Project 2, Philosophy of religion 2011

Project II on spiritual or peak experiences and the philosophy of religion

Project two has two phases: Experience and interaction with our reading. Over the course of the next two months, you are expected to be open to, and pursue, experiences of supreme value—however you may define that. Call them peak experiences—but some may be found in the depths. Call them spiritual, but some reject that language. Our course and our one-to-one conversations have validated a wide variety for course purposes so that everyone can participate. For meditative and spiritual practices, remember the options (not obligations!) available here: http://sites.google.com/a/kent.edu/jwattles/home/comparative-religious-thought/methods-in-the-study-of-religion/religious-experience-and-a-phenomenological-approach-to-the-study-of-religion

The idea for the paper is this. It will be a series of modules. For the each module you will

1. Describe an experience of your own in about a page (250 words).

2. Construct a commentary on it from the perspective from one of our authors (see instructions below), giving a reason (or more than one) for the comment in about a page. Construct a reason, if you need to do so, based on your interpretation of the author.

3. Reply to that ("page 2") comment in about a page.

For the next module, you may refer to the same experience, but if you have a fresh one, you are invited to use that, but do not use the same experience for more than two modules.

Undergraduates must write one of these two- or three-page modules about (1) either Woudenberg or Mann, (2) either Flood or Tanabe, (3) either Benson or Husserl, (4) either Anderson or Moser, and (5) either Draper or Copan. Graduate students must write one of these two or three page modules about each assigned reading. The new agreement as of April 7 is that for one of the modules required of you above, you may substitute the reading on the aesthetic experience of John Muir (and focus your experience on the beauties of nature), and for another required module, you may substitute the reading on artistic living and focus your experience on that).

For two of these modules, both undergraduates and graduate students must, after writing the narrative account of their experience in about a page, try their hand at writing a page of phenomenological description, i.e., presenting it in general terms in about a page. (No background in phenomenology is expected, and, in particular, it is not necessary to use the word “object” when referring to a personality, divine or human, nor is it necessary to use a more general term than “God”). See the initial indications regarding phenomenological description below, and refer to the article on Husserl’s phenomenology of religious experience.

The paper is due April 21. Make it one continuous document, not a series of stapled items. Remember to paginate, proof-read, staple, and do beautifully. Put references at the end of the sentence in parentheses before the period rather than in notes. I expect that reasons will arise to adjust the assignment for individuals or for the group, so please be in touch when reasons for adjustments arise.

Here is the list of steps in the phenomenological method with which Herbert Spiegelberg concludes The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction, 2^nd edition, chapter XVI.

1. Investigate particular phenomena. [That will be expressed in your narrative.]

2. Investigate general essences. [For example, try to describe what in general makes prayer different from imagining. Or try to say what, in general, makes a particular experience a peak experience of a type that others might be able to identify, too. Include the general features of the kind of “object”—or person—who is the other in the experience (if there is any such other).]

3. Apprehend essential relationships among essences. [Observe, for example, the relation of gratitude and celebration.]

4. Watch modes of appearing. [Sudden/gradual, perspectival/given as a whole, under the control of the subject/not under the control of the subject]

5. Watch the constitution of phenomena in consciousness. (In other words, how does the mind put together its awareness of what may transcend it? Note that a table transcends the mind in the sense that it is outside the mind, so nothing extraordinary in a metaphysical sense is implied by the use of the term “transcend.”)

6. Suspend belief in the existence of the phenomenon. Not recommended for relating with another personality, divine or human.

7. Interpret the meaning of the phenomenon. [This is the place for ontological or metaphysical thinking—or other reflections.]

The trick is not to be overwhelmed by the questions, but to select some of them to work on and to experiment by trying to expand your awareness of experience to a new level of generality.