From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 00:11:25 BST
Sam Norton stated April 27th 2005:
So.... when exactly are you claiming [SOM] became dominant? With the
Enlightenment (as understood by Homer Simpson - 'the last few hundred
years')? with the Reformation (500 years)? with the twelfth century
renaissance (800 years)? How about with Plato?
Ant McWatt comments:
Sam,
To return this debate to the intellectual level, I think you first have to
define the cultural boundaries that you are considering. For example, in
Europe there remained people in medieval times who were still under the
influence of ‘original participation’ or the 'bicameral mind' (to use
Jaynes' terminology). There are (so-called) primitive cultures in the
Americas, Africa and Asia whose consciousness remain at this stage.
However, if we are just considering Western culture, SOM (the intermediate
stage of consciousness between 'original participation' and 'final
participation') seemed to have become dominant sometime in the 1600s (with
Descartes) though as I mentioned before the idea that the universe was some
type of mechanical device was certainly in existence before 1517 when Luther
posted his ninety-five theses on that church door.
Sam Norton stated April 27th:
On top of which, who is claiming that transubstantiation is true? This all
came about because you claimed it as an example of something where science
and (contemporary) theism are in conflict, presumably because you trusted
Pirsig to have got it right in Lila... So are you now willing to concede
Scott's point?
Ant McWatt comments:
Not in this debate (though Scott has provided some useful insights
concerning Buddhism and the MOQ recently). The fact the Roman Catholic
Church are still using Aristotle’s notion of substance (to support the idea
that there is a Divine ‘substance’ beneath the ‘accidents’ of the bread and
wine) proves my point that it is an example of something where science and
contemporary non-fundamentalist theism are in conflict. I think everyone on
this Forum would realise that modern physics rejects Aristotle’s notion of
substance in favour of quantum energy fields or notions of process (as seen
in the MOQ) so it seems rather excessive to also provide an explanation of
Aristotle’s notion of substance as well to prove the point.
Best wishes,
Anthony
_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
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 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 00:15:49 BST