From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 07 2005 - 15:38:28 GMT
Hi DMB,
> dmb says:
> This is way too grandiose for my taste. I don't think anyone here is
> claiming to be a Luther or a Calvin.
I was responding to Matt's comparison.
> I'd also point out that my assertions
> are "revolutionary" only in the sense that they represent a radical
> departure from the conventional understanding. But its not new. In fact,
> one
> of the things that persuades me that Jesus was NOT unique is the myth of
> Orpheus, which is at least a thousand years older. In any case, no one
> here
> is trying to overthrow an historical instutution or replace the Pope or
> other alter that tradition. At least not today. I'm only offering an
> alternative view.
Oh come on, you're not that radical. A hundred years ago it might have been
radical, but it's a bit like seeing the naked female breast on TV - fifty
years ago it was shocking, these days it is commonplace. In the same way,
arguing like Dan Brown that Jesus married Mary, or that the church covered
up the truth for a thousand years, these aren't new and radical ideas.
They've been knocked about and debated for a long time now (at least a
hundred years for some of them, two hundred for some). In substance they
were knocked about at the beginning as well, and rejected even then for
being poor quality. Nothing changes under the sun.
> dmb says:
> I think that's right. And I think that's exactly the problem. This is the
> conventional view. <snip> I'm offering an alternative and am quite
> well aware of the fact that this is "an unusual position that may need
> some
> defending". This is what I'm talking about when I use the term
> "blindspont".
> In a very real sense, the whole culture is against it, not just the
> churches. But I also think this unusual view is Pirsig's view. And like
> other elements of the MOQ, it is not new at but but rather represents a
> long
> suppressed aspect of the culture. Its the contrary underground view, if
> you
> will, and it has been since the begining.
Nah, don't buy any of that. I think that's a Romantic delusion, buying into
a mythology of the intrepid seeker after truth who gains self-validation by
being against the world. "Nobody understands me! Therefore I must be right!"
This is exactly what I mean when I talk about a failure to understand
Christianity - and that it can only be properly transcended once it has been
understood. I think you've perfectly adequately transcended American
Protestantism, but that in itself is a shallow derivative of the real thing.
> Sam replied:
> Not true. Christianity spread in the first three hundred years without any
> force of arms whatsoever. And the uniqueness of Christ was what they were
> teaching.
>
> dmb says:
> Oh please. Europe became christian by decree of an emperor, not because
> the
> bible hit #1 one the New York Times best selller list. <snip>
Let's get specific here. Are you claiming that in the first three hundred
years after Christ, the religion of Christianity spread by force?
> dmb replies:
> You're not really denying that the gnostic gospels were excluded so much
> as
> giving reasons why they were excluded. <snip> That's the
> point; alternative views go back to the begining too. But again, if I see
> the message in the myth of Orpheus, then this little dispute about decades
> or centuries of time is dwarfed.
Gnostic views are criticised in the New Testament writings themselves.
Christianity was formed in contradistinction to gnosticism (for lots of
reasons). But the big difference between Orpheus and Christ is that JC
actually lived and died and (if you're a Christian) rose again - and we have
lots of material describing it. Do you really think that the gospel
descriptions of JC are analogous to the mythology of Orpheus? The mind
boggles.
> Sam replied:
> Well, as we have discussed before, I don't think Christianity and the
> 'official' MoQ are compatible, no dispute. I'm interested in working out
> ways of using some of Pirsig's insights in a way that harmonises with
> Christianity. That's the particular furrow I'm ploughing.
>
> dmb says:
> They are not compatible, but you want to use the insights of one to
> harmonize with the other? Um. Correct if me I'm wrong, but isn't trying to
> harmonize two incompatible things the very essence of futility? <snip>.
> Does the MOQ offer something you find lacking in the church,
> or what? I don't mean to be flippant, but why bother with it at all if its
> not compatible with your chosen faith and profession? I'm honestly baffled
> by that.
I'm touched that you don't want me to go. As it happens the feeling is
reciprocal. But I don't see my line of thinking as being in principle any
different to what Aquinas did with Aristotle, or what the Latitudinarians
did with Newton, or what John Polkinghorne is doing with Quantum Physics.
Christianity - being primarily a way of life - has always borrowed from the
philosophy of the surrounding culture. The creed itself is a translation
into the terms of Greek Metaphysics. So I'm standing in a long and
honourable tradition, so it seems to me, and paying Pirsig the respect of
taking his ideas seriously as a philosophical contribution of that stature.
Also, in terms of my own understanding, I read ZMM first when I was still an
atheist, and his undermining of scientism played a large part in my coming
to faith. If they do end up being absolutely incompatible, eg if I came to
believe that the use of Quality as a possible name for God was inherently
idolatrous, then my project would break down. But for the time being I find
sufficient intellectual stimulus and creativity in exploring the borderland.
I don't consider that an illegitimate project - as long as I don't start
saying something like "Pirsig is a closet Christian" - because he's
obviously not.
> dmb says:
> The MOQ has to be better intellectually AND SOCIALLY? I think that you are
> asking too much. <snip> This is an unforgivably longwinded way of saying
> that a metaphysics can't be SOCIALLY superior to anything because it can't
> be SOCIAL at all. It can serve to examine that level's static forms.
OK, let's stick to intellectual. If even that is demonstrated to my
satisfaction I'd be surprised.
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 : Mon Mar 07 2005 - 15:41:58 GMT