Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 - 20:16:44 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Hi DMB,

    > dmb says:
    > Oh, Dude. You're killing me here. Authority and credentials are entirely
    > beside the point. Sam's assertion is that Schleiermacher has influenced
    > William James, especially the views expressed in his VARITIES OF RELIGIOUS
    > EXPERIENCE. I have only pointed out that Schleiermacher is not even
    > mentioned in that book. That's why Sam's assertion seems to be an
    > exaggeration, if not entirely untrue. My argument has nothing to do with
    > credentials or authority. It simply points out that there is no apparent
    > connection between the two thinkers.

    All this proves is that he wasn't a conscious source for James' perspective, which is uncontentious
    and irrelevant. Indeed, the whole point is that Schleiermacher's perspective and understanding of
    mysticism was the 'received wisdom', the common sense of James' culture - as it still is, in some
    circles. If you care to read the Jantzen (or have a look at my essay, and engage with that) then
    you'll get the information you seek.

    Sam

    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 - 20:15:59 GMT