From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 00:29:36 BST
Sam, Marsha and all:
Sam said to Marsha:
But the interesting thing is whether it's good to be bound to a culture. I
would say that it is as good (and as inevitable and healthy) to be bound to
a culture as it is to be bound to our bodies and the physical appetites like
food. You don't want your life to be controlled by food, but it is something
that it is sensible to ensure you have an adequate supply of. In the same
way, our social level bindings shouldn't control us, but we should ensure
that those needs are well tended, otherwise we become emaciated in some
shape or form (socially and spiritually, if not physically).
dmb says:
I get the impression here that you see the specific forms of Christianity
itself as a culture. That's true enough, but the assertion is also far too
vague to be of any use. I would like to point out that at this stage in
history Christianity is a rather narrow subculture, one that is increasingly
at odds with the larger culture. Things are worse here than they are there,
but take the recent Shiavo fiasco. We're talking about people who are
willing the attack the courts, the law, medical science. The judges, doctors
and her husband are all getting death threats from religious nuts. Their
"culture" is hostile to the wider culture and its pretty creepy. And you're
hearing this from a guy who is actually quite fond of counter-culture types
so long as they are not reactionary or violent.
Sam also said:
One of the reasons why I occasionally make cracks about 'Protestant culture'
is that it seems to be trapped in the Lutheran moment, and obsessed with
separating itself out from social influences etc - as if it was possible to
do away with our sociality. We can no more do away with our sociality than
we could do away with our physical appetites. In just the same way that
religion allows someone to overcome their biological appetites there are
also resources which provide for the overcoming of the social level (it's
what drove the origins of monasticism) - as Luther found himself in reading
the Bible, and from being a monk.
dmb says:
I think you're confusing Protestant culture with a much broader historical
development. The rise of Protestantism is part of what Wilber would call the
"differentiations of Modernity". Basically the idea is that Modernity
allowed the big three domains to proceed on their own terms rather than
being bound together in one undifferentiated system. Art, morals and science
were all inter-related and mutually supporting. As Pirsig describes it,
there was a political battle to free science from the church and this was a
good thing. And just as Pirsig complains about the down side, throwing the
baby out with the bathwater, Wilber too points out that the independance of
science and art went too far and became a case of
disassociation rather that just a healthy independence. And this gets at
what you're saying here about Lutherans being "obsessed with separating
itself out from social influences". This is only a small part of a much
larger move toward the dignity of the individual (I) and of science (it) and
of evolving culture (we). One of the reasons that telescopes became such a
threat to the church is that cosmology and morals were fused in the
pre-Modern church so that these new astronomical observations were seen as a
threat to the churches authority. And I think its kind of ironic that the
authority of the church could be so damaged by a guy like Luther, who really
just wanted the church to stop selling salvation for cash and wanted
everyone to have access to "the word of God". I mean, one might think that
church would be quite happy about translating the bible into German, and
every other language. And it seems to me that Luther did not aim to
undermine Christianity, but rather to make it more easily available. Now,
I'm being a little sketchy here because this is a huge topic about which
thousands of books have been written, but your familiarity with Pirsig
should be enough to see the picture. Let's not forget that the
differentiations of Modernity have been very, very good. It is where we get
the rise of democracy, human rights, an explosion of creativity in the arts,
the kind of science that allows us to put a guy on the moon, split the atom,
drive to work and countless other advancements that make life better. We
don't kill people for defying the authority of the church anymore and this
is certainly a good thing too. Now, there are limits and problems. This is
what the MOQ seeks to address. But it would be a huge mistake to get all
reactionary and re-assert that kind of authority. Even if we wish to address
the spiritual emptiness that has come with scientific materialism, has come
with the hostility between science and religion, there is still no going
back. Which means that it is simply wrong for a contemporary Westerner to
accept beliefs on the basis of authority and tradition rather than upon
actual evidence and knowledge.
Think of what the Pope's postion on condoms, for example, has meant in
practical terms in Africa, where HIV AIDS is killing so many people. I would
like to suggest that Pope used his authority on moral matters in a
completely irresponsible way. I mean, we can all understand how dangerous
sex can be and we can see the point and purpose of sexual morals, but how
much MORE immoral is it let people die for it. And what about the thousands
of molested children? I'm not trying to be a scandal monger here. The point
is simply that we can and should be skeptical of such authority, especially
when the damage is so plain to see.
Sam said:
I'm all in favour of not being bound by the social level etc. It's what
traditional Christian language calls 'the world'. I just don't think you
have to make a great drama out of it, and once you've recognised it and have
started along a higher path, you don't have to keep revisiting it and
defining your identity by that transition - another thing which I think
Protestant culture, especially in the US, succumbs to. (And, of course, I
don't see a religious commitment as the equivalent of a lobotomy, something
I know you disagree with, along with others here).
dmb says:
What?! "The world" is the social level and embracing the church is a move
toward transcending the social level? For the sake of civility I will simply
say that this move strikes me as a self-serving distortion that turns the
MOQ on its head. I would also add that any modern Westerner who believes the
world was created in six days or that God's one and only son was sent to
redeem the world, anyone who literally believes that does not need a
lobotomy because they do not have a brain.
Sam quoted:
"God wishes to be adored by people who are free." Pope John Paul II
dmb says:
God wishes to be adored? So do babies and stripppers. But seriously, is
there any reason to believe this, any evidence WHATSOEVER that there is such
a God or even the slightest clue that we could possibly know such a thing
about his wishes? If I believed in such a God, I'd like to believe that he
is NOT a vain narcissist. And where do you get the nerve to post such a
thing in a philosophical discussion group devoted to discussing an
anti-theistic system? Sheesh.
Thanks for being such a fine enemy. It makes things easy for me when you
make moves like this, father.
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 Apr 11 2005 - 00:35:16 BST