From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 21:58:00 GMT
Dear Platt,
You wrote 4 Mar 2003 08:01:25 -0500:
'Your current discussion of your religious beliefs triggered my repeated
inquiry because the promise of life after death seems to me so basic in
Christian doctrine. Were it not for that prospect, I doubt if Christianity
would have appealed to millions throughout the ages. That neither of you
find the Resurrection a key part of your faith I find surprising, especially
in light of your apparent acceptance of many other Christian principles.'
What exactly in what I wrote about my religion triggered your repeated
inquire about my views on life after death? Where did my previous exposition
of my views fail to gratify your curiosity? Why do you think that a
Christian should adhere to certain doctrines or to doctrines at all? Are you
a Christian yourself that you can say so?
I don't like it at all that often non-vegetarians tell me as a vegetarian
what I should not eat (e.g. fish), that non-pacifists tell me as a pacifist
what types of violence I should refrain from (e.g. playing Risk or Chess)
and ... non-Christians what I should believe.
If you find it surprising that I don't find the Resurrection a key part of
my faith, you either have not read my previous explanation, fail to admit
that you don't understand it and/or rather ignore it than ask for
clarification.
I wrote 29 Nov 2002 08:51:29 +0100:
'I agree that "The fundamental appeal of most [I would say all] religions is
precisely the promise of" a "beyond", which in some religions is referred to
with the metaphor "life after death". I referred to this "beyond" in earlier
postings on this list as "Meaning". ... "Life after death" in the sense of
"eternal life", as Sam described it, ... is a possible way of describing
(also my) mystical experiences. I fully agree with Sam however that
(striving for) mystical experience is (striving for) an epiphenomenon, it is
only a side-effect of a Meaningful life.'
The fact that 'millions throughout the ages' have taken this metaphor to be
a literal truth, because they weren't able to grasp the metaphor, doesn't
mean that Christians now have to do so to 'earn' the name 'Christian'.
I think that I have been quite clear that my type of faith does not include
adherence to any doctrine or principle. According to me doctrines and
principles aren't essential to Christianity. I call myself a Christian
because I express my religious experience most easily using Christian
language, metaphors and stories.
If you call yourself a Christian and do hold that certain doctrines and
principles are essential for what you call Christianity, I accept from you
that you deny my right to call myself Christian in that sense. If you do not
consider yourself a Christian, I deny you the right to tell me what I should
or should not believe to be able to call myself a Christian.
Feel free to ask explanation of anything I have written, but please
recognize my previous answers if you want to continue the discussion and if
you ask them again, please explain why you do so.
You ask whether it is an accurate description of my view to say that
patterns of value have no independent existence of their own, without
anyone/anything 'recognizing' them.
Pirsig in chapter 7 of 'Lila':
'There's a principle in physics that if a thing can't be distinguished from
anything else it doesn't exist. To this the Metaphysics of Quality adds a
second principle: if a thing has no value it isn't distinguished from
anything else. Then, putting the two together, a thing that has no valve
does not exist. The thing has not created the value. The value has created
the thing. When it is seen that value is the front edge of experience, there
is no problem for empiricists here. It simply restates the empiricists'
belief that experience is the starting point of all reality.'
In other words: no patterns of value without experience. It is difficult to
think about 'experience' without imagining someone/something 'experiencing'.
It is not an 'independently existing pattern of value' and/or a pre-existent
'experiencer' that create 'experience of value', however, it is the
value/experience that creates both the subjective 'I' and the objectified
pattern.
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 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 21:57:22 GMT