From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 21:03:55 GMT
Sam and all:
DMB had said:
> Whew! I think it would take 8 full length books to properly answer these 8
> questions, but I'll at least give you some clues.
Sam responded:
A classic example of DMB style - "I have all the answers, you're clearly
intellectually impoverished, here, have some crumbs from my table".
Obviously I'm in dire need of clues to develop my understanding of the
interface between philosophy and theology, after all, I've only had about 15
years of studying this precise subject at the highest academic levels. Of
course, that's an appeal to authority, which on its own is invalid. I only
invoke it to explain why I find your patronising tone fatuous.
DMB says:
Yikes! I'm surprised and saddened that you took that comment as an insult.
That is NOT what I meant. In fact, it was meant as an apology for giving
such brief and sketchy answers to your very big questions. Such a
mis-reading is taking place in a context where I'm basically saying that
philosophy is better and more moral than religion. This is unflattering to
religion, but is not directed at you or your beliefs specifically or
personally. Please believe me, the assertion that intellectual values are
superior, and this level of values has the moral right to win this conflict
and take charge, is not to be taken as personal insult. The condescending
attitude you ascribe to my comment never crossed my mind, I swear to God.
;-)
Sam said:
You don't know what Christianity is. "He who loves his father or mother more
than me is not worthy of me" - what is that if not a claim to transcend
social values? All you do is define Christianity as a social level
phenomenon and then compress all the evidence to fit that definition.
Forgive me if I don't join in with that process.
DMB says:
I think your quoted will help here. When I write about this topic, I'm
thinking about the world's religious institutions as they really are and as
they really function in the lives of real people today. The giant conflict
between the social and intellectual levels, the hurricane of the 20th
century that Pirisg describes so well, is still raging. The news is filled
with it. And in that conflict, family values are associated with religion
and conservatism. You've found a quote that they would not like, they'd
explain it away and re-assert family values. I think your take on it is
correct. It is an imperitive to transcend social values. If memory serves,
there is even stronger language in the New Testament along these same lines.
You know what I'm talking about when I say today's religions tend to ignore
such passages and have taken on the role of protecting social values.
Fundamentalism is the most extreme example, but its more or less true for
the moderates too. This has always been part of its function and there
nothing wrong with that. Over-reaction to the loss of moral authority pretty
much defines the literalism and fundamentalism of today's churches. Its that
Victorian tendency to defend brittle, static and hopelessly stupid social
codes, as Pirsig puts it, that bug me. But don't get me wrong. I'm not
saying that Christianity HAS to be that way. I'm saying this is a sickness
of the modern age. I'm saying that at its core, the Christian message is
mystical, just as it is in all the great religions.
Sam said:
You make the mistake of thinking that the tradition of Christianity in which
you were raised is the sum total of what Christianity is. When in fact, from
what you have said, it was an especially sectional understanding.
DMB says:
I began to drift away from that "especially sectional understanding" of
Christianity when I was about 12 years old, nearly thirty years ago. When I
turned 16 and could drive a car I made a deal with my parents. I'd continue
to go to Church every week, but not their church. I wanted to explore. I
chose to study history and philosophy in college because I still wanted to
explore. Directly after college I discovered Campbell and comparative
mythology and have read along these lines ever since. So I really don't
think its accurate to paint me as an ignoramous on matters concerning
religion. I'm sure there is much to learn, but I've spent decades thinking
and reading about this stuff.
DMB had said:
> But as a philosopher,
> even as an amateur and a hack philosopher, I think such things are kind of
> childish and absurd.
Sam responded:
Whereas I think your position can only be maintained by wilful ignorance and
prejudice. Not sure where name-calling gets us, but in our conversations it
seems to be the modus vivendi!
DMB says:
Yikes again! I was NOT calling you names. Take another look. In that
sentence the "amatuer hack philosopher" is me, not you. I think the trinity
and the fall are "childish and absurd", not you. (Athough I'm beginning to
think you have an inferiority complex.)
Sam asked:
You haven't answered the question, and it is pretty much the central
question - how do you distinguish between intellectual systems? Do you agree
with Pirsig's image of paintings in an art gallery? If not, why not?
DMB says:
Sure. I like Pirsig's analogy. But I don't like it when people use the idea
to defend bad art. I certainly think some are better than others. Logical
postivism, for example, is ugly, cold and soul-less. How we distinguish
between intellectual descriptions is a good questions, a hard question. I
took some classes in logic and the scientific method and I think all that is
useful and valid as far as it goes, but my approach has always been by a
process of elimination. I think Pirsig's critera is pretty damn good, and
his expanded empiricism is brilliant. But all that stuff is only in the back
of my mind as I read. When it doesn't seem right I put it down and walk
away. I get bored with it. When it seems right. When it seems there are no
holes, it makes sense logically, it matches experience, when it all fits
together, when it leaves nothing important out, I keep reading. Its not
quite so undisciplined as it sounds, but basically I just judge different
intellectual systems by reading and waiting to see if any alarms go off. I'm
looking for something to go wrong and when it does, I explore elsewhere. Its
not completely negative. Once in a while you find a book or author that
rocks you in a very positive way. These are our favorites. Pirsig. Campbell.
Wilber. You already know my favorite rockers.
Sam asked:
OK - so it is philosophy as a whole that constitutes the intellectual level?
DMB says:
No. And religion is not as a whole does not constitute the social level. Bot
religion and philosophy are small subsets within the larger levels. But
these two ways of seeing the world get at the heart of the difference
between social and intellectual levels. I think its especially helpful
comparison because the MOQ rescues both social values and mysticism. These
are probably the two most important functions of religion, but SOM and
modernity has done great damage. Science and religion are NOT supposed to be
at odds, this is just one of the symptoms of the disaster of Modernity. I've
gotten far away from you question, but the point is not lost. I want to make
the relationship between social and intellectual levels clear in order to
make Pirsig's rescue clear. I think he heals the rift even as he
distinguishes them from one another. See? I'm not really saying that social
level religion is stupid or that only stupid people believe in it or
anything so simplistic or cruel. I'm saying that the disaster of Modernity
has thrown it all out of wack, that its the cause of war, reactionary
genocide, the rise of fanaticism, fundamentalism, literalism, nihilism,
materialism, alienation, that terrible secret loneliness and the loss of our
souls. Modernity has created a world where we're never really at home, where
nothing is sacred, and we live in isolation, never really knowing anyone.
Its a spiritual crisis. Now, does that sound like I'm hostile to religion?
Pirsig and my other two favorites work on this same problem and have come to
essentially the same conclusions, that myth is different than intellect, but
only a flawed intellect will ignore the wisdom and power of it.
Sam said: ....... I think it is perfectly possible to be philosophically
sophisticated, and for that philosophical sophistication to be compatible
with a commitment to a particular understanding of the world, a particular
religious tradition.
DMB says:
I'd say that the commitment to any particular religious tradition would get
in the way. There is no philosophical reason, as you said, for giving any
one of them a priviedged status. This is what I'm getting at when I site
comparative mythology and religion as examples of the philosophy of
religion. Let me try this....
You remember the Pirsig quote about the two ways of interpreting the Mass?
Is the bread ACTUALLY or SYMBOLICALLY the body of christ? There he did not
scold the believer, he said that until you ACTUALLY believe it, you haven't
experienced the mass. He's saying that religion effects a person on a level
that is not intellectual, its not symbolic, its real. Or think of the
example of going to see a movie. These too function on the social level. If
you haven't been drawn into the movie, been hypnotized into really caring
about these shadows on the wall, then you haven't seen a movie. Does that
mean that intellectuals can't be moved by Mass or movies? Hell, no! It means
Mass and movies effect the philosopher and the scientist on the social level
of their being. Sure, there are people dominated by social patterns for whom
the myths and rituals of their religion is NEVER symbolic, people who have
no use for mystical metaphysics or comparative mythology. But religion is
not just for them. The ability to read the symbols in a broader intellectual
context does not preclude one from being moved or otherwise exclude a person
from the third level. As I understand Pirsig, such an exclusion is
metaphysically impossible.
Sam said:
I see no philosophical (ie logical, metaphysical or
epistemological) grounds for preference between coherent accounts which are:
atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Stoic, Protestant, Catholic, agnostic,
Kantian, Modernist, Wittgensteinian, Rortian, whatever. To use the Rorty
vocabulary, they are all 'final vocabularies' - and I don't think there are
over-riding intellectual grounds for preferring one to another. Each can be
made intellectually consistent, each can be made compatible with evidence
DMB says:
I'd nix the mixing of philosophies and religions for lots of reasons,
including the one above. Instead of more on that, let me focus on that last
sentence. You're saying that "each can be made intellectually consistent and
compatible with evidence". Since Christians, Protestant, and Catholics are
included in the list, you're saying that about religion too. This strikes me
as part of the literalism I was talking about. I think evidence is a concept
that belongs on the intellectual level. I mean, its a mistake to measure the
validity of religious beliefs in terms of evidence or anything like that.
Such a thing would never have occured to a person in a pre-scientific,
pre-modern societies. Measuring religion in terms of modern scientific
values is part of the disaster of modernity. It stems from and leads to lots
of misunderstandings about the nature of religion.
Thanks for your time.
P.S. I'll try to be careful and clear so there won't be anymore unintented
insults. From now on, when I intend to insult you, I shall knock three
times.
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 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 21:05:16 GMT