jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (03/27/85)
I have been following your arguments about religion and the nature of religions or mystical experiences and I would like to offer some of my own experience as a means of shedding light on your discussion (or perhaps just confusing it further). One of your particular sore points seems to center on perception of phenomena, perception of a higher power or whatever. Human perception can vary widely and yet still be valid, and as an example of this, I would like to describe my own experiences as a synesthetic. Synesthesia, for those who are not familiar with it, is the condition of having sensual cross-over, physical perceptions that overlap. A person may see colors when she hears music, hear sounds when she tastes something, taste something when she sees a particular color etc. I tend to see colors when I listen to music and taste flavors when I see colors. I also strongly associate colors with alphanumerics. This phenomenon has been studied widely by psychologists and neurophysiologist for the last 80 years, and is recognised as a valid condition. (For an excellent account of the experiences of one synesthete, I refer you to A. Luria's "Memoirs of a Mnemonist"). The problem with it is that I cannot exactly explain my perceptions to anyone else, nor can I prove without any doubt that this is in fact how I perceive things, and that I am not making the whole thing up. To me, since I have been synesthetic all my life (not through the use of drugs, as some people have done), this is perfectly natural. When I was a child, I thought everyone saw the world the way I did and was quite surprised to find they didn't. Unfortunately, not only can I not fully communicate my perceptions to a "normal" person, but I will still not see and hear and taste the way another synesthete would - no two are alike (though some reactions tend to be more common than others). Now, what does this have to do with religion and mysticism (I am not, by the way, claiming that my experiences are in any way religious or mystical, though the discovery that a certain passage in a Dvorak serenade smelled of lilacs came very close !) ? The point I am trying to make is that the human mind is capable of a large range of sensation and action that cannot necessarily be pinned down, examined under a microscope and "proven" as always true, even though it can still be considered valid and real. A number of experiences which can be considered mystical fall into this category. Whole varieties of trance states have been studied, even though they are not identical from individual to individual. I participated in a study on brain-waves once and learned that one can control alpha wave generation with very little effort and in fact exert enough control to produce electronic music and so forth. This same control of alpha states is a part of the mysticism practised by many religious groups, who call it by different names. I think that both of you might find more common ground if you choose to re-examine what you know and how you thing about and evaluate perceptions. Because of the inescapable subjectiveness of the subject, it is much harder to say that one position is "dead, dead wrong" and another completely correct, yet its being subjective in nature does not automatically deem it suspect. -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."