Fw: MD quality religion (Christianity)

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 20:32:32 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD quality religion"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "david MOREY" <user@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 6:24 PM
    Subject: Re: MD quality religion (Christianity)

    > Hi Sam
    >
    > I really enjoyed this description, as an official non-Christian
    > it was something I could appreciate, quite moving in fact.
    > My problem with Christianity is not the construction
    > of a positive possibility, clearly you can, but the
    > problem side, the sort of stuff Nietzsche complains about.
    >
    > regards
    > David M
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Sam Norton" <elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 11:50 AM
    > Subject: Re: MD quality religion (Christianity)
    >
    >
    > > Hi Wim, all,
    > >
    > > A small contribution to the question of 'quality religion'.
    > >
    > > I can't present an argument for Christianity independently of how I
    > understand the MoQ - because my
    > > argument can't be separated from that account (I can't argue for how
    > Christianity can be integrated
    > > with a 'standard' MoQ if I don't believe that can be done - and how
    could
    > I argue for something I
    > > don't believe in, other than as an academic exercise? which simply
    doesn't
    > inspire me). So, first a
    > > (brief) outline of how I conceive the MoQ, and second an even briefer
    > account of why I think
    > > Christianity is a 'quality religion'.
    > >
    > > How I understand the MoQ still has four levels (if not more) -
    inorganic,
    > organic, social and
    > > eudaimonic. Of particular concern are the last two, which I see in the
    > following ways: the social is
    > > the realm of our language, our forms of life, and the realm of
    mythology.
    > It is the level of the
    > > stories that we live by. The eudaimonic is the realm of individual
    > judgement, including (but not
    > > restricted to) the discriminating intellect, which can perceive the
    social
    > patterns it observes.
    > >
    > > On the analogy that our inorganic and organic patterns need to be
    > sustained for the higher levels to
    > > function properly (ie we need to eat in order to think) I contend that
    our
    > social level patterns
    > > need to be of high quality. In other words, to sustain the fourth level
    > patterns which bring us
    > > close to Quality, we need to ensure that the third level patterns are
    kept
    > in good repair. We need
    > > to ensure that the myths and languages that we live by are ones which
    have
    > Quality.
    > >
    > > The Rortian or sceptical 'incredulity towards metanarratives' I see as
    > unsustainable - they lead to
    > > a deracinated intellect and impoverished human existence, one without
    > meaning and therefore
    > > significantly lacking in Quality. They are the equivalent of forgetting
    to
    > eat, and just as damaging
    > > (in the long run) to a fully functioning [intellectual] life. To assert
    > this is not to assert the
    > > priority of mythological thinking over the sceptical intellect (in other
    > than a temporal sense) - it
    > > is to assert that no thinking can be done apart from its grounding in
    our
    > language, mythology and
    > > forms of life.
    > >
    > > So the question for me is: which mythology allows for the full
    flourishing
    > of the fourth level, or,
    > > in other words, which social level pattern allows people to hear the
    music
    > for themselves?
    > >
    > > I think Christianity works, most especially when it is grounded in the
    > life, death and resurrection
    > > of Christ - as opposed to the particular static cultural forms which
    have
    > over time borne that
    > > mythology forward.
    > >
    > > The life is important for it is in the life of that particular human
    being
    > that we see a portrayal
    > > of what the fourth level looks like. It is Quality incarnated in human
    > form - which is the most
    > > profound way in which we can relate to Quality.
    > >
    > > The death is important for there is a clear clash between Jesus and the
    > social authorities of the
    > > day (4th level seeking freedom from restrictive third level). The third
    > level static patterns seek
    > > to repress that Dynamic Quality breaking through in its midst - and they
    > use third (and lower) level
    > > qualities to achieve their purpose - so Jesus is crucified.
    > >
    > > The resurrection is important for it makes clear that the third level
    > patterns are not
    > > determinative, and that the fourth level both cannot be conquered by the
    > third level, so in so far
    > > as we can identify with and be animated by the Quality which animated
    > Jesus, we too can function at
    > > the fourth level of Quality.
    > >
    > > The church - for which I am a 'hireling minister' - is properly being
    the
    > church when it enables
    > > that process, which, despite how it often appears, I believe it does on
    a
    > consistent basis. In other
    > > words, when the church is properly the church, it is a third level
    > institution that reliably bears
    > > fruit on the fourth level - so it is in truth a 'community of the
    > resurrection' ie open to and
    > > celebrating the priority of level 4 over level 3, rather than an
    > institution which denies level 4
    > > and seeks to repress it. In particular, the question of dogma is
    (rightly
    > understood) a question of
    > > discerning which level 3 patterns can allow level 4 patterns to
    flourish,
    > as opposed to inhibiting
    > > them or (at worst) destroying them.
    > >
    > > (Of course, I would also claim that this mythology was a true story,
    that
    > it described the course of
    > > life of a particular human being, but I don't think it appropriate to
    > debate that element in a MoQ
    > > forum.)
    > >
    > > That's it for now.
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    >

    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 Apr 14 2004 - 21:46:08 BST