From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 02:46:03 GMT
DMB,
> DMB says:
> The trinity "prevents one from objectifying the central concept of their
> respective metaphyics"? The trinity is the result of "very careful
> intellectual activity", but can't be understood, only "approached" "with
the
> logic of contradictory identity"? Forgive me, but that absoulutely
requires
> some kind of explanation. Sounds like a load of bullshit to me, but I'll
> keep an open mind. Please, tell me the intellectual meaning of the
trinity..
> Show me how theology is intellectual. I've been trying to explain exactly
> how and why it isn't, but that is really much harder, to show or prove
what
> something isn't. Its like trying to prove that you don't beat your wife or
> have weapons of mass destruction. ;-)
The doctrine of the trinity is not in itself intellectual (it is revealed,
or so Christians claim, in the New Testament). What theologians do is try to
make intellectual sense of it. The sense made is that, at bottom, the
doctrine is a mystery, and the intellectual activity turns into safeguarding
that mystery, to prevent various heresies, like thinking that Christ is a
God *in addition* to God the Father, etc.
Please note that I am not trying to convince you or anyone that the doctrine
of the trinity is true. Only to argue that theology is an intellectual
activity. On this question, just to be sure we are on the same page, can I
assume that you have read some modern mainstream theologians (say, Bernard
Lonergan, Karl Rahner, Paul Tillich -- whoever), and have decided that their
work is not a set of intellectual patterns?
I've mentioned the logic of contradictory identity several times. (The
phrase comes from Nishida Kitaro). I found it a necessary logic in
approaching the question of perception (the problem of identity and
difference). But never mind it for now, as the question of the status of
theology is more the issue. (In brief, the logic arises when you have a pair
of concepts, like identity and difference, each of which constitutes the
other, but each also denies the other.)
DMB said:
> Aside from that, I understand the "cut off from God" doctrine and can even
> see how that could be translated into the MOQ, but I think this is
mysticism
> and not mythology or theology. But "becoming sane is a mystical awakening"
> doesn't make sense to me. I thought sanity was about having the same
static
> patterns as those around you, while the mystical experience was a vacation
> from all that, no static at all. So, your comment defies my understanding
of
> two key MOQ concepts; sanity and mysticism.
Thanks for the quotes, and I apologize for not paying attention.
Yes, sanity is defined as having the same static patterns as those around
you. My position is that from a larger perspective, those static patterns we
all share can in turn be seen as insane. That is, the mystical experience is
not a vacation, but a regaining of reality, analogous to waking up from a
dream.
- Scott
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 24 2003 - 02:49:48 GMT