From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 08:15:33 BST
Ant McWatt comments:
Well, if this ‘substance’ you introduced is indeed Aristotle’s idea of
substance then, according to the MOQ, it doesn’t exist. The static value
patterns are enough by themselves to generate bread which, in all its forms,
is a manifestation of Quality.
Sam Norton stated April 25th:
The doctrine of transubstantiation is an attempt to render the sacrament
intelligible in what was then the highest quality science available, i.e.
Aristotle's physics. If you're going to make some criticisms of the
doctrine, don't you think you should do some research on it first?
Ant McWatt comments:
No but I do think you should have explained yourself better in the first
place ;-)
Sam Norton continued April 25th:
I'm not sure what the rest of the Barfield quotation was trying to
accomplish.
Ant McWatt comments:
Well, it’s an extremely important point. As I mentioned, it is clear (from
an MOQ or Barfield’s ‘final participation’ viewpoint) that the communion
bread is already a manifestation of Quality (i.e. a static pattern of
biological quality), the essential message of Jesus being concerned with
pushing people towards a creative awareness of this understanding away from
both an Ancient non-self conscious (though essentially correct)
understanding of Quality as saturating the ‘objective world’ (i.e.
paganism/’original participation’) and an Enlightenment-type denial of
Quality being manifest in the ‘objective world’ (i.e. SOM).
If Barfield is correct, this essential message of Jesus corresponds to
Pirsig’s understanding of Quality. Unfortunately, as the teachings of Jesus
have been around for two thousand years it has become distorted with all the
“Sams”, and “Erins” which have appeared in the meantime. As Wittgenstein
said to Erin’s grandfather: “If you don't know what the fuck you're talking
about, stop talking and ask, then listen...” :-)
Sam Norton continued April 25th:
Are you seriously suggesting that the priest in the middle of the liturgy
should alter what he says to fit it into a philosophical argument?
Ant McWatt comments:
Now, that's an excellent idea for a church service i.e. less input of static
doctrine for sheep, more general Dynamic debate about philosophical and
moral issues for critical thinking adults. If this happened then the laity
would improve their understanding of the moral life and they might even
realise they don’t need priests (at least, priests of the static tradition)
at all.
As Mark Heyman recalled:
Well, [the Eucharist] doesn't taste like flesh and blood, but it IS Christ's
flesh
and blood. At least that's what Sister Mary at St. Matthias told us;
I still remember a room full of seven-year-olds going "Ewwwwwwww."
But maybe she didn't read Aquinas.
Ant McWatt comments:
Or maybe Sister Mary did, and that’s one of the traditional problems with
the Christian Churches. Give the laity the facile, surface readings of the
Bible in a hypnotic environment and keep the real in depth debate of
doctrine away from them. “Come here sheep, keep watching the pretty
candles and let Fa-a-a-ther Sa-a-a-a-m tell you what is good.”
Furthermore, it’s strange that someone who realises the power of social
institutions to indoctrinate minds (and, as such, is seriously thinking of
teaching his own children at home) feels perfectly happy to indoctrinate
other people’s children within another social institution. This does strike
me as a rather hypocritical position.
Sam Norton continued April 25th:
This puts me in mind of some of Wittgenstein's comments regarding JG Frazer…
Ant McWatt comments:
Sam, it would be nice to have the text and page number so this section can
be referred to in a larger context. Call me cynical but I don’t trust
secondary sources unless they’ve been quoted by Robert Pirsig or Mark
Heyman. Next you’re going to tell me that Wittgenstein didn’t say the
following to Erin’s grandfather: “If you don't know what the fuck you're
talking about, stop talking and ask, then listen.” If Wittgenstein or
other talented philosophers were too polite to say this to the various
half-wits they came across then maybe that’s been part of the problem all
along.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
________________________________________________________________
Ant,
I do not claim to be knowledgeable in these religous topics e.g. I explcitly requested for people to explain their conception of faith here to understand it better. Unlike you who are completely content even proud of being the half-wit on this topic. I have been learning about these religious topics/concepts here from Scott and Sam-- though I haven't learned anything about them from you or Mark. I don't just accept what Sam tells me just because he is a priest. I just can tell when somebody is talking out their ass about a topic. When I read Pirsig's definition I thought it was simplistic and my request was to try to find a definition that was not simplistic. Maybe you are the sheep just blindly swallowing his definition--- even science can be dogmatic with people like you to defend it. I think Sam and Scott understand some of these religious topics better than you and their answers are more complete. And my grandfather said to tell you and your fucking ego that you
don't know fuck about fuck so go fuck off.
Erin
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 Apr 27 2005 - 08:18:55 BST