From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 06:42:58 GMT
Dear Sam,
You wrote 16 Feb 2003 18:04:52 -0000:
'I don't have a conclusive answer. I just think that the status quo
(including any variant on extended inspections) is insupportable, for all
sorts of reasons (including Christian ones) and the choice as I see it is
between letting Hussein out of his cage or military intervention. I don't
see either course of action as clearly correct, hence my discussion of the
Fall. We're in a mess of our own making.'
Why do you count any variant of extending inspections under 'the status
quo'? Why would what I formulated 9 Feb 2003 23:03:55 +0100 be
insupportable?
[I wrote:
'Much more inspections -as France has proposed-, backed (yes) by UN (not
mainly USA) forces is the way
to go now, I think. Keeping a closer watch on the Iraq regime might even be
used to ensure that the imports which are allowed benefit the population (as
intended) and not only the regime. To help the regime accept (by playing on
their pretence to be serving the interests of the population) the sanctions
could be gradually lifted (lessening the suffering of the population) the
more external checks the regime accepts on its operation.']
Yes, 'we are in a mess of our own making' is a nice description both of this
situation and of the story of the Fall.
You ask whether 'a Christian doctrine like the Fall can be rephrased in
MoQish'. You described that doctrine 10 Feb 2003 11:00:10 -0000 as:
'we're not in paradise and we're sinners. ... we live in an environment
which is structured sinfully - we are embedded in practices which cause us
to sin and there is no way for us to avoid sinning. ... we need to recognize
this sinfulness as the first stage in moving away from the situation'.
Not being very knowledgeable about Christian doctrines (Quakers profess not
to have any) I consulted my father. He told me that the story of the snake,
the apple and the expulsion from the garden of Eden probably was a rewording
of comparable stories from other peoples in the area, like that from the
Gilgamesh-epos. There a snake steals from Gilgamesh the herb that gives
eternal life, thus causing mortality and all kinds of other ills for
humanity. The moral of that story is, that humanity is not accountable for
those ills. It is caused by an outside evil force, symbolized by the snake.
In contrast with that, the moral of the biblical story should be read as:
No, humanity IS accountable. It creates the mess itself by its choices. The
old testament is full of stories of Israel being told to do justice in order
to undo the mess it created.
Couldn't this story not just as well be read to found another doctrine:
We're not in paradise any more, were we didn't have to choose between good
and evil, because it was done for us. We now know good and evil ourselves
and we can choose to sin or not to sin. We may live in an environment which
is structured sinfully, but it was created by our own choices and can
therefore be changed by our choices. Experiencing 'causes of unavoidable
sinning' is the error of the Gilgamesh-epos. The Fall is the story of
choice, of freedom to sin or not to sin.
Your Christian doctrine of the Fall seems to emphasize the 'predestination'
element. Isn't that a Protestant doctrine rather than a doctrine shared by
Christians generally? It comes very close (I think) to the 'determinism'
which according to the MoQ is only part of the story: the sq part. Doesn't
the 'predestination versus earn-your-salvation-theology' controversy (forgot
to ask my father for a proper theological term for the latter position)
closely resemble the 'free will versus determinism controversy' which is
defused by Pirsig in chapter 12 of 'Lila'?
Pirsig wrote:
'To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of
quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free.'
Couldn't we write:
'To the extent that we let our behavior be controlled by static patterns of
quality, i.e. get ourselves in a mess of our own making, we're
predestinated. To the extent that we follow Dynamic Quality, i.e. don't let
ourselves be guided by our past, we can save our souls (whatever they may
be).'?
I didn't convince you when I wrote 16 Feb 2003 17:02:51 +0100:
'You must see the parallel of my position with yours:
"the traditional Christian view accepts the inevitability of personal sin -
indeed, it makes it central and says that it is a dangerous illusion to
think that you can be free of it".
Just substitute "identification with static patterns of value" for "personal
sin". According to me a true Christian view nevertheless recognizes the
value of striving to become more free, of striving to "be perfect like your
Father in heaven is perfect". A Christian should do "more than what's
usual".'
You reply:
'Unless you add in an "exclusive" to your description, I see no sin in
identification with static patterns of value -
it depends on what they are static patterns *of*. Static does not mean
inherently bad or low value - it just means a stable pattern, as I
understand it. I understand the "be perfect" teaching as to do with
submission to God and I do not equate God with Dynamic Quality.'
Well, maybe you shouldn't give 'sin' such a heavy negative moral charge
either in order to see the parallel. Can't we just see sin as a wrong
choice? A choice of which we experienced -too late- the negative
consequences and from which we can learn for the future? Maybe that's easier
for Dutch speakers: in English you have to choose between 'It's a shame!'
and 'It's a sin!', in Dutch we translate both as 'Het is zonde!'. Context
and intonation determine the moral charge.
I hope you don't mean 'be perfect' in the sense of 'submit to God' to imply
that a return to paradise is possible? Doesn't the story of the Fall imply
that we've got to choose ourselves and that we CAN judge good and evil
ourselves without God having to take us by the hand at each step? Jesus
simplified the whole detailed Jewish law for us into 'love God and love your
neighbor as yourself'; the moral details are up to us to fill in.
I don't know what you meant with:
'So actually any form of description of your nature ("being pacifist") is
mistaken, because necessarily static? You are simply yourself, not to be put
in a box, or kept within a mythos/logos pattern?'
I DID describe myself as a pacifist, only not a principled one. It is not my
'nature', whatever that might be, but partly a choice-in-the-moment, which
could be different in the future, (DQ) and partly past experience (sq).
I don't know what you mean with 'being kept within a mythos/logos pattern'.
You wrote:
'How do you judge if an action is driven by DQ or by degeneracy? Pirsig
suggests something along the
lines of "a hundred years later".'
Is this really so difficult? DQ creates new patterns of value. Degeneracy
means falling back in old ones. It only requires recognizing 'new' and
'old'. This may cause us some problems if we are not clear about what is a
pattern of value and mix up 'patterns of values' and 'things' (objects and
subjects that are elements of several patterns of values at the same time).
A 'thing' that is an element of a new combination of several old patterns of
values is still degenerate.
A new (DQ created) pattern of value may be new only in the sense of a
're-invented' wheel, however. In that case the static quality of the pattern
for the re-inventor is affirmed and the pattern gets a wider scope.
I didn't reply to the 'Todd Beamer' example, because I don't know what
happened in that plane. That makes it a bit difficult for me to imagine how
I would have acted and judge his actions. If you would like me to, you will
have to tell me a bit more about what happened in that plane.
Do I equate God with Dynamic Quality? Maybe with 'divine guidance'. Maybe
better with Quality, indeed. If we remember we are talking in metaphor,
'equating' may not be the proper term anyway. Metaphors always are limited
in their applicability.
You asked whether Quakers are Trinitarian. Not if you define 'being
Trinitarian' as adherence to a specific theological doctrine, because
Quakers try to avoid all theological doctrines. Some may be Trinitarian in
the sense that they sometimes use trinitarian formulas as metaphors for
their religious experience.
At least in the Netherlands and -as far as I know- in Britain the Religious
Society of Friends (Quakers) is a member of the Council of Churches and as
such 'recognized Christian'. Both Councils of Churches have made an
exception on the requirements for membership (adherence to some doctrinal
formulas) to enable Quakers to be member. The Friends World Committee for
Consultation (the umbrella organization of Quakers world-wide) is only an
observer of the World Council of Churches, however, because of its refusal
to be bound by any theological text. Individual Quakers are free to consider
themselves Christian or not; most do (like me), some don't and a lot
wouldn't be recognized as such by more doctrinal Christians (like you).
You wrote:
'It's debatable whether the Sermon on the Mount is "the core of Christian
teaching", although it's clearly a *part* of the core. Christianity does not
entail non-violence, as I understand it, as I explained before. Jesus did
not seek to impose sanctions upon the money changers in the temple, he
grabbed a whip and drove them out.'
Does that mean that using whips against those you disagree with is part of
Christian teaching??? It just exemplifies for me that Jesus was a man and no
100% saint (let alone 100% divine, even though contemporaries recognized God
in him).
I may have missed your explanation why Christianity does not entail
non-violence. Can you point me to where you did?
If the Sermon on the Mount (with 'love thine enemies') is part of the core
of Christian teaching, I am intrigued what else could be in that core
according to you that might explain 'love' to imply violence at times.
I may be wrong about the attitudes of Iraqi's about a possible 'removal of
Saddam Hussein from power' by means of a war led by the USA. A lot of them
may indeed reason like 'it can hardly become worse than it is now'.
You wrote:
'Seems to me that if the UN does not act to enforce its will then that would
represent a severe degrading of the international law framework'
I agree, but I still think that forcing more inspections and other forms of
restraints on the Iraqi regime is a better way to upgrade the international
law framework than to legitimize war by some of its members against others.
I could be tempted to accept war against Iraq by (mainly) USA forces only if
George Bush passed over the supreme command to Kofi Annan. Only then would
the 'policy against rogue' metaphor apply on the global scale. I can
understand that the USA would like to have more democratic control on Kofi
Annan before doing so, but not that one of the main opponents of more
democratic supranational institutions is always ... the USA.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 07:04:39 GMT