From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 21:53:55 BST
Sam, Rick and all:
SAM SAID: >>>>>>>>The mystical approach within Christianity was all about
'theopoesis', ie that you
were made in the image of God and the mystical path was what turned you into
a person - you became a
person through being loved and loving God. To tie this in with my
'eudaimonic' thesis, DQ pressure
formed an autonomous self from a third level self; this fourth level self
was then able to 'go off
on purposes of its own' - including person to person love, which could not
have existed previously.
dmb says:
I think this raises lots of questions. Based on an admitedly brief
investigation of "theopoesis", which means something like "god-making" or
"deification", it seems to involve the abandonment of intellectual or
conceptual thinking. I can see how this can be associated with mysticism,
but strikes me as quite different than fourth level values. I'd agree that
such an achievement would free a person from 3rd level static values, but is
it not also aimed at getting free of 4th level static values too?
I'd be very interested in an explanation that you may be able to provide.
I've asked other people before, but never got an answer that made any sense
to me. Here's the question; What does it mean to love God? What does it mean
to be loved by God? Can such ideas make sense outside the belief in a
personal God? I have never been able to really get an answer on this. I
mean, as one who subscribes to Campbell's idea that "God" is a metaphor for
a mystery, it seems strange. How can a person love a metaphor? How can a
person love an incomprehensible, ineffable mystery? Don't get me wrong,
there is a profound impression of being surrounded by love that mystics
often report and I've had a small taste of that, but it always seemed that
"love" is not really a very good word to describe that feeling, its just
that there is not a better word. Its about all we have to compare, but its
really pretty far away from any other kind of love I've ever known. Tell me,
Sam, what does it feel like for you? How do you experience God's love. How
is loving God different that dedication to a particular sectarian religion,
a particular version of God?
SAM SAID:
Now, holding on to Pirsig's point that the levels don't intermingle, I agree
that we have two
'ethical' boundaries: eros vs agape, and agape vs amor where, as you point
out, it would be just as
immoral to emphasise agape over amor as it is to emphasise eros over agape.
So far so good. The
question here is: what is adultery? ie what behaviour relating to marital
relations is of low
Quality, and what is not?
dmb says:
I'd say adultry is always low quality. It is an act of betrayal. Its is the
breaking of a promise. It puts families at risk. Its cruel and destructive.
I think the best way to think about amor is in mythological and
psychological terms, not in literal terms. I mean, the legends of the lovers
should be read as symbolic of one's own transcendence. The object of love is
best seen not as a more desirable wife to be traded in for the present one,
but as the anima figure in one's dreams, as a symbol of what we wish to
become. Let me get personal here. I've been watching my anima dream lover
for twenty years of so. Until a few years ago she was a blonde hippie kind
of woman. In the late 80's I attended a dream workshop with a Jungian
therapist and I explained to him that I was rather bowled over by the fact
that my girlfriend not only looked like this dream figure, but also reminded
of her in all kinds of ways. Without missing a beat, the therapist looked me
straight in the eye, pointed his finger at me and said, "Marry her." I
chuckled. "I'm serious", he said. I did. I married her. Its been nearly ten
years now. I think that man gave me some excellent advise. In the year 2000
this dream figure shifted to something else. She was a dark-haired urbane
woman, nearly opposite of my wife. I was worried. I thought, "Oh my God, my
dreams are telling me to marry somebody else. But, I'm perfectly happy. What
could this mean?" Then I meet a dark-haired beauty and began to seriously
freak out. She looks like Cindy Crawford, has her own medical practice,
helps to run a film festival and has friends in the movie business. She's an
educated, sophisticated, witty, fun and I had never been so tempted or
confused by anything. (Don't get me wrong, my wife has a Master's degree.
She is also an expert flirt with a navel ring. I felt like I was dying. And
looking back at the situation, that's exactly what I was doing, dying. Not
literally, of course, but my old self was being replaced by something else.
The shift in my dreams was not really about her, per se. It was just that
she embodied everything that I hoped to become. Now I see that it was about
taking on a new goal and a new role, a new vocation, not a new wife. It was
a very painful experience, but I guess that's what it takes. The "no pain,
no gain" saying applies to psychological development as well as muscular
development. Don't worry, in the end I did not cheat on my wife. I only
began work on a screenplay and made some friends in the movie biz. I
followed my heart and embraced that dream lover, but not literally. I
followed the desires symbolized by that woman, rather that following the
symbol itself, which would have been a HUGE mistake. Does that make sense?
SAM SAID:
If we accept some form of person-centred MoQ, rather than intellect-centred,
which is what my thesis
is trying to do (that might be a better name for it, come to think of it),
then the highest Quality
relationships are those where each of the different levels are satisfied, ie
it is erotic,
compassionate and eudaimonic. Can there be a situation where the DQ demands
of eudaimonia require
"Eros over agape"?
dmb says:
Intellect centered? Hmmm. I think the MOQ is already person-centered. Man is
the measure of all things. History is biography. Sometimes people solve the
culture's problems by solving their own problems. Intellectual values can't
protect themselves, it takes a living being to do that. Pirsig put us at the
center of everything, don't you think? Eros OVER agape? NO. Eros AND agape?
Sure. Why not?
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 Jun 15 2003 - 21:53:43 BST