From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Feb 06 2005 - 19:05:38 GMT
Scott and all MOQers:
dmb said to Scott:
I'm truely baffled as to why you persist in this error. I don't know of any
kind of mystic who says the mystical truth can be apprehended through
intellect. It contradicts the most basic assertion of philosophical
mysticism and, as I've pointed out, directly to you at least a half a dozen
times, Plointus says the same thing as Pirsig on this point. Please, do me a
favor. Don't ignore it again. Look. Its right in front of your eyes...
Plotinus says, "of this One no descripton nor scientific knowledge is
possible" and "he who wishes to see the Intelligible must abandon all
imagery of the perceptible in order to contemplate what is beyond the
perceptible, so he who wishes to contemplate what is beyond the Intelligible
will attain the contemplation of it by letting go everything intelligible"
Scott deleted the quote from Plotinus and replied:
And you ignore what I have said. ............................ What I have
been saying is that Plotinus' metaphysics says that the first emanation from
the One is Intellect (nous), and that the way of the seeker toward the One
is to build up their intellect -- he recommends studying mathematics and
then dialectic in order to move oneself to union with Intellect from
which -- since it is the first emanation -- one can contemplate the One.
dmb now says:
I've ignored this assertion? Are you insane? This is exactly what I am
disputing. This is what I'm objecting to. I've shown you, in Plotinus's own
words, that seeing the One requires "letting go of everything intelligible".
And what is your response? You delete the quote (none so blind) and simply
re-assert the directly contradictory view that the One is to be attained
through study, through mathematics and the intellect. This interpretation is
bad for the simple reason that you have Plotinus contradicting himself as
well as defying the most central characteristic of philosophical mysticism.
Scott persisted:
And I will add that Merrell-Wolff is a modern mystic who also recommends
studying philosophy and mathematics. Neither M-W nor Plotinus say that one
can capture mystical truth in a thought or in a mathematical formula. They
are saying that the way (or rather one way), is to purify the intellect by
exercising it.
dmb says:
I've used Merrell-Wolff quotes to show you the same idea, several times,
without effect. I don't know what else to say at this point. In any case,
its very clear to me that both of "your" guys are only saying what Pirsig is
saying and your assertions that mysticism is both ineffible AND apprehended
through the intellect, purified or otherwise, only demonstrates a profound
confusion on your part. Do you know what the word "ineffable" means? You're
making a case that the mystical experience is its very opposite. You're
saying that the best non-rational means is a rational means. I'm sorry but
the law of contradictory identity does not give one license to be stupid.
I've laid this out as clearly as I know how. Why delete the quotes I've
begged you to look at? It makes me crazy. Its like talking to a wall.
Scott quoted Pirsig [Lila, Ch. 5]:
"Mystics will tell you that once you've opened the door to metaphysics you
can say goodbye to any genuine understanding of reality. Thought is not a
path to reality. It sets obstacles in that path because when you try to use
thought to approach that which is prior to thought your thinking does carry
you toward that something. It carries you *away* from it."
Scott said:
Pirsig's attitude toward thought vis-avis a "genuine understanding of
reality" is what you will find in Schleiermacher and James, but not in
Plotinus or Plato. Pirsig and Plotinus are the same insofar as they both
hold that discursive thought cannot capture ultimate truth, (but as far as
that goes, Pirsig is the same as Aquinas, Calvin, and the Pope), but they
differ vastly in their metaphysics and their attitude toward intellect. In
the latter case, Pirsig is like Shleiermacher and James, not like Plotinus
or Plato.
dmb replies:
Pirsig, an anti-theist, is the same as the Pope, the ultimate theist? But
he's not like Plotinus or Plato despite what Pirsig himself says about
Plotinus and Plato, despite the parallels I've shown? I guess we'll just
have to disagree about that too. I think you are a very poor reader who
manages to misinterpret nearly everything and that, consequently, your
assertions amount to one contradiction after another.
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 Feb 06 2005 - 19:59:42 GMT