From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 21:10:32 GMT
Sam Norton's argument goes like this:
- Kant was still working through the 'drama of justification' that he'd
inherited from Descartes, in other words: what are our grounds for
certainty?
- his epistemological division between phenomena and noumena was his answer,
circumscribing reason to the phenomena;
- this proved unpalatable to the theologically minded;
- Schleiermacher argued that feelings could give us access to the noumena
and called this 'mysticism' (thereby changing the sense of the word
'mysticism');
- the tradition following Schleiermacher emphasises certain metaphysical
claims;
- these claims seem to be present in the MoQ;
- it therefore seems to be that the MoQ is still operating within the
Kantian epistemological framework (the conceptual shape is the same as
Schleiermacher's).
dmb replies:
There are many points that could be taken up here, but I want to focus on
Schleiermacher. He is central here and elsewhere Sam had even suggested that
Schleiermacher is responsible for shaping the Modern West's view of
mysticism, so that I and Pirsig are guilty by association whether we know it
or not. I'd like to put this vague and unsupported assertion to rest. As I
already mentioned, his 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.
This morning, just by luck, I found him in a book I'd borrowed from a
classmate in 1984. 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. Apparently he made
a splash among his contemporaries, but is now all but forgotten. I suspect
he's a big deal and/or a big problem in theological circles, but as a
philosopher he's such a small town that he only appears on very detailed
maps. I'm not even sure if its correct to call him a philosopher and he's
not a philosophical mystic as I understand it.
Thanks,
dmb
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 19 2004 - 21:13:18 GMT