RE: MD On Transcendence

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 01:23:52 GMT

  • Next message: mel: "RE: MD On Transcendence"

    DMB,

    > THOU ART THAT, p47-8
    > "...there are two ways of interpreting the word 'transcendent'. One
    > signifies something that is out there and so transcends this place here.
    In
    > that sense, Yahweh is transcendent. Yahweh is, it might be said, a
    > supernatual fact, up there. The other way of reading the word
    'transcendent'
    > is that of Kant in the CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, as the ultimate mystery of
    > being that transcends all conceptualization, beyond thought, beyond
    > categories. That is the notion that is found in the Upanishads.

    [Scott:] Not that it bears on the rest of what you say, but he's got Kant
    wrong. For Kant, "a piece of knowledge is transcendental if it is a priori
    and if by it we understand 'that and why certain presentations (perceptions
    or concepts) are only a priori applied or possible.'" [S. Korner, "Kant",
    p. 35]. For Kant, then, transcendental knowledge exists, and provides the
    structure (the categories, e.g., space, time, causation) by which we know
    the empirical. Hence it is non-empirical knowledge.

    >
    > dmb continues:
    > In theology, the difference between the two meanings was debated in terms
    of
    > man's relationship with God. Should it be thought of in terms of
    > RELATIONSHIP or in terms of INDENTITY? Eckhart, for exmaple, had a unitive
    > mystical experience that compelled him to conclude that INDENTITY was the
    > correct term, but, Pope John XXII censured it as false. This sort of thing
    > happens over and over again in the West. Those who dare to identify
    > themselves with God are generally considered heretics and some, like Jesus
    > himself, were killed for saying so. The dominant view in the West is one
    of
    > RELATIONSHIP, its all about "I and Thou" rather than "Thou Art That". The
    > position that God is to be found within has always existed as an
    underground
    > current in the West and the idea that man and nature are seperate from God
    > has been the dominant view.

    [Scott:] If it was underground, how could Athanasius, who practically
    defined orthodoxy, say that "God became man so that man could become God".
    If God was just "other", how could Augustine, one of the two most respected
    theologians in Latin Christianity, say "God is closer to you than you are
    to yourself"?

    [DMB:] The religions of the West are religions of
    > exile, of trying to get back to the garden, of trying to earn a place in
    > paradise through a proper relationship with God, usually mediated through
    a
    > social institution and its functionaries.

    [Scott:] As opposed to requiring a guru? As opposed to the Shin Buddhist
    chanting "namu amida butsu" in order to be reincarnated in the Pure Land?
    As opposed to the belief that if one is greedy in this life one will spend
    time in the hereafter as a hungry ghost? There is good and bad, wisdom and
    superstition, in all religions.

    [DMB:] Its also no co-incidence that mysticism is rejected by BOTH
    > traditional christianity AND scientific materialism.

    [Scott:] This is simply false. Protestantism, to be sure, until recently,
    was down on mysticism, but that was in conscious contrast to the approval
    of mysticism among Catholics. Negative theology (in Orthodox Christianity
    called mystical theology) had been accepted from the beginning. Look into
    Bernard McGinn's four-volume (I'm not sure if the last has been published)
    work called "The Presence of God", which is all about the history of
    mysticism in Christianity. And, of course, in the other theistic religions
    there was and is Sufism and Kabbalism. The latter's highest "concept" of
    God is "Ayn Sof" -- identical to the completely undefinable "concept" one
    finds in the East.

    Mystics among theists may not always measure up to your and Pirsig's
    standards of philosophical mysticism, but that just means that those
    standards are too static.

    - Scott

    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 Nov 14 2004 - 07:06:15 GMT