Comments on: Mysticism After Modernity

By: ned

ned — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:23:34 +0000

Hi Carl — you might not remember me (I’m spiritofnow on LiveJournal).

I totally agree with your point here. Postmodernism says that the mind cannot know ultimate Reality — that the mind is inherently perspectival and partial. So far so good. The contemplative traditions have been saying the same thing. But to then use the mind to jump to saying that there is absolutely no ultimate Reality or Truth is to give it the sort of jurisdiction that you already know it can’t possibly have.

By: Carl McColman

Carl McColman — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:18:35 +0000

I love it more than I hate it because its postmodern perspective is so refreshing. But Cupitt is stuck in the same rationalistic box as is John Shelby Spong, Richard Dawkins, most of the Jesus Seminar, etc. etc. You allude to Wilber in your comment, and yes, Wilber’s critique of postmodernity certainly applies here. As Wilber notes, radical postmodernity is stuck in a performative contradiction: all beliefs are meaningless except for the belief that all beliefs are meaningless. Go figure! Of course, recognizing that relativism and nihilism ultimately collapse upon themselves is a necessary step toward preparing for the integral, trans-rational leap beyond the “merely” rational.

By: Mike Morrell

Mike Morrell — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:44:47 +0000

I love this book; I hate it. Cupitt makes so many transformative and quote-worthy statements, but these gems become dulled upon the almost adolescent insistence that nothing can be real but transience. Its like, has he never heard of both/and, holding realities in tension, transcend and include?