From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 19:10:43 BST
On Monday 25 April, 2005 8:36AM Anthony writes to Ian, Sam:
> 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.
Hi Anthony, Ian, Sam and all,
I was struck by the phrase: "the essential message of Jesus being concerned
with pushing people towards a creative awareness of this understanding". IMO
there are artificial barriers to awareness in my psychology. One of the
barriers: "Teach others sense" "put them on the right road" is directly
against creative awareness. Another barrier: "There ain't no free lunch!"
puts in social terms a law about payment. Once I conclude I am owed for my
work, or what I own and I have to "Teach others sense" "put them on the
right road", I find myself in a bind to be open to 'creative awareness of
this understanding.' I find myself subject to these attitudes when you write
the phrase 'creative awareness of this understanding'. Thank you, Ant! Well
said!
Joe
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 - 21:40:26 BST