From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 26 2004 - 22:01:44 GMT
Sam) -- This just struck me as worth pursuing. Consider the following
theses:
a) Schleiermacher created the contemporary understanding of mysticism as
something flowing from felt
personal experience;
b) Schleiermacher described that felt personal experience as preceding the
separation between
subject and object;
c) Schleiermacher's motivation for this was to extricate religious
epistemology (how we know) from
Kant, so that the religious realm is not discarded.
Hi Sam,
You are right that this does resemble DQ, and as you stated earlier, the
interpretations I mentioned would evolve as DQ/SQ latches to the prior
static patterns of religious beliefs -- but, this is in religious beliefs
which is not what Pirsig is focusing on. Where Schleiermacher concerned
theologians would have been this concentration on what could be translated
as the 'Holy Spirit'. Right? The Holy Spirit would fit in well with Pirsig's
Quality, but I have seen nowhere a mention of the Holy Spirit in Pirsig's
writings. He denies the use of God and Allah, but accepts Nothingness, The
One, Source, and Creator as fitting in with Quality in the MOQ.
Where Schleiermacher's theology might resemble Pirsig's MOQ would be
limited, as religious mystical experience. In the MOQ, DQ is not limited to
religious mystical experience, or even mystical experience. DQ can come in
any form, including SQ of other cultures. I see the MOQ more as a map better
than the scientific S/O, in that it adds value which scientific formulas are
missing. Drawing from other cultures does not fit in with Schleiermacher's
religious mysticism.
In particular, the MOQ fills the gap in Quantum Physics where value solves
the problem of no object being measured using particles and waves being
built from particles and waves; without value, the instruments would have
just been measuring the instruments. The reason Buddhism fits in well with
the MOQ is that Buddhism is based on a Quantum Physics type understanding.
So pretty much what I am saying, is that yes, religious mysticism does fit
in the MOQ as a form of DQ, but so does scientific discovery which I don't
feel Schleiermacher was very much agreeable with. Right?
Pirsig has called the MOQ atheistic and anti-theist -- Schleiermacher
doesn't fit IMHO.
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?
> Hi Chin,
>
> > 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.
>
> Not at all, it was actually put together in a bit of haste, and it could
do with being unpacked and
> clarified (although the last bit was deliberately sketchy). Perhaps I'll
do a version 2 once I've
> done the material on James and Plotinus for DMB.
>
> My basic point is that the structure of the MoQ, specifically the
'pre-intellectual cutting edge of
> reality', seems to correspond exactly with Schleiermacher, as presented by
Jantzen. Thus, "immediate
> consciousness points to the stage before subject and object are
differentiated. There is,
> Schleiermacher suggests, a primal stage of consciousness in any
experience, a stage before the
> objective content is discriminated from the subjective participation. This
consciousness cannot be
> consciousness of anything, it cannot have any specificity, because by the
time the object of
> consciousness has been specified one has already moved away from the
primal undifferentiated state."
>
> This just struck me as worth pursuing. Consider the following theses:
> a) Schleiermacher created the contemporary understanding of mysticism as
something flowing from felt
> personal experience;
> b) Schleiermacher described that felt personal experience as preceding the
separation between
> subject and object;
> c) Schleiermacher's motivation for this was to extricate religious
epistemology (how we know) from
> Kant, so that the religious realm is not discarded.
>
> It seems to me that the above theses are true - although we can argue all
of them, as we no doubt
> will - but most importantly, if you substitute Pirsig for Schleiermacher,
value for religion, and DQ
> for felt personal experience, then you have something remarkably close to
the MoQ. That's what I
> mean by saying that the MoQ and Schleiermacher's ideas share a conceptual
shape, and that's what I
> think is so interesting - is Pirsig simply recapitulating Schleiermacher?
As I said in the essay,
> I'm not in a position (yet) to answer the question, but the evidence I've
read so far seems
> tremendously suggestive. So I thought it was worth sharing the question to
see what other people
> think. I know DMB thinks this is tosh, but ever since he discovered the
extent of my Christian
> convictions, he thinks everything I say is tosh.
>
> I'd love to know if other people also think this is
boring/untrue/irrelevant to understanding the
> MoQ.
>
> 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
>
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 : Sun Dec 26 2004 - 22:21:05 GMT