Re: MD Tat Tvam Asi, Campbell and Theosis

From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 17 2005 - 11:23:47 BST

  • Next message: Laycock, Jos (OSPT): "RE: MD What it means to believe in the orthodox Christian God"
  • Next message: Laycock, Jos (OSPT): "RE: MD What it means to believe in the orthodox Christian God"
  • Next message: MarshaV: "RE: MD What it means to believe in the orthodox Christian God"
  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD What it means to believe in the orthodox Christian God"

    Hi Erin,

    > I just wanted to say that I thought this was an excellent post...Your
    > position is much
    > clearer to me now.

    And to think that I posted it eight months ago. I think a lot of people tune
    out of my and DMB's conversation, for very understandable reasons.

    >I have a few questions for you.
    >
    > 1) The first has to do with J. Campbell. I really enjoy reading Joseph
    > Campell. He is
    > one of my heroes.. Soyour critique of him very interesting..albeit my
    > world is slowly crumbling..just kidding. I like seeing what religions
    > have in common
    > and Campbell often did that for me. I always thought it a good thing
    > to see the similarities in religion but am realizing now that you have to
    > be careful with
    > your point (which is starting to make sense b/c been reading Matt's
    > thoughts on essentialism).

    I think Campbell is fascinating, and the material he unearths is well worth
    getting to know. I just think that beyond a certain point you realise that
    you need to exercise caution in the conclusions that he draws. (And if
    you're understanding Matt's 'essentialism' points, then you can understand
    why). He was certainly someone I was greatly interested in in my late-teens,
    often second-hand, and not least through the masks of God TV series (which I
    watched at first just because of the Star Wars connection). Having said
    that, I haven't read everything he's written by any means. But I do have
    Hero with 1000 faces on my shelf still.

    >
    > 2. Different mysticisms do not possess a 'common core' underlying surface
    > differences; there is no
    > 'common essence', there are only 'family resemblances';
    >
    > So my question is that I think that there is nothing wrong with finding
    > similarities
    > between them b/c you still do that with family resemblences approach but
    > how do you know you've crossed the line and looking for a common essence?

    Nothing wrong with finding similarities. Hence this thread - I think there
    are resemblances between 'Tat Tvam Asi' and theosis. As for where to draw
    the line, it's the hardest thing. Wittgenstein talks about the art of
    philosophy consisting in knowing when to stop asking questions, ie to
    continue to ask questions beyond a certain point is evidence of neurosis. I
    agree with that. But you can't specify where the line is in advance. It
    comes from judgement and experience.

    > 2) I think that I have always focused on similarities I would be
    > interested for a change
    > focusing on the difference....could flesh out the some
    > differences....e.g. why choose priesthood vs becoming a Buddhist monk?

    I think it's a question of accepting the social patterns poured into you
    from birth. The Dalai Lama, for example, is very clear that Westerners
    should pursue Christianity and not take up Buddhism (as was Gandhi).
    Because, as Wittgenstein put it, 'there is a whole mythology embedded in the
    language'. Of course, Buddhism has been around in the West for long enough
    now for people in the West to have been 'raised' in it (like Uma Thurman).
    But I still think it would be vastly easier to climb the mountain with the
    tools available, rather than spend forever trying to find the 'right' tool
    (or to find the 'essential' tool). Of course, there is a huge blind spot in
    Western society with regard to Christianity, one of the largest static
    patterns in our culture. Of all the great religious traditions it is seen
    (by Protestant influenced cultures) as the only one without any
    spirituality. Which is a direct consequence of the Protestant teaching
    itself (Protestants denied Christian mysticism, therefore Protestant
    Christian cultures didn't have much in the way of spirituality, therefore
    those seeking spirituality reject the Protestant heritage and go elsewhere
    in search of it. Often investing huge amounts of ego in saying that
    Christianity isn't spiritual along the way. "Of the good in you I can speak,
    but not of evil... for what is evil but good, tortured by its own thirst,
    and forced to drink of stagnant water...").

    Before I was ordained I said to my bishop that if I had been born in India I
    would probably have grown up a devout Hindu. But I wasn't, so I'm not. (It
    wouldn't be 'me' in any case - but that's the point)

    > 3)Also I would be interested in comments on this thing I just came across
    > yesterday....
    > Kagan looks at the back and forth between culture and temperment
    > suggesting as religion help modl temperment, so may temperment make
    > certain religion
    > ideals more attractive.
    > I am going to rewrite part of it and then summarize the rest...
    > "The Buddhist philosophy is an inherent part of many Asian cultures,
    > emphasizes
    > harmony and peacefulness. In contrast, some traditional Western
    > philosophies
    > such as those of Martin Luther and John Calvin, accentuate the importance
    > of
    > controlling the anxiety, fear and guilt that they asssume to be basic
    > parts of the
    > human condition." Kagan specuales that underlying temperments of a given
    > society,
    > determined genetically may predispose people in that society toward a
    > particular philosophy. Kagan bases his admittedly speculative suggestion
    > on well-
    > confirmed findings that show clear differences in temperment between
    > Caucasian
    > and Asian children. They show a chart with the ratings of American,
    > Irish, and Chinese
    > babies on motor activity, crying, fretting, vocalizing, smiling
    > ....America is the highest, Irish middle, and Chinese lowest.

    I'm instinctively suspicious of anyone saying that 'genes' explain social
    behaviour. In MoQ terms it is a confusion of levels. It may be more that a
    culture with inheritances from Martin Luther will generate anxiety, and
    therefore encourage the 'mystical experiences' which allow that anxiety to
    be transcended. Back to the Protestant inheritance again.

    Cheers
    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 : Wed Aug 17 2005 - 11:30:44 BST