From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 - 02:51:49 GMT
Sam, Chin and all interested MOQers:
Sam Norton had argued:
- Schleiermacher argued that feelings could give us access to the noumena
and called this 'mysticism' (thereby changing the sense of the word
'mysticism');
- the tradition following Schleiermacher emphasises certain metaphysical
claims;
- these claims seem to be present in the MoQ;
dmb replied:
..his (Schleiermacher) name does not appear in the index of the books I rely
on most heavily for my views on mysticism, nor does his name even appear in
my encyclopedia of philosophy. I'm NOT saying that such a conspicuous
absence is proof of anything, but it does seem to suggest that he's not a
very important voice. ..In H.G. Schenk's THE MIND OF THE EUROPEAN ROMANTICS,
Schleiermacher is listed as a "German Protestant theologian" and is featured
most prominently in a section titled, "EMOTIONAL CHRISTIANITY". Apparently,
he stressed sentiment and emotion over intellect and put the emphasis on the
Holy Spirit instead of the Father or the Son, but I hardly think this
resembles what I've been saying or what Pirsig is saying. ...
Sam shot back:
Er... did you actually read the essay? ...If so, why don't you actually
engage with the ideas presented, rather than trying to make an argument to
authority - "hey, I haven't heard of Schleiermacher, and the people I read
haven't heard
of him, therefore he can't be important". A more cast-iron way of remaining
lodged in your own certainties I can't conceive of.
dmb is stunned:
Argument to authority? Huh? As I understand it, you're trying to hang
Schleiermacher around the neck of philosophical mysticism by tracing a line
from him to the MOQ. And yet he is conspicuosly absent as an influence. I
can now add that he does not even appear in the index of William James'
VARITIES. Its hard to imagine that his influence could be very substantial
if he is not mentioned even once, don't you think? This is not an argument
from authority. You say he has had a profound impact of some sort and I say
he's not even mentioned. I have a verifiable fact which seriously calls your
assertion into question. One can't prove a negative, but that's pretty
close.
Here's a question for you Sam. And I'm quite serious. What's the difference
between the mystical experience as James describes it and the description
Plotinus gives us in THE ONE?
It seems clear to me that they are talking about the same thing. And one of
the main reasons I picked it is not just because Plotinus is decidedly
pre-Modern, but also because he can be claimed by Buddhists, Christians, and
philosophical mystics, but was himself a pagan. He very nearly personifies
the perennial philosophy all by himself. I think we see an ancient pagan and
a Modern American describing the same experience and I'd really like to know
why you think they are different in any important way. Please explain.
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 : Sat Dec 25 2004 - 02:58:38 GMT