From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Dec 20 2004 - 02:28:55 GMT
Sam and all:
dmb had said:
Well, yes, its pretty clear that Schleiermacher, James and Pirsig are all
talking about the same (mystical) experience, but this is not particularly
modern, does not begin with Schleiermacher and doesn't rest upon Kant's
epistemology.
Sam replied:
This is what you need to JUSTIFY not simply ASSERT.
dmb says:
I moved Sam's question from the "Kantosphere" thread because if it can be
shown that Socrates or any other ancient figure was a mystic that would
demonstrate that it does not depend on Modernity or any of the other Modern
figures.
"Philosophical mysticism, the idea that truth is indefinable and can be
apprehended only by non-rational means, has been with us since the beginning
of history." Pirsig in ZAMM, p25
"In the spiritual traditions of both East and West - I am thinking not about
particular religions, but about the mystical element to be found in them all
- we find the claim that eventually one must let go of the activites of
thought and imagination in order to enter a region of consciousness that
such symbolic activity cannot reach." Guidebook to ZAMM, p22
"Then even 'he' disappears and only the dream of himself remains with
himself in it. And the Quality, the arete he has fought so hard for, has
sacrificed for, has NEVER betrayed, but in all that time has never once
understood, now makes itself clear to him and his soul is at rest." Pirsig
in ZAMM, p354
"What Phaedrus has been talking about as Quality, Socrates appears to have
described as the soul, self moving, the source of all things. There is no
contradiction." ZAMM p349
"..Phaedrus was clearly a Platonist by temperment and when the classes
shifted to Plato he was greatly relieved. His Quality and Plato's Good were
so similar that if it hand't been for some notes Phaedrus left I might have
thouht they were identical." ZAMM p332
"I want to say that the ultimat journey taken by Phaedrus and described by
the narrator was the Mystical self,.. Mysticism is always associated with
some sort of unitive consciousness, a consciousness experientially united
with ultimate reality." Guidebook to ZAMM p26
And in line with this thinking about philosophical mysticism, here is a bit
of Plotinus, who lived from 205-270. Its from a work called THE ONE...
"There must be something prior to all, simple, and different from the things
which are posterior to it, self-existent, unmingled with the things which
come from it, and yet able in another way to be present with the others,
being really one, not something else first then secondarily one, of which it
is false even that it is one; but of this One no descripton nor scientific
knowledge is possible. Indeed it must be said to be beyond 'being'; for if
it were not simple, without any composition and synthesis, and really one,
it would not be a first principle. And it is wholly self-sufficient by
virtue of its being simple and prior to all things. What is not simple
demands those simple elements which are within it, that it may be composed
of them. Such a One must be unique, for if there were another such both
together would constitute a larger unit. For we hold that they are not two
bodies nor is the Primary One a body. For no body is simple, and a body is
subject to generation; it is not an ultimate principle. The ultimate
principle is unoriginated, and being incorpreal and really one it is able to
stand first.
Since substances which have an origin are of some form, and since it is not
any particular form but all, without exception, the first principle must be
formless. And being formless is is not a substance; for substance must be
particular; and a particualr is determinate. But this can not be regarded as
particular, for it would not be a principle, but merely that particular
thing which you may have called it. If then all things are included among
what are generated, which of them will you say is the first principle? Only
what is none of them could be said to stand above the rest. But these
constitute existng things and Being in general. The First Principle then is
beyond Being. To say that it is beyond Being does not assert it to be any
definite thing. It does not define it. Nor does it give it a name. It
applies to it only the appellaton 'not-this'. In doing so it nowhere sets
limits to it. It would be absurd to seek to delimit such a boundless nature.
He who wishes to do this prevents himself from getting upon its track in any
wise, even little by little. But just as he who wishes to see the
Intelligible must abandon all imagery of the perceptible in order to
contemplate what is beyond the perceptible, so he who wishes to contemplate
what is beyond the Intelligible will attain the contemplation of it by
letting go everything intelligible, though this means learning THAT it is,
abandoning the search for WHAT it is. To tell what it is would involve a
reference to what it is not, for there is no quality in what has no
particular character. But we are in painful doubt as to what we should say
of it; so we speak of the ineffable and give it a name, meaning to endow it
with some significance to ourselves so far as we can. Perhaps this name 'The
One' implies merely opposition to plurality. ...But if The One were given
positive content, a name and significantion, it would be less appropriately
designated than when one does not give any name. It may be said that
description of it is carried this far in order that he who seeks it
beginning with that which indicates the simplicity of all things may end by
negating even this, on the ground that it was taken simply as the most
adequate and the nearest description possible for him who used it, but not
even this is adequate to the revelation of that nature, because it is
inaudible, not to be understood through hearing, and if by and sense at all
by vision alone. But if the eye that sees seeks to behold a form it will not
descry even this."
dmb concludes:
I know that's clumsy and long-winded, but Sam asked for ancient example of
mystical philosophers and I thought it was important to see a substantial
chunk from an original source, in the original Charokee language. It took
Plotinus several hundred words to say what Pirsig squeezed into a phrase;
"the idea that truth is indefinable and can be apprehended only through
non-rational means". Notice also how Plotinus agrees that 'knowledge' comes
through a "revelation" that can't be seen with the eye of forms, but only
through contemplation. Here we see the epistemological pluralism that is
also connected to this same kind of philosophical mysticism.
Are we on the same page yet?
Thanks in any case,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 20 2004 - 02:32:09 GMT