From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 12:59:14 BST
Hi Wim, Anthony,
I'll touch on three things in this post. The first is Wim's preference for
DQ over SQ, and whether that is what our society as a whole would benefit
from. The second is the question of sacraments. The third is whether it is
legitimate to meet together in a group for worship.
Wim said:
> I agree that DQ should not IN GENERAL be privileged over sq. I only argue
> that DQ (the spirit) should be privileged over sq (the stranglehold) in
> religion and nowadays more so than in history.
<snip>
> Earlier in our discussion I have compared the static and Dynamic aspects
> of
> religion with the roles of priest and prophet. The priest performs the
> rituals, sets the standards for religious behaviour and disciplines those
> who belong. He embodies religious tradition by setting its social and
> intellectual patterns of value. The prophet dynamizes that tradition. He
> frees the spirit that is strangled by those static patterns of value.
> Would
> you agree that the importance of priest and prophet within a religion
> depends on the role that religion plays in a culture? Would you agree that
> when a culture has better (or at least more) alternatives for maintaining
> its social and intellectual patterns of values the importance of the
> priest
> diminishes? In a culture on the brink of survival, where religious rules
> and
> rituals have an important role in maintaining harvests and hygienic
> standards, priests (sq) might even have to be privileged over prophets
> (DQ)
> in religion. Wouldn't you agree that nowadays, at least in Britain and the
> Netherlands, it should be the other way round?
In ZMM Pirsig talks about the river bursting its banks, and how he wants to
deepen the channels. I read that as a good image for why we need SQ more
than DQ in our society at present. I think we are drowning in DQ, and what
actually enables people to live are liferafts of SQ.
More concretely, with respect to religious belief, I think our present
emphasis on DQ in religion involves an exaltation of choice, conditioned by
the wider structures of late capitalism, and as such a religion which
pursues DQ in the way you described is, I feel, rapidly suborned by those
same economic structures. Have you come across the criticism of Buddhism (as
pursued in the West) as 'making the world safe for capitalism'? In other
words, that all that the spiritual techniques of meditation etc are used for
are to compensate for the stresses of modern work, so the 'religion' merely
functions as oil for the cogs of capitalism.
It seems to me that the truly prophetic aspects of religious belief are
precisely the ones which can't be subsumed within that capitalist logic, and
the person who has most notably stood out against those logics, and the way
they destroy humanity, is the ultimate priest - John Paul II, RIP.
So, no. My basic perspective - which may be an unjustifiable prejudice,
doubtless that'll be exposed in due course - is that in our present society
DQ functions as a mask for self-indulgence. DQ (in the terms of this debate)
is conforming to the ways of the world, and so is radically and profoundly
anti-prophetic. Of course, what that means is that "DQ" is NOT really DQ.
But I think we'll only really get to the proper DQ once we have climbed a
few more steps on the ladder of SQ in religious ascent.
I read this recently:
"The essential thing 'in heaven and earth' is... that there should be long
obedience in the same direction; there thereby results, and has always
resulted in the long run, something which has made life worth living."
(Nietzche, Beyond Good and Evil - quoted by Eugene Peterson)
That's what I think is missing with the emphasis on DQ (or personal choice)
in our culture, and which seems to underlie your perspective. I think the
important thing is to climb the mountain. And until you have actually
achieved some measure of independence from the crowd (who are all in love
with the idol of consumer preference) you're not actually open to DQ. You
have to stick with the static patterns for a long time before they get
transparent (360 degree enlightenment or whatever - a useful image) - but
that's because you can't short circuit enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a
commodity, ready packaged.
Hmm. Bit of a rant there. To summarise - I think the prophetic role at the
moment is actually to be found most in those who are rooted in the static
forms, because it is those static forms that enable them to withstand the
flood of DQ (and degeneracy) washing away everything else.
I wrote 5 Mar: 'if you can't see the sacraments as a focus for Christian
mysticism then you won't be able to practice it anywhere else'.
Wim said:
> Isn't that very illogical? Isn't it much more probable that connecting the
> word 'sacred' to specific rituals (by calling them 'sacraments') will
> impede
> your ability to experience it in the rest of life?
> Don't you think that association of the word 'love' with sex makes it
> more difficult to experience it in other ways? Don't you think that the
> association of piety with keeping religious rules (like the Pharisees did
> in
> Jesus' time) makes it more difficult to hear the calling of the spirit
> when
> your neighbour is in need (so only the Samaritan heard it)? Didn't Jesus
> teach us to worship God in spirit and in truth (in 'truth', because the
> intellectual level was less static yet then than now) and not in specific
> religious rituals?
I have in the back of my mind a vague memory of Helen Keller's learning
about words, specifically when water was poured on her hand, and then a
pattern of taps was made on the hand, and she 'grasped' the concept of words
or names. (I'm being vague, partly from memory, but partly also because
there's a potential problem there with the 'Augustinian picture of
language', but that would distract us).
What I'm wanting to draw from that analogy is that once Keller had grasped
what naming was, then a whole world of experience opened up where everything
could be named. So the specific focus on the water being named was the
threshold for that new world.
I would say something similar operates with a sacrament. Through the
sacrament you are able to participate in the holy - and this enables your
awareness of the holiness in everything else. What happens if you are not
taught the holy in any specific fashion isn't that you are able to see the
holy everywhere, but that you don't see the holy at all. As has happened in
the cultures derived from North-West European Protestantism, as a matter of
historical fact. We live in a 'disenchanted' world, aka the secular, and
that, to me, seems degenerate. Specifically, it's the result of taking a
truth which rests on a body of static latches (that all of life is holy),
getting rid of the static latches (various religious teachings, especially
to do with the Eucharist), and expecting that insight to remain floating on
its own, without any wider support. What in fact has happened is a collapse
of that whole dimension of existence (and the thirst for the sacred is now
running through the repertoire of options that had previously been examined,
and found wanting, right at the beginning of the Christian story - and
people get excited because they think that it's wonderfully dynamic and new,
and maybe even just a little bit daring and counter-cultural, when in fact
it's just a return to previously discarded models.)
So to return to what I originally said, if a Christian can't experience the
sacraments as holy, then I would say that the whole dimension of mystical
understanding is foreign. It's through the sacraments that a Christian
understands what holiness and the sacred are. At least so far as I
understand it.
Finally, Anthony asked about congregational gatherings:
> And the latter practice of Christians congregating in crowds which leaves
> people vulnerable to suggestible states (i.e. brainwashing) is one of the
> reasons I find organised religion highly disturbing. For instance, why is
> a
> service/mass a one way (static) inculcation by a preacher/priest to the
> congregation of a set of pre-set doctrine rather than a Dynamic debate
> (open
> to contributions from all) about morals, global problems, the implications
> of Quantum Theory or how a section of the Bible should be understood?
> This
> lack of critical intellectual development and debate is how you treat very
> young children not mature adults.
As a by-the-way there was an interesting article in the TLS recently,
reviewing a book which made the case for crowds being more intelligent than
individuals, not just in an aggregating/democratic fashion, but in terms of
being more open to DQ (my phrasing). But that's an aside.
A few comments (Wim will recognise some of these arguments)
1. Worship is not identical to teaching and debate, nor is it the whole of a
church's life. What you seem to be looking for is reminiscent of the sort of
scholastic debates in the monasteries, which have now been switched to
theological faculties. Worship is about the whole person, not just the
intellect, and will therefore (ideally) engage all the different levels.
There's plenty of scope for intellectual exploration and debate, it's just
that those things are not the be-all and end-all of the religious life (nor
are they seen as being of the supremely highest Quality, necessarily).
Worship is the source for those things, not the product. So you could say
that worship is about engaging with Quality as such, not just intellectual
debate.
2. The fourth level rests upon the health of the third level. Static Quality
patterns which keep the third level healthy (amongst which I would certainly
put worship, although I wouldn't say worship was exclusively third level)
are essential for the flourishing of the fourth level. Related to what I
said above about relative merits of DQ and SQ, I would say that patterns of
worship are essential forms of SQ which _allow_ DQ to be discerned and built
on.
3. Going on from that, there is an assumption in your argument that a) the
patterns of worship can be exhaustively intellectually analysed and b) that
they are inevitably negative. I disagree with both those assumptions.
4. Worship is not about the imparting of doctrine but the participation in a
mystery. Doctrine can come along with it, but the doctrine is derivative;
the mystery (the sacrament) is primary. On top of which the priest is not
closer to the mystery than anyone else (even though he or she might be
playing a specific role on behalf of the community).
5. There are very few mature adults, in all walks of life. The more we know,
the more we realise we don't know. That's been my experience anyway.
6. I find it interesting that people like Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, when
asked by Westerners about what spiritual path to pursue, say 'pursue your
own faith'. In other words, Christianity. As Wittgenstein put it, there is a
whole mythology embedded in our language, and I don't think that it's
possible to evade the influence of Christianity other than by transcending
it, ie by working through it to gain transparency or 360 degree
enlightenment or whatever. Otherwise our understandings will be
unconsciously shaped by it, and we'll still by circulating stale SQ around
our tea cups.
Sam
I loved your master perfectly
I taught him all that he knew.
He was starving in some deep mystery
like a man who is sure what is true.
(Leonard Cohen)
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 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 13:02:37 BST