I'm puzzled by the lack of a distinction between construct and experience. A construct is conceptual and in the examples here smacks of theology. An experience is something else. I appreciate the Zen story and commentary, but this might be more complicated than what is presented here.
Thanks, Nancy, a great insight. I'm not sure I can respond concisely enough for a comment reply, so this might be fuel for a future post. But trying to be brief, I would say that I believe there is no such thing as a "pure" experience separate from our mental and philosophical constructs: every human experience from the emergence of language is shaped by language, which means, shaped by our stories and constructs. I'm suggesting that when we say "God disappears" we are saying that our image (construction) of God disappears — and that is just as true when we say "I disappear." Now, it's not just what we say, it's also what we experience... but even if it were possible to have a pure experience without language/construct/story, as soon as we try to share that with someone else (or even reflect on it ourselves), we fall back into the world of language, therefore the world of construct, image, story. Is it more complicated than what I presented in my post? Absolutely. But no matter how nuanced our understanding might be, I don't see how it is possible to have, let alone communicate, an experience without a construct. Of course, this makes me a strong postmodernist, and all I can say is, guilty as charged. If you'd like to dive deeper into the philosophy that undergirds my understanding of mysticism and experience, read "Mysticism After Modernity" by Don Cupitt. A very simple book but utterly foundational for me.
I'm puzzled by the lack of a distinction between construct and experience. A construct is conceptual and in the examples here smacks of theology. An experience is something else. I appreciate the Zen story and commentary, but this might be more complicated than what is presented here.
Nancy Mujo Baker
Thanks, Nancy, a great insight. I'm not sure I can respond concisely enough for a comment reply, so this might be fuel for a future post. But trying to be brief, I would say that I believe there is no such thing as a "pure" experience separate from our mental and philosophical constructs: every human experience from the emergence of language is shaped by language, which means, shaped by our stories and constructs. I'm suggesting that when we say "God disappears" we are saying that our image (construction) of God disappears — and that is just as true when we say "I disappear." Now, it's not just what we say, it's also what we experience... but even if it were possible to have a pure experience without language/construct/story, as soon as we try to share that with someone else (or even reflect on it ourselves), we fall back into the world of language, therefore the world of construct, image, story. Is it more complicated than what I presented in my post? Absolutely. But no matter how nuanced our understanding might be, I don't see how it is possible to have, let alone communicate, an experience without a construct. Of course, this makes me a strong postmodernist, and all I can say is, guilty as charged. If you'd like to dive deeper into the philosophy that undergirds my understanding of mysticism and experience, read "Mysticism After Modernity" by Don Cupitt. A very simple book but utterly foundational for me.