From: Chuck Roghair (ctr@pacificpartssales.com)
Date: Mon Oct 18 2004 - 18:20:09 BST
Hello,
Sam said:
"I would like to push you on the nature of DQ, ie whether something can be
simultaneously experienced as DQ by one person and SQ as another. From my
point of view that seems uncontroversial, but it seems to be ruled out by
your system (and assumed in most of your criticisms of the church)."
Chuck replies:
Event(X) with the addition of observer(A) becomes something (XA).
Event (X) with the addition of observer (B) becomes something (XB).
"XA" may be DQ or SQ depending on the nature of "A."
"XB" may be DQ or SQ depending on the nature of "B."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'experiencer' is the wild-card.
Sam said:
I once read a description of the creed as being 'mystical theology defined
dogmatically', which I think sums it up.
Chuck asks:
In other words, the creed is a lot of nonsense?
'Mystical theology defined dogmatically,' strikes me as at least a
contradictory description, if not outright gibberish.
Best regards,
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]
On Behalf Of Sam Norton
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 3:35 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD On Faith
Hi Wim,
> Isn't the essence of all '-ologies' that they reflect instead of partake?
> E.g. politicology/politics and philosophology/philosophy. How does
theology
> partake of religious practice according to you?
"Theology is prayer, and prayer is theology" (Evagrius)
I would say that the whole point of theology is that it is aimed at a
partaking (in the life of God)
and precisely _not_ a reflecting. The separation of theory from practice in
the religious life is a
SOMish invention, very Modern (although with clear roots in the medieval
period). The endpoint of
prayer is mysticism-in-action. So I don't think they can be separated at
all. They are at most
different sides of an ascending helix.
> My type of 'faith' is indeed not something that can be 'thought' (like a
> 'belief'). It can be experienced though: 'I have to do/say this
(regardless
> of what I believe).'
How would you describe the interaction between what you think and what you
experience (if there is
an interaction)? Is there a point of integrity between them? How far do you
accept the notion that
our understandings 'interpret' our experiences? (ie that what we see cannot
be discerned without
presuming a prior basis of language, culture etc)
> If we define religion as reaching beyond existing 4th level patterns of
> values, I agree that religion includes science. If theology (even proper
> theology) formulates creeds, how can you say that it doesn't 'define'?
> Doesn't 'creed' mean 'I believe THIS'? A creed doesn't state what people
are
> NOT supposed to believe, does it? Even if it would, blocking directions in
> which one shouldn't go is also a way of defining the direction in which
one
> should go. I don't dispute that theology & creeds leave freedom, I only
> state that they restrict freedom (to trust the divine guidance you
> experience yourself) compared to a situation without theology/creeds.
Hmm. I once read a description of the creed as being 'mystical theology
defined dogmatically', which
I think sums it up. If you come at the creed expecting a list of beliefs
then that is what you will
find. They need to be understood within the context of an ongoing faith
tradition, and not
abstracted (again, a SOMish pursuit).
This thing about the divine guidance you experience yourself. Is it the
Quaker view (is it your
view) that the individual judgement is sovereign from the very start? (In
other words, that there
are no areas in which a wider society establishes a determinate truth)
> If 'the/a goal of religion [is] to make its followers "hear the music for
> themselves"' (and dance on it), teaching them the musical notes (or even
the
> steps) won't work. Quakers in my tradition definitely don't do that.
> Everyone is allowed into membership who is a genuine seeker. There are
> procedures for comparing the results of that seeking (also with those of
> Biblical and Quaker history) and for acting together on them. None of
those
> results of seeking are set up as dogma's, creeds or obligatory behaviour,
> however, not even pacifism, although that comes closest.
This begs the question of what it is that is being taught, the finger or the
moon. As I understand
you, you're saying that all teaching is about the finger, whereas I think it
is both possible,
desirable and necessary to teach about the moon.
> How can one 'teach about' trust in divine guidance?? You can only learn it
> by doing it. Maybe by seeing others do it, but only if you don't make the
> mistake to think that that which they are guided to do/say should also be
> done/said by you.
You teach it through a life, in the same way that so many other things are
taught to children;
"light dawns gradually over the whole". I think you're assuming that every
'seeker' is already well
advanced in the process. A bit like saying to a fifteen year old boy who
wants to learn how to drive
'hop into that Ferrari and see how you do - the Lord will guide you, just be
open to His
promptings'. If you think that's inappropriate with a car, why should it be
any less inappropriate
in a spiritual search? I sometimes have the impression that you think
spiritual seekers are already
'qualified drivers', or, more precisely, that you think the whole notion of
being 'qualified' is an
expression of hierarchical dominance rather than service. I think this hits
the same problem in the
religious sphere that anarchism does in the political - it's the weak and
vulnerable who suffer,
those who are already strong who prosper.
> Doesn't your association of 'words' and 'swords' imply that you won't need
> expanding of my argument?
> My argument was 4th level patterns of value restrict people's ability to
> follow DQ.
You'll need to expand on that. Seems meaningless to me, that is, it depends
upon what the person's
ability already is. It might be true for you, but I doubt that it's true for
everyone. Think of
Pythagoras teaching his theorem (Plato's example) where the teacher knows
the answer, but provokes
the student to discover it for himself. The student experiences DQ (a
'eureka' moment) even where it
is SQ to the teacher. I think you're absolutising the hierarchy, ironically
enough, and insisting
that DQ is only present at the summit. I think you need to be an
accomplished mountain climber
already to breathe that refined air. Most people experience something
dynamic just from the decision
to walk out of the valley.
> What's violent and what's not obviously depends on how you define
'violence'
> and on where you (arbitrarily) draw the line on the continuum between
> 'extremely violent' and 'not violent at all'.
> - That which we all recognize as violence has a biological/physical
quality
> to it: killing (reducing a living, biological entity to something that can
> only degenerate into inorganic components), wounding/hurting (reducing the
> biological quality of a living entity, with a -bigger or smaller- risk of
> killing it) or limiting movement or necessitating movement in a specific
> direction on pain of hurt (e.g. inprisonment, barbed wire lined roads). It
> is often extented however to 'violence against objects', e.g. when you
> destroy someone's possessions (thereby limiting her/his biological
options)
> or just someone's environment (reducing the pleasure she/he derived from
> it).
I think I would want to talk about 'coercion' as the overall descriptor, and
violence as being what
you describe here.
> - Associating words with swords is not only a metaphor (like 'doing
violence
> to the truth'). Lies (and even truths) can 'hurt' just as much as
destroying
> of one's property. So can reduction of one's social status or even
reducing
> someone to mere biological patterns of value by 'scapegoating' out of
> society. So violence can also be defined as negatively affecting people on
> the threshold of any 2 levels: 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd or 3rd and 4th.
Agree with the first part of this, not sure how you get to your last
sentence though, which doesn't
seem necessary to me. If two 'nations' are in a war (ie two third level
'giants') then how does that
relate to a concentration on thresholds?
> - A last minor extension of the meaning of 'violence' would then include
> negatively affecting people on the upper threshold of the 4th level:
> preventing DQ to leave new 4th level patterns of value in its wake, by
> limiting people to existing ones. Asserting theology violates mystical
> religion, following DQ in the moment...
Aren't there some zen stories where the master provokes awareness in the
student by suddenly doing
something shocking, to provoke a change of awareness? Then this sort of
fourth level 'violence' is
the servant of DQ, not its enemy. Your last sentence begs the question,
again.
I would like to push you on the nature of DQ, ie whether something can be
simultaneously experienced
as DQ by one person and SQ as another. From my point of view that seems
uncontroversial, but it
seems to be ruled out by your system (and assumed in most of your criticisms
of the church). Have I
understood you correctly?
Regards
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 07:13:43 BST