From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 02:29:56 GMT
Hi Wim,
I've got a response to the terrorism thread brewing, but it'll take a bit longer to send that
through to you. In the meantime...
> 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?
I don't actually possess a dictionary of theology, but "Theologia Deum docet, a Deo docetur, ad Deum
ducit" (Theology teaches of God, is taught by God, and leads to God) - this was the definition
accepted by the Scholastics, as I understand it. Plus the quotation I used before from Evagrius. I
would argue that theology IS less compromised by SO thinking, but that's partly because I see SO
thinking as primarily a Modern phenomenon (the whole Platonic theory of participation, for example,
would seem not to qualify as SO thinking).
> 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'?
If the canonisation is exclusive it is harmful. If it is inclusive (ie 'you could try these' as
opposed to 'only try these') then I see it as positive and beneficial.
> 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?
The thing is, I don't believe that it is possible to have a religion that is separable from a wider
tradition, and I suspect that you do, that this underlies the question above. Is that right?
> 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?'
Let me put it like this: I don't feel qualified to judge between the main religious traditions. If I
succeed in climbing the Christian mountain, I'll let you know ;-)
> 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...
That is a truly marvellous image. Agree with you about the virgins.
> 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?
That sounds much more like the Wim I'm used to! I was worried that we were losing sight of the
underlying agreement. I'll send (off list) something from my warden friend.
Warm 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 : Wed Dec 15 2004 - 03:39:04 GMT