Krimel said: Ok, we have one person impressed by one person on the list. That's very special.
dmb says: Your objections, based the "unimpressiveness" of these philosophers, strikes me as irrelevant or shallow at best. Again, my point in posting the quote was to provide a clear and simple statement about the beliefs common to philosophical mystics. Notice that the list includes Plotinus, who heavily influenced earl christianity and William James. There's Swedenborg, who influenced William James. Wasn't Loyola the founder of the Jesuit order? Gotta admit that a big deal even if you don't like catholics. It seems to me that these names were selected for their diversity as well as their importance and influence. A couple dozen centuries and a continent or two stand between these figures and yet they share a common belief. That is the thing that should impress a guy. That's what my aim was, anyway. You'd asked where Pirsig said anything about knowledge versus the mystical reality and this was part of my answer... [Krimel] And now we have someone impressed with the whole list. I just need to get out more. But we could create a similarly impressive list of honored philosophers who thought the world was flat; or that people can be demon possessed, or that ghosts haunt old motels. "Some of the most honored philosophers in history have been mystics: Plotinus, Swedenborg, Loyola, Shankaracharya and many others. They share a common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside language: that language splits things up into parts while the true nature of reality is undivided. Zen, which is a mystic religion, argues that the illusion of dividedness can be overcome by meditation" (LILA, page 63). Krimel responded with an apparently altogether different topic: Seriously that list of "most honored philosophers" has to be a joke. Third string bench warmers, does anyone here find it impressive? Dwaipayan then said to Krimel: I hope you know what you just said. I don't really know whether it is appropriate to club Adi Shankaracharya in the same group as Loyola and the others. Shankaracharya is definitely not a third-string benchwarmer by any definition of the word when it comes to Indic traditions and classical Indian Darshana. If you think he is, you don't know what you're talking about... dmb says: According to my old pal Ken Wilber, Shankaracharya is the Vedanta's greatest philosopher-sage. Also, every non-dual tradition in the West can be traced to Plotinus. That seems like a pretty big deal. I don't think Pirsig's aim was to flatter "some of the most honored philosophers" and I don't think his point rests on the status of these figures, but calling them "third string bench warmers" is just a meaningless ad hominem attack. Somehow, its silly and mean at the same time. [Krimel] Add Ken to the list of third string bench warmers, by all means! Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
