§ 1. An apology concerning the insufficient rigour of the method It might be claimed that in some respects my methodology and method are unscientific because they lack in strictness and rigour. I do not wish to engage in a thorough debate over this but a short apology is still in place. I would urge the potential critic to consider the general situation (in respect to operational methodologies) in the field of religion and science. Imagine a neurologist criticizing, say, a literary critic’s interpretation of a poem as being unscientific since the standards of strictness of the interpretive methods used are nowhere near those common in neurology. This would be quite absurd. The standards for something to count as scientific knowledge are very different in these fields and the results in one area cannot be evaluated by appeals to the scientific standards
15 Detached perspectives are limited and dangerous for several reasons. For a discussion of this in relation to the MSC-orgasm link, see chapter II. Based on those considerations I think that even though on the scientific plane of the thesis theologically interpreting the connections discovered might well seem premature, it is not premature on the spiritual plane.
of the other. This results in the untranslatability, gappiness and methodological vacuum between the two “language games”.
In the field of religion and science one has no other option but to try to deal with this gappiness and untranslatability somehow. There are not many working gap-bridging strategies available here, and none is strict and rigorous – the frag-ments of knowledge originating in different language games are simply too different.
The basic gap-bridging method in religion and science has been a communi-cative one – genuine dialogue. My collage technique can be viewed as an elaboration on this method – bringing various data fragments together into a collage is a way of engaging the otherwise unrelated pieces of knowledge in
“talking to each other”. Unavoidably, the bridges thus created are provisional.
But so are all other dialogically formed links and, indeed, all links in religion and science.
What I am aiming at is that the question whether my method is rigorous enough or not cannot be addressed by appealing to the standards of strictness common in any of the scholarly disciplines from which the data and concepts used in my thesis are taken. It must be addressed from the religion and science perspective which is one that values dialogue and communication (both on the level of individuals and ideas). My collage method provides fairly elaborate ways to promote the cohesion of ideas and dialogue. It provides a way to at the same time: (a) honestly admit the incurable gappiness involved in trying to bring ideas originating in different fields into communication – without having to forcefully “convert” one type of knowledge into another and honoring the different standards common in different disciplines; (b) clear enough common ground for meaningful debate and dialogue to be possible.
I thus think that, judged from the perspective of religion and science, both my overall methodological strategy and the particular methods used meet the presumed quality standards.
§ 2. A final vignette
Looking back at the process of arriving at the above methodology and method – at one point I realized that in fact they, too, are derived through a process very similar to collage. This is not surprising, given that I was trying to construct a method to fit the nature of the data and given how multi-faceted and frag-mentary the data were.
Once I realized this, I quickly also noticed other similar convergences. For example – the set of source materials used for the “methodological collage” is derived clearly by theoretical sampling. Also, the bringing of together of the usable bits and pieces of existing methods and their further interpretation in
order to connect (or make sense out of) them involves gap-bridging, largely via associative and metaphorical reasoning.16
I do not think this is a vicious circle. Rather, as said above, the peculiar circularity (resembling a Möbius strip) in this case is the result of the fact that the metodology was developed to fit the nature of the data, meaning that there was no way to decide on a priori grounds in favor of one or another ready-made tool.
This said, I think I can now turn back to the opening metaphor of Part One and conclude: I think I have harnessed the “beast”.
16 It is on these grounds that I have taken the liberty of using a lot of metaphors, analogies and similes in the part of a thesis that would normally be the most rigorous and grave one – the methodology/method part. Their use is mandated by an appeal to methodological consistency – if the methodology described is itself devised via a process similar to what it presents as justified, then why not use all of its elements in its explication?
PART TWO:
The Mystical and the Sexual as Evolutionary Bedfellows – a Cognitive Model
“Here in this well-concealed spot, almost to be covered with a thumbnail, lies the very mainspring of primitive existence – vegetative, emotional, reproductive – on which, with more or less success, man has come to superimpose a cortex of inhibitions.”
– Harvey Cushing, 1869–19391