REPLY TO READ'S POINT ON REVELATION

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Matthew Hill: "Corporeal Whatever II"
• Previous message: John L.McCreery: "Pomo/epistemic/revelatory/activist ethnography"

OF COURSE MY DESCRIPTION OF REVELATION INVOLVED THE BRAIN ACTING AS A
MATERIAL ENTITY. HOW ELSE CAN HUMAN BEINGS PROCESS ANYTHING EXCEPT
THROUGH THEIR PHYSICAL ORGAN? BUT READ MISSES THE POINT. THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVELATION AND INSIGHT IS NOT ONLY THAT INSIGHT IS
THE RESULT OF A COGNITIVE PROCESS OCCURRING SUBCONSCIOUSLY BUT THAT
REVELATION IS SOMETHING AS YET NOT EXPLAINABLE. ALSO THE MAGNITUDE OF
THE EXPERIENCE IS QUITE DIFFERENT, REGARDLESS OF HOW IT'S GENERATED.
THE EXPERIENCE I HAD HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY PEOPLE IN MANY DIFFERENT
CULTURES, AND IT CAN BE ACHIEVED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS: THROUGH
Meditation, through motion, and evidently through the process of
thinking. Also, this state can be induced by drugs. Just what occurs
in the brain to produce this state is one question to explore. But we
can also learn something from the ways in which people react to and
use this experience. Both are legitimate areas of study. The fact
that we can explain how the brain produces this phenomenon does not
then tell us what this experience will mean to people. That's another
question.

Susan Love Brown

• Next message: Matthew Hill: "Corporeal Whatever II"
• Previous message: John L.McCreery: "Pomo/epistemic/revelatory/activist ethnography"