From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 12:07:04 GMT
Hi Wim,
This really did deserve a reply :-)
I sometimes experience a sensation of 'drowning' when involved in a detailed
discussion with you. It arises from your dedicated exploration of each and
every aspect of what I have said. Sometimes I think what I write can merit
such scrutiny; often, however, what I say is a 'first attempt' towards
understanding, and I have no great attachment to the particular forms of
expression that I use. (Hence my shift from talking about 'Individual' to
talking about 'Eudaimonic' in my campaign. I'm quite deeply attached to the
underlying point, but there are a number of different ways of expressing
it). However, you pursue many of my comments so relentlessly that when I try
and remember what it was that I was trying to get at, in order to give you a
proper answer, I feel that I've come so far from my guiding understanding
that I am like a swimmer tugged underneath by the currents, desperately
searching for air! E-mail hovers uneasily between vocal conversation and
written correspondence - I'm acting (most of the time) in the mode of the
former, you're operating (largely) in the latter mode.
However, I don't want for one moment to stop you writing the way that you
do; I think I just want to preserve for myself the freedom to pick and
choose which elements to repond to. Hopefully I will choose the 'key'
sections, which will help us get further towards understanding. I'm sure
that if you think I'm using this as an escape clause to evade serious
criticisms, you'll point it out. I hope then that I'm honest enough to come
out and agree - and then answer your points :-) You certainly encourage me
to become more rigourous in my thinking, and for that I thank you.
To the matters at hand, where I think, actually, we are in large agreement.
You write:
What exactly is the subject of the book you are going to write? Do I
understand you rightly that squabbling about the question whether Anglicans
or others were the first to have a good (or bad) idea is 'almost the MOST
worthwhile type of dispute'???
The question whether Reason should be considered a separate moral authority
seems much more worthwhile. You may be right 'that Anglicanism ... is the
only branch of Christianity that makes Reason into an authority' (as you
wrote 6/4 10:03 +0100). I checked with my father (a protestant theologian)
and he didn't know other branches of Christianity that do.
I think Reason should NOT be considered a separate moral authority. Reason
can be defined as the power of thinking, of conscious manipulation of
symbols to draw conclusions about the truth and/or value in general of what
these symbols stand for.
Sam says:
My book is an articulation of Christian theology, structured through a
rejection of scientism. It begins with the claims of people like Richard
Dawkins that 'now we have science, we don't need religion' or Hawkings'
claim that once we had the ultimate physical equations of the universe, then
we would know 'the mind of God'. So I first show why that is incoherent, I
then talk historically about how and why Christianity became so estranged
from God that such nonsense could be generally believed, and I then outline
an understanding of Christianity that (hopefully!) avoids the pitfalls.
Which also has the benefit of putting science in its place.... Much of the
underlying thinking in the book you will already be familiar with from my
posts. I agree with you that Reason should not be considered an authority,
if only because I don't think such an understanding can be given useful
content.
Wim writes:
I didn't know Myers-Briggs personality profiling before you wrote about it,
but I do know quite a bit about astrological lore (why not talk about that
too loudly?!) and a little bit about its connections with the ideas of Jung.
Sam says:
Why not talk about astrology too loudly? Because it is intellectually
disreputable.... So I keep quiet about my historic interest in it - largely
formed through close attention to the writings of Liz Greene, as it happens.
Astrology is something of a 'platypus' in how I understand the world.
Theoretically, I can see no way in which it can be true: to become
incorporated in the wider scientific understandings of the world, I think
there would have to be a demonstration that initial temperaments (the basis
of the 'social unit') correlated with planetary positions. Other than
Gauquelin's work, which was quite primitive, I'm not aware that this has
been done. And just to describe what would be required makes my mind boggle.
However, it's not impossible that there is such a link (either causal or
synchronous). The problem comes because empirically I experience 'truth' in
astrological lore, at least in terms of understanding my own life.
Contemplation of my own horoscope I've found profoundly helpful. But the
problem is: do I find it useful because I have adopted astrological lore as
a 'lens' through which to understand the world? (and therefore I only see
evidence which confirms it, or I structure my experience in such a way as to
confirm it.) Or is reality truly 'saturated' astrologically? So, my answer
is: I have a problem with astrology, it is a source of tension in how I
understand the world, I can't decide whether to accept or reject it. I did
become deeply conversant with it, but ever since I became seriously
interested in Christianity (certainly since I became a 'hireling minister'
(-: ) I have been semi-detached from it, holding it away from my nose as if
it was a smelly fish. A deeper point: I don't think astrology is much help
in pursuing fourth level DQ (whereas Christianity is), I think it only
functions - if it functions at all - on the third level. I'd be interested
to hear your views.
Wim writes:
...In neither of these presentations is 'thought' (and therefore Reason) the
source of conscious processes. Sensation is the only source (SOM Jung),
emotion is the only source (MoQ Jung) or sensation and intuition are
alternative sources (me), but thought is always secondary, manipulating the
results of other conscious processes. If we forget about SOM (in which
'moral authorities' cannot exist anyway, because morality is subjective and
ways of arriving at moral conclusions are always arbitrary and never
authoritative) either emotion or sensation and intuition are the essential
sources of morality (experience of quality). Reason is necessary for
analyzing morality, for categorizing it, for applying it, for inducing it
from practice or alternatively for making it up out of thin air (!), but
never for founding it. QED
Sam says:
I largely agree with you - and in fact, this is a different way to explain
my 'campaign' (understanding 'intellectual' as 'to do with reason'). I may
be wrong in my understanding of Jung, but I see 'individuation' as a matter
of transcending the third level, and that the practical wisdom which guides
behaviour on the fourth level is an integration of all four faculties into a
harmonious whole. (And the scale of values of the fourth level is the
eudaimonic scale).
Wim writes:
.....I understand
'prophetical criticism of the status quo' primarily as religious practice,
as a faithful and therefore radically different life. The ability to
radically change your life (in the face of a status quo that at least
differs from and often is hostile to what faith demands of you) is for me
the raison d'tre of worshipping, communing with and loving God. What else
constitutes religious practice (the whole) besides prophetic practice (a
part?) according to you if not preserving a type of society which the
prophets denounced? Maybe preserving the radically different society
resulting from faithful life, but I see no other parts of the whole (of
religious practice) that could be neglected by calling prophetic religious
practice the raison d'tre of religion.
Sam says:
As I understand them, the Biblical prophets denounced the priestly caste for
false worship, and therefore, embedded in their critique, is an articulation
of correct worship. (In other words, the existence of the temple is not
itself a problem). I think this is in some ways a very VERY important
question, which it would be good to have an entire thread on. It underlies
my final paragraph on 'the standard account' of the MoQ: that the coming
political struggle will be centred on whether it is possible to have a
society which is both socially healthy and allows the fourth level values to
flourish. If there is to be a positive answer to that, it must surely
involve an intellectual validation and support for social level institutions
of some shape or form, and (although perhaps here my articulation is
excessively 'conservative') I can't see a way of doing that without
building on what we already have in the way of social institutions. I don't
believe in artificially generated Utopias, in other words.
Wim writes:
You will agree that Christianity has no monopoly in creating 'humble, meek,
merciful, just, pious and devout souls'. If you say 'everyone comes to be
thus through Christianity, it's just that they might not call it by that
name' (parallel to your treatment of Jesus' reported claim to exclusivity),
'Christianity' becomes effectively synonymous to 'religion' (in its
root/radical meaning of 'religare'/reconnecting human and divine). What's
the point of your proposed substitution then...?!? And if you believe
everyone comes to God through Jesus even if they call him Gandhi, Mohammed
or 'the inward Light' what's the point of the focus on Jesus in
Christianity? The target group susceptible to a message emphasizing the
'eternal Christ' showing himself again and again in different people
(supported with suitable stories about contemporary 'sons and daughters of
God', billboards showing a traditional picture of Jesus/Gandhi/Mohammed
undertitled with 'this could be you...' etc.) might be much larger than that
susceptible to a traditional 'Christian' message...
Sam says:
I believe it is possible to discriminate between religions on the basis of
Quality. My understanding of Christianity is the highest Quality formulation
that I've found so far (that's definitionally true, assuming a certain level
of honesty and integrity) but it remains open to revision. It also includes
elements of other religions. I guess the key thing is that I don't believe
in a neutral objective viewpoint from which to assess different faiths, and
as a matter of historical accident I've ended up as an Anglican. The
important thing is to become as high quality Anglican as I can get. It's
possible that the pursuit of Quality will lead to Anglican understandings
being left behind, but I'm some way away from that blessed state!
Wim writes:
I see a close parallel between 'progressively incarnating the Kingdom of God
in the world, thereby bringing humanity to salvation' and helping DQ
precipitate in sq and helping static patterns of values migrate towards DQ.
These are not only tasks of 'the institutional church' but of everyone! It
may even be The Meaning of Life...
I agree that 'a static aspect [of religion] might be radically dynamic to
someone who hasn't gone as far along the Way.' But ... these static aspects
(from the perspective of some) are still only relevant then, because they
are still dynamic from the perspective of others. They lose relevance to the
extent that they are not helping people move on towards a (radically) new
way of life any more. Their relevance still derives from being dynamic for
some.
Sam says:
I think I would say that static levels retain their Quality even if they are
not dynamic. The Quality of adequate nutrition is not eliminated when we
attain the DQ above the fourth level. In the same way the Quality of social
institutions is not (necessarily) eliminated at the same stage.
Wim writes:
I agree that religion is not only an intellectual pattern of values having a
role in social progress (aiding the migration of social patterns of values
towards DQ) and in intellectual progress (its own development towards DQ),
but also an attempt to go beyond the intellectual level, to attempt to jump
to a next level by grasping Meaning beyond truth. Is that what you meant?
Sam says:
Yes.
Wim writes:
I agree that 'it is quality that we seek, not simply dynamic quality' and
'there is quality in both the static and dynamic aspects' of religion. I was
arguing however, that the static aspects of religion are becoming less
relevant to social progress. Safeguarding (latching) the results of social
progress can be safely left to science. To the extent that religion is
relevant to intellectual progress and to progress beyond intellect however,
I agree that its static aspects are also relevant.
Sam says:
I think the idea of leaving social progress to science is dangerously
misconceived. Or are you thinking of a MoQ-directed science, and not SOM?
Wim writes:
Regarding 'the Dynamic aspects of priesthood' you mention: I'd say that
being 'taught the faith' and being 'given' (if you say it that way) 'the
eucharist' (and other sacraments) won't 'facilitate a dynamic breakthrough
in a participant' by repetition but only (if ever) one of the first times,
when they are still new. You don't need a priest who keeps repeating these
things for such a dynamic breakthrough. A missionary, with a prophetic role
in the environment where he/she has a mission, should do. After having been
introduced to the faith and the sacraments (to the availability of the
Dynamic to everyone...) the missionary/priest becomes superfluous and even a
hindrance to the understanding that the Dynamic/faith/sacred is directly
available to everyone and doesn't need the mediation of priests, texts or
any'thing'.
Sam says:
All I can say is that contemplation of the Eucharist tends to produce
Quality moments in me! (and in those to whom I have ministered). In other
words, the repetition provides a focus for dynamic spiritual growth. Perhaps
we're all just mired in the third level....
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 17:02:19 GMT