From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Wed Oct 20 2004 - 04:14:40 BST
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)."
dmb quotes:
"For not all of us are philosophers. Many require an atmosphere of incense,
music, vestments and processions, gongs, bells, dramatic mimes and cries, to
be carried beyond themselves. And for such the various styles of relgiion
exist - where, for the most part, however, truth is so enveloped in symbol
as to be imperceptibel to anyone who is not already a philosopher. Degrees
of initiation have been developed, through which the mind is meant to be
carried beyond the fields of the symbols to increasingly exalted
realizations - passing, as it were, through veil beyond veil. But the
ultimate realizations differ, according, on the one hand, to those cults in
which divinity is seen as at once immanent and transcendent, and on the
other to the orthodox Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian and Mohammedan
liturgies, where the ontological distinction is retained between God and
Man, Creator and Creature.." Joseph Campbell, Masks of God vol3 p.254
"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of DQ, a sign-post which
allows socially pattern-dominated people to see DQ. The problem has always
been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for what they
merely represent and are allowed to destroy the DQ they were originally
intended to preserve."
dmb says:
Sam, I think you're trying to make a case that mysticism is involved in the
church's teachings because the students of said teachings are learning
something new and having "ah-ha" moments. But I think this is miles away
from the meaning of the terms as it is used by philosophical mystics such a
Pirsig. I think you've confused indontrination with mysiticism and I have
to say I'm with Chuck on this. It strikes me as fundamentally dishonest and
self-serving. Its utterly contemptable. How can you read Pirsig say "I
really have no use for these smart-talking theists. They destroy religion"
And then just trot on in and push to mysicism of the creed? Dude, its just
plain creepy.
Sam said:
I once read a description of the creed as being 'mystical theology defined
dogmatically', which I think sums it up.
Chuck replied:
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.
dmb says:
No, gibberish have the advantage of misleading no one. This is designed to
push irrationality as if it were post-rationality. This is a deceptive
attempt to turn ridiculous nonsense into something too deep for us mere
mortals. Its premodern superstition dress up like a Zen paradox and its just
not credible to any thinking person. It does not stand up to any inspection,
thus the veil of false mystery. Its just a way of hiding from the demands of
evidence.
Sam will not be surprized by my equally hostile position. I tried repeatedly
to extract explanations from Sam over a period of weeks, but I eventually
gave up feeling that eveything Sam said was some kind of evasion or
misdirection.
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 : Wed Oct 20 2004 - 04:52:38 BST