From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 07:30:51 BST
Hi Anthony,
> 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,
Now that's just the sort of comment guaranteed to generate more heat than
light.
> I think you first have to define the cultural boundaries that you are
> considering.
Eh? I'm asking you to clarify what you are asserting, so why should I be the
one asked to define things?
> 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.
What seems strange is that you're using Barfield's language to justify your
point about transubstantiation, all of which seems beside the point to me.
Your original claim was that transubstantiation is an area where science and
non-fundamentalist theism conflict. I don't see how this supports that point
(particularly given Scott's very helpful expansion of Barfield's views,
which seem much more respectful of the Christian tradition).
> 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.
Er, how? That's a remarkably fine example of a non sequitur. For you to
prove your point you'd have to prove that Aristotle's 'substance' is
amenable to scientific investigation. Maybe it is, I'm not an expert on
Aristotle's metaphysics. But to say that the RC are using Aristotle does
not, of itself, prove anything. Have you actually given this any time at
all, in terms of thinking or reading, since you introduced the topic? I'm
glad you've now conceded that the RC are using Aristotle's categories but
you need to argue that Aristotle's substance *of itself* runs counter to
contemporary scientific insights. To say that modern physics doesn't use
Aristotle is, again, beside the point. It's of no use to them, fine, but how
does this demonstrate a _conflict_?
On top of which, we haven't got started on whether the belief in
transubstantiation even qualifies as 'contemporary non-fundamentalist
theism', whatever that might be. Given all the arguments about the doctrine
in the RC church about it, I would say it doesn't, even if it is - for a
little while longer - still the official doctrine.
> 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.
For someone so keen to reference the intellectual level it's odd that you
make appeals to the gallery. I'm not asking you to explain Aristotle's
notion of substance, I'm asking you to explain why modern science is in
conflict with transubstantiation. As I've said before, so far as I can tell,
modern science has nothing to say on the subject as it is wholly concerned
with the investigation of accidents (in Aristotle's language). I could be
wrong. My understanding of transubstantiation is incomplete in many ways
(I've never felt the need to go deeply into it because I don't accept
Aristotle's views on physics). It would be refreshing to have my opinions
changed on this subject. But the longer this goes on, the more I think that
you quite literally don't know what you're talking about. Just for
reference, your original claim:
For starters, what about transubstantiation? i.e. the Roman Catholic belief
that the Eucharist (that represents the presence of Christ in the mass) is
literally the body and blood of Jesus.
It all hinges on the 'literally', so it seems to me.
Sam
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 - 07:57:09 BST