw) is a very differnent differnet kind of Daoist than Shengzi. Laozi wanted wu-wei style government (it has been suggested that the western laisse faire stems from wu-wei), whereas Shengzi advocated a kind of super-state. Because of this, later members of the system might seem contradictory since they take aspects from both philosophers.
5. Translation. It’s tough to translate these texts. No way around this.
6. Freakin’ wierd subject matter. A lot of metaphysical assumptions in eastern philosophy are kinda out there from a western perspective. Since these were adopted without argument in the east, it becomes difficult to argue them. East: If we accept A, then naturally it follows that . . .
   West: But I don’t accept A.
   East: Oh. I guess we have a problem then.
   West: How about B?
   East: No.
   West: Well, how about I colonize you and keep telling you that you are inferior?
   East: How can we argue with that? Let me discuss A in terms of B, and B in terms of A?
   West: Still doesn’t make sense
   East: I am Christ’s younger brother. Bwahahahahaha! Follow me! (Actually happened)

You’re missing my point. When I said “second hand knowledge passed from one person to another” I did not necessarily mean verbal communication. What I mean is the expriences mystisicm discusses need to be personal, and by their very nature need to be experienced personally to be understood (supposedly).

I addressed that question in my first post.

I was going to use this as the body of another thread, but since Jerry pre-empted me, I’ll toss it out for consideration. It addresses a specific understanding ‘problem’ and is by no means an explanation of the all of the differences and difficulties behind eastern and western thought, but it may give a glimpse of at least one of the issues.

A possible point: Eastern thought and those who teach or speak about it, really don’t care whether the western head ‘gets it’ or not. They are quite happy and secure in their understanding, and if there is a problem, it is ours.

Anyway, take a look. I’ll entertain all questions comments and crticisms as best I can. No fighting in line, please.

Eastern philosophies often speak of the value of ‘not knowing’ or ‘no knowledge’ which is most often interpreted in western thinking as an ‘ignorance is bliss’ statement. This is connected to the western cosmology that emphasizes a single point creation/creator, or one-behind-many ordered and determined universe. Western thinking revolves around an objectified universe with principles, natural laws, and categories. All can be known and fits into pre-determined patterns of knowing. Anything that exists can be known, and it follows that anything that cannot be known does not exist. To say no-knowledge is to advocate deliberate ignorance. Such a pattern of thinking rejects a founding principle behind eastern thought.

Conversely, eastern thinking is acosmotic -ie- it rejects the concept of a single point created universe that is embedded in ontological presence. Rather, it is founded on an understanding of a processual universe, where ‘objects’ are seen as coming into being, maturing, and returning, and can only be ‘known’ in their uniqueness in the moment. All that can be known is in constant flux and defines and is defined by all interrelationships in any given experience. In eastern thought, no-knowledge is far from ignorance. It is an awareness that allows experience to come without the fetters of predetermination. It is the seeing of experience as always new, and with the full potential of novelty and spontaneity . It asks for, and provides a way of seeing experience as it is without categorizing, cataloguing, and knowing all beforehand.

Eastern no-knowledge has no does - does not existence. All knowing is immediate and contingent and relies on awareness and understanding and all knowledge is seen as present or merely absent. No-knowledge belongs to a dynamic ever-changing momentary now and relieves us of the burden of attempting to hold the knowing of a static ‘knowable’ universe. No-knowledge is ’unprincipled’ knowing, percepts without precepts colored by predetermination. Having no-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom.

JT

Hi, NoelyG. Well, I think you might be right but my love affair with the English language precludes me from thinking it can’t be done. Anything can be described, even if it takes poetry to convey what one wants to say. But even if not, certainly language understandable to the western philosophical mind should at least be able to take the person to the doorstep. Maybe the person needs to walk through the door himself and experience for himself what it is that’s being described, but at least somebody ought to be able to put together an argument that says, this is where the door is and this is why you should open it. That’s what seems to be missing, in my view

JT, I think you’ve done a yeoman’s job above of delineating the two fundamental points of view. And this makes sense to me, as someone who has studied both points of view. I would imagine it would make sense to somebody with a typical western point of view who has not studied the eastern point of view. You have avoided, to my thinking anyway, Uccisore’s “gobbledegook.”

And so the question remains, if Tentative can explain it why do others have such a hard time explaining it? Why do these ideas get so lost in translation? You may have hit upon something here:

But now I’m back to my sales and marketing perspective. Isn’t there some sense of responsibility for getting these ideas across? Doesn’t an understanding of ideas, ideas one cherishes and loves and knows well, produce some sense of wanting to share the ideas to others? And if so, isn’t there some sense of wanting to do the job right and make certain that one is understood?

Jerry

But this makes Jesus arrogant.

For whatever reason the message is rejected. There can be a great many reasons for this I don’t see this as either arrogance or lack of a good PR committee but natural for the collective human condition.

Approval by telling people what they want to hear doesn’t necessarily translate into value. Perhaps our gullibility is underestimated and easily taken advantage of. Consider this wonderful description of the demagogue:

I’ve noticed a tendency in eastern philosophy interpreted in the West has either become secular or ventures into escapism. But if you consider texts on Buddhist cosmology or Arjuna’s question in the Gita, this is not the case.

Christianity has devolved into Christendom and I don’t know if words for the equivalent in eastern beliefs have been coined yet.

My guess is that over time as the eastern traditions become more watered down in the West, they will become more acceptable but like Christianity, their essences will remain alive but hidden giving real meaning to the expression “seek and ye shall find.” Our obligation will be to understand rather than the natural inclination to be validated

You know, Nick, this might be as good an answer as there is to my question, and I would have no problem accepting it. Essentially you’re saying that with this particular subject matter, the answers are only available to those who truly want to take the time and effort to seek them out.

As unsatisfying as that may be to my natural inclination to want to explain things to people and sell them on my ideas, and my assumption that others feel the same, I think I could be okay with this. Maybe.

Hi Jerry,

No small part of the problem is that my ‘explanation’ is short about another four pages… One would have to emmerse themselves in the history, social, and cultural idioms existent at the time these ideas emerged. Anything I have said barely scratches the surface, but if it piques interest in going a bit further, a bit deeper, then it serves its purpose.

Back to the “selling” issue. There is nothing obscure or mystical about eastern thought. Those are simply western determinations that allows one to dismiss what is really there. Without at least a reasonable grasp of the cultures that produced eastern philosophy, there is not going to be any understanding of the words or concepts presented. The problem isn’t with eastern thought, but our unwillingness to look deeply enough to understand it. It is little different than those who read the surface literalism of the bible, and never study enough to get past a surface understanding.

Eastern philosophy simply doesn’t fit a Reader’s Digest format, and Wikipedia won’t get it either.

You sell and market. Please explain, in ten minutes, the engineering advantages of a Porsche over a Ford when all I want is to get to work in the morning…

JT

Jerry, you’ve enticed me.

I do not believe this is a ‘Western’ mind versus ‘Eastern’ mind issue. I have a ‘Western’ mind, in a very complete way, but my affinity is to that of ‘Eastern’ philosophy. Quite naturally I might add, I never really sought it out and still to this day after years and years, I’m not seeking out Eastern thought over Western thought. For me, there is something quite fundamental which exists in the world and that thing I find is best reflected in Eastern thought. Not because they have a better way of expressing it, but rather because they have a more complete way of expressing it. I don’t want to be of the ‘I understand because I understand’ school although I am aware that I am dangerously close to this kind of thinking. There is something in the way that Eastern philosophy is expressed that speaks to my body, my body of feeling. It makes sense on a physical level and this understanding seems to be reflected in my observations of nature. When I walk through the forest, I can almost see the energy of Tao - although this is not really the case as Tao cannot be touched, nor seen, or named. But it is almost tangible. The thing that causes the grass to grow or my heart to beat, it’s completely obvious to me. In this way, I can ‘see’ it. So when the Tao says “The name that cannot be named”, I identify. It’s not an intellectual exercise, I believe that one uses a completely different part of one’s cognition.

I suppose what I’m trying to get at is that the fundamental difference (and I may of course be wrong) is that Western thought is an intellectual exercise whereas Eastern thought is engaged with practice. It is only through practice that one is able to penetrate the meaning so that the meaning is understood in every cell of the body, it becomes a knowledge of experience (wisdom) rather than knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Of course there is no way to bring this ‘wisdom’ into the objective reality of the listener as our wisdom must come from our own experience. So trying to market Zen or Tao is not the Way. The Way must be walked to be able to express it. And of course, reading this now, I realise that all of this must sound like gobbledygook!

A

The Dao cannot broaden a man, but a man can broaden the Dao. Que zither music

Nice. But this broadening cannot be verbal, it can only be manifested.

A