From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 09:15:12 GMT
Hello David, (sigh)
> dmb says:
> You might have guessed that I'd have two cents to throw in on this one. It
> explains quite alot about your perspective. You've come clean, even if it
> was done inadvertantly. Now its clear to me what you're up to.
>
Congratulations on gaining insight. You might have saved yourself some
trouble if you'd looked on the website biographies, where I 'come clean'
that I'm an Anglican priest. You did realise that, didn't you?
>
> dmb says:
> The MOQ says no such thing. Plus you're confusing Einstein and Christ,
> intellect and mystical knowledge..... But if the question is about the
MOQ's compatability with
> mainstream Christian theology, the answer is, "clearly not".
The question of 'mystical knowledge' we are pursuing separately. I'm glad
that you accept the last point.
>
> Sam said:
> Christian fundamentalism is a modern variation of ancient gnosticism.
>
> dmb says:
> Better not say that to a fundamentalist or a gnostic. Either one is likely
> to sock you on the nose. Gnosticism is much closer to the ancient mystery
> religions and is approximately the opposite of fundamentalism, with its
> literalistic beliefs about sin and forgiveness, heaven and hell. The
> emphasis in Gnosticism is on knowlege, but not of the intellectual
variety.
> Its comptemplative and mystical.
Your understanding of 'mystical experience' is a gnostic understanding.
Perhaps that's a good thing - perhaps, when (if) you pay sufficient
attention and gain an understanding of what I'm trying to say, you'll still
disagree with my arguments and be happy to be described as a gnostic, or in
whatever terms we end up agreeing on through our dialogue. Or perhaps you
will, as usual, avoid the complexities of the debate by putting me into a
pre-established box marked 'Conservative Christian - handle with contempt'.
>
> dmb says:
> The reality of the incarnation? This strikes me as a kind of literalism
and
> mythic thinking. I think its safe to say that death and resurrection is
the
> most common motif in all the world's myths. (Orpheus again.) His teaching
> can not only be understood in the abstract, they are BETTER understood in
> the abstract. By comparing Jesus death and resurrection to other mythic
> heros the meaning of it becomes much richer. Its universality becomes
> apparent and adds to its depth and profundity. And, ironically, this
broader
> perspective makes it easy to see that this motif is not some one-time
> historial event for us to marvel over, but as a vital personal message
about
> one's own inner life.
>
Hmmm, the joy of 'demythologisation' (yawn). Ever heard of someone called
Bultmann? Or even JG Frazer? You do claim familiarity with Jung and
Campbell, and in fact you did tell me to 'listen to my friend' who said that
we couldn't avoid the archetypes. Seems to be a bit of an inconsistency
here. Again. Of course, I did preface that post by saying that I was going
to be 'free' with traditional language, and that if you found it
uncomfortable or incoherent - as you do - you needn't have gone on. As I
said then, my 'campaign' stands independently of my own personal position.
But I don't think your mind is subtle enough to grasp that point ;-P You
should read Neil Gaiman for a richer update of Orpheus, and in fact the
whole realm of mythology (if you're already familiar with him we could have
an excellent discussion there).
> Sam said:
> So is the MoQ wholly incompatible with Christianity? I don't believe so,
and
> in fact I think my 'eudaimonic' MoQ is really a way that I have found to
> render the two compatible (although I didn't start the 'campaign' with
that
> conclusion in mind. It rather took me by surprise.)
>
> dmb says:
> You're kidding yourself.
Clearly. Whereas your doors of perception have been wholly cleansed.
> Its clear that your dedication to Christianity has
> Everything to do with your campaign to re-define the 4th level.
That was my point. Congratulations on understanding it. My point was also
that I hadn't realised the connection at first, but through reflection I
realised it was crucial - and therefore it seemed legitimate to make it
apparent. But you say:
> I think
> you're putting your religious views at the top of the heap even though it
> contradicts the MOQ. That's not cool. Its intellectually dishonest. Any
> re-construction of the MOQ that is motivated by this kind of
> self-justification is bound to leak like the Titanic. Man the lifeboats!
So in order to be less 'intellectually dishonest' should I a) not have
written a post explaining the religious roots of my perspective or b) not
engaged in a criticism of the MoQ at all? Perhaps I shouldn't be here -
quick, round up that posse! (And, just to over-labour the point, because
last time I used the image you protected your position by portraying me as
'dramatic' - I'm being IRONIC.)
To be blunt, I think our dialogue would benefit if you were capable of an
equivalent degree of intellectual dishonesty. Unfortunately your cup is
already full, full of the comfortable cliches of the 70's counter-culture.
Once upon a time I was a big fan of Colin Wilson, and his 'The Occult' makes
most of the points that you make. Fortunately I then went off and started to
study these matters for myself (needless to say, I wasn't a Christian at
that point. I was a militant atheist. In fact, my position then bears a
remarkable resemblance to your perspective now. Hmmm.)
In Lila's Child (available from Dan Glover) there is this passage, from
'Jason'.
"A very respected man once told me that one has no right to take issue with
an opposing position until he is able to restate his understanding of that
position sufficiently enough to receive the other's approval. Perhaps this
sort of active listening would serve us well."
(LC Jason p21)
John B quoted this back in June/July:
"The 'third rate' critic attacks the original thinker on the basis of the
rhetorical consequences of his thought and defends the status quo against
the corrupting effects of the philosopher's rhetoric. 'Second rate' critics
defend the same received wisdom by semantic analyses of the thinker which
highlight ambiguities and vagueness in his terms and arguments. But 'first
rate' critics "delight in the originality of those they criticise...; they
attack an optimal version of the philosopher's position--one in which the
holes in the argument have been plugged or politely ignored."
- a thought which you found 'worthy'.
If we're really going to get anywhere in our discussions - and I would like
to - perhaps you could try to move away from the 'third rate' level, start
'actively listening' to what I'm trying to say, and then come up with some
of your own criticisms, rather than just parroting the New Age guru _du
jour_? A good beginning might be to restate your understanding of my
'campaign' - especially "Now its clear to me what you're up to." If it's
that clear to you, demonstrate it. Otherwise I'll be confirmed in my
impression that you prefer adolescent posturing to serious and intelligent
discussion.
> Sorry if that hurts your feelings. That is not my aim. Just calling it
like
> I see it.
Quite. Me too.
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 : Sun Nov 10 2002 - 09:12:06 GMT