James, Week 1, Lectures 1&2

[Chris]

WOW!! There is so much discourse already on these opening chapters that I can hardly keep up with all the conversation to reply. So I'll just put in my initial thoughts after I completed the first chapter, before I read everyone's comments.

I too, have tried to keep in mind that James from the get-go clearly said he wanted to discuss the psychology of religious experience, which is personal, vs dissecting any organized religion. In the day, I can see where this would be quite extraordinary as most people were brought up in a particular religion and usually did not stray from that faith community as they moved into adulthood; not doing a lot of personal spiritual reflection outside of the boundaries of what they had been taught: as is more common in contemporary times. I thought it provocative that he wants to have this inquiry of religious feeling & impulses and then elicit meaning/importance/significance of that experience. Did I understand that he says how to determine that significance or value is the use of "philosophical reasonableness & moral helpfulness"?

I liked his comment on the bible " it is a revelation in spite of errors, passions & deliberate human composition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled persons wrestling with the crisis of their faith."

I was also taken with the an area he says he will explore further "there are moments of sentimental & mystical experience...that carry an enormous sense of inner authority & illumination with them when they come. But they come seldom, and they do not come to everyone; and the rest of life makes either no connection with them, or tends to contradict them more than it confirms them." Look forward to that discussion.

Haven't had a chance to look up Annie Besant but loved her quote: "Someone ought to do it, but why should I? Someone ought to do it, so why not I/ Between these two sentences lie whole centuries of moral evolution."

Lastly, I had to smile when in this scholarly treatise, James uses the word "bugaboo"!!! HA!

[David]

Kerstin wrote: "What James is touching upon here is that Christianity is a very joyful religion. "

Tell that to the Puritans. :) Maybe they took Jame's definition of the divine is something solemn and grave too seriously.

To a Stoic, being too joyful, or striving to be so, was a perturbation and all passions, not just bad passions were to be avoided. Stoicism was a doctrine of endurance, not hope.

[David]

Kenneth wrote: "there have not been any joyless Saints."

I am tempted to accept that even though it is a bit of tautological misdirection being that "joyful", however you stretch the term, is a qualification for sainthood, is it not? A miserable poster child is just bad marketing. Despite this thought, I am not convinced there have not been any joyless saints. For one, there are too many to have all been joyful. For another there seems good evidence there was much self-multilation in the church at times that would belie any notion of a reasonable definition of joyfulness.

This is no mere sadomasochistic fantasy: a vast body of evidence confirms that such theaters of pain, the ritualized heirs to St. Benedict’s spontaneous roll in the stinging nettles, were widespread in the late Middle Ages. They were noted again and again as a distinctive mark of holiness. St. Teresa, “although she was slowly wasting away, tormented herself with the most painful whips, frequently rubbed herself with fresh stinging nettles, and even rolled about naked in thorns.” St. Clare of Assisi “tore apart the alabaster container of her body with a whip for forty-two years, and from her wounds there arose heavenly odors that filled the church.” St. Dominic cut into his flesh every night with a whip affixed with three iron chains. St. Ignatius of Loyola recommended whips with relatively thin straps, “summoning pain into the flesh, but not into the bones.” Henry Suso, who carved the name of Jesus on his chest, had an iron cross fixed with nails pressed into his back and whipped himself until the blood flowed. Suso’s contemporary, Elsbeth of Oye, a nun from Zurich, whipped herself so energetically that the bystanders in the chapel were spattered with her blood.

Greenblatt, Stephen. The Swerve: How the World Became Modern . W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

[Nemo]

Kerstin wrote: "I wouldn't mind reading Augustine with the group sometime..."

Augustine's Confessions came close to being selected for group read a few times in the past. But I think he deserves his own group. :)

[Everyman]

Dianna wrote: "I have a problem with the idea of someone being a "true believer". That just seems so narrow minded to me."

I understand your thought, and it's perfectly valid, but the phrasing you used is perhaps a bit less sensitive than the matter merits. Certainly I see nobody in this discussion who is narrow minded, and I don't think it's helpful to suggest that anybody might be (even if that wasn't your intent, it came across a bit that way).

That said, I do think it's fair to ask as we get into the work whether his concepts are sufficiently universal to include the true believer. But perhaps that is better addressed as he gets into the details of specific instances of religious experience.

[Everyman]

David wrote: "James criticism of medical materialism in defense of the mental unsoundness of persons of religious genius is interesting. He seems to both set it up as a straw man argument and then he takes it a ..."

Well said. I thought as I read it that there must have been a fairly active school of thought claiming that religion was all a function of unsound mind or medical anomaly that he felt the need to tackle it head on. It wasn't the most valuable passage for me, since I don't see that as a significant school of thought today, though I'm sure it hangs on in some areas.

[Everyman]

Rosemarie wrote: "My question is this: if a person who is not religious and does not believe in a higher Being has a religious experience, does it change her feelings or ideas about God? .."

Marvelous question. I suspect he may address it somewhat when he gets to the next sections where he quotes at some length from the actual expressions of religious experience. But a question well worth keeping in mind.

I actually had a sort of similar question when I was reading his passages about great happiness or joy marking a religious experience and wondered whether it was possible a) for an atheist to have an experience of joy or happiness on that level, and b) if they did, as you say, would that challenge their atheism in their minds?

[Everyman]

Kenneth wrote: "I would still assert, despite Rex's comment, that a true believer will not be able to assert that the religious experiences of his co-religionists is the same as that of others... because a true believer would believe that God is speaking directly through their creed and ONLY through their creed... even if He speaks sometimes indirectly to other people. ."

Hasn't the Pope even accepted that people of other faiths can have genuine religious beliefs and experiences? And the 2nd Vatican Council in the 1960s listed tenets of Islam which the Catholic Church shares. And he has often prayed with people of various faiths; if he didn't believe that they had any legitimate avenue to God, it's not clear to me why he would pray with them.

I'm not personally certain that Pope Francis would say that no Muslim, no Quaker, no Buddhist can ever have a genuine religious experience of God.

[Everyman]

Dianna wrote: "I would think if a person has their mind made up about what is a "true religious experience" and what is not they would not get much out of this particular book. "

I was trying to find a nice way of making that point, but you saved me the trouble.

And whether some people do or don't believe that you can separate personal religion from institutional religion, it's going to be hard, I think, to understand James's arguments if you aren't willing to go with his premises and see where they take him.

[Everyman]

Kenneth wrote: "Janice challenged me, personally, to be more open, and that not doing so could hinder what I learn. I simply challenged back that in certain faiths, such as mine, there are some (many?) things about which openness is not an option."

Openness in your own mind may not be an option. But criticizing openness in the minds of others when it doesn't match yours is unacceptable.

[Everyman]

Kerstin wrote: "James takes the liberty of isolating religious experience and looks at a few defined criteria. There is nothing wrong with this per se as long as it is ultimately re-united within its proper context. ."

I'm not sure he will, and I'm not sure he should. He is, after all, a psychologist, not a theologian or philosopher. He is concerned with what is happening in the individual mind when it has what he calls a religious experience. That's ALL, as I read him, that he's interested in (and it's a plenty big enough topic, IMO!)

Whatever he discovers in the next seven weeks of our reading, if he were to try to "re-unite it in its proper context" he would have, I think, to go far beyond the individual psychology of religious experience. I don't think it's his job to go there, and I'm not sure he's qualified to.

[Everyman]

Janice(JG) wrote: "James says in these lectures he is not speaking of the ordinary religious believer,

"I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whet..."

Thanks for quoting that. It's a critical passage in clarifying what he is about, and equally important what he is NOT about.

He simply isn't concerned with the thousands or millions of worshipers of genuine belief who fill the pews or meeting house benches or prayer rugs or whatever other area of worship one may be dedicated to. They are vitally central to religion, of course, but not to the peculiar and particular aspect of personal religious experience he wants to focus his psychological scrutiny on.

[Everyman]

Kenneth wrote: "Since this isn't a religious forum, here are the assumptions I am questioning:

1. The idea that all religious/spiritual experiences are inherently comparable."

Can you understand that the content of the religious/spiritual experiences may be incompatible (I don't concede this yet, but allow the assumption) but that the psychological dimensions of the experiences may be comparable?

Someone grieving the loss of a child and somebody else grieving the loss of a parent may be having very different content in their griefs, but they may both be going through very similar psychological processes of grieving.

It's early days yet, and I don't want to assume unreasonably where James is going, but if I understand him so far, he isn't particularly interested in the specific content of the religious experience, whether it is an experience of direct communication with the Christian divine or whether it is a Buddhist experience of nirvanah. He's interested, I think, in what is similar in these two experiences and how they function psychologically in the person having the experience.

Or am I misunderstanding him?

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: Does anyone know if there is anything in his correspondence through his life, or biographical information, that would shed light on any possible mystical event for James? ..."

Tw..."

Great research. Thanks.

[Rosemarie]

Everyman wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "Since this isn't a religious forum, here are the assumptions I am questioning:

1. The idea that all religious/spiritual experiences are inherently comparable."

Can you understand ..."
I just finished reading the second lecture and have the same impression. James is looking at the process of the experience, not the religious beliefs of the individual. He definitely distinguishes between most followers of specific religions and those exceptional individuals who have peculiar(i.e. extraordinary) experiences.

[Rex]

Everyman wrote: "Can you understand that the content of the religious/spiritual experiences may be incompatible (I don't concede this yet, but allow the assumption) but that the psychological dimensions of the experiences may be comparable?"

This is what I was trying to say, though you put it much more clearly here. Kenneth, I agree with you insofar as I believe there is no such a thing as "religion," but rather "religions" whose forms, content, and ways they map onto human experience differ. But there have been neurological and psychological studies done of mystical experiences, NDEs, etc., and there were common patterns regardless of the religion of the subject. Patrick McNamara has written the following:

Although the range of variance in religious experiences across cultures and time epochs is unknown, I find that changes in religious experiences in the sample of subjects that have been studied with cognitive and neuroscientific techniques are, in fact, reliably associated with a complex circuit of neural structures. This, of course, is a remarkable fact. The fact that a particular circuit of brain regions is consistently associated with religious experiences may tell us something about the nature and functions of religion. Whatever else it is, religion is an integral part of human nature and thus religion is not mere delusion. The functionally integrated religion-related brain circuit involves a widely distributed set of neural regions (depending on particular religious behaviors) but nearly always includes the key nodes of the amygdala, the right anterior temporal cortex, and the right prefrontal cortex. Sometimes the subcortical amygdala is not part of the picture, but the hippocampus is. Sometimes one portion of the prefrontal cortex does not “light up” in association with religious practices, whereas another region of the prefrontal cortex will. Sometimes the parietal lobes are implicated, and so on. Nevertheless, in hundreds of clinical cases and a handful of neuroimaging studies, it is a striking fact that the amygdala, large portions of the prefrontal lobes, and the anterior temporal cortex are repeatedly implicated in expression of religious experiences.

I'm a Christian, and I don't believe this is anything to shy away from, and I don't think this line of inquiry can compromise a faith whose claims transcend the psychological.

[Rex]

David wrote: "I am tempted to accept that even though it is a bit of tautological misdirection being that "joyful", however you stretch the term, is a qu..."

I would say, technically, there have been joyless saints (e.g., Justinian), but I don't think this has anything to do with the severe self-treatment you describe. One point of saintly austerities is to demonstrate to themselves and others that divine joy is not incompatible with physical weakness and suffering, that it transcends mortality. The Church east and west has generally discouraged mortifications that would actually damage the body and thus demonstrate hatred toward it. Greenblatt does not mention that Henry Suso and Elsbeth of Oye were dramatizing the excesses of their early spiritual years as a caution against excess. The others in the quote also, in an era of extreme religious fervor among monastics, at various times were cautioned/ordered or decided to curb their austerities. And frankly, it's difficult to read what they wrote and conclude that they were miserable--quite the contrary.

[Nemo]

I was just catching up on the comments here, when I realized that all of Kenneth's comments have been removed and he is no longer a member of this group. What a terrible loss! He is the one person who is not only committed to his religious belief but also willing to share his personal experiences and thoughts candidly with this group, providing a very valuable perspective from within religion.

Everyman wrote in response to Kenneth: "Openness in your own mind may not be an option. But criticizing openness in the minds of others when it doesn't match yours is unacceptable."

FWIW, I think both "openness" and "closedness" are opinions and attitudes that can be criticized fairly and graciously, without personal attacks or disparagement. Kenneth was responding to criticisms of his single-mindedness. Both the criticism and the response are carried out with courtesy and grace, IMO.

[Nemo]

Rex wrote, quoting Patrick McNamara, " ...it is a striking fact that the amygdala, large portions of the prefrontal lobes, and the anterior temporal cortex are repeatedly implicated in expression of religious experiences.."

I see a striking parallel between the modern practice of linking brainscan images with the divine and the ancient Roman practice of examining animal entrails for divine inspiration.

Does an experience induced by drugs such as LSD also count as religious experience?

[[deleted user]]

Nemo wrote: "I was just catching up on the comments here, when I realized that all of Kenneth's comments have been removed and he is no longer a member of this group. What a terrible loss! He is the one person ..."

Perhaps Kenneth is still reading the book and following comments. If so, I would like to say I would like him to return. I very much appreciated his comments.

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "I was just catching up on the comments here, when I realized that all of Kenneth's comments have been removed and he is no longer a member of this group. What a terrible loss! He is the one person ..."

This must have been done by Kenneth himself. I want to be clear that I have not deleted any of his comments or his membership.

[Everyman]

Rex wrote: "...But there have been neurological and psychological studies done of mystical experiences, NDEs, etc., and there were common patterns regardless of the religion of the subject. Patrick McNamara has written the following:..."

Thanks for that passage. It seems that his work in a way is building on James's work, but with the benefit of modern neurological research. The very recent development of FMRI (Functional MRI, where the activity of the brain can be studied in real time as a person undergoes activities or experiences) is offering some incredible insights into how the brain functions.

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "Does an experience induced by drugs such as LSD also count as religious experience?."

If you are asking can it rather than does it, I don't see why not. I would say certainly not in every case, but can it happen in some situations? Why not?

But you imply the key question, of course, as to how does one determine whether an intense experience is a religious experience within the purview of James's definition of the term. I am hoping/expecting that he will address this in future lectures.

[Janice (JG)]

I, too, am sorry Kenneth decided to absent himself from this discussion... I feel as if this might be partially my fault because I thought I was offering alternatives to the "true believer" point of view, but apparently they were seen as criticisms.

I apologize to Kenneth for this, and to everyone else in the group if I have caused any sort of miscommunication or unhappiness. I love this topic, and this discussion with this group, and I may have reacted too eagerly and thoughtlessly in my enthusiasm. Mea culpa.

[Everyman]

Numerous times, James simply asserts propositions without any proof by basically considering them in the nature of Euclidian Common Notion. For example, James writes “There can be no doubt that as a matter of fact a religious life, exclusively pursued, does tend to make the person exceptional and eccentric.” [9] Can there indeed be no doubt about this?

Or, later, he states “at their extreme of development, there can never be any question as to what experiences are religious. The divinity of the object and the solemnity of the reaction are too well marked for doubt.” [33] Is it really so clear that a given state of experience must without any question be religious?

Of course, in any inquiry some things must be assumed [Descartes not to the contrary, but let’s not get into Descartes here!] Are these reasonable assumptions on James’s part? Or is he fudging his data?

[David]

Everyman wrote: "Numerous times, James simply asserts propositions without any proof by basically considering them in the nature of Euclidian Common Notion. For example, James writes “There can be no doubt that as ..."

I thought the same thing. Since reading Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking I am constantly on the lookout for the word "surely" and similar sentiments like, "can there be any question", and "too well marked for doubt".

When you’re reading or skimming argumentative essays, especially by philosophers, here is a quick trick that may save you much time and effort, especially in this age of simple searching by computer: look for “surely” in the document, and check each occurrence. Not always, not even most of the time, but often the word “surely” is as good as a blinking light locating a weak point in the argument, a warning label about a likely boom crutch. Why? Because it marks the very edge of what the author is actually sure about and hopes readers will also be sure about. (If the author were really sure all the readers would agree, it wouldn’t be worth mentioning.) Being at the edge, the author has had to make a judgment call about whether or not to attempt to demonstrate the point at issue, or provide evidence for it, and— because life is short— has decided in favor of bald assertion, with the presumably well-grounded anticipation of agreement. Just the sort of place to find an ill-examined “truism” that isn’t true!

Dennett, Daniel C.. Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking (p. 54). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

For now I will grant grant his assertion of eccentricity keeping in mind he seems to have restricted the scope of his lectures to only those religious persons who are exceptional and eccentric and he has so broadly defined religious experience.

[Kerstin]

Nemo wrote: "I was just catching up on the comments here, when I realized that all of Kenneth's comments have been removed and he is no longer a member of this group. What a terrible loss! He is the one person who is not only committed to his religious belief but also willing to share his personal experiences and thoughts candidly with this group, providing a very valuable perspective from within religion."

Oh no, what a loss!
Kenneth really knows his faith, and he expressed himself very well.

[Kerstin]

Nemo wrote: "I see a striking parallel between the modern practice of linking brainscan images with the divine and the ancient Roman practice of examining animal entrails for divine inspiration. "

Oh my goodness did I just crack up! This is priceless!

[Theresa]

Lily wrote: " I did find language usage one of the initial jolts that reminded me I was reading a late nineteenth century, early twentieth century document and perspective.

I haven't found it particularly jarring myself, but I've been reading other books that are less inclusive so I guess I have gotten used to it again. I must admit I found the response to your comment that called it "politically correct" intimidating and wasn't going to participate in the discussion as a result. That phrase doesn't have much meaning that I can find, except in a disparaging way. It seems on a par with me saying "extremist fundamentalist" in reference to something. Actually, the word fundamentalist has a meaning that is not necessarily disparaging, but "extremist" would be in a category equal to "politically correct".

[Theresa]

Rex wrote: "He is trying to defend religion here from the argument that it reduces to haywire sexual impulses, i.e., against a vulgar "medical materialism," but in so doing asserts a thesis about the primacy of the mind in religious experience that he has yet to prove. .."

Yes, well put. I noticed that too but wasn't sure how to express it.

[Theresa]

Nemo wrote: "Does an experience induced by drugs such as LSD also count as religious experience?
"

I believe Aldous Huxley tried to answer that question with regard to Mescaline in his 1954 book The Doors of Perception. It has been sitting on my shelf awhile but I don't recall having read it in depth.

I often wonder if it is possible to learn anything from a drug induced sense of enlightenment. Does your brain get re-wired the way it does with a religious experience that is not drug induced (but might be hunger induced)? James notes that Saint Teresa said that the validity of her experience could be tested by the complete change in her disposition that followed. People who knew her would have said she was a new person (her permanent change being the fruit of the experience).

[Rex]

David Lewis-Williams's The Mind in the Cave (I know I mentioned this book on some other thread) parallels mystical experiences induced by drugs and those induced by less direct means (fasting, hypnagogia, rhythm, etc.). His explanations and the studies he cited were a bit over my head, but he is a pretty well-known cognitive archaeologist, though I found his treatment of religion a bit reductive in places. A Google search pulled up this paper: http://www.academia.edu/1315374/Psych...

[David]

There are also the "God Helmet" experiments which claim to reproduce certain "experiences" but there has been trouble replicating the study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_hel...

Sam Harris has an interesting article on Drugs and the Meaning of Life where he quotes James.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/ite...

[Kerstin]

Everyman wrote: "Hasn't the Pope even accepted that people of other faiths can have genuine religious beliefs and experiences? And the 2nd Vatican Council in the 1960s listed tenets of Islam which the Catholic Church shares. And he has often prayed with people of various faiths; if he didn't believe that they had any legitimate avenue to God, it's not clear to me why he would pray with them."

This acceptance doesn't hinge on the pope so much, though as the spokesperson of the Catholic Church he will say things like that from time to time, but rather is a logical extension of Catholicism/Christian faith in general.
It is rooted in the understanding that man is made in the image of God. This is applicable to all humankind. This means everyone is able to receive divine love and respond to it, i.e., religious experience. This is the common ground, regardless of culture.

[Chris]

Everyman wrote: The very recent development of FMRI (Functional MRI, where the activity of the brain can be studied in real time as a person undergoes activities or experiences) is offering some incredible insights into how the brain functions.

Yes, it's quite exciting, isn't it?!

[Wendel]

In these first lectures James limits his object to the experience of what he deems "those most accomplished in the religious life", and to what must be the most intense type of religious experience, "direct personal communion with the divine". These two limitations are not unrelated, as the divine is apparently not directly accessible to the rank and file. And that has some broader implications, though James claims to write about individual experience only.

James’ "religious geniuses" are not just the most outspoken believers, but through their direct experience of the divine they are the (sole?) conveyors of transcendental inspiration. Their experience is primordial for every religion, the common believers must be be content with a "second-hand religious life". Compared to individual inspiration, all other aspects of religion are of secondary importance, including ecclesiastical organization and theology. Theology being just a rationalization of inspired emotion, the church an institution of merely practical use.

Not surprising than that James causes unease for some common believers, especially those not sharing his individualistic WASP ethos (conservative catholics among others!). And if we add a few other limitations he puts on true religion, it seems that many varieties of religious experience - not only those that are troubled or lacking the proper solemn and joyful attitude - are excluded in some way or another.^. That does not concern me directly, but I would rather not see my religious friends as watered down versions of James' freaks.

What worries me even more is the prominent place of normative intuition in James’ method. How, for instance, can a bona fide religious genius be detected? Through an appraisal of spiritual value, says James, an assessment that can "… only be ascertained by spiritual judgements directly passed upon them, judgments based on our own immediate feeling primarily; and secondarily on what we can ascertain of their experiential relation to our moral needs and to the rest of what we hold as true."

That’s a far cry from detached research and such spiritual judgements seem standard procedure. A believer may just frown upon them, but for someone not sharing many of James’ basic assumptions it must seem impossible to reach any meaningful conclusions at all this way. Even allowing that this is 1902, when psychology was still an opinionated youngster, I’m not sure yet in which category to put this book. Or whether I will be able - or willing - to finish it.

^ God forbid that we would hear an echo of '"the sick shriekings of (those) two dying rats", Schopenhauer and Nietzsche" - alas, that’s also James.

[Nemo]

Wendel wrote: "What worries me even more is the prominent place of normative intuition in James’ method. How, for instance, can a bona fide religious genius be detected? Through an appraisal of spiritual value, ... That’s a far cry from detached research ..."

James makes an important distinction between the history and composition of a thing, and its spiritual/moral value and significance. Detached research can be carried out with regard to the former, but not the latter, because value judgments are necessarily subjective. Kant would say that we have an a priori moral sense. James is taking it as a starting point of his inquiry into religious experiences. It seems to be a common sense approach.

James stresses that he is not a theologian, philosopher or moralist. He is a psychologist. I do wonder, though, if we take away theology, philosophy and ethics from discussions of religion, what is left there to discuss?

[Nemo]

Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Does an experience induced by drugs such as LSD also count as religious experience?."

If you are asking can it rather than does it, I don't see why not. I would say certainly not in e..."

"All that glisters is not gold." Not all intense experiences are religious experience, though they have the same appearance. James says that we can discern genuine religious experiences by the long-term effect they have on our life and morality. Accordingly, drug-induced experience is not a religious experience.

[Wendel]

Something from Wikipedia concerning James & drugs:

"James investigated mystical experiences throughout his life, leading him to experiment with chloral hydrate (1870), amyl nitrite (1875), nitrous oxide (1882), and peyote (1896). James claimed that it was only when he was under the influence of nitrous oxide that he was able to understand Hegel. He concluded that while the revelations of the mystic hold true, they hold true only for the mystic; for others, they are certainly ideas to be considered, but can hold no claim to truth without personal experience of such."

So nitrous oxide is the key to Hegel! Would it also help with Lacan?

[Everyman]

Wendel wrote: "In these first lectures James limits his object to the experience of what he deems "those most accomplished in the religious life", and to what must be the most intense type of religious experience, "direct personal communion with the divine". These two limitations are not unrelated, as the divine is apparently not directly accessible to the rank and file. And that has some broader implications, though James claims to write about individual experience only."

Thanks for bringing up that point. I was thinking that we might need at some point to discuss aspects of James's decision here. How do we identify which are the most accomplished religious experiencers? (This may link to the question of drug induced mental experiences over in the general thread.) And a side issue, perhaps, is whether anything we learn about these highly accomplished experiencers is transferable to the rest of us.

But I do have to question whether it's really true that "the divine is apparently not directly accessible to the rank and file." Does James believe this, or would he accept that the experience is available to all and that part of his work is to look at the peaks so that he can help others learn to go there? (The first humans to conquer Mt. Everest were highly accomplished and had a unique experience. But the trail they blazed can now be followed by almost anybody who has the desire and the money -- even blind and disabled people have learned enough from the pioneers that they are now also able to summit Everest.)

A core tenet of George Fox and Quakerism is that the divine is accessible to anyone who is a genuine seeker and committed to the search. And if I understand Buddhist philosophy, whereas some people are much more accomplished at meditation, anyone, at least in principle, can learn, with sufficient study and commitment, to meditate to nirvana. (I'm probably putting that very badly, because I only have a cursory knowledge of Buddhism, but I think they do have the principle that it is accessible to anyone with the will and desire.)

[Everyman]

Wendel wrote: "Not surprising than that James causes unease for some common believers, especially those not sharing his individualistic WASP ethos (conservative catholics among others!). .."

I haven't seen that ethos in the work so far; indeed, he seems to have quite consciously included non-Protestants those he will study.

[Nemo]

Theresa wrote: "I often wonder if it is possible to learn anything from a drug induced sense of enlightenment. Does your brain get re-wired the way it does with a religious experience that is not drug induced (but might be hunger induced)? "

I'm not a drug-user nor a mystic, so I cannot claim "the truth" from experience, but only judge by the observable effects of drugs and prayer/fasting (sort of like what James is doing in the book :) ).

Short term use of drugs may have some "enlightening" effect, however, in the long term, drug use causes severe damage to the brain and the body as a whole. By contrast, St. Teresa and other mystics have immersed themselves in the practice of prayer and fasting for their entire life without damaging their physical and mental well-being.

[[deleted user]]

In the spirit of Post #2:

@2 Everyman wrote: It seems to me that this requires the assumption, which it will be interesting to see developed, that the religious experience of a Christian, a Confucian, a Wiccan, and a Muslim are at heart the same experience (or perhaps if not identical, at least similar enough that they can be explored using the same terms and methodologies).

But perhaps not. Perhaps the experiences are NOT the same … perhaps it is the resulting, lasting experience with God or God --- Divinity --- which allows James to sort these people as “similar”… perhaps James is giving us a variety of examples… of “the way”… which vary. But that his point is that the destination of each is “religious”/God/Divine.

I keep re-reading his title. Does he mean a singular experience? But he uses the word varieties… which perhaps implies that the experience differs from one individual to another.

The Varieties of Religious Experience.

mmmm. Maybe parallel to The Varieties of California Vacation Experience.

All who traveled to California would end up in California….but how the individuals arrived there would have a great deal of variation. Even the time spent in California would be vary from person to person… Yet… what they experienced would define for them what a “California Vacation” consists of.

“In other words, not its origin [?? And perhaps not the similarities of the experience??? ] but the way in which it works on the whole” (29). Although perhaps James WILL show that the experiences are similar. I don’t know yet.

Some might have an experience that would propel them to move there permanently. The experience would alter their lives. And that’s one of James’s criteria, yes? That those who have the experience alter their lives (George Fox: “and they struck at my life” (20); they act due to the experience. (Fox founded a new variation of religion.)

Another reason I think that our focus should be more on how life-altering the experience is rather than the experience itself is that James (31) writes “At any rate you must all be ready now to judge the religious life by its results exclusively.” {Aside: that criteria’s of James’s is what makes me discount most drug-induced experiences.

Timothy Leary: Drugs are the Religion of the People--- The Only Hope is Dope. I would suspect that most drug users are using drugs for the experience. Shamans and mystics---I'm guessing--- might use drugs to try to become one with God or closer to God.... But what many people may be after is to simply repeat the experience over and over… w/o having as their goal to reach the Divine. Now maybe the experience has certain similarities, brain-wise, as intense religious experiences do. But that’s mere psychological/ physiological. Where is the spiritual aspect that brings the closer to God/Divinity AND alters their lives as religious people.?)

[[deleted user]]

@6 Lily wrote: but I think my underlying question was more trying to get at the questions that are sure to arise from what has been learned in the 115 years since VAR was published, including the relationships of feeling to thinking and vice versa.

I found that an interesting question, Lily. As it happens, I’m currently re-reading Plato’s Republic. In that book, you know, Socrates seemingly wants the planning and administration of the City run by those who are knowledgeable. And the City is so regimented. So … sterile.

James, I’m suspecting, might be pushing back against the growing influence of Darwinism. Pushing back against the thinking that a belief that wasn’t science, that couldn’t be scientifically proved, should be rejected.

James counters with his examples of religious experience. He seems to say that while the experience itself can’t be scientifically measured, the results can be observed. These people, as a result of what is called a religious experience, have had their lives altered. (George Fox: “and they struck at my life” (20). The “proof” is that they actually do live their lives differently as a result of their experience. (Fox founded a new variation of religion.) “By their fruits ye shall know them” (30)---Rex wrote on this subject at post 12.

[[deleted user]]

Regarding p 32:

"'What shall I think of it?' a common person says to himself about a vexed question; but in a 'cranky' mind 'What shall I do about it?' is the form the question tends to take.

In the auto-biography of the high-souled woman, Mrs. Annie Besant, I read the following passage: 'Plenty of people wish well to any good cause, but very few care to exert themselves to help it, and still fewer will risk anything in its support."

I though of Facebook. All we need to do is to click like and we have something of a psychological payoff that we've done something.

[Catherine]

Everyman wrote: "But I do have to question whether it's really true that "the divine is apparently not directly accessible to the rank and file." Does James believe this, or would he accept that the experience is available to all and that part of his work is to look at the peaks so that he can help others learn to go there?"

I too had that question Everyman. Is this an experience that is only available to the "super heroes" of the religious or is it something that anyone can experience? What then of similar religious experiences of those who are not the religious "super heroes"? Are they invalid or simply lesser experiences? For those who do have this type of experience I would argue that it is not less important to them.

I have not participated in discussions for a while as I started a new job and then that job expanded, but i'm thrilled that we're reading this book. Thank you for choosing it.

[Theresa]

Catherine wrote: "Everyman wrote: "But I do have to question whether it's really true that "the divine is apparently not directly accessible to the rank and file." Does James believe this, or would he accept that th..."

My initial reaction was to feel that way as well. After a bit of thought, I decided my point of view might be more egalitarian oriented because of the time we live in. It may just be that he wants to separate the common religious experience from reports extreme religious experience in order to make the latter easier to study. He may well concede (although I don't see him doing it yet) that common people of faith do have their occasional moments of divine oneness with God - but that these moments don't define their lives in the way that they do for the religioius genius. Their lives are more defined by their social roles - being a dutiful church member, looking after their children, keeping their family prosperous and free of fear. This doesn't mean that they don't have religious experiences that confirm their faith in their chosen religion, but perhaps these minor moments don't get developed in the way that the religious genius's experiences get get developed into something others can follow. I can enjoy creative self expression by dabbling in painting and drawing, some of my artwork might be in a tradition that has been established by some famous artist, but I put my own stamp on it when I do it and the end result is still mine. With the creative genius, they create things that many, many (I won't say everyone) can relate to in some way.

The song Amazing Grace has been known to put people in touch with their dormant religious feelings.

[Theresa]

Having said that, I should probably remember that he is not focusing on how common people "get religion" (In the other thread, I did mention a few other books that delve into the ways that people get swept up in various religious and revolutionary movements). He wants to limit his investigation to this one particular type of religious experience - in all its varieties.

[Janice (JG)]

Catherine wrote: "Everyman wrote: "But I do have to question whether it's really true that "the divine is apparently not directly accessible to the rank and file." Does James believe this, or would he accept that th..."

I would imagine that James was familiar enough with at least Christian teachings, so he would know that none of the Christian sects, including Catholicism, claims that mysticism is only available to an elite religious group... quite the opposite as I understand it -- Christian belief is that communion with the divine does NOT depend on earned status or striving of any particular effort. It is said to be completely unmerited, and within reach of anyone.

Also, I don't think James has a negative opinion of religion or religions as practiced exoterically, I think he has relegated it to "second-hand" practice because his interest in this case is about personal, subjective, experience. He may feel that the personal experience is the most desirable, but I don't get the sense that he therefore negates religions in any way.

I'm curious about what he may find as commonalities about the experiences. Of what I've read outside of James, one consistency about mystical experiences is that almost everyone says that tho' they may try, they can't explain it.

[Mike]

I think there's a ton of viable space here between blind acceptance of spiritualism and acceptance of strict materialism. I think the key is to consider things more fully before stigmatizing a nature of belief that causes people to act beneficially. This was James' whole point of genius: the way they think tends to be anything but normal (and the scientific community has a host of diagnoses prepared for them), but an intellectually subdued genius ceases to benefit society. What's the benefit to society to silence the very things that strengthen it?

The fervor-as-pragmatic argument goes all the way back to Plato's Meno, where inquiry is justified as positive to one's character:

Meno: Somehow or other I believe you are right.
Socrates: I think I am. I shouldn't like to take my oath on the whole story, but one thing I am ready to fight for as long as I can, in word and act—that is, that we shall be better, braver, and more active men if we believe it right to look for what we don't know than if we believe there is no point in looking because what we don't know we can never discover.
Meno: There too I am sure you are.

On the other side, supporting those beneficial states of mind doesn't in-any-way give a carte blanche to endorsement of negative states of mind. I think James wants those negative and positive aspects to be explored with the same diligence that scientists explore the material world. Having literally written the textbook on psychology, it's only natural that James would make that argument.

From the European rationalist philosophers, the pragmatists understood knowing concepts as a) knowing what an object can do, and b) being able to define a concept. James and the other pragmatists added a third item that's required to understanding a concept: consider the effects of holding a concept as true. To a religious believer, that effect can be substantial in influencing behavior. James (but not all of the pragmatists) were prepared to call that effect a form of truth so long as it's reasonable, imo. This is where pragmatism and empiricism depart from each other.