From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 16:09:07 GMT
Hi Wim,
> Even if the ancient Greek didn't distinguish neatly between the root words,
> we do distinguish '-ologies' and '-osophies' in this way, don't we?
> You're quite right that standard language presumes subject/object
> distinctions, but the thinking/practice distinction implied in 'theology' is
> not exactly the same distinction as the subject/object distinction and a
> subject/object distinction doesn't necessarily imply emotional distancing.
> It does in sciences, but in theology??
That's precisely what's at issue between us. Presumably we each have self-consistent understandings
on this point then. Who is to be arbiter?
> My problem with theology is more that it distinguishes between some subjects
> studying religious practice of other subjects and deemed fit to instruct
> them how to practice better, than that it distinguishes between
> study/instruction and practice. By the way: to the extent that theology
> implies instruction for rather than study of religious practice, emotional
> distancing does not seem to be implied to me.
Exactly! That's my whole point....
> You asked me what I made of Chuck's comment (which I didn't read in the
> original):
> 'A experiencing X is different to B experiencing X, so the two experiences
> are, in an important sense, not "recognizably the same" - even if the
> language that we use places them together?'
> To me the key is 'identification'. To the extent that A identifies with B
> (e.g. both being human), these experiences ARE (supposed to be) the same and
> differences in expression of these experiences are argued away.
But I think that's a mistake, which Chuck put his finger on quite succinctly. There's a common
grammar in our language, but that does not mean that the two experiences are identical (that's one
of my bones of contention with DMB).
> As for your discovery that that one of your church wardens is a former
> Quaker: Have you already asked him why he left Quakerism for Anglicanism?
> Maybe you should explain to him the MoQ concept of degeneracy and check if
> he recognizes himself? It is difficult for people to recognize that some
> rungs of the ladder are really beyond their reach, but some do attain this
> feat. (-;
> You can be sure that there are more Quakers who are former Anglicans than
> the other way around. Probably there are even more Quakers who are also
> members of the Anglican church than Anglicans who left Quakerism...
Any evidence for this assertion?
> For me a helix is still a metaphor for steady upward movement in which every
> denomination is at a specific higher or lower level. The difference with the
> ladder metaphor is that the possibility of 'jumping' to the same position on
> the next higher near-circle short-cutting the road up or combining positions
> on different levels that are (vertically) close but (horizontally) a full
> round apart on the road up. It doesn't change anything to my experience that
> Quakerism is best for me and to the notion that there IS an absolute sense
> that one denomination is better (higher) than another. There are more routes
> up, but 'up' stays 'up' and there is no mistaking the general direction we
> should take...
Don't disagree with any of that.
> Don't be afraid: in the last analysis I do stick to the notion expressed in
> the quote from William Penn I gave before in this thread:
> "The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious and devout souls are everywhere of
> one religion; and when death has taken off the mask, they will know one
> another, though the divers liveries they wear here makes them strangers."
> (1693)
We're in agreement there.
>
> You wrote:
> 'I'm not so sure [that symbols not being able to harm what they symbolize]
> is obvious. The iconoclasts in the sixteenth/seventeenth century achieved
> quite a lot through the destruction of symbols.'
>
> It is the persons straddling nearby positions on the 3rd and 4th levels of
> the helix symbolizing Dynamic Quality that destruct both symbols (on the 4th
> level) and things symbolized (on the 3rd level) in moving forward
> (horizontally) along the helix, not the symbols themselves.
I still don't agree with this though. I think the destruction of symbols has an impact down the
other levels, especially the biological.
> Becoming competent at the third level (having social status among fellow
> practitioners) is not required to participate at the fourth level. Just
> participating at the third level is enough.
I think my understanding of the third level is broader than yours, that is, I don't see 'becoming
competent at the third level' as being equivalent to 'having social status among fellow
practitioners'. I think that is one aspect of it, I don't think that it is of the essence, however.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 19 2004 - 16:14:25 GMT