From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 08:09:38 BST
Dear David B.,
You wrote 25 Jul 2004 17:09:16 -0600:
'Joseph Campbell fans might like this one. And I hope someone fowards it to
Sam...
...
Do Pirsig's comments on religion and the perennial philosophy open up an
interesting can of worms, or what? Where's Sam the priest and Wim the Quaker
with all this, I wonder?'
I returned from holidays yesterday and just started scanning 400-plus MD
e-mails, beginning with those mentioning my name. I'll study these
'Copleston annotations' as soon as I have time and come back to you. Feel
free to still use the 'quality religion' thread if you want to discuss
religion and MoQ with me...
A few short first remarks on: 206 'The MOQ would add a fourth stage where
the term "God" is completely
dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of intellectual and Dynamic
freedom. The MOQ is not just atheistic in this regard. It is anti-theistic.'
- I don't know what 'stages' are meant. I'll have to look it up in the
context.
- My favourite description of "God" (as I wrote before in MD) is 'that which
connects everyone and everything'. I'm agnostic in regard to all other
descriptions of the term "God". I recognize that other descriptions have
(static) value at times and go along with them in discussing with others who
favour them for the sake of communication.
- I don't see how the term "God" (or any term) can itself suppress
intellectual and Dynamic freedom given our ability to redescribe (or even
drop) it. Who or what is exactly suppressing freedom if I use that term in
the way I do?
- Do you remember that we wrote in the 'God relieves from suffering'-thread
in April 2003 about the Dutch theologian Kuitert. (Underneath you find the
last e-mail I send you about that subject.) Do you still think his doing
away with "God" and his use of the term 'god' instead is useful? Would it be
compatible with the MoQ in your understanding?
You should know that Sam unsubscribed from MD and only contributes to MF
now. Didn't you discuss off-line with him, so can't you forward to him
yourself what you think must interest him??
With friendly greetings,
Wim
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
Aan: "MD" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Verzonden: maandag 14 april 2003 22:52
Onderwerp: Re: MD God relieves from suffering?
Dear David B.,
You wrote 13 Apr 2003 18:26:10 -0600:
'Based on what you posted, Kuitert looks like my favorite kind of
theologian. ... It looks a lot like mythology to me ... He's in a little
danger of trading a anthropomorphic god image for an abstract god image, but
mostly I think he's right on.'
Except for his identification of 'god' with '(the power of) the word' (which
he does elsewhere in his article in a part which I didn't translate; you've
got to take my word for it (-:) and except for my general dislike of
theology, I also think Kuitert is quite right.
That his writings look a lot like mythology to you, may say more about you
than about Kuitert's writings: if you look for archetypes or gods or
spirits, you can see them anywhere. They also abound in the writings on this
list, I guess. Mythology DOES provide powerful metaphores to interpret and
understand experience.
The same experience can also be interpreted and understood with higher
quality intellectual patterns of value however. (Please translate this as
just 'intellectual patterns of value' if you don't want to enter again into
the discussion whether mythology belongs to the social or the intellectual
level with me.) Kuitert's writings also reflect very rational
considerations, the opposite of what I would call 'mythology'.
On top of that his writings point at (what he calls) 'transcendence' beyond
myth and intellect and at (what we call) DQ.
I don't see how Kuitert is in danger of trading a anthropormorphic god image
for an abstract god image. He explicitly puts all images of god into
perspective as man-made creations, including theological abstract ones. He
locates the divine not in any image, but in the imaging capability of man.
In the words of another part of his article:
'Is nothing holy anymore? Understandable question, when another religious
image is overtaken by time. My answer is formulated in the title of my last
book: man is holy, because he is FOR A TIME A PLACE OF GOD. Indeed, I slide
men and god into one another, but without making god into an ingredient of
man. Is that possible? Yes, only in ONE way without making accidents. Read
"spirit" for "god". Man is for a while a governor of spirit, because he
commands the word, and the power of the word is spirit.'
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Aug 01 2004 - 08:11:52 BST