From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Dec 25 2004 - 22:10:20 GMT
Sam and all MOQers:
Sam Norton said:
...I have consistently asked DMB to read outside his usual field. Most
particularly, I would like you to read Grace Jantzen's book, which I've
referred to consistently. (Hey, if you let me have your snail mail address,
I will buy it for you - it's on Amazon and you can read the first chapter
there. Just give it a look, please, please, please - it'll help
us hugely, I'm sure.)
dmb says:
I went to Amazon to read the opening exerpt of her book and found pretty
much what I expected; yet another uncomprehending theologian. Sigh. Sure,
she's a postmodern feminist theologian and that makes her a little more
interesting than most, but its not nearly enough to get past the very same
blindspot which has plagued our debate since the beginning. She reveals this
same kind of misunderstanding in her opening moves. She seems to be unaware
of the idea that there is such a thing as non-devotional mysticism, or
rather takes it as a Modern invention. I think the exerpt from Plotinus is
enough to demonstrate the falsity of such claims so I look forward to an
answer on that one. You may recall that the question is; how is it different
from James? But I really don't think Jantzen is going to help us here at
all. Quite the contrary. I think she is only re-inforceing the blindspot
that I've been trying so hard to remove. This blindspot is ferociously
protected by theology. It is actively cultivated by theology. Theology is
the problem, see? I know you don't agree with that assertion, Sam. But
asking me to read theology begs the question is a very big way and her view
only supports the very misconceptions I'm trying to get you to overcome.
Granted, I am only going on Amazon's exerpt at this point, but I don't see
anything new. Sorry.
Sam continued:
Specifically, her argument in Section III of Chapter 8 is twenty pages
explaining the link from Schleiermacher to William James. Now, perhaps she
is completely wrong - I certainly am not in a position to second-guess her
about Schleiermacher. But I have studied James' Varieties in some detail,
and I can vouch for her accuracy there.
dmb replies:
I don't know if she is "completely wrong", but I think she is doing exactly
what you have been doing for years; asserting that mysticism within a
tradition is the only kind. She quotes McGinn for example, who divides
mysticism into three areas; "as a part or element of religion", as "a
process or way of life" and as an expression of "direct consciousness". But
then she immediately set about erasing those distinctions and insists only
one of the three "must be the decisve one". I think her approch won't help,
but if you wish to continue, I have to ask you to bring me the arguments
from "section III of chapter 8". You could do what I do, which is provide
some key quotes from the book and then explain how the points in her exerpts
relate to the MOQ's philosophical mysticism.
Based on what I've seen so far, she is unaware of the distinction between
jiniki mysticism, of which Zen and Stoicism are examples, and tariki
mysticism, of which the Western orthodoxies are all example. Because of this
ignorance, she sees jiniki mysticism as a Modern invention. Unless Plotinus,
Socrates and the Buddha were big fans of William James, I just don't think
that is even close to correct.
And despite your efforts to associate this other kind of mysticism with SOM,
I'd like to show that the opposite is true. As I have mentioned before, the
dualism of SOM is a direct descendant of the theological dualism we find in
those same Western Orthodoxies. By contrast, philosophical mysticism has
always opposed to such dualisms. Pirsig's rejection of both SOM and theistic
religions is an assertion of THE ONE against those dualisms. See? There is a
very basic idea here and it is where religion and metaphysics meet. The kind
of mysticism we find within Christianity is based on an assumption that God
is something other than us, other than nature. Its a religion of
relationship TO god, rather that of an identity WITH God. The former is
dualistic and the latter asserts a unity. The misconceptions enter into the
picture precisely at this point. It seems that you, Jantzen and almost every
theologically inclined thinker I've encountered makes the mistake of trying
to understand THE ONE in dualistic terms. This is how you mistakenly come to
the conclusion that a mystical experience is "private, subjective and
psychological" as Jantzen puts it. That's why you thought I was talking
about a warm fuzzy feeling deviod of content and that's how Schleiermacher
confused it with sentiments and emotions. Contrary to all of that,
philosopical mystics assert that such an experience dissolves the subjective
self, that subject and object are identical to such a form of consciousness,
and is in fact a shattering of all such forms.
Its dangerous to send long posts these days, but I will continue to explain
the connection between SOM and the traditional theistic version of
Christianity in more detail later. Until then...
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 - 22:13:29 GMT