From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 07:43:15 GMT
Dear Sam,
You wrote 7 Dec 2004 10:24:05 -0000:
'Why do you accept a dictionary definition as the final answer? On this
point I think the definitions in dictionaries are likely to be wrong, ie,
the understanding they give cannot be separated from the wider philosophical
culture in which they play a part (SOM), and so they are compromised. The
understanding of theology I hold onto is a) that of the Church Fathers and
b) that of the academic community that has formed me. I'm sure your
understanding is perfectly consistent etc, I just don't think it's the only
possible one.'
I'm sorry. I should not just have written: 'Fine, but it doesn't seem to
square with the definitions of theology I find in dictionaries.'
I meant: 'O.k. If we undestand theology in that way, we indeed agree. The
fruits of other people's journeys with/into God can indeed illuminate one's
path. (Sidenote: This definition doesn't seem to square with the definitions
of theology I find in dictionaries. That's not a real problem between us, as
we can and do take the time to sort out apparent disagreement. Youi can not
always assume that in communication though, even on this list. It may be
advisable, therefore, to explain yourself a bit more if you use a term in
another sense than it is used normally -as shown in dictionaries- if it is
not already defined differently by Pirsig.)'
By the way: does the academic community (of theologians) you refer to happen
to describe its key terms in dictionariies? Could you quote a typical
definition that supports your understanding of theology? Are they less
compromised by Subject-Object thinking than the wider philosophical culture?
To what extent do you agree with me that canonization of those fruits of
other people's journeys with/into God, telling others 'this will/can
illuminate your path', can be a problem, by shifting the balance between DQ
and sq in people's lives towards sq? Do you agree that such canonization
creates static patterns of value and stunts mysticism and 'experiencing the
music for yourself'?
We do need static patterns of value, of course, but do you agree that
religion and theology (understood in your way) should beware of canonization
to the extent that it wants to play a role in the forward movement of
evolution?
You asked:
'if more people choose to go from Anglicanism to Quakerism than the reverse,
then Quakerism must be higher Quality. Is that really your argument? ...
Perhaps it is vitally important to you that Quakerism be demonstrably better
than Anglicanism (or, traditional Christianity more generally)?'
No, it is not vitally important (for my ego or something). Usually I do
phrase things like 'the highest Quality option available to me at this
time', even qualifying it with 'SEEMINGLY available ...', keeping open the
possibility that I err even in experiencing Quality for myself.
The argument does seem relevant though in the context of a discussion of a
Methaphysics of Quality. It is a test of Pirsig's claim that a MoQ can found
a 'scientific' ethics, that can grade all patterns of value in an
evolutionary hierarchy, even if only in hindsight. If competition is
essential in biological evolution, why not at the higher levels?
I don't buy your: 'Surely these things are unknowable and unprovable this
side of heaven, so they're not that productive a topic to pursue?'
In my theological undestanding both heaven and hell are right here and
nowhere else. It's up to us to make our life and that of others into one or
the other.
Do you know the metaphorical explanation of heaven and hell as a long table
laden with food at which everyone is sitting unable to bend their arms and
thus unable to bring the food to one's mouth?
In hell people go hungry because of that, which is even more painful because
of all that food laid out before them. In heaven they serve each other...
When I was teaching economics for a while, I tought my pupils that real life
can be even worse than hell: people throttling those opposite them forcing
the other to feed them...
Economics is the way in which we organize that people get what they
need/want and ... that some get more and others less. Hell is not being
poor, but being poorer (in the widest sense of the word) than others for no
good reason. Heaven is not being wealthy, healthy, happy and in control of
one's world, but being wealthy, healthy, happy and in control of our world
together. (I wouldn't mind calling myself a muslim, i.e. someone devoted to
the divine, but to me the main defect of a heaven in which -supposedly male-
muslim await 70 houris, is that it leaves out 69 other male muslims and
fails to describe what heaven is like for female muslims.)
We CAN know 'this side of heaven' that "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." (William Penn, 1693). We can even get
to know each other and the Quality that connects us this side of the grave,
realizing that the 'divers liveries' DO matter also, in a world in which
Quality is BOTH split AND recognizably the same (a contridictory identity)
in static patterns and in change for the good. Some 'liveries' ARE better
than others, even if they clothe kindred souls. What's wrong with clashing
(s)words about Anglicanism or Quakerism being better as long as we are aware
of our underlying agreement?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Dec 10 2004 - 07:44:36 GMT