Re: MD Philosophy and Theology

From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 11:54:26 BST

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

    Hi Steve and DMB,

    A brief response on some specifics, as prelude to a longer post (still to be written) on 'the
    mythology of science'...

    : Steve:
    : It's interesting to see one of DMB's heroes (Wilber) take on another of them
    : (Campbell) on this issue. (I only wish Wilber would read Pirsig.)

    The quote was interesting - I'm much more sympathetic to Campbell. However you go on to say:

    : Steve:
    : Because reason transcends, includes, and negates myth, it is a higher level
    : than myth.

    I disagree with this, on two levels. Firstly I don't agree that "reason" does such things (I think
    "reason" is a sterile tool [manipulation of symbols] and is cognitively neutral). Secondly, I think
    that what *can* do something similar is the fourth level, but in my view the fourth level
    'transcends and includes' mythology, it doesn't negate it (I see the link between mythology and the
    fourth level as akin to the shrub/tree distinction, not the mother/baby distinction. DMB thinks the
    opposite, but that's ground we've gone over before).

    : You could of course still argue that Christianity includes reason. I think
    : that Christianity within a rational worldview includes reason, but
    : Christianity as a modern institution has not properly negated its mythic
    : roots. It is not completely differentiated from myth. It is embedded in a
    : lower level and will not reach its potential until it denies the literal
    : truth of its claims about Jesus.

    I think I've said enough about this in previous posts.

    : But when Sam says that science "lacks self-awareness about the mythology
    : within which science itself is embedded" I agree. Science also has not
    : properly negated its mythic roots and is thus somewhat embedded in myth.

    Cool that we agree on that.

    : Neither science nor religion will be truly free of myth until they see their
    : metaphysical claims as metaphorical.

    ie as DMB puts it 'transparent'? If so, I agree.

    : Science has made far more progress toward differentiating itself from myth
    : than Christianity has because of its demand for evidence. "The pencil is
    : mightier than the pen." Religions tend to use ink (and sometimes blood).

    Disagree. I think that particular difference has much more to do with human nature than with
    particular mythologies/philosophies (ie people whose centre of gravity in the levels is still
    largely biological). (Partly I disagree because I don't think myth has to be 'negated').

    Cheers
    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 : Sun May 04 2003 - 13:02:46 BST