Dear Wim,
Good to continue this discussion, but perhaps it is time we renamed it, so
that those members of the forum who aren't interested in religious aspects
can ignore it in safety. I suggest: MD Static and Dynamic aspects of
religion and mysticism. OK?
There's a lot that I want to catch up on, and it will take more than one
post to spell things out. But as you are such an engaging interlocutor ;-) I
think if we thrash things through together, I should be able to say all that
I want to say. Anyhow: you wrote (in response to my comment about the status
of teachers):
> Yes, I do think it is these roles that are at fault (to an
> extent) in that they maintain and reproduce static patterns of
> value. Anything static is immoral from a Dynamic point of view,
> but on the other hand we do need both static patterns of value
> and Dynamic Quality for evolution and giving Meaning to our
> lives.
I don't agree that "anything static is immoral from a Dynamic point of
view" - nor do I think that that is entailed by the MoQ. Or perhaps I should
be clearer - I don't think it is possible to speak of morality 'from a
Dynamic point of view', or even from a static point of view at all. The
dynamic/static split is *within* quality, and any dynamic or static aspect
has to be assessed from the overall quality point of view in order to
establish whether it is moral or immoral (or neutral). To say "anything
static is immoral from a Dynamic point of view" seems to suggest that DQ is
the sole source of morality/goodness/quality and I don't think that is true.
This is clearly quite a fundamental thing, but I'm hoping that we don't
disagree on it, as you do yourself say that we need the static patterns for
meaning etc. You go on:
> I would can go further and say that religious traditions, systems
> of education and books (taken as patterns of value) differ from
> each other in the amount of freedom they leave for the Dynamic.
I agree quite strongly with this, and I think a) it is a very fertile field
for future discussion - really putting the MoQ to work, and b) overlaps
strongly with Platt's current discussion with horse (Platt's post of 23
November last). In Christian terms, it would be possible to redescribe this
point as saying that some churches strangle the spirit, others let it
breathe freely!
> (And any church having "doctrines" is at the static side of the
> spectrum.)
This, as you might expect, is not something I agree with. I suspect you and
I have different ideas of what a doctrine is. In my post to John B about
truth and aesthetics I make the point that worldviews have to engage with
the world, and that the more sophisticated, accurate and refined a worldview
is, the better. Doctrines, from my point of view, are expressions of the
truth about the world - where they are not true, they need to be discarded.
The classical Christian doctrines were formulated by the churches in a
process very similar to that which happens in science - competing hypotheses
trying to accurately describe the experiences of the early Christian church.
Where doctrines become problematic is where they shift into dogma, in other
words, where an institution proclaims a particular form of language to be
eternally valid and unchangeable. As experience changes with time, the
static patterns need to have a means of allowing for dynamic change,
otherwise they will drift further and further away from the reality that
they purport to describe. I don't see doctrines as inimical to DQ activity.
> You evaded my question "Using the ladder metaphor: ...I just ask you to be
explicit about
> your values.
I still think your original question is a loaded one, but I shall try and
articulate my values. Firstly, I don't think that the truth or falsity of
religious belief is a matter of opinion - some belief is false, some is
true, irrespective of what is actually thought by people themselves.
Secondly, I don't think that all religions are equal, that they are paths up
the same mountain - at the very least, there are different mountains
involved. Thirdly, my knowledge of non-Christian religions is not great,
although obviously I have learnt a little about classical Judaism through my
own Old Testament studies, and I have also spent time studying Islam,
Buddhism and Taoism. Hinduism I know least about. Even within Christianity,
I think I can comment reasonably authoritatively about Anglicanism (!), and
also about Roman Catholicism (some of my postgraduate studies were at a
Roman Catholic institution), and I am studying the Orthodox tradition quite
a bit at the moment. But the 'protestant' side of things, especially the
Calvinist tradition, I don't know a lot about. As for the Quakers, most of
what I know actually comes from you! So I really don't think I can say where
I would put Quakerism and Anglicanism on a ladder, I don't know enough to
make an informed decision. However, what I can do, is say why I think
Anglican Christianity has got a few things going for it. It doesn't claim to
be the whole answer to everything (it claims to be a 'part' of the universal
church) and it emphasises a 'via media', which is a good antidote to
extremism. On the downside it also means it tends to a gentle corruption, as
it can accommodate most things. But I like Anglicanism, it suits me.
> I wrote "Religion is not the static patterns associated with it."
> Religion is for me "re-ligare", re-connecting humanity with each
> other and with creation as whole, with its Source, with Dynamic
> Quality. (Was its 17th century meaning different?)
So for you religion = DQ? I'll come back on the 17th C stuff.
> Valuing "mainstream" and "conventional thinking" versus being
> prejudiced in favor of any reasonable alternative, priest versus
> prophet, church versus religion, static versus Dynamic ... You
> see the pattern?
> Still everyone needs both.
Agreed with all the above (especially the last comment) except that I don't
see Static vs Dynamic as mathcing the earlier categories. I think there are
both static and dynamic aspects in all of them.
To be continued....
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 - 16:01:38 BST