Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Phaedrus Wolff (
Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 - 23:45:55 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Hi Sam,

    I read the essay again, and it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but
    sense it was posted here on the MOQ, I imagine that is just me. I also
    realize my thoughts are too simple on this, but the question seems to be did
    Pirsig imitate Kant, Schleiermacher, and James. Though I must admit, as
    Pirsig does, that there was an influence in his writings from the thoughts
    of James, and Kant influenced both Schleiermacher, and James. But, even if
    there was an influence, is it imitative or creative?

    First, I would think that James was not imitating Kant or Schleiermacher, as
    James' work, other than his early pragmatism, went well beyond Kant and
    Schleiermacher. I might feel Pirsig would call Schleiermacher one of those
    smart talking theists (theolosophy), and what is missing in Kant's work
    might be an answer to the question "What is to be considered the common
    good?" Did Schleiermacher or James answer this question?

    I don't personally see Pirsig as being observed as an imitative poet, but
    each should be allowed their view. If there are words that are similar to
    James' and Schleiermacher's, then I guess we could concede to an influence
    on Pirsig, just as my dentist mentioned probably the reason I was so
    influenced by Pirsig's work was because I ride a motorcycle:)

    I have been skim-reading some scattered writings of James, and I still can't
    get to this idea of James and mysticism you mentioned. James represents
    modern mysticism(?)

    I know I'm slow in a philosophology sense, so feel free to ignore this
    reply, and please forgive my butting in.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Sam Norton" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 3:16 PM
    Subject: 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
    > > 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 -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    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 : Sun Dec 26 2004 - 00:13:44 GMT