From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun May 01 2005 - 19:05:58 BST
Sam, Scott, Ant and all:
Sam Norton said April 26, 10:04 AM: ...................The substance of a
thing is the defining attribute of that thing, it is what makes it what it
is (the essence). This is separate to the accidents, being the perceptible
qualities like length, weight, colour, texture etc which are not essential
to making a thing what it is. Scientific investigation (as opposed to
philosophical) is wholly and exclusively concerned with the accidents.
dmb says:
This distinction only demonstrates the problem. Modernity made a political
deal. Science gets the domain of "its" and religion gets to remain the
authority on morals. But this is a bad deal. Its part of the problem to be
solved. This is the crisis at hand. This is what the MOQ seeks to overcome,
this disassocitation between science and religion. The idea here is to let
these domains do what they do best, to allow the independence of various
modes of inquiry, but without the big walls. The idea is to have a
spirituality that is consistent within a comprehensive worldview, that is
not walled off from intellectual inquiry. The idea is to include the wisdom
of tradition within that total view too, to have social and intellectual
values working together instead of against each other, and to generally
overcome the apparent contradictions. The distinction you've set up here is
only a description of the kind of thing we're up against in the effort to
heal the rift.
Sam continued:
The doctrine of transubstantiation asserts that the substance of bread and
wine changes at the consecration, and that the accidents remain unchanged.
Let's listen to the primary authority, Mr Aquinas:...(snip)
So even a catholic doesn't think that the bread has turned into human flesh.
What Pirsig says in Lila is false - or, if I'm being charitable, seriously
misleading.
dmb says:
I get it. The transformation really does take place, but the accidents are
the same and the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ only in
essence, in substance, where is really matters and where the change is
undetectable to the senses or any scientific instruments. Its a real
miracle, but you can't see it UNLESS you believe it. Is that about right?
This strikes me as a fairly typical example of what theology does and is.
This strikes me as a fairly good example of intellect in the service of
faith and I am sincerely baffled that you don't already see how
intellectually dishonest that is. I mean, it seems like the task of theology
is generally not to reach an honest conclusion based on the best knowledge,
but rather to protect certain doctrines and beliefs from any threats that
such knowledge might pose. Not to mention Aquinas as the "the primary
authority"...
I mean, did I miss a post. You and Scott both seem to have missed the post
that started this thread. Didn't you notice how I was trying to get you to
see that this same mystery appears in many forms, in many cultures and
throughout history? Didn't you notice that I was trying to get you away from
the particulars of doctrinal clap trap and to see that "transubstantiation"
is only one particular version, one of many expressions of a mystery that
belongs to all of humanity? I'm convinced that all the world's cultures are
"the primary authority" on these matters, not Aquinas.
Shake it loose, dudes. Step back and take a look at the big picture without
sectarian bias. I'm not just trying to trash religion or faith because
fundamentalists are so creepy. I'm not trying to say that science should
replace religion or anything quite so simplistic. I'm saying that myth and
ritual are deeply meaningful and profoundly true. I'm sayihng that there is
a way to give intellect all that it is due and still have a spiritual life
without putting either one in a drawer. I'm saying that DQ fits perfectly
well into an intellectual understanding of reality, without conflict or
walls, and that a mythological reading of religion is a part of that
integrated view.
See, by taking a more mythological and anthropological look at these things
we can better discover the purpose and meaning of the dogmas. This
comparative approach allows us to inspect the various forms without cultural
prejudice and better appreciate the depth of meaning hidden in our own
forms. The ritual under discussion is just one example. What Pirsig says in
LILA is that ritualistic religions tends to get tangled up in dogmas so that
the Dyanmic Quality once portrayed by the ritual is lost in its shadows. And
it seems this loss is evident here. This is exactly the problem with clap
trap.
We find ourselves talking about chemistry and essences instead of the
rituals central message. I don't see any DQ in theism or theology and why
wouldn't that be the most important thing? Instead its about sin and
salvation and the afterlife. Instead, you prefer to defend theism and
theology? This is why I began by asking if you missed the initial post in
this thread, gents. Its seems you missed the central message of that, which
was to show the central message of that ritual. Its like I never wrote it.
Sheesh. I know, the issue pre-dates this thread and tangential issues have
their own momentum too, but still...
Later, dmb
P.S. I thought this place was supposed to be shut down by now?
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 : Sun May 01 2005 - 19:12:49 BST