RE: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 00:18:19 GMT

  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "MD Whither "direct," "pure," and "immediate"?"

    Sam, Scott and all MOQers:

    Sam said to Scott:
    What I most disagree with in the discussion about mysticism and 'pure
    experience' etc, is the Platonic notion that there has to be one common
    factor between the different religions which serves as the definition of a
    "mystical experience". I think that is a profoundly SOM interpretation. And
    my rejection of that isn't due to special pleading for Christian belief, but

    simply an acceptance of Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance.

    dmb says:
    Doesn't his notion apply to words and their meanings? How do we transfer
    that kind of assertion other than by analogy? I mean, the common element
    that you would deny has been expressed many different forms, in different
    languages, in different cultures. Its not that I am denying that words have
    flexible and variable meanings. That just seems like common sense to me. Its
    just that I don't see how this assertion is relevant in denying the
    perennial philosophy. The perennial philosophy is not asserting a "Platonic
    notion that there has to be one common factor". I'd say that is a wild
    exaggeration of a very much simpler claim; that the perennial philosophy can
    be found in the world's great religions. If you want to dispute the notion
    that that is a mystical experience behind these various expressions, you'd
    do much better to attack Huston Smith, Huxley, Leibniz, Cambell, Wilber or
    some other thinker that is actually asserting it. (For example, Huxley said,
    "Rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary
    lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully
    developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions.") As I
    understand it, this is not about forcing anyone to comply with a specific
    definition of anything. Its based on what we observe when religions are
    examined side by side. Its derived from data, if you will. Its a matter of
    noticing features in the long view that are not noticable in the short view.
    In fact, we can really see such notions first emerge in the Hellenistic
    period, after Alexander's conquests, when such side by side comparisons were
    not just available to those few "wise men" that traveled broadly for that
    purpose. In this period one could visit the library at Alexandria instead,
    as many did. This same sort of thing has become easy again in Modern times,
    only more so. Leibniz may have coined the phrase "perennial philosophy" but
    the idea is thousands of years older than that. You'd also need to explain
    how this "is a profoundly SOM interpretation". How so?

    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 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 00:23:42 GMT