RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 - 19:32:56 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Sam, Mark and all MOQers:

    Mark Steven Heyman said:
    However, however, this point of contention, that there's a
    connection between Schleiermacher ideas and the MOQ, seems important
    enough to warrant a little additional background reading, IMO. And
    it sounds as though DMB is kind of asking for authority in this case.

    A final point from the referree: Whether or not someone has
    appropriate philosophical "credentials" is (or should be) irrelevant
    to the value of his or her ideas. You won't find Pirsig (or Sam or
    DMB, or MSH) listed in any Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    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. I know that we and Pirsig are not
    listed in the encyclopedia of Philosophy. Neither are Campbell and Wilber.
    Tis not the point at all.

    My argument is not that Schleiermacher is an unimportant thinker, although
    that seems to be true too. No. My point and my argument is simply that
    Schleiermacher is unimportant TO WILLIAM JAMES and the other philosophical
    mystics who most inform my view on the topic.

    I took Sam's assertion seriously enough to look into it and so far it seems
    that his case falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. I think it has already
    been pretty thorougly defeated. (OH, I looked into Kant again and my
    original hunch has panned out. Kant himself was no mystic and in fact saw
    his assertions as having no theological implications at all.) But I'll go
    the extra step just to play along. I'll see what I can find out about
    Jantzen even though it looks like a dead end.

    Oh, and one more thing for the moderator. You're fired.

    Merry christmas to both of you.

    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 : Sat Dec 25 2004 - 19:36:02 GMT