RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: David Buchanan (
Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 - 02:51:49 GMT

  • Next message: Phaedrus Wolff: "MD Dynamic/static morality"

    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
    - the tradition following Schleiermacher emphasises certain metaphysical
    - 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

    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 -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 25 2004 - 02:58:38 GMT