Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We start today our seven week reading of William James’s The Varieties of Religious Experience.

There has already been some interesting and robust discussion in the background and general discussion thread, but now we get to focus on the specifics of the text itself.

There is, I think, no question that James has taken on complex and sometimes controversial topic. We have discussed complex and controversial books here before with great success. Once again, I am confident that we can discuss James’s work with vigor and honesty, but also with sensitivity to and respect for all views and approaches to religion.

We want every poster to feel welcome to participate in the discussion despite the inevitable disagreements, which are not only inevitable but necessary if we are to have a robust and insightful discussion. As long as we keep constantly in view our group commitment to “disagree without being disagreeable,” we can help everyone who has views to share feel safe and welcome sharing them.

So we're off!

These first two lectures are basically introductory material, as James confirms at the end lecture two.

Over the next few days I am going to suggest a few questions that arose in my mind as I was reading, but before I do so I want to offer two broad points that seemed of importance to me.

The first is this: the lectures are titled not “The Varieties of Religion,” but “of Religious Experience.”

As James himself says, “If the inquiry be psychological, not religious institutions, but rather religious feelings and religious impulses must be its subject, and I must confine myself to those more developed subjective phenomena recorded in literature produced by articulate and fully self-conscious men, in works of piety and autobiography.” [7]*

I found it useful to keep this in mind. He is not trying to talk about religion generally or any particular religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Wicca, Buddhism, or any other of the thousands of religions that humans have practiced through the span of human consciousness. Rather, he is talking about human experiences of (in?) religion, and is doing so not from a theological but from a psychological perspective. 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).

The second distinction, which is linked to the first but separable from it, is that he is not talking about institutional religion but about personal religion. The distinction between institutional and personal religion may be worth discussing on its own merits, but his emphasis on the personal religion is a distinction I found myself constantly having to come back to. He is interested in the individual’s personal experience with/of religion, whether the individual involved is a Christian mystic, an Aboriginal Elder, or a Buddhist monk.

Whether others find these distinctions meaningful or not may be worth some discussion. For me, they are central to my attempt to understand his work.

* When I quote, I will usually be cutting and pasting from this free copy of the work
https://csrs.nd.edu/assets/59930/will...
and will include the page number from that copy for those who want to read it in context.

An aside, but an important one.

I received a private comment from a group member who noted that the discussion so far has been at a very high level, and that it seemed a bit intimidating.

The quality of discussions here is something of great value to me, and I think to all the group. Yes, it can be at a quite high level. Which is wonderful.

BUT, I am adamant about insisting that that must NOT intimidate any members. EVERY sincere comment from EVERY poster is valuable and valued. I have said before, but cannot say too often, that it can be the simplest comment or question which sparks the best discussion. And it's also almost a universal truth that if a member has a question, no matter how seemingly simple (I refuse to say stupid because for years I taught with a banner over my blackboard which said "your question is only stupid if you refuse to ask it") other members have the same question. If you are too embarrassed or shy to ask it because it seems too simple for this sophisticated group, then you deprive everybody else who has the same question but is equally shy about asking it from getting their question answered. And in addition, you prevent those who have thought long and hard over the years about that question from sharing their knowledge and wisdom.

So DO NOT feel intimidated. Ask your question. Make your comment. You will be surprised how many people really do appreciate what you have to offer, and how much even the simplest comment or question can enrich the discussion for all.

Good set-up for us, Eman. THX.

Having lived through the transition from male gendered writing to greater sensitivity to gender inclusiveness (mainly in the 1970s and '80s), 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 wonder if the men reading here will notice. I continue to ask myself the nature of the relevance to the material covered.

Lily wrote: "I wonder if the men reading here will notice."

I very much did. And winced, even cringed. But as you say, it had the universal meaning in the age he was writing. And he does look at female figures as well as male; we have Saint Teresa in lecture 1, and will get others later.

I see no suggestion so far that James thinks that the intensity or quality of religious experience is affected by gender. If any here do think that, they are welcome to argue it at the appropriate place, but should expect to be challenged.

Everyman wrote: "...I see no suggestion so far that James thinks that the intensity or quality of religious experience is affected by gender...."

I agree; so far it has felt to me more like the question as to whether research on heart attacks in women is justified. You beat me in responding (I was going to modify my post), 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 did notice that he spoke of certain scientists, the medical materialists he called them, who believed that every action had only biological causes-- matter over mind. That attitude has certainly changed in the past 115 years.

Everyman wrote: "These first two lectures are basically introductory material, as James confirms at the end lecture two.

Over the next few days I am going to suggest a few questions that arose in my mind as I was..."

Thanks for this Everyman and also for the link to the free online version, that is very helpful. Your remarks are much appreciated and I expect will set the tone of this discussion, ie, we are discussing religion as part of man's psychology and personal experience and not debating x vs. y religion or any of the tenets thereof.

Rosemarie wrote: "I did notice that he spoke of certain scientists, the medical materialists he called them, who believed that every action had only biological causes-- matter over mind. That attitude has certainly ..."

And yet isn't the current view that genetics controls much more than we previously believed -- that DNA controls, or at least influences, gender identity, sexual identity, proclivity for violence, and many other identity/behavioral attributes, heading in much the same direction?

After all, there has recently been some argument about a "god gene." One has to wonder what James would have said or done about that if he had been familiar with that research.

We make new discoveries in science, only to discover there is so much we have yet to discover. Genetics certainly affects is in unseen ways, which is why adopted children would like to learn about inherited medical conditions.
There seems to be a cycle in psychology and science, just as there is in the social sciences. Will we ever discover the whole truth about how our minds work?

Everyman wrote: "We start today our seven week reading of William James’s The Varieties of Religious Experience.

There has already been some interesting and robust discussion in the background and general discuss..."

"The first is this: the lectures are titled not “The Varieties of Religion,” but “of Religious Experience.”

EXACTLY :)

I think the most important thing to note about James's approach to religious experience so far lies in his sharp division between exterior or institutional religion and interior or personal religion. His interest, obviously, is in psychology rather than ritual or theology, but it goes deeper than that; he searches the psychology of the devout individual rather than the social body. In fact, he claims that the mass of people who simply follow religion in an ordinary way are not of interest to him. Is this inherently problematic? I hope to develop thoughts along these lines over the course of our readings.

I was reading a bit recently about how James was popular among the Russian intelligentsia of his time, because James emphasized religious experience over religion as a social institution. In other words, his writings freed some people to ignore the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church while still feeling like they were appropriately "religious." The author pointed out that this is ultimately a very low-church Protestant approach to religion at its heart. Theological and philosophical thought, ecclesiastical hierarchy, sacraments, mysteries, moral imperatives--all these are demoted in significance. It is unsurprising that James characterizes Quakerism as an extraordinarily praiseworthy form of religion. He adds that the only way for a religious community to evaluate a mystical experience in its midst is to judge it by its fruits, thus ignoring common criteria of orthodoxy and the approval of charismatic leadership. Methodologically, he may be justified in putting aside the forms and propositional content of religion; but at times I sense an actual disconnect.

There is a related assumption at work when he insists on the primacy of the mind in religious experience: "Religious language clothes itself in such poor symbols as our life affords, and the whole organism gives overtones of comment whenever the mind is strongly stirred to expression." 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. On the other hand, he does argue for the necessity of categorizing religious psychological states such as melancholy alongside non-religious forms of the same states.

I may sound a bit hard on James, but honestly I'm enjoying these chapters a great deal, and just wish to provide food for thought. I expect many of these criticisms will be addressed at some point later in the lectures. James is an engaging writer, and this may be an easier read than I had expected.

Kenneth wrote: "His assumption, the assumption that Everyman pointed out, that the religious experiences of people from different religions are the same or similar enough to compare, is an assumption that no true believer could accept."

Actually, I wouldn't go that far, and I think few theologians would either. There are many traditional Catholic thinkers (such as Jacques Maritain), for instance, who distinguish between natural mysticism, corresponding to the exercise of natural human capacities for recognizing the divine in the universe, and supernatural mysticism, denoting the true experience of union with God. Admittedly, most orthodox would argue that the higher levels of religious experience are unique to their own religion, and beyond critical inspection; but on the other hand, there is undeniable, substantial overlap at least on the psychological level, which as a phenomenon is comparable to similar phenomena.

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

In the discussion leading up to this text we talked much about truth. The way I understand it, there are three distinct paths to ascertain truth. I realize not everyone would agree from a personal perspective, but when we look at religious experience itself they are indispensable because they form the very fabric of religious experience.

1) Experience, science, etc.
2) Philosophy
3) Revelation/theology

They are distinct, but not separate, meaning, they inform one another and keep one another in check. For instance, when theology starts to resemble philosophy too much, then it ceases to be theology.

Coming from this premise, James talking solely of the experience of religion seems to me a rather radical reductionism when you don’t incorporate the other two and how they inform/impact the experience. That is not denying that there are physiological processes involved, there are, but the question needs to be asked whether or not these physiological processes are generated from within the person or are we reacting to impulses impacting us from without, such as divine revelation. When one strictly focuses on the ‘within’ and the ‘without’ is not addressed, then we only get partial answers.

Another aspect of James’s premise is the individual religious experience. Here again I see a reductionism. Christian theologians have, to the best of my knowledge, always defined and translated the term religion with “to bind.” This binding is multi-layered, interconnected and reciprocal. We have the individual binding/connection to the divine, but in conjunction we are always bound and connected to the family and the larger religious community. In the fullness of the religious experience these cannot be severed.

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 step further and declares these eccentricities are an essential condition for religious genius.

I read the following with interest:

"Thus, when a superior intellect and a psychopathic temperament coalesce—as in the endless permutations and combinations of human faculty, they are bound to coalesce often enough—in the same individual, we have the best possible condition for the kind of effective genius that gets into the biographical dictionaries."

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (p. 24). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Since we recently read some Transcendental works, I immediately wondered how James valued the thoughts to actions of John Brown that secured his entry into the biographical dictionaries?

I have a church group that meets weekly and we have often discussed the fact that many people who have a strong faith never have a religious experience, or "mountain top moment" as we call it some times.
James is talking not about religion, but about the psychology of religious experiences.
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?

Kenneth wrote: "Could you give a reference, please?"

Here's a decent overview by one of the contributors to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Maritain discusses natural versus supernatural mysticism in his book The Degrees of Knowledge, I believe; Maritain and others are discussed in this paper (which admittedly I've only skimmed at this point). You would find some very similar thoughts (not especially about mysticism, but certainly religious experience in a broad sense) in Cardinal Jean Daniélou's work, particularly The Lord of History. There are on the other hand well-known and liberal-minded Catholic theologians like Karl Rahner whose work emphasizes the possibility of the operations of grace within other religions.

Kerstin, perhaps we could label your categories of knowledge more precisely as the empirical, the rational, and the religious. That doesn't perfectly fit your outline, because theology is a rational way of knowing that includes religious knowledge among its premises. But I think in the end James is not interested in epistemology; his inquiry focuses on how we experience the divine as knowing subjects, not the sources or means of our knowledge. Is the latter really a necessary question for a psychologist, falling within his expertise? James would clearly say no.

His willingness to sidestep the question of the reality of supernatural influence reflects his pragmatic philosophy, but it may also be a simple methodological necessity. Isolating the "within" from the "without" allows him to address mental phenomena without being confronted by thorny and perhaps unanswerable questions that intrude on religious space. In fact, the brash willingness of some recent brain researchers to reduce religious experience to neurological events suggests that James's circumspection and restraint may be helpful in some cases.

Which is not to say I disagree completely with you; after all, my tentative critiques were pretty similar.

Rosemarie wrote: "James is talking not about religion, but about the psychology of religious experiences.
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?..."

I think James was saying that he isn't going to talk about religion as we understand organized religious entities, and that he is only using the word 'religion' because it's easier and closer to the essence of the material. Like Rosemarie says, he's focusing on religious experience, but actually I think it would be easier to separate and understand this difference if he (or we, for purposes of the discussion) called them spiritual experiences, or mystical experiences.

I think people can have James's 'religious' experiences without being religious (as in being in any way associated with a church or religious affiliation). People who are associated with a spiritual belief system -- a term I'd rather use so that Sufis, Zen Buddhists, yogis, sannyasins and the myriad other belief systems can be included in the discussions -- which includes all organized religions, can also have these religious experiences, tho' I would imagine that these mystical moments would occur within a language of symbols or visions that concur with each person's religious affiliation and world view.

It seems more likely that someone affiliated with a religious institution or spiritual belief system would experience these mystical moments because there is usually a process of seeking and desiring (I don't know if James will mention this) involved, which most systems will say is a necessary attitude, and those who are seeking are usually part of some sort of spiritual belief system. I say usually, but my understanding is that this is in no way any kind of criteria, anybody can have a mystical moment.

Rosemarie's question is great because it brings the idea, or concept, or question of definition of "God" into the conversation. I would say that a spiritual experience for a non-religious person would definitely suggest that some out-of-the-ordinary-expectation has occurred... but how they interpret that may have many results, including pathological. I'd think some idea about God -- or the universe, or love, or the Tao, or whatever suits as a definition of something beyond understanding that somehow impresses personally -- would have had to exist for this non-religious person in order for them to interpret it as somehow connected to God.

As to Kenneth's comment that, "assumption ... that the religious experiences of people from different religions are the same or similar enough to compare, is an assumption that no true believer could accept." I would point out Dominican mystic Meister Eckhart's comment,

If you focus too narrowly on a single path to God, all you will ever find is the path.

I like Jesus and Meister Eckhart. I don't think this group is for proselytizing, is it?

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. James actually gives examples from many of the mystics so I'm curious as to what you will think of this book. I hope you will approach it with an open mind (as much as a fundamentalist can have an open mind). I don't mean to be rude...I just don't think a fundamentalist would enjoy this book.

Kenneth wrote: "My initial thought about James based on these chapters is that James cannot be the kind of person about whom he is writing. He is an outsider looking in at something that he, therefore, cannot full..."

I agree with Kenneth that James is an outsider. He is observing religious experiences that he probably did not experience himself. And I get the impression that he tries to examine these experiences with an open mind.

Yes, his observations are just that: observations. These observations and conclusions may clash with theological viewpoints. Still I think that some of his observations are very interesting and it never hurts to look at something from a different perspective.

Personally I found his comparison of Stoicism and Christianity thoughtprovoking.

"If we compare stoic with Christian ejaculations we see much more than a difference of doctrine; rather is it a difference of emotional mood that parts them. When Marcus Aurelius reflects on the eternal reason that has ordered things, there is a frosty chill about his words which you rarely find in a Jewish, and never in a Christian piece of religious writing. The universe is “accepted” by all these writers; but how devoid of passion or exultation the spirit of the Roman Emperor is! Compare his fine sentence: “If gods care not for me or my children, here is a reason for it,” with Job’s cry: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!” and you immediately see the difference I mean. The anima mundi, to whose disposal of his own personal destiny the Stoic consents, is there to be respected and submitted to, but the Christian God is there to be loved; and the difference of emotional atmosphere is like that between an arctic climate and the tropics, though the outcome in the way of accepting actual conditions uncomplainingly may seem in abstract terms to be much the same."

Kenneth wrote: "Most definitely agreed. With the whole "spiritual but not religious" movement, we need to expand our terminology in 2016 to fit what James would be talking about. Though do you think the groups you listed (including Zen Buddhists and Sufis) would not consider that participation as "religious?"..."

I don't think the Sufis would have any problem with the term "religious" experience, but as for the Zen Buddhists, it might depend on who you were talking to at the time, tho' it is not considered "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being." Hindu sannyas would call themselves religious, but the neo-sannyasins tend to see themselves as non-religious, but not irreligious, ie they do not ascribe to any particular religious sect.

Kenneth wrote: " I think I've found it...."

May blessings be upon you, Kenneth. (Those words are extended sincerely and, to the best of my knowledge and experience, consistent with practice within my denomination.)

I am struggling yet with whether individual religious "practice" has a relationship to individual religious "experience" within the (psychological) structure James presents. Although I have only had a first listening through the material, at the moment I have my doubts. He seems to be focusing on what I would categorize as closer to mystical experiences, but not to be solely limited to such.

Whether assumptions are embedded in language (as we batted about a bit at the beginning of this discussion) or in whether or not religious experiences are inherently linked to religious sect I suspect are only two of numerous methodological assumptions that we find ourselves sorting through as we work through this material.

Rex wrote: "Kerstin, perhaps we could label your categories of knowledge more precisely as the empirical, the rational, and the religious. That doesn't perfectly fit your outline, because theology is a rationa..."

Gosh, they are not "my categories" :) It is Pope John Paul II who presented them this way in 'Fiedes et Ratio'. I wrote from memory, but here is what he writes:

"It may help, then, to turn briefly to the different modes of truth. Most of them depend upon immediate evidence or are confirmed by experimentation. this is the mode of truth proper to everyday life and to scientific research. At another level we find philosophical truth, attained by means of the speculative powers of the human intellect. Finally, there are religious truths which are to some degree grounded in philosophy, and which we find in the answers which the different religious traditions offer to the ultimate questions."

Your rephrasing will work just fine. :)

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. From what we've read so far I am not so sure he will do that. For instance, he consistently describes religious experience in conjunction with words such as 'feeling,' 'emotion,' 'sentiment,' etc. I fear that applying such terminology poses the danger of equating religious experience with emotionalism.

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, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohammedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct.

This makes perfect sense to me. All of these so-called second hand religions began with someone having visions, or mystical experiences, some sort of transported transformative happening that instilled a clarity of understanding of the meaning of life and its creation. That's what James is going for, and I know there are many recorded instances of these moments of illumination throughout history, ie Krishna and Buddha and Jesus.

ETA: He says later, "The FOUNDERS of every church owed their power originally to the fact of their direct personal communion with the divine. Not only the superhuman founders, the Christ, the Buddha, Mahomet, but all the originators of Christian sects... so personal religion should still seem the primordial thing, even to those who continue to esteem it incomplete."

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 wonder if the men reading here will notice..."

LOL. I'm a woman, and I didn't notice. :-)

Adelle wrote: "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 wonder if the men readi...

LOL. I'm a woman, and I didn't notice. :-) ..."

I noticed, but then, what're ya going to do? It doesn't seem to be male-oriented, it seems more like the usage that substituted for "humans". Besides, too many mystics are women for James to be able to use dismissive terminology.

Janice(JG) wrote: "James says in these lectures he is not speaking of the ordinary religious believer,....It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life...."

Those seem to be some of the critical boundaries James is laying for his study and report. It seems to me that today research institutes like Pew do turn considerable attention to aspects of "this second-hand religious life." (One of the changes in interests in this past century?) I am unsure yet of the impact of James' choices on the uses of his results.

Harm wrote: "Personally I found his comparison of Stoicism and Christianity thoughtprovoking."

I liked the comparison too:

It makes a tremendous emotional and practical difference to one whether one accept the universe in the drab discolored way of stoic resignation to necessity, or with the passionate happiness of Christian saints.

Unfortunately the other possibility of wondrous acceptance without resignation was completely overlooked. Dull submission or happy submission is still giving in and drab resignation to necessity or passionately happy resignation is still giving up.

Lily wrote: "Kenneth wrote: " I think I've found it...."

May blessings be upon you, Kenneth. (Those words are extended sincerely and, to the best of my knowledge and experience, consistent with practice within..."

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you're not used to speaking that way? :)

Speaking as an outsider, although I'm not a Roman Catholic and don't understand it much, I find Kenneth's commitment to his belief more fascinating and understandable than the wishy-washy open-mind attitude.

When one chooses to commit himself to a life-long relationship. It would be very insulting to him and his spouse, if someone were to drop by and say, "Be open-minded. Why narrow yourself to one relationship only? You'll be a better person if you experience different partners from time to time." In which case, he is more than justified to respond, "No thanks. I think I've found it. There are deeper experiences within my relationship that would take me more than a lifetime to explore, without meddling in other affairs".

Kenneth wrote: "
I understand that James is comparing personal religious experience to institutional religion... but those of us who are intensely religious in an institutional religion can tell you that the two really can't be separated. ..."

My impression was that James addressed this. "First, what is the nature of it? how did it come about? what is its constitution, origin, and history? And second, what is its importance, meaning, and significance, now that it is here? {existential judgment and spiritual judgment] proceed from diverse intellectual preoccupations, and the mind combines them only by making them first separately, and then adding them together" (17)

In the example of George Fox, Fox grew up in a religious environment. Saul had a religious background (persecuting heretics).

So what you write makes sense to me. That one's religious background is probably a factor in a religious experience.

IF I'm understanding you correctly.

James, I think, is saying that the existential origin is a factor. One could, like George Fox, have an intense religious experience and as a result ACT to purify the religion of himself and others going forward in a way he believes God wants him to. Or, like Saul/Paul, as a result of the intense religious experience, could "realize" that he had been acting entirely contrary to the way that God would have him act... and then ACT to change his life.

I expecting to see (1) if the descriptions of the religious experiences have psychological similar qualities, and (2) how exactly the religious experiences changed the individuals who experienced them... (such as Fox and Saul were changed).

It will be interesting to see what other examples James introduces.

Nemo wrote: "Speaking as an outsider, although I'm not a Roman Catholic and don't understand it much, I find Kenneth's commitment to his belief more fascinating and understandable than the wishy-washy open-mind attitude..."

An understanding and empathy with people of different religions and belief systems can actually be an indication of a deeper commitment to God, or Goodness, or the divine by seeking to discover all its possible aspects and qualities as manifested in different peoples and their belief systems.

In a way, I'm hoping that's what James is attempting here by approaching many different extreme examples of spiritual experiences -- it may allow for a deeper understanding of the potential for human relationship with the divine.

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "May blessings be upon you..." "Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you're not used to speaking that way? :)"

Quite actually, I am (used to speaking of blessing), although not particularly in settings such as this one and perhaps usually with greater sensitivity to that bug-a-boo sometimes called "political correctness," which may or may not be related to common courtesy or the Golden Rule. ;-0

@40Nemo wrote: "...the wishy-washy open-mind attitude..."..."

Nemo, I know "wishy-washy" really isn't an exact synonym with doubt, but on a quick search, here is one fairly short article that suggests that doubt is not particularly in analogy with open marriage: http://www.cruxnow.com/faith/2014/09/...

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. Another possibility is that experiences that look similar from the outside are at best analogous... but that would mean that there is more dissimilar than similar.

2. The idea that a person like James, who obviously is of a sober disposition and not likely to fall into the category of the kind of people, can judge those kinds of experiences that he himself has never experienced..."

These are two good questions. I will be surprised if James steps outside of the Abraham related religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity for his examples, and with the common source there might be comparable experiences. I don't know what kind of access James might have had to Eastern belief systems, his comment that Buddhists could be considered atheists demonstrates a possible misunderstanding of Buddhism, since some Buddhist sects (ie Tibetan Vajrayana) do indeed believe in the concept of the one God. In any case, personal inner experiences of the divine may be utterly individual, and not comparable at all.

I've wondered about James's own motivations for this research, and while he approaches these lectures as an outside observer, I'm not ready to decide he has had no experience of what he is talking about. I suspect he has had some kind of experience that has sent him delving into the subject with great interest, trying to define for himself something that may have happened to and for him. Even if this is the case, tho', I doubt he will ever approach his audience as anything but a very well informed observer.

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?

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? ..."

Two possibilities:

(1) Swedenborg. His father had an intense, life-changing experience in 1844. From Wikipedia: In May 1844, while living in Windsor, in England, James was sitting alone one evening at the family dinner table after the meal, gazing at the fire, when he had the defining spiritual experience of his life, which he would come to interpret as a Swedenborgian "vastation," a stage in the process of spiritual regeneration. This experience was an apprehension of, in his own words, "a perfectly insane and abject terror, without ostensible cause, and only to be accounted for, to my perplexed imagination, by some damned shape squatting invisible to me within the precincts of the room, and raying out from his fetid personality influences fatal to life." [1]

James's "vastation" initiated a spiritual crisis that lasted two years, and was finally resolved through the thorough exploration of the work of Swedenborg (1688–1772), the Swedish scientist, religious visionary and teacher, and Christian mystic. James became convinced that, as he put it, "the curse of mankind, that which keeps our manhood so little and so depraved, is its sense of selfhood, and the absurd abominable opinionativeness it engenders." He remained attached to Swedenborg's thought for the rest of life, and never traveled without carrying Swedenborg's works with him.

James returned to the United States in 1845 and began a lifetime of lecturing about his spiritual discoveries. He devoted his mornings to writing, and published a number of discursive, rather repetitive volumes devoted to the exposition of his thought.

See also, if interested: http://www.quantuminteractive.net/qua...

William wrote after his father's death, "His truths were his life... They were the companion of his death-bed: and when all else had ebbed away, his grasp of them was still vigorous and sure... [he was] a religious prophet and genius [who] published an intensely positive, radical, and fresh conception of God, and an intensely vital view of our connection with him" (William James: In the Maelstorm, 249).

(2) I can't find the section from the book (William James: In the Maelstorm)---I suppose I could find it if I searched---but apparently on a camping trip in the forest or woods William James wrote, "I got into a state of spiritual alertness of the most vital description...it became a regular Walpurgis nacht...where the streaming moonlight lit up things in a magical checkered play, and it seemed as if the gods of all the nature-mythologies were holding an indescribable meeting in my breast with the moral gods of the inner life..." (374-75).

He had been reading George Fox. Yet James was always firm in insisting that he himself had not himself had mystical experiences; he was scrupulous to claim that he was just a seeker" (375).

He wrote to Alice that although he couldn't describe it, really, "Doubtless is more ways than one though, things in the Edinburgh lectures will be traceable to it" (375).

Also...1870...James writes of being in a state of depression....walking into his dressing room... "when suddenly there fell upon me without any warning, just as if it came out of the darkness, a horrible fear of my own existence. Simultaneously there arose in my mind the image of an epileptic patient whom I had seen in the asylum... He sat there like a sort of sculptured Egyptian cat or Peruvian mummy, moving nothing but his black eyes and looking absolutely non-human" (117)

"After this," he said, "the universe was changed for me altogether."

"I have always felt that this experience of melancholia of mine had a religious bearing... I mean that the fear was so invasive and powerful that if I had not clung to scripture texts like 'the eternal God is my refuge,' etc., 'Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden,' etc., "I am the resurrection and the life,' etc., I think I should have grown really insane" (118).

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? ..."

What I do know is his father was an adherent of Swedenborgianism, which apparently impacted both William and his brother, Henry, Jr. I haven't figured out the significance of Swedenborgianism.

Janice, in looking for the exact terminology for his father, I found this fairly short study that seems to give a pretty good biographical overview for James. If you scan/read it, I leave you to judge whether any of the events described might be considered "mystical."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/

P.S. (I see now Adelle has given a much more thorough response!)

@Lily,45

I agree. Doubt and despair can exist in committed relationships too. I chose "open marriage" as an analogy, assuming that the practice is still offensive to the moral sense of this group, but a time might come when that is no longer the case, when "open-ness" is pursued without discernment and discretion of any kind.

Nemo wrote: "@Lily,45 ...I agree. Doubt and despair can exist in committed relationships too.,..."

And I don't know that the two (doubt and despair) necessarily go together. Doubt does often have an element of humility about it, although that also not necessarily. Despair may verge into pessimism or depression.

@Adelle - thank you, that's wonderful background information, and answers my question... yes, James has experienced some sort of connection with the divine and according to your source it did influence his lectures, "Doubtless in more ways than one though, things in the Edinburgh lectures will be traceable to it." I didn't realize that his father had set the stage for James with his own "vastation" experience. Between the two of them, there was plenty of reason for William James to become fascinated with the existence and function of spiritual experiences.

@Lily -" Janice, in looking for the exact terminology for his father, I found this fairly short study that seems to give a pretty good biographical overview for James. If you scan/read it, I leave you to judge whether any of the events described might be considered "mystical."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/..."

Thank you! That is a great link to an excellent overview of James's philosophies, belief system, and world view. I'm keeping that up in its own window to refer to during the rest of this discussion.

Lily wrote: "Doubt does often have an element of humility about it, ."

Doubt and humility don't go together at all. I know this by experience, because I always have doubt (and despair) with me, but I do not have humility.

One thing about Socrates that amazes me the most is that he never shows any sign of doubt, yet he has the humility to acknowledge that he knows nothing.

Augustine wrote to the effect that humility is the state of a person who is drawn into the presence of God, and come to the knowledge that he is nothing while God is all in all.

Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Doubt does often have an element of humility about it, ."

Doubt and humility don't go together at all. I know this by experience, because I always have doubt (and despair) with me, bu..."

Different combinations for different people. Personally, I often feel being able to acknowledge doubt, especially in community, protects from despair, but leaves self humble before the larger world.

Of possible interest: https://philosophynow.org/issues/53/S...

Lily wrote: "Different combinations for different people. Personally, I often feel being able to acknowledge doubt, especially in community, protects from despair, but leaves self humble before the larger world."

If you're saying that doubt is a cause for humility, I would agree. But I don't think humility is a component of doubt. (For a more lengthy discussion, see The Pursuit of Certainty)

Acknowledging doubt to the community is a gesture of humility, a cry for help. But protection from despair is not always nor ultimately provided by the community, not for Job, nor for Bart Ehrman.

Nemo wrote: "If you're saying that doubt is a cause for humility, I would agree. But I don't think humility is a component of doubt. ..."

I would agree with the logic in those two sentences. I do not, however, find myself agreeing with all of the lengthier discussion you cite -- am not going to try to discuss here, however.

Acknowledging doubt to the community is a gesture of humility, a cry for help.

I think that depends on what you mean by "a cry for help." I often find it more simply a request for confirmation of not being alone in what is sensed or help in sensing aspects one has not sensed oneself. But, that may indeed be "a cry for help," just not a cry for escape or judgment or rectification or ....

"...protection from despair is not always nor ultimately provided by the community, not for Job, nor for Bart Ehrman..."

So true. Despair may (simply?) be a valid response to reality -- "Abba,... remove this cup from me..." Mark 14:36

Yet just this week I brought, anonymously, the afflictions of a twice-removed acquaintance to prayer, and within a few hours I, totally unexpectedly, had several possibilities to take back through my contact. A couple of us were commenting afterwards that this illustrated the, not supernatural, but rather the communal, power of prayer. I found interesting in the James bio above: "James’s philosophy is so individualistic that it does not allow for a robust theory of community.. .." I don't know who are considered to offer "robust theories of community."

Harm wrote: ""If we compare stoic with Christian ejaculations we see much more than a difference of doctrine; rather is it a difference of emotional mood that parts them. When Marcus Aurelius reflects on the eternal reason that has ordered things, there is a frosty chill about his words which you rarely find in a Jewish, and never in a Christian piece of religious writing. The universe is “accepted” by all these writers; but how devoid of passion or exultation the spirit of the Roman Emperor is! Compare his fine sentence: “If gods care not for me or my children, here is a reason for it,” with Job’s cry: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him!” and you immediately see the difference I mean. The anima mundi, to whose disposal of his own personal destiny the Stoic consents, is there to be respected and submitted to, but the Christian God is there to be loved; and the difference of emotional atmosphere is like that between an arctic climate and the tropics, though the outcome in the way of accepting actual conditions uncomplainingly may seem in abstract terms to be much the same."

What James is touching upon here is that Christianity is a very joyful religion. "I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete" (Jn 15:11). Some of the most joyful people one can ever meet are those who have taken religious vows.

Lily wrote: "...what you mean by "a cry for help." I often find it more simply a request for confirmation of not being alone in what is sensed or help in sensing aspects one has not sensed oneself."

That's what I meant, but you said it better. :) It definitely comes in more shapes and disguises than I'm able to recognize, let alone respond to. I'm grateful how others in the community have come to my help time and again when I am in need but too stubborn to ask.

"Despair may (simply?) be a valid response to reality -- "Abba,... remove this cup from me..."

If you mean "reality" of the human nature, I'd agree, but not the ultimately reality, which is God. As long as one prays, he is not in despair.

Nemo wrote: "Augustine wrote to the effect that humility is the state of a person who is drawn into the presence of God, and come to the knowledge that he is nothing while God is all in all. "

Beautiful!
I wouldn't mind reading Augustine with the group sometime.