Re: MD quality religion (Christianity)

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 18:15:28 BST

  • Next message: Joe: "Re: MD Religion of the future."

    DMB

    Enjoyed the recent post about science, religion and modernism.
    You also said that you found the below post from Sam had
    something evil about it. I don't get that comment at all and would like to
    hear
    you explain why. I am a non-Christian and find the modern church a
    very dull institution, upholding the pre-modern in the main as you say,
    however Jesus remains an interesting figure, although in terms of my own
    interests a minor one. However other people have been very inspired
    by Jesus and I can respect that more than conformity to church institutions.
    For example Blake, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Schweitzer,etc.
    Sam seems to be inspired by the Christ figure in this way as per below.
    Relating this conception of Christ to the MOQ is clearly possible, in fact
    Pirsig's story has the classic redeemer-mythology aspect it as well.
    It may be sadly untrue that the modern Church has done much for
    developing the third level structures that support forth level ones,
    but to say that this is what the true vocation of the church should be is
    something to be
    supported not condemned I would suggest. Is it a thing against social
    institutions you have
    like the church? I remind you of the church of reason, the supporter of SOM.
    Will we not
    need a church of MOQ if it is to get out of the back streets and onto the
    main road?
    I have been disappointed by the overall reaction to Sam's ideas, seems to me
    that we
    should be promoting the MOQ for all not driving out people who bring in
    heavy baggage
    like Christianity or prgamatism or wharever. Although I equally think people
    should not take
    offense at a bit of heated argument or even abuse, but we aren't all as
    non-sensitive as I am.

    regards
    David M

    Sam Said:

    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

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:32 PM
    Subject: Fw: MD quality religion (Christianity)

    >
    > ----- 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
    >

    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 Apr 25 2004 - 18:18:06 BST