Dear Sam,
Good to see that 'bereavements', 'work crisis' and 'imminent fatherhood'
don't inhibit your active involvement any more. Following your lead to
return to old threads:
You wrote 24/11 12:03 -0000:
'I don't agree that "anything static is immoral from a Dynamic point of
view" ... 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.'
We need both static and Dynamic (aspects of static patterns of value).
Assessing patterns of value from an overall quality point of view is better
than assessing them from either a Dynamic or a static point of view. Taking
alternate Dynamic and static points of view and seeing what changes in the
assessment can help us however to value both aspects, to understand them
better and (in the end) to reach better overall assessments.
'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' (as I wrote 17/11 23:30 +0100) and 'some churches strangle the
spirit, others let it breathe freely' (as you added 24/11 12:03 -0000).
In what ways does Anglicanism cherish the spirit? In other words: what are
the positive ways in which it jumps to the moon of DQ apart from not
inhibiting such activity by claiming 'to be the whole answer' and avoiding
extremes? What are the Dynamic aspects of Anglicanism?
I am wondering what you think from my 24/3 23:32 +0100 posting to Erin (and
its predecessor of 16/3 17:28 +0100). Does 'letting the spirit breathe
freely' correlate positively with 'propagating openness to read radical new
ideas'?
We may indeed have different ideas of what a doctrine is. The problem may be
my limited knowledge of English, but 'doctrinal' and 'doctrine' translate
into Dutch as something very near to 'dogmatic' and 'dogma'. For me they are
almost synonymous.
Your characterization of doctrines as 'expressions of the truth about the
world - where they are not true, they need to be discarded' fits my concept
of 'hypotheses'. Besides: the Dynamic aspect of religion has nothing to do
with 'truth' and everything with 'Meaning' in my opinion ('truth' in the
sense of intellectual quality; when 17th century Quakers used the word
'Truth' they meant something different from 'scientifically verifyable fit
between reality and experience'; that concept had hardly been invented at
the time I suspect).
'Doctrines [being] formulated by ... churches in a process very similar to
that which happens in science - competing hypotheses trying to accurately
describe ... experiences' might be an accurate description of the reality of
institutional Christianity if every church would think of itself as 'a part
of the universal church' AND act accordingly AND if 'describing [religious]
experience' would be the core business of this 'universal church'.
Conversely churches
1) often do their utmost to limit competition to a minimum,
2) often claim that formulating new hypotheses is unnecessary because
(interpreting and re-interpreting) the old ones contained in Holy Writing or
in Church Law should be enough,
3) hardly ever act as if they were only a part (which would imply the need
for stronger organizational links with other parts; the oecumenical movement
is mainly a talkshow of those at the top of the churches) and
4) are more in the business of interpreting (defining the 'Meaning' of) and
guiding/organizing religious experience than in that of merely describing
it.
By the way, science might be better understood as explaining experience and
describing a defining a 'reality' behind it than as merely describing it.
One mountain, one Spirit, undividable DQ, the universal church ... it's all
metaphor with limited applicability. In other situations I would agree with
different mountains, different spirits and different types of quality to
describe different religions.
You write 'I don't think that the truth or falsity of religious belief is a
matter of opinion'.
To me 'religious belief' is 'trust in some pattern at a higher level than
intellect' and 'truth' (or 'falsity') of that trust is meaningless to me.
'Religious belief' can be Meaningful to me (and not to others, because of
their other position on 'the ladder' or relative to one or more mountains)
or not.
I wouldn't say 'religion = DQ' for me. Rather 'religion is reconnecting with
or reaching for DQ' (at least the Dynamic aspect of it). Or as I wrote 9/6
20:54 +0100:
'Religion (with its Latin root re-ligare, to reconnect) can be defined as
the essentially human pursuit of re-experiencing DQ. Some of it crystallizes
in social and intellectual patterns of course, and those with a vested
interest in the output of former prophets will deny the possibility of new
DQ. Religion as a whole however has a good claim to being the field of human
activity that is most open to incorporating DQ when it turns up. As such it
has a longer standing than science, and -after Kuhn showed the
interdependence of science and social patterns- it is in my opinion in no
way inferior.'
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:02:02 BST