From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 19:34:59 GMT
Hi Wim,
I'm fond of thorough discussion too, but sometimes the muse seduces me and
my words overflow into great long 'campaigns'..... But I think I have the
same approach to you - what I write clarifies what I think, and other
people's objections are a good stimulus to clear thinking. Perhaps the whole
idea of a 'campaign' mistakes the nature of this forum, but if that is the
case, then I fear the forum will remain chaotically dynamic - something that
induces advances in Quality understanding in the people that come and go,
but doesn't 'static latch' any improvements to the MoQ over time. Not sure
how that could be done. Ho hum.
> Isn't letting your behavior (not talking about astrology) being guided by
> 'reputation' a typically SOCIAL pattern of values...?
Yes. I hang my head in shame. Which reinforces the SOCIAL bits of my
personality all the same :-)
> Some reasoning would
> show that using astrological typology (as a way of analyzing human
behavior,
> like DQ/sq is used to analyze experience) is something quite different
from
> 'believing' that planetary movements are causally related with human
> behavior (a belief wrongly attributed to all astrology). 'Synchronical'
> relations between the two don't imply more than that the patterns we
> recognize in relative positions and movements of planets, sun and moon can
> be used as a symbolic language to describe patterns in human behavior. The
> hypothesis that the specific pattern of planetary positions at birth
defines
> someone's character (the pattern recognizable in his/her behavior) during
> lifetime doesn't need to be more true than the hypothesis that this
> character is just a result of chance to be a better starting point for
> discussing, comprehending and changing behavior that is otherwise beyond
> conscious control.
So the intellectual justification of astrology is its therapeutic efficacy?
That's why I kept hold of Liz Greene and got rid of Linda Goodman! The
question I would ask is: what makes astrology any better than the Rorschach
test?
>
> Astrology as I use it functions as a way to give the 4th level (conscious
> activity) a better hold on the 3rd level (unconscious behavior).
> Christianity is for me a type of narrative which I can use (and which I
can
> use better than any other type, because I grew up with it) to give my life
> and my experience Meaning. Meaning is the best pointer I have to Dynamic
> Quality beyond the 4th level, because I have little feeling for Beauty
> (which may be a better pointer to the moon for others).
>
Wittgenstein said 'to believe in God is to believe that life is meaningful'.
I find beauty meaningful - that for me is why it is beautiful (realising
that Picasso's 'Weeping Woman' can be perceived as beautiful requires some
awareness of meaning). Perhaps these are just different words (ie static
latches) which we use to reorient ourselves when we lose sight of God.
> Defining the 4th level (and other levels) as (or even by) a 'scale of
> values' (e.g. eudaimonic values) is not helpful either, I think. 'Value'
in
> 'scale of values' is -as I understand it- a typical SOM-concept: it is
> attributed by a subject to an object. Attributing a specific value to
> something (in order to define its 'level') will always be highly arbitrary
> and lead to endless discussion.
> The only valid 'scale of values' in (my dialect of) MoQish is that of
> 'stability' and 'versatility' (or synonyms) according to me. These
'values'
> are directly related to the 'degree of being patterned' of our experience.
> This 'scale of values' is applicable to all patterns of values at all
> levels, which can best not be distinguished by 'types of values' forming
> these patterns, but by 'types of latching/maintaining' of the
> 'patternedness'.
>
I'm a little bit lost here. I have not yet fully interrogated what you have
said about the levels, about patterns, and about ways of judging. Perhaps
that deserves a separate thread between us, but one thing at a time! (And
I'm going to be less taken up with my 'campaign' from now on, I think). You
say that 'Value' is a typical SOM concept. I thought the whole of Zen was
'an inquiry into values'? Isn't the MoQ a hierarchy of value, and therefore
a 'scale of values'? And isn't (as Horse points out) discrimination between
values the essence of the MoQ? I found your recent posts about
freedom/versatility interesting, but I think you're removing something of
importance from the MoQ - ie value. Put differently, what is it that makes
the fourth level _better_? You would say, I guess, that it is the greater
degree of versatility, in which case the highest value in that system is
freedom. Shades of Platt? Perhaps I just need to re-read some of your posts.
> Good prophecy is constructive and not destructive. It builds a radically
new
> society ... from the existing building blocks. Could you agree that type
of
> prophecy is the only raison d'etre of religion? And ... that priests
> (including Anglican ones...) keeping the building blocks together in their
> old relationships are not only superfluous but even hindering divine
> purpose?
I'm happy with that. In traditional language, the body of Christ must be the
leaven in the bread which causes the loaf to rise. If we're not doing that,
we're hindering it. I think that the substance of our positions on this are
quite close. You said, "Even if everyone has reached the top rung (if there
would ever be one), the lowest rungs must stay in place to prevent the
ladder from falling apart." Can you describe any 'lower rungs' of Christian
faith that you think remain necessary? I suspect if we compared lists, mine
would have rather more things on it than yours!!!
I think an area of disagreement lies in your view that "science is a high
enough quality intellectual pattern of values to be able to safeguard most
of the results of social progress THAT RESULTS FROM AN OPENNESS TO DQ
RESULTING FROM PROPHETIC RELIGION."
>From my point of view the preservation of high quality static latches
requires educated judgement, judgement educated by the inculcation of
(static) religious patterns (ie third level religion, AND then fourth level
religion AND then mystical teachings). A healthy religion achieves all those
things in a harmonious form. Put differently, the preservation of third
level static latches is the equivalent of the prophet hanging onto good
building blocks and discarding the bad. The fourth level training is to see
that they ARE building blocks, and to see the moon rather than the finger.
The fifth level is to see that you are the moon.... or a LUNAtic of course
(-;
> Seriously, I simply don't understand how such a ritual can provide
anything
> dynamic. It can only latch past DQ experiences and communicate those (now
> static) patterns of values to followers. Are you sure those 'Quality
> moments' are DQ moments? Couldn't they just be sq moments? Also valuable,
of
> course, but not what I seek in religion.
If you fully comprehend the ritual, then it can no longer provide anything
dynamic. But I do not fully comprehend the Eucharist, and I'm not aware of
any priest that would make such a claim. We see it as a mystery to be shared
and lived in, not to be mastered and controlled. If the aim of Christian
faith is to be conformed to God (see my recent post to David), and God is
ultimately beyond our understanding, the Eucharist can be understood as the
primary means by which a Christian is conformed to God - and that is a
journey without an end. It is therefore always something which can
dynamically change you. Think of Aquinas - he had written his whole Summa
Theologiae, and then he celebrated Mass, and said 'all my writings are as
straw besides the majesty that I have just experienced' - and he never wrote
again.
>
> With friendly greetings,
>
And to you.
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 18 2002 - 19:37:06 GMT