Hi Wim and Bo and other listeners,
Some detailed responses, then something broader.
Wim:
> I'd like to add that even within "Latin Christianity" some held
> and hold that it is not very useful to theologize. Pirsig quotes
> (Lila ch. 30) Johannes Eckhart: "Wouldst thou be perfect, do not
> yelp about God." I guess this is true for most mystics.
Absolutely. They're the good guys (and girls).
Wim:
> Quakers
> dislike theologizing too and would -just like Anglicans- "claim
> to be a different strand again" and to be "closest to the
> orthodox" (-:. (I would have thought Anglicanism -ignorantly-
> just a kind of compromise between Roman Catholicism and
> Protestantism: a kind of political compromise between Catholic
> forms and not wanting to be subject to the bishop of Rome. In
> what sense do you mean "at root it's closest to the orthodox"?)
One apology: when I wrote I should have capitalised 'orthodox' as
'Orthodox'. In other words, I wasn't trying to say that Anglicanism is more
correct (or, heaven forbid, more 'Christian', whatever that might mean) but
that its theology is very similar to that of the Eastern Orthodox churches.
You are quite right that Anglicanism began as 'Catholicism without the
Pope', because Henry VIII wanted a divorce, but in the first hundred years
of its evolution it moved away from that basis. In particular, there was a
reaction against the excesses of the religious conflicts, producing in
Anglicanism a desire to be a 'via media', sometimes embodied in the claim
that Anglicanism is 'Catholic and Reformed'. What makes it a bit more
interesting than just a compromise is that the early Anglican divines placed
great emphasis upon the people known as the Church Fathers, ie those who
were the great teachers of Christianity in the early church. The early
church is seen as the time when the Spirit was most active, and therefore,
in order to avoid the corruptions (and slaughter) of later centuries, we
need to continually refresh ourselves through study of the Fathers. The
product of this is that on most things (not everything) we arrive at a
position very close to Eastern Orthodoxy, which reveres the same figures,
for the same reasons - and also doesn't accept the Pope's jurisdiction. Hope
that clears things up a bit.
> The problem is, I think, that God/Dynamic Quality is valued in
> any religion enough to be able to break through any static
> pattern, including the boxes we put religions, branches, strands
> etc. in.
Indeed. From my point of view, though, I would say that the ability to get
to the highest levels of DQ depends upon the existence of the lower static
levels; or, put differently, we cannot access intellectual DQ without
employing the intervening levels of social static Q. I'll come back to that.
> Also, you pinpoint as fundamentalism: "God speaking (only)
> through (literal interpretation of) holy scriptures". Would you
> agree to speak about fundamentalism (in any religion) if it
> limits religious authority to only one source?!
Hmmm. Possibly. I think I'd prefer to say that fundamentalism occurs when
any system becomes 'closed' to further development, whenever a group claims
to have the final word or solution. (This is why I think science is
ultimately holy, because it allows perpetual criticism). I think what
happens in those contexts is that the final solution becomes the God, and
the grain of life becomes warped around the knot in the wood (to use a
carpenting image). I see most of the practices of prayer and meditation as
being ways of making us realise the fluidity of life.
> I think we do Bo & Watts a bit more justice...
[I acknowledge here that my words may have been intemperate - apologies to
Bo, they were really aimed at Watts]
...by recognizing that
> both bible and Hebrew-Christian tradition not only contain
> prophets but also priests, who are (as hireling ministers...)
> biased to preserve at least some religious conventions and
> are -historically speaking- under the suspicion of supporting a
> lot of worldly order, too.
The priests tend to be the bad guys - Aaron being the prototype, Caiaphas
the culmination (from a Christian point of view).
> As a Quaker I tend to agree that prophecy is the heart of
> religion and that religion should be as free as possible of
> outward forms to stay true to its prophetic, critical insights.
> Are you sure you can -as an Anglican priest...- agree with that?
> Don't you want "the moral and logical order of [Anglican]
> convention" preserved, even if you don't identify it with the
> Absolute -God -?
Before coming back on that, I'll respond to Bo.
Bo writes:
The most fundamental cultural difference there is, is the animistic
universe versus the non-animistic one (I forgot the term?). The first
was the rule from whenever humans got human and is found with
all "aborigines". My dictionary says that animism is the belief that
all objects have souls, but this is a SOM definition; they did/don't
view the universe through the soul/object glasses. This value-filled
world view got more complex up through the aeons and reached
some summit with the different ancient mythologies with a god for
every aspect of existence, weaving in and out among the mortals.
Now, 3-4 (?) thousand years ago in the Middle Eastern region the
old myth's (or many tribal) gods were conquered/merged by the
one God (originating in Egypt maybe?) ....
Sam: I agree with this so far, although I can't say I would have used the
word animism (not from disagreement, just lack of familiarity). In
particular, this is really the subject of the story of Adam and Eve.
....and the most profound shift
in the history of mankind took place: The world became worthless
matter created by a good God in one sitting and then left it.
Sam: here I start to disagree. I'm sure Jonathan could comment more
authoritatively, but the idea that the world was seen as worthless matter
after the development of monotheism is not one that I think holds water. In
particular, you wouldn't have such a focus on mundane realities that you
find in, for example, Deuteronomy, if this world was seen as worthless. I
would see that development as a Greek (SOM) influence, not Semitic, which
flourished in, for example, the Gnostic sects (and was rejected as heretical
in Christianity) and which only really got going with the development of
deism as part of the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century.
Bo continues:
I won't go further in my exposition right now, but please note that it
is this (that I believe) Watts is talking about, and if so you will
possibly agree that God (of the Semitic Tradition) is the warrantor
for the moral order. Forever after this gigantic shift God (as Jahve,
God Father or Allah) became the one that punished wrong and
rewarded good . And as there is no behaviour except "social
behaviour" .....ipso facto.
...
...my point is not the
prophet/priest (or God/Church) distinction, with the latter always a
step behind. THAT is in perfect agreement with the tenets of the
MoQ. (the genuine religious experience=encounter with DQ while
the Church =static social).Your question to Sam is possibly a
defense for the first (prophet) variant, but not really addressing my
issue.
And from Bo's earlier post:
>To be free from convention is not
> to spurn it but not to be deceived by it. It is to be able to use it
> as an instrument instead of being used by it. The West has no
> recognized institution corresponding to Taoism....
...What Watts says is that tying social moral/value to (a) God is
wrong because it's impossible to change them without a feeling of
revolt against reality itself.
....In moqish: The social level's purpose is to control the biological one
and Intellect's is to control the social, all produce "damage" to the
lower, above is (only) described social mankind's (Confucianism)
"damage" to biological mankind, while Taoism's "repair" isn't
possible because in the SOM tradition there are no such
distinction, we have inherited the God-is-Society idea that screws it
all up.
Sam:
What I understand Bo's point to be is this: that in the West to be religious
meant being socially conformist, whereas in the East there were two
complementary methods of being religious (confucian=socially conformist and
taoist=non-conformist) which therefore legitimated religiously inspired
change of the social order (and avoided all the hangups that led to the
over-reaction and absolutist tyranny). Is that about right? Whereas I
understand Wim's point to be that acceptance of social level religious
institutions (church and tradition) is inimical to the practice of genuine
religion ("to stay true to its prophetic, critical insights.") If so, you
both agree that 'church', ie the static social level in the Western
tradition, is about conformity, and does not foster DQ in an individual
life. Some comments:
Firstly, I'm not sure it is accurate for Watts to describe Taoism as a
'recognized institution'. What is meant by this? There are certain agreed
texts, and doubtless certain accepted teachers, but so far I would say it is
exactly analogous to the mystical tradition in Christianity. I'm not aware
of social level embodiments of Taoism (ie the equivalent of a church or
monastery) but if there were such, it would undercut the point, would it
not?
Secondly, I agree strongly with Bo's point: "(the genuine religious
experience=encounter with DQ while the Church =static social)." I would
argue, however, using the language of the MoQ, that each person grows
spiritually through their life, and that they experience the DQ at different
levels over time. A child may be completely in touch with DQ early in life,
but to nurture that awareness (or not to destroy it) requires high quality
static social conditioning. Obviously any authority structure can become
corrupt, but it is also true that we cannot exist without social structures.
Hence a perpetual conflict. But it is not the case that Christianity has
blocked out the potential for social or individual development. I would
argue, on the contrary, that it allows for more development than the current
main alternative, of secular humanism (which is vitiated by SOM
presuppositions, amongst other things). Wim asks "Don't you want "the moral
and logical order of [Anglican] convention" preserved, even if you don't
identify it with the Absolute -God -?" to which my answer is an emphatic No!
I see the moral and logical orders as instrumental for higher goods, if they
start to inhibit those higher goods then they have become idolatrous and
destructive, and need to be opposed. Fortunately, the tradition has
sufficient resources to allow that to happen (for a parallel instance, look
at Vatican 2). So, to summarise, I would argue that the resources of a
tradition *enable* the embrace of DQ - at the many different levels of
life - rather than inhibit it. All the Christian mystics operated within an
orthodox framework, after all - that's why they're called Christian mystics.
There seems to be an underlying supposition - with both of you, I feel -
that it is possible to climb to the top of the mountain of intellectual DQ,
without having to work through the lowlands of social static Q. This is the
'ghost' of Cartesian metaphysics, the disembodied intellect free to choose
from God-like objectivity. We can argue about the various merits of
different static systems, but I think it is a classically Modern mistake to
imagine we can do without one altogether. Essentially I see the church as a
training institution. When it does its job properly, it is like the ladder
that you climb up in order to see from a higher point of view. Once you have
climbed up the ladder, you don't need it any more (or, to be more precise,
you don't see the rungs in quite the same way - they are no longer weight
bearing). But those who have still to climb would appreciate it if you
didn't kick it away from them. (This is an analogous point to Platt's in the
'Logical conclusions' thread).
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:34 BST