Great post. James’ spiritual solitude needs his friend Josiah Royce’s solidarity and world loyalty. But also, if we read philosophy as a thermometer instead of a heater when it comes to cultural trends, James was basically right. Is “Varieties” meant to be read as prescriptive or descriptive psychology of religion?
That sounds right about Royce. I need to revisit him at some point. I think in terms of prescriptive and descriptive, James is pretty clear about his prescriptive preferences (experience over reason, individual over institution, mysticism over doctrine, etc.). At the same time, I think you're right about description, too: He's definitely taking the temperature of his time and doing it well. I just think our moment is different from his, and hence I think Taylor points in the right direction for today.
Super appreciate these insights. I do find Taylor’s critique however in some respects wanting. (1) What’s liberating about James and modernity is the expansion of expanded non ordinary modes of experience as available to everyone not just the few. See J Martin’s Finders research and book. Or the current research of Sean Esbjorn Hargens. (2) Religion in modernity has tended to retain in its institutions pre modern levels of discourse. Per interpreting texts and experience. Think of Fowler, Wilber, DiPerna. That’s a massive trade off. And retarding if evolving maturity. (3) Ritual in general has degraded in our times. Per Han. I would add these to the mix.
Nice responses here—all well taken. A few return thoughts:
1. I’m not sure about the numbers, exactly, but mysticisms and practice traditions have a long history of being more accessible to the masses than other aspects of religion (see for example the handbook traditions, written in short vernacular texts used to disseminate traditions of Middle English mysticism: https://thebasecamp.substack.com/p/mind-memory-consciousness). So I’m not sure this is unique to the post-James landscape, though obviously there are differences.
2. I don’t know that this is entirely true. I’m not sure there’s ever been religious discourse that’s both widespread and high-level. I think Modern religious discourse (in the west) might suffer more from a modernist / post-reformationist reading of religion that makes, e.g., liturgy and mysticism, harder to understand now than before. Rather than being stuck in a “pre-modern,” frame I think we may have lost something to the reformation and this has made us less sophisticated interpreters of these issues than before (i.e., medieval scholars were in a ways *more* sophisticated in religious interpretation than we are).
"Cross-pressured spaces" – what a perfect phrase to describe the spiritual-religious landscape I am navigating at this time in my life. Returning to practice has been one of the most challenging and spiritually fruitful seasons of my life. It's also been an immensely personal journey, demanding discernment, silence, and solitude.
Great post. James’ spiritual solitude needs his friend Josiah Royce’s solidarity and world loyalty. But also, if we read philosophy as a thermometer instead of a heater when it comes to cultural trends, James was basically right. Is “Varieties” meant to be read as prescriptive or descriptive psychology of religion?
That sounds right about Royce. I need to revisit him at some point. I think in terms of prescriptive and descriptive, James is pretty clear about his prescriptive preferences (experience over reason, individual over institution, mysticism over doctrine, etc.). At the same time, I think you're right about description, too: He's definitely taking the temperature of his time and doing it well. I just think our moment is different from his, and hence I think Taylor points in the right direction for today.
Super appreciate these insights. I do find Taylor’s critique however in some respects wanting. (1) What’s liberating about James and modernity is the expansion of expanded non ordinary modes of experience as available to everyone not just the few. See J Martin’s Finders research and book. Or the current research of Sean Esbjorn Hargens. (2) Religion in modernity has tended to retain in its institutions pre modern levels of discourse. Per interpreting texts and experience. Think of Fowler, Wilber, DiPerna. That’s a massive trade off. And retarding if evolving maturity. (3) Ritual in general has degraded in our times. Per Han. I would add these to the mix.
Nice responses here—all well taken. A few return thoughts:
1. I’m not sure about the numbers, exactly, but mysticisms and practice traditions have a long history of being more accessible to the masses than other aspects of religion (see for example the handbook traditions, written in short vernacular texts used to disseminate traditions of Middle English mysticism: https://thebasecamp.substack.com/p/mind-memory-consciousness). So I’m not sure this is unique to the post-James landscape, though obviously there are differences.
2. I don’t know that this is entirely true. I’m not sure there’s ever been religious discourse that’s both widespread and high-level. I think Modern religious discourse (in the west) might suffer more from a modernist / post-reformationist reading of religion that makes, e.g., liturgy and mysticism, harder to understand now than before. Rather than being stuck in a “pre-modern,” frame I think we may have lost something to the reformation and this has made us less sophisticated interpreters of these issues than before (i.e., medieval scholars were in a ways *more* sophisticated in religious interpretation than we are).
3. Probably true.
"Cross-pressured spaces" – what a perfect phrase to describe the spiritual-religious landscape I am navigating at this time in my life. Returning to practice has been one of the most challenging and spiritually fruitful seasons of my life. It's also been an immensely personal journey, demanding discernment, silence, and solitude.
Nice. Yeah, Taylor’s work is packed full of prescient concepts.
An incisive and useful analysis. Thank you.
Excellent. Thank you.