MD Transubstantiation

From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 15:21:36 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Access to Quality"

    Ian G stated April 19th:

    So IF transubstantiation were seriously suggested as part of the real
    world, science would indeed have something to say about the truth of
    it, explaining it, etc. Unless a worthwhile test could be proposed
    (which in this case I suspect it could, it's not that complicated a
    problem) the empirical testability is only a minor part of the story -
    you need a hypothesis, an explanation, BEFORE you test it. (And, true
    or not, explaining why people "believe" it is yet another area to
    discuss - memetic, I would say.)

    Sam stated April 19th 2005:

    So far as I understand it (which may well not be complete)
    transubstantiation asserts a change in the 'substance' beneath the
    'accidents'. As science can only, as a matter of principle, explore the
    'accidents' (aka the physical properties of the bread and wine)

    a) it is constitutionally incapable of detecting a change in the substance,
    and

    b) the religious authorities in the Vatican wouldn't expect there to be a
    scientifically detectable change. I agree with your wider point about
    hypothesis though.

    Ant McWatt notes:

    Owen Barfield (in “Saving the Appearances”, 1965, p.170) mentions that ‘the
    difficulties and doctrinal disputes concerning transubstantiation’ only
    arose after SOM became dominant during the Enlightenment. This was because
    the inorganic and biological world became perceived as non-spiritual,
    mechanical and determined (read lacking Quality) and, as such, the
    ontological status of communion bread was stuck between being a
    manifestation of pure Dynamic Quality (analogous to this mysterious
    ‘substance’ of Sam’s beneath the accidents) or being simply symbolic. The
    first viewpoint has been taken by the “Vatican Authorities” and the second
    by the “Protestant” Christian tradition. Both traditions are wrong.

    As Barfield argues, it is clear (from an MOQ or Barfield’s ‘final
    participation’ viewpoint) that the communion bread is already a
    manifestation of Quality (i.e. a static pattern of biological quality), the
    essential message of Jesus being concerned with pushing people towards a
    creative awareness of this understanding away from both the Ancient
    unconscious (though essentially correct) understanding of Quality as
    saturating the ‘objective world’ (i.e. paganism/’original participation’)
    and the Enlightenment-type denial of Quality being manifest in the
    ‘objective world’ (i.e. SOM).

    Best wishes,

    Anthony.

    www.anthonymcwatt.co.uk

    _________________________________________________________________
    Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
    http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

    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 25 2005 - 15:53:53 BST