From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sat Dec 11 2004 - 00:09:27 GMT
Wim,
I support your line of argument.
Dictionaries come after the fact.
They are no fundamental basis for meaning, just as-received heresay to date.
I've many times in the past been pilloried for statements like.
When I use the word "X" I mean (understand) this particular sense of X.
I've even played King Cnut along the lines of
"I don't care what the dictionary says, I know that X means ..."
Isn't communication a wonderful thing.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim Nusselder" <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: MD Static and dynamic aspects of mysticism and religious
experience
> Dear Sam,
>
> You wrote 7 Dec 2004 10:24:05 -0000:
> 'Why do you accept a dictionary definition as the final answer? On this
> point I think the definitions in dictionaries are likely to be wrong, ie,
> the understanding they give cannot be separated from the wider
philosophical
> culture in which they play a part (SOM), and so they are compromised. The
> understanding of theology I hold onto is a) that of the Church Fathers and
> b) that of the academic community that has formed me. I'm sure your
> understanding is perfectly consistent etc, I just don't think it's the
only
> possible one.'
>
> I'm sorry. I should not just have written: 'Fine, but it doesn't seem to
> square with the definitions of theology I find in dictionaries.'
> I meant: 'O.k. If we undestand theology in that way, we indeed agree. The
> fruits of other people's journeys with/into God can indeed illuminate
one's
> path. (Sidenote: This definition doesn't seem to square with the
definitions
> of theology I find in dictionaries. That's not a real problem between us,
as
> we can and do take the time to sort out apparent disagreement. Youi can
not
> always assume that in communication though, even on this list. It may be
> advisable, therefore, to explain yourself a bit more if you use a term in
> another sense than it is used normally -as shown in dictionaries- if it is
> not already defined differently by Pirsig.)'
>
> By the way: does the academic community (of theologians) you refer to
happen
> to describe its key terms in dictionariies? Could you quote a typical
> definition that supports your understanding of theology? Are they less
> compromised by Subject-Object thinking than the wider philosophical
culture?
>
> To what extent do you agree with me that canonization of those fruits of
> other people's journeys with/into God, telling others 'this will/can
> illuminate your path', can be a problem, by shifting the balance between
DQ
> and sq in people's lives towards sq? Do you agree that such canonization
> creates static patterns of value and stunts mysticism and 'experiencing
the
> music for yourself'?
> We do need static patterns of value, of course, but do you agree that
> religion and theology (understood in your way) should beware of
canonization
> to the extent that it wants to play a role in the forward movement of
> evolution?
>
> You asked:
> 'if more people choose to go from Anglicanism to Quakerism than the
reverse,
> then Quakerism must be higher Quality. Is that really your argument? ...
> Perhaps it is vitally important to you that Quakerism be demonstrably
better
> than Anglicanism (or, traditional Christianity more generally)?'
>
> No, it is not vitally important (for my ego or something). Usually I do
> phrase things like 'the highest Quality option available to me at this
> time', even qualifying it with 'SEEMINGLY available ...', keeping open the
> possibility that I err even in experiencing Quality for myself.
> The argument does seem relevant though in the context of a discussion of a
> Methaphysics of Quality. It is a test of Pirsig's claim that a MoQ can
found
> a 'scientific' ethics, that can grade all patterns of value in an
> evolutionary hierarchy, even if only in hindsight. If competition is
> essential in biological evolution, why not at the higher levels?
>
> I don't buy your: 'Surely these things are unknowable and unprovable this
> side of heaven, so they're not that productive a topic to pursue?'
>
> In my theological undestanding both heaven and hell are right here and
> nowhere else. It's up to us to make our life and that of others into one
or
> the other.
> Do you know the metaphorical explanation of heaven and hell as a long
table
> laden with food at which everyone is sitting unable to bend their arms and
> thus unable to bring the food to one's mouth?
> In hell people go hungry because of that, which is even more painful
because
> of all that food laid out before them. In heaven they serve each other...
> When I was teaching economics for a while, I tought my pupils that real
life
> can be even worse than hell: people throttling those opposite them forcing
> the other to feed them...
> Economics is the way in which we organize that people get what they
> need/want and ... that some get more and others less. Hell is not being
> poor, but being poorer (in the widest sense of the word) than others for
no
> good reason. Heaven is not being wealthy, healthy, happy and in control of
> one's world, but being wealthy, healthy, happy and in control of our world
> together. (I wouldn't mind calling myself a muslim, i.e. someone devoted
to
> the divine, but to me the main defect of a heaven in which -supposedly
male-
> muslim await 70 houris, is that it leaves out 69 other male muslims and
> fails to describe what heaven is like for female muslims.)
>
> We CAN know 'this side of heaven' that "The humble, meek, merciful, just,
> pious and devout souls are everywhere of one religion; and when death has
> taken off the mask, they will know one another, though the divers liveries
> they wear here makes them strangers." (William Penn, 1693). We can even
get
> to know each other and the Quality that connects us this side of the
grave,
> realizing that the 'divers liveries' DO matter also, in a world in which
> Quality is BOTH split AND recognizably the same (a contridictory identity)
> in static patterns and in change for the good. Some 'liveries' ARE better
> than others, even if they clothe kindred souls. What's wrong with clashing
> (s)words about Anglicanism or Quakerism being better as long as we are
aware
> of our underlying agreement?
>
> 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
>
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 : Sat Dec 11 2004 - 00:38:06 GMT