Hi Platt, John B,
Two things:
1. Platt wrote -
...Your explanation does
> indeed make John's reasons for placing a high value on "praxis" much
> clearer to me. Now it only remains for John to sanction your
> explanation. If he does, I'm almost persuaded that his pursuit of self-
> transformation with the help of a guide may work.
My question to John - was I reasonably accurate in my understanding or
completely off-beam?
2. Platt asked
> You final sentence is intriquing. Sometime could you expand on what
> "systematic theology" entails and its relation to the MOQ?
That would indeed take more time than I have at present. But a few quick
pointers. Going back to my original post to John about the importance of
story, and how 'truth' is derived from that, systematic theology in a
Christian context is the intellectual discipline that is intended to distil
the meaning of the story of Jesus, and to convert it into truths that the
intellect can grasp and then apply. So it is the religious equivalent of
metaphysics and ethics and philosophy of mind (in fact, of pretty much all
of philosophy!). Aquinas is the outstanding example of a systematic
theologian, but there are more recent ones. I'm currently much excited by
someone called Hans Urs von Balthasar, who centres his systematic theology
on the concept of 'glory', which I think is very close to what I was
stumbling towards in my use of the word 'aesthetic'.
As for its relation to the MoQ, I would say that just as a metaphysics has
to be renewed over time, so too does a systematic theology. For example,
medieval theologians interpreted the story of Jesus using an essentially
Aristotelian account of the world. If that Aristotelian account of the world
is rejected, and we embrace a Newtonian/Einsteinian/Pirsigian account, then
the systematic theologian needs to recast the interpretation of the story.
The great mistake that many atheists make (eg Richard Dawkins) is to suggest
that because science undercuts the primarily Thomist account of the world,
therefore Christianity is false. (Thomist is the word used to describe stuff
described from Aquinas). Systematic theology is derivative and secondary -
it might be considered the static latching of the church consciousness. The
fact that one understanding of the story - the High Medieval Latin account -
is now discounted and inappropriate does not by any means imply that the
fundamental story is also false.
Of course, the original accounts already contained some systematic theology,
especially the gospel of John. But then, because I tend to be on the
"Catholic" side of things, I see the foundation as being the community
rather than the book, and the community is perfectly at liberty to change
its understandings over time.
Hope that's useful.
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 - 16:01:41 BST