MD Sophocles not Socrates

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 20:20:45 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates"

    Sam and all:

    I've changed the thread name because this conversation has nothing to do
    with Pantheism. Sorry if anyone is confused. Apologies to Sam if I deleted
    anything essential.

    Sam said:
    I'm an Anglican priest. You did realise that, didn't you?

    DMB says:
    No, I did not know that. Nice to meet you, Father. Anglican priest? What is
    that, exactly? A priest that knows how to fish for trout? Personally, I'm a
    Frisbeetarian. We believe that when you die your soul is tossed onto the
    roof and you can't get it down. Obviously, I'm just kidding. But I learned
    that you're a priest just today. That part is no joke.

    Sam replied to the universalality of the death and resurrection motif with:

    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.

    DMB says:
    Sorry to bore you. Demythologisation? I suppose that's part of it, but the
    main idea is to analyze the motifs and heroes by comparing a wide variety of
    myths and finding the common features. This puts Christ and Christianity
    within a larger context of understanding, rather than in a context of faith
    and belief. I'd hardly call this avoiding the archetypes. I'd call it
    studying the archetypes.

    Sam said:
    .... 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).

    DMB says:
    I'm comfortable with theological language. No problem. And I think I do
    grasp your point, that your campaign stands independently of your
    Christianity. I think its not all that subtle. Its just that I don't believe
    it. It not even just the campaign. It goes back to the political threads
    too. You've been resisting the intellectual level from several angles. (No
    Anglican jokes this time.)
    Neil Gaiman, yes, the Sandman and all that. Don't care for it much. But its
    amazing how many versions there have been. Joe Campbell makes him the center
    piece in his Occidental Mythology, which is one of the four volumes that
    Pirsig recommends in Lila. Morzart's Magic Flute is an Orpheus story.
    Hitchcock's Vertigo is another. Apocalypse Now. The Mekons, one of my
    favorite bands, has a song about him. Orpheus is all over the place. I've
    become cyber-buddies with a guy who did his PhD thesis on him just a few
    years ago. He even wrote a screenplay version of the myth. Trust me. I get
    Orpheus.

    Sam said:
    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.)

    DMB says:
    I guess I wouldn't be able to recognize intellectual dishonesty if I weren't
    capable of it myself. Ha! Takes one to know one! But to be more precise, it
    seems to me that you have begun your examination of the intellectual level
    with the conclusion already in mind. That's backward. The conclusion comes
    last. That's what i mean by intellectually dishonest. In terms of Pirsig's
    intellectual level, mainstream Christian theology simply doesn't rank. Its a
    social level thing. It seem that you understand that, but won't accept it.

    Cliches of the counter culture? Like what? I should tell you that in 1967's
    Summer of Love, I was looking forward to kindergarten. Sure, I've read about
    it, but I'm too young to have lived it. In the 70's I was a Baptist
    midwesterner. Colin Wilson? I'm not familiar with him. Atheist? I was an
    Atheist briefly in college, about twenty years ago, but that was just a good
    way to get the Bapsist stink outta my hair. It seems your crystal ball needs
    new batteries.

    Sam said:
    ........... 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.

    DmB says:
    Re-state my understanding of your campaign? OK. Fair enough. This should be
    easy because you recently said it yourself.

    > 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.

    You've come at this from different angles. Its not always apparent that
    religous beliefs are behind it. Conservatism, Sophocles, individuality,
    Aristotelean eudaimonics, and most recently, Christian eudaimonics. In each
    case the attempt has been to put social level values at the top, at the
    fourth level. And it seems to me that this is what you've been up to all
    along, to make the MOQ compatable with Christianity. Rather than put these
    third level values where they belong, you've tried to adjust the 4th level.
    Its a matter of trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Clearly, as an
    Anglican priest, you've got somthing of a personal conflict of interest and
    you'd have to an extraordinary person to overcome that. The MOQ describes
    priests as social level functionaries. That's not too flattering to a guy
    who has decided to devote your life to Christianity. But that's what the MOQ
    says and I think its true.

    Maybe it doesn't show, but I think this conversation is tons of fun.

    Thanks,
    DMB

    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 - 20:20:34 GMT