Re: MD Life after death?

From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 15:01:39 GMT

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD Philosophy and Theology"

    Hi Platt,

    I've been musing about this line of questioning. Views about life after
    death are very diverse - diverse within Christianity as much as between
    Christianity and other religions. For example, in the twelfth century in
    Western Christianity there was a shift between viewing the resurrection as a
    corporate event at the end of time, to being a personal judgement and
    vindication. It's a bit of a distortion to think that Christianity depended
    on the appeal of life after death. Clearly the Resurrection was the defining
    impetus for Christianity, but how that was understood, even in New Testament
    times, was never monolithic - compare Paul's account in 1 Corinthians 15
    with the various gospel stories, from Mark (empty tomb) through Matthew and
    Luke (miraculous appearances) through to John (eating meals with the
    disciples and having Thomas stick his hands in the wounds). (Those are in
    date order, by the way)

    Moreover, the simple sense of life after death that you seem to think
    accounts for the appeal of Christianity is one that is, to say the least,
    spiritually untenable, as it is too egoistic. 'Those who seek to save their
    life will lose it' and all that. Christianity is geared around a
    renunciation of the ego rather more than it is geared around the ultimate
    salvation of the ego. That you find both Wim and my views on the matter
    surprising - especially if we are otherwise fairly typical
    Christians/Quakers - might say more about the general preconceptions held by
    our society, rather than reveal the truth about Christian faith.

    Which brings me to Pirsig. He seems to be thinking of human life in general
    being maintained, rather than the existence of any one individual. As such
    I'm not sure it makes sense to think of it as a form of 'life after death'.
    Is he thinking of the maintenance of the biological level?

    Also relevant are his comments in Lila's Child about the difficulties of
    making individuality anything substantive. If he thinks individuality is
    ultimately an illusion it makes it a bit difficult to maintain any coherent
    sense of life after death.

    Rather than say he is non-religious, it might be more accurate to think of
    Pirsig as being Zen Buddhist. There's quite a bit of evidence for that,
    after all!

    I'd be happy to pursue this topic further, if it was of interest.

    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 Mar 12 2003 - 15:31:38 GMT