I think (Dave and Matt) that there is a clear indication that "poetry" is being used with a wider interpretation than "normal" in phrases like "poetry as experience"
And an experience more radical (for being poetry) than being expressed in more objective rational prose. It's not a matter of poetry being "about" mystical experience. It's a matter of being poetic expression of real (radical) experience .... without relations to conceptions. Ian On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:57 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb said to Matt: > But poetry is poetry even when it's about mystical experience. It's better > than prose but it is still language. And the mystical reality is outside of > language so the phrase "mysticism as poetry" seems dismissive and it seems to > defy the MOQ's central distinction. > > > Matt replied: > > Yeah, I don't see it that way. The definition of poetry being used isn't > limited to the lyric or epic, or even what we standardly shuffle into the > class called "poem." Rorty's sense of "poet" includes all thinkers, from > Homer to Plato, Plutarch to Nietzsche, both James brothers, Wallace Stevens, > Freud, Davidson, etc. > > dmb says: > Okay. You're using the term "poet" in a much broader sense than usual. > (That's probably worth mentioning if you want to be understood.) > But that expansion of the term doesn't really address the point because all > those thinkers are working within language at the same. In fact, the notion > that mystical reality is outside language is a view that all philosophical > mystics have in common. The non-linguistic nature of mystical reality is > explained pretty clearly in the following quotes: > > "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. The Native American Church argues > that peyote can force-feed a mystic understanding upon those who were > normally resistant to it,..." (LILA, ch 5) > > "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there > is a knower and known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A > metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and knowable, or there isn't any > metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical > definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means > that a 'MoQ' is essentially a contradiction in terms." (LILA, ch 5) > > Matt said: > The central issue dividing us, it would seem, is what "the mystical reality > is outside of language" means. Because if it doesn't mean "transcendence," > as you've indicated, then I'm not sure what issue is left that Rorty would've > had a hard time with, an issue that makes "mysticism as poetry" seem > dismissive, rather than the highest compliment Rorty could think to give > something. > > dmb says: > Well, as you pointed out, his highest compliment is being paid to thinkers > and their contribution to the conversation. It is Rorty's emphasis on > language, on the thinkers and their text and contribution to the > conversation. It's all about language and you're trying to make non-language > fit into this vision. I think it's a rather clear and simple contradiction > and I honestly don't know why it remains unclear to you. To say that mystical > experience is outside of language simply means that conceptual distinctions > are absent, words are absent. It just means it is NOT language. It is prior > to language, experience before concepts enter. If this distinction raises > questions or objections, please articulate them in specific terms. > > Matt said: > To me, the issue seems almost entirely verbal. You have, it would seem, a > low estimation of poetry (at least, in comparison). Rorty used "poetry" as > the genre-label for where secularists housed their spiritual texts. > > > dmb says: > > A low estimation of poetry? No, I don't just mean that "mysticism as poetry" > is dismissive in the sense that it reduces mysticism to mere poetry. I mean > it dismisses poetry the way a teacher dismisses her students. She lets them > leave the room or the building. The mysticism has been dismissed in the sense > that it has been evacuated and replaced by the very thing it is not. > Spiritual texts are still texts and that exactly what mysticism is not. See? > > >> >> Matt >> >> 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
