From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 21:23:22 GMT
Sam and all pantheistic jesus freaks:
dmb says:
You might have guessed that I'd have two cents to throw in on this one. It
explains quite alot about your perspective. You've come clean, even if it
was done inadvertantly. Now its clear to me what you're up to.
Sam said:
So: I would say that the Christian scale of values is in conflict with the
MoQ scale of values. Why? Principally that it presents the intellect as the
highest good, and therefore, if the MoQ is compatible with Christianity,
then Jesus is seen primarily as a teacher of intellectual truths which
dynamically transform the understandings of those who accept them, and
thereby they attain salvation; revelation is the communication of saving
information. If you understand correctly, then you will be saved.
dmb says:
The MOQ says no such thing. Plus you're confusing Einstein and Christ,
intellect and mystical knowledge. Christianity is seen in several ways in
the MOQ. It depends on exactly what kind you're talking about. Obviously,
the churches are static social level institutions. But the Brujo's situation
and the discussions about contrarians both shed light on Jesus as an agent
for dynamic cultural change. Then there's mention of Pirsig's favorite
christian mystic, Meister Eckhart, bolstered by all that talk about
mysticism and the difference between bishops and saints. He also describes
religious figures such as Christ as abosorbing karmic garbage. Every form of
Christianity can be described in MOQ terms and Pirsig touches on it in lots
of different ways. But if the question is about the MOQ's compatability with
mainstream Christian theology, the answer is, "clearly not".
Sam said:
Christian fundamentalism is a modern variation of ancient gnosticism.
dmb says:
Better not say that to a fundamentalist or a gnostic. Either one is likely
to sock you on the nose. Gnosticism is much closer to the ancient mystery
religions and is approximately the opposite of fundamentalism, with its
literalistic beliefs about sin and forgiveness, heaven and hell. The
emphasis in Gnosticism is on knowlege, but not of the intellectual variety.
Its comptemplative and mystical.
Sam said:
Gnosticism was rejected by the early church for very good reasons, largely
that it rendered Jesus' life incoherent and denied the reality of the
Incarnation. ...And this embodiment cannot be abstracted from his life: his
teachings cannot be understood apart from his actual human existence, in all
its biological and social vicissitudes. Crucially, the crucifixion is a real
death.
dmb says:
The reality of the incarnation? This strikes me as a kind of literalism and
mythic thinking. I think its safe to say that death and resurrection is the
most common motif in all the world's myths. (Orpheus again.) His teaching
can not only be understood in the abstract, they are BETTER understood in
the abstract. By comparing Jesus death and resurrection to other mythic
heros the meaning of it becomes much richer. Its universality becomes
apparent and adds to its depth and profundity. And, ironically, this broader
perspective makes it easy to see that this motif is not some one-time
historial event for us to marvel over, but as a vital personal message about
one's own inner life.
Sam said:
........(The gnostic understandings, if they address the crucifixion at all,
downplay its significance hugely. After all, how can contemplation of human
suffering help to articulate intellectual truth?) Indeed, the whole language
of embodiment (ie Incarnation) is incoherent from the gnostic perspective.
The flesh cannot attain salvation. Which rules out the resurrection of the
body, of course...
dmb says:
Resurrection of the body? There you go taking myths literally again, but I
won't beat that horse anymore. (sorry, Horse.) Your question is telling.
"How can contemplation of human suffering help to articulate intellectual
truth?" I don't know if it can be answered, but it reveals an assumption
about intellectual truth. You seem to imply that the intellect is oblivious
to human suffering, but as I understand it nothing has done more to reduce
human suffering. That was the motive after the slaughter of WW1. Futhermore,
the crucifixion can be seen by mythologists as a symbolic representation of
one of the central beliefs of Gnosticism. The five holes driven thru
Christ's body represent the five senses, and thereby represent the prison of
the body. So their emphasis is on an empty cross, so to speak, one that's
been transcended.
Sam said:
So is the MoQ wholly incompatible with Christianity? I don't believe so, and
in fact I think my 'eudaimonic' MoQ is really a way that I have found to
render the two compatible (although I didn't start the 'campaign' with that
conclusion in mind. It rather took me by surprise.)
dmb says:
You're kidding yourself. Its clear that your dedication to Christianity has
Everything to do with your campaign to re-define the 4th level. I think
you're putting your religious views at the top of the heap even though it
contradicts the MOQ. That's not cool. Its intellectually dishonest. Any
re-construction of the MOQ that is motivated by this kind of
self-justification is bound to leak like the Titanic. Man the lifeboats!
Sorry if that hurts your feelings. That is not my aim. Just calling it like
I see it.
Thanks.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Sat Nov 09 2002 - 21:23:04 GMT