Re: MD What it means to believe in the orthodox Christian God

From: Charles Roghair (bogart_215@mac.com)
Date: Wed Aug 17 2005 - 17:21:45 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD Self-Evident MoQ Truths"

    Sam:

    Isn't most of what you say here another way of stating that God is an
    abstract construct of human consciousness? Like infinity?

    Just wondering.

    C.

    On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Sam Norton wrote:

    > Hi Kevin, (and Paul, anyone interested, especially DMB)
    >
    > This is part 2. I wanted to explain the context of my remarks about
    > God's existence etc.
    >
    >
    >> What I'm denying is the _existence_ of God, because a) God is not
    >> an entity,
    >> so b) God doesn't "exist" in any way in which we can give the
    >> words much
    >> sense. God is not a member of a class, so he's not a member of the
    >> class of
    >> existing things.
    >>
    >
    > Paul responded: Then you have to also state that God does not not-
    > exist, otherwise it belongs to a class of non-existent things.
    >
    > I would place my understanding of God within the Christian
    > tradition, specifically, in the context of classical Christian
    > mysticism. So to explain some of the core sense of that, I'll need
    > to use two words 'cataphatic' and 'apophatic'. (I've written about
    > this to DMB before, but probably nobody else noticed).
    >
    > Can God be spoken about or not? The cataphatic answers the question
    > positively, saying that there are things which can truly be said
    > about God - so the language used in the Bible to talk about God is
    > meaningful language. And it is also possible to say true things
    > about what God is not. So God is NOT X, Y or Z. In contrast, the
    > apophatic tradition answers this question negatively, so apophatic
    > mysticism is the 'negative' tradition, which says 'not this, not
    > that' etc. Specifically, it says that all language about God is
    > meaningless so we should shut up and not 'yelp about God'.
    >
    >
    >
    > The important thing to know is that these two answers to the
    > question are siamese twins, rather like yin and yang, and they
    > cannot exist without the other. The mainstream mystics in the
    > western tradition (Denys, Eckhart, Julian of Norwich etc) have
    > their different emphases and 'flavours' but in each case the
    > language of their writings is predicated on the truth of both
    > answers. So first there is the cataphatic response to the question,
    > and there is an overflowing abundance of language referring to God,
    > eg saying 'God is light' and then, in dialectical movement, there
    > is the negation of this, eg saying God is darkness (this is STILL
    > the cataphatic, NB), and then - *and this is the key 'apophatic'
    > moment* - this distinction of positive and negative is itself
    > negated by saying 'God is dazzling darkness'.
    >
    >
    >
    > So, just to ensure this is understood, the cataphatic is *both*
    > statements (God is light, God is darkness) and the apophatic is the
    > paradox *beyond* the statements, that state of understanding or
    > enlightenment when the soul has absorbed or developed the truth
    > about God. In other words, the mystical writers in the Western
    > tradition are using the natural language of theology, for "Good
    > theology... leads to that silence which is only found on the other
    > side of a general linguistic embarrassment" (Denys Turner). It is
    > the difference between knowing nothing (the state of innocence) and
    > knowing that you know nothing (the state of wisdom) - and the
    > mystical tradition is a way of enabling the journey from the one to
    > the other, _through_ the dialectic of cataphatic and apophatic.
    >
    >
    >
    > (This mystical tradition, just to head off a possible criticism,
    > isn't exclusively Christian. It has two parents - Moses going up
    > the Mountain, and Plato's allegory of the cave - and it's the
    > latter which brings out its relevance to Pirsig, for he is a neo-
    > Platonist.)
    >
    >
    >
    > So when I say 'God does not exist' I'm using the _first_ bit of
    > cataphatic language (ie I'm denying 'God exists'). And Paul is
    > quite right to say that I'm committed to saying 'God does not not-
    > exist'. That is the apophatic response, and this is the paradox and
    > failure of language to capture the reality of God.
    >
    >
    >
    > Much more interesting than that technical stuff, however, is the
    > spiritual journey within which that language makes sense. That is,
    > the soul aspires to union with God, but is prevented from enjoying
    > that union as a result of sin. Putting that in MoQ terms, our
    > fourth level patterns seek to be fully open to Quality, yet are
    > restricted by the social patterns which are harmfully static. The
    > process of mysticism (as I understand it) is the discipline of
    > renouncing all the static patterns so as to enable mystical union.
    >
    >
    >
    > "In the Pauline and Johannine writings of the New Testament, life
    > in Christ consists in a dynamic union with God. Depending on the
    > emphasis, this union is presented as being with Christ as with
    > God's divine self-expression, or with God (the Father) in and
    > through Christ. God's spirit seals the union and initiates an ever-
    > growing participation in the intimacy of the divine life. The
    > presence of the Holy Spirit endows the Christian with a 'sense' of
    > the divine that if properly developed enables the believer to
    > 'taste' (_sapere_) God and all that relates to him." (Louis Dupre,
    > 'Unio Mystica')
    >
    >
    >
    > In other words, what motivates the quest for God is love; as
    > Augustine put it, our hearts are restless until they find their
    > rest in Him. I understand the mystical tradition to be a process of
    > breaking the back of the intellectual ego, so as to allow the soul
    > to grow in wisdom, and grow into God.
    >
    >
    >
    > I'll need to write a part 3 on this as well, but it'll have to wait.
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 - 18:06:06 BST