From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 13 2005 - 20:35:42 GMT
Sam, Wim, Max and all MOQers:
dmb had said:
I'm offering an alternative and am quite well aware of the fact that this is
"an unusual position that may need some defending". This is what I'm talking
about when I use the term "blindspont". In a very real sense, the whole
culture is against (mysticism) it, not just the churches. But I also think
this unusual view is Pirsig's view. And like other elements of the MOQ, it
is not new at all but but rather represents a long suppressed aspect of the
culture. Its the contrary underground view, if you will, and it has been
since the begining.
Sam scoffed:
Nah, don't buy any of that. I think that's a Romantic delusion, buying into
a mythology of the intrepid seeker after truth who gains self-validation by
being against the world. "Nobody understands me! Therefore I must be right!"
This is exactly what I mean when I talk about a failure to understand
Christianity - and that it can only be properly transcended once it has been
understood. I think you've perfectly adequately transcended American
Protestantism, but that in itself is a shallow derivative of the real thing.
dmb says:
Look at what you've said here. Its a distortion, an evasion, its insulting
and, worst of all, there is no substance. Its pretty clear to me that this
is a sore point for you and the result is an extremely weak, emotional
argument. And what's with looking down your nose at Americans and
Protestants? As you might imagine, such a rivalry means nothing to me. When
I complain about theism, it is not so limited. Its not even limited to
Christianity. I'm talking about Western religion; Judasim, Christianity and
Islam. The idea that there is any important difference between English
Christians and American Christians or between any other sects just doesn't
matter with respect to these broader points. In any case, in order to defy
my simple assertion that our culture has a bias against mysticism all you
would have to do is show me how and where this idea have been accepted or
even taken serious by any mainstream group or institution. All you would
have to do is somehow show that it is NOT on the fringes. Your response only
proves my point. Your attitude of one of mocking dismissal. You've
characterized this view as a shallow delusion based on a persecution
complex. I really don't mind criticism, but you haven't really offered any.
Its just spit in the face. Let's try to actually discuss the point....
dmb had said to Sam:
You're not really denying that the gnostic gospels were excluded so much as
giving reasons why they were excluded. <snip> That's the point; alternative
views go back to the begining too. But again, if I see the message in the
myth of Orpheus, then this little dispute about decades or centuries of time
is dwarfed.
Sam rep lied:
...the big difference between Orpheus and Christ is that JC actually lived
and died and (if you're a Christian) rose again - and we have lots of
material describing it. Do you really think that the gospel descriptions of
JC are analogous to the mythology of Orpheus? The mind boggles.
dmb says now:
You've framed it so that it becomes a contest between history and myth, but
that's pretty much exactly what I'm NOT saying. I'm saying that the reading
Christianity as history is the problem. I'm saying that there is a mystical
message, a mystical reading of christianity and that it expresses a view
that existed long before 33 A.D. I'm saying that the meaning of the story of
Orpheus and Jesus are the same. This is a reading that allows what the
Western religions will not allow, which, as Northrop puts it, is the view
that "the divine is given with immediacy" and is available to us "already
without the mediation of a divinely inspired representative." And of course
this is the reading that allows christianity to be compatible with the MOQ,
with philosophical mysticism, with the perennial philosophy, and with
Eastern religions. But theism, with its assertion of a unique historical
christ, can't be a part of that coherent picture. That's what I'm saying.
Sam Norton added on Monday
I just wanted to add something on the Orpheus point, as I know it's close to
your heart. I think there's a basic mistake involved in saying that the
Orpheus story is equivalent to the JC story. CS Lewis puts it much better
than I can: ...I'm not disputing that there are parallels. But to equate the
two seems to be a fundamental mistake.
"I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all
my life. [That's what he was a professor in] I know what they are like. I
know that not one of them is like this [the gospel account of JC]. Of this
text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it
may no doubt contain errors - pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close
as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without
known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique
of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be
narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not
learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach['s Mimesis; The
Represenation of Reality in Western Literature]."
dmb replies:
C.S. Lewis? You might as well quote Jerry Lewis. He gives us only two
choices, reportage or a proto-novel and I just don't buy either one. I mean,
reading the story either way will obscure the message. And it seems to me
that he's just being a partisan, trying to put it over and above all other
myths. But if we understand myth as a basic feature of the human psyche and
of human culture, and not as merely an untrue story or false belief, then
one can see that reading christianity as a myth does not diminish it. Quite
the contrary. It puts christianity into a context that excludes no person or
culture from the message. It makes it truely universal rather than
imperialistic. And I'm not just saying that the Christ story and the Orpheus
story are the same, although the parallels are mind blowing. I'm saying that
this message can be found in every Great religion on earth. (Orpheus the
Savior is the central figure at the top of the dome, where one might expect
to find Christ, in the Domitilla Catacomb in Rome. It dates to the 3rd
century A.D.. I believe the same substitution is made at the church of Hagia
Sophia in Constantinople. There is a cylinder seal from 300A.D. that depicts
a crucified Orpheus. I've even seen scholars hyphenate the two names as is
"Orpheus-Christ". It goes on and on.)
And as I've said before, this universal message exists despite the OBVIOUS
differences. It would be beyond foolish to say they were all the same in
every way or that the differences are entirely irrelevant. Please don't
bother to dispute any such ridiculous exaggerations. I'm simply saying that
they have something in common and that it is important to understand what
that commonality is all about. I would even go so far as to say that only a
very stubborn partisan could fail to be at least curious about this
extremely persistent feature of human culture. Its ancient, universal and
intellectually sound. I just don't think there are enough smells and bells
in the world to beat that.
On the MOQ and his faith, Sam said:
..........If they do end up being absolutely incompatible, eg if I came to
believe that the use of Quality as a possible name for God was inherently
idolatrous, then my project would break down. But for the time being I find
sufficient intellectual stimulus and creativity in exploring the borderland.
I don't consider that an illegitimate project - as long as I don't start
saying something like "Pirsig is a closet Christian" - because he's
obviously not.
dmb says:
Idolatry will cause a breakdown in your project? I wonder if you'd care to
explain that. In any case, it seems to me that one of the central obstacles
to the compatiblity of Anglicanism and the MOQ is their differing ideas
about "God". See, you've got this otherworldly God and a Messiah as medium
and the chief concern is for the eternal life of the soul as it is
determined by one's relationship to them. In the East and in philosophical
mysticism Thou Art That and there are no such conceptions. Again, as
Northrop puts it, this concept of a personal God, "explains why the Far
Eastern religions do not need a religious prophet if the divine is to be
revealed to man, and why the Western religions must have one."
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that this is enough of a difference
to make your project "illegitimate". It depends on how fiercely you cling to
certain key ideas, I guess. But it seems that we can get very specific about
comparing ideas and when we do that it becomes pretty clear to me that
theism and anti-theism are not compatible ideas and no amount of tweaking
can change that. It seems pretty clear to me that one can not adopt the MOQ,
with its perennial philosophy, and continue to hold on to the Christian
claims of the uniqueness of Christ. They are mutally exclusive and even if
you were as smart and saintly as Thomas Aquinas you still couldn't avoid
that conflict. I'm totally in favor of new comparisons, interdisciplinary
approaches and creative synthesis, but square pegs don't fit into round
holes no matter how clever we are. And it seems to me that these conflicting
ideas are at the very heart of two conflicting views. I mean, it seems
pretty clear to me that the MOQ is pretty explicit in denying what the
churches are pretty explicit in asserting. As I keep reminding you, we are
only talking about silly little things like God and man. If you think that
is just a matter of splitting hairs, then I would hate to be your barber.
thanks,
dmb
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 : Sun Mar 13 2005 - 20:41:15 GMT