From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 - 07:18:46 BST
Hi Wim, Mel,
You'll see I have changed the title of the thread to one that we have used before, I think it will
help keep it clear of my spleen-venting elsewhere.
Wim said:
> I'm afraid I don't understand your/Evagrius' equation of prayer and theology
> (18 Oct 2004 12:34:37 +0100).
> Do you agree that in general '-ologies' reflect rather than partake of
> practice? E.g. politicology/politics and philosophology/philosophy.
> As you use this equation of prayer and theology as answer to my question how
> theology partakes of religious practice, you apparently more or less equate
> prayer and religious practice also. Unless you enlarge the meaning of
> 'prayer' to make it unredocognizable for most people, I don't think that is
> correct either.
I think at root I do equate prayer and religious practice (and theology). Moreover, so far as I
understand it, I think it's the 'official position' of the main Christian denominations (eg Roman
Catholicism). I could be wrong. I think the split of 'ologies' from practice is SOM related, and not
to be trusted in non-scientific fields. As I understand Christianity it claims that love is the
highest form of knowing, and love cannot be abstracted on pain of self-undoing.
> Separation of theory from practice may be a modern (SOMish?) invenstion, it
> is also present in the MoQ as separation of 4th level (symbolic) patterns of
> values and that which is symbolised (the other levels and the 4th level
> itself) ánd as separation between writing a metaphysics (the menu) and
> mysticism/Quality (the food).
As you know I reject the standard interpretation of the MoQ on this point.
> Even if theology (theory) is aimed at better practice, that doesn't imply
> that it partakes. And it may fail... According to Quakers it does,
> especially when it is mistaken for practice.
I think it fails when it tries to be 'scientia' and not 'sapientia'.
> Thinking is a type of experience. We usually understand it as reflecting
> other experience, but that is not necessarily the case. Theory is thought,
> but not all thought is theory. And not all reflection of other experience is
> thought. Feeling, intuïtion and sensation are also aspects of experience and
> all can (but not always do) reflect other experience.
Is there anything that you would say is *not* experience? If so, it would seem that the term has
become evacuated of meaningful content. In what way do you distinguish experience and reflection on
it? (if you do)
> Understandings are experiences themselves. Some reflect other experiences,
> some don't. "Interpreting" presuming something prior, implies a cause and
> effect relation: prior basis + experience makes understanding. I would
> rather say that one of the ways in which experience is understood/abstracted
> is by recognizing and distinguishing language, culture etc.. Experience (and
> understanding as part of it) come first and language, culture etc. (as part
> of understanding) come later.
> So I don't accept the notion that understandings necessarily "interpret"
> experiences. Nor that there is something prior to experience.
I think this is a significant difference between us. Whilst I would leave open the possibility of
'unmediated experience' I'm (i) not convinced that it is necessarily religiously fruitful and (ii) I
think it represents a very meagre spiritual diet. There is so much Quality in the accumulated static
latches of the different religious traditions, which I think represents the possibility of DQ to
those not familiar with it, that a concentration on the unmediated (ie what does not come via the
medium of culture, language, tradition and so on) can be actively harmful IMHO.
> I would say: 'creeds try to define mystical religion
> dogmatically/theologically and in doing so kill it'. Mystical religion
> doesn't squaare with theology, creeds and dogma's, just like it doesn't
> square with writnig a metaphysics.
I think creeds only kill mystical theology if you view them with SOM lenses. What's your view on the
'Christian mysticism' spat I'm having (again) with DMB? If what you say is true, how do you
understand the Christian mystical tradition (Dionysus, Eckhart, Tolle, John of the Cross, Julian of
Norwich, etc etc) - their work is saturated with what you claim 'kills' mysticism. There seems to be
a contradiction here to me (not necessarily a contradiction in your thinking, of course).
> I hesitate about identifying 'experiencing divine guidance' with 'individual
> judgement' or with 'collective judgement'. The whole point about
> experiencing divine guidance is, that the distinction between 'individual'
> and 'collective' becomes meaningless. IF it is true divine guidance, of
> course. And yes, sharing experience of supposed divine guidance with others
> and subjecting it to their judgement is part of our traditional way of
> discerning whether a particular experience is true divine guidance. And this
> tradition is being eroded by individualism...
> Quakers often speak too
> loosely about 'having a concern' (the traditional term for a task laid upon
> someone by God) without having gone through any proper testing (neither by
> subjecting it to collective judgement, nor by comparing it with traditional
> Christian & Quaker views as expressed in bible and Quaker literature, nor by
> taking their time to consider and reconsider it).
This seems good. One of the things I'm most wary of is the idolatry of autonomous intellect
(ironically, given my eudaimonic paper, but it does add up)
> Neither. Again: Quakers in my tradition definitely don't teach their
> religion. Their religious practices just co-develop.
But there are boundaries? In which case who polices the boundaries? A very devolved authority is
still an authority (and therefore an SQ static latch).
> Spiritual seekers are ... qualified seekers. The seeking, the openness for
> change, is not something to be attained. Whatever is found is not DQ/God.
> And "qualified" should indeed be used in a very loose sense or the authority
> conflict that is inherent in my character sticks up it ugly head.
I quite like that "Whatever is found is not DQ/God". As with 'the tao that can be named' etc. I
really don't think you can avoid some notion of 'qualified' or 'authority' though - however loose it
needs to be! (Probably a temperamental difference between us there, I'm moderately conservative
remember ;-)
> You (Sam) wrote:
> 'I think you're absolutising the hierarchy, ironically enough, and insisting
> that DQ is only present at the summit.'
>
> No, it is not present at the summit either. It is only present in the
> process of following/seeking.
Happy with that too.
> I'm fine with '"coercion" as the overall descriptor'. Or "force" for that
> matter, as in Horse's assertion "my point all along has been that scientists
> have not resorted to violence in order to promote science and when there are
> differences they are resolved by argument and not force."
> Your (reformulated) point would then be that science can just as well lead
> to coercion as religion. My point would then be that science just as
> religion IS coercion, by mistaking 'fingers' for 'moons' and even by
> mistaking any 'moon' for 'DQ' (where 'DQ' is the constant redirecting of
> fingers rather than anything pointed at).
Again, DQ as the constant redirecting of fingers seems right. DQ is never attained, it is always the
'lure'. Fine.
What did you think of my point about science being incapable of physical violence as there is no
physical link between levels 3 and 4, but as being just as capable of forming an ideology which
justifies physical violence (as with communism). I was a bit disappointed that nobody came back to
me on that.
> When something is understood as 'being', it cannot be DQ, but only SQ. It is
> only 'changing' that can be understood as DQ. (And not all 'changing' is DQ.
> Some is degenerative.) Change is always relative to (so dependent on) what
> already 'is'. SQ is different for everyone, but not so different that we
> cannot recognize patterns. The nature of DQ cannot be found by comparing
> these patterns, however. A recognized change (a 'direction' in that change)
> is always a new pattern, new SQ. The change that is DQ eludes such
> definition of its nature by being change relative to what's unique in
> everyone's SQ.
Which I think means that you agree that what for some people is SQ, is DQ for others? Which surely
is the only justification possible for religious institutions?
> mel said:
> While on the one hand the infinite potential of
> manifesting non-being as it "spills" into being
> is DQ, as we experience or perceive it, hence,
> change; on the other, the perception or experience,
> the comprehension or synthesis, or the occasion
> of epiphany can be freighted with DQ.
>
> To expand in the later case, when insight into a
> state or relationship that is new to one individual,
> that is a DQ experience, regardless of whether to
> someone else that insight was known or discovered
> some time ago and so SQ to the senior experiencer.
>
> As change is relative, so is perception-experience.
I'm happy with that. Can we agree on a pithy way to express it? Chuck Roghair was on to something
when he made the case that it is misleading to talk about a single 'experience' - it could be a
remaining SOMish hangover, because no two experiences are the same. Yet it is possible to talk about
persisting patterns of SQ, so instead of saying two people have the same experience, can we talk
about one person relating to a pattern statically, and another relating to that pattern dynamically?
Does that get around the problem?
> (to digress to the mystic-church chord)
> All perceiving beings in the unfolding of their experience
> will find quality at their own "pace." So to, to the limit of
> their capability, will institutions, organizations, schools,
> groups, religions and the people within find change
> unfold in their experience of quality accreting in being.
> Mother Theresa and the example of service has
> replaced the inquisition and the burning of heretics
> in the expression of Catholicism. Protestant-like
> chatter of engaged social church members has
> replaced the deep contemplative space of a more
> magnificent ritual-laden, priest driven church.
Only in some places - and the tide has turned IMHO.
> Slow change is still change, but to the ability level
> of those with less flexibility, those invested in taking
> control of the rigid structures of static quality from
> the 'fear memory' of pain at the hands of others who
> had previously controled society -- Rome.
> There will always be an impatient lot who sees a
> bit more clearly and will lauch toward the DQ by what
> ever name...so they should, but that is not for everyone.
Agreed.
Regards
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 26 2004 - 08:05:13 BST