[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?
>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:12:39 -0600
>
>dmb had said:
>...the Jesus Seminarians "all operate on the assumption that all texts, all
>books, were written by people.
>
>Glove replied:
>Yes but the message is divine.
>
>dmb says:
>That's exactly what intellectually honest scholars CAN'T assume. Nor can
>such a thing be determined through any known method of textual analysis. 
>And
>I would point out that this is the sort of belief that leads to so much
>trouble in conventional reality. See, if the message is divine there is not
>much room for debate or dissent. If the message is taken to be divine, it
>will be taken to trump everything else. This is the main ingredient in the
>recipe for fanaticism. I mean, on what basis does a person make such an
>assertion? How could anyone determine such a thing? I see no reason
>whatsoever to assume that books are written by anything other than people.
>Do you have any reason for asserting that divine messages can be found in
>written works?

We are discussing scripture, are we not? While it's true I perhaps should 
have qualified my statement with "theists believe the message is devine" as 
personally I do not, I simply assumed that was a given. Anyway, if 
scriptures do not contain a devine message (for believers) then just what is 
it we are talking about? Are you saying theists do not believe in a higher 
power? That the bible, the koran, etc., are not devinely inspired messages 
written down by people? That they are just good stories? If so, what makes 
them so special?

>
>dmb had said:
>As I understand the present sad state of affairs, the rituals and symbols
>and myths of a culture have become obsolete and can no longer function.
>
>Dan said:
>Oh please stop; you're frightening the children.
>
>dmb says:
>Good. Maybe they'll go away. Metaphysics ain't kid stuff anyhow.

I disagee as does Robert Pirsig, I presume.

>
>Dan continued:
>Myths and symbols and rituals don't function -- people function.
>
>dmb says:
>I don't get your objections here. Why deny that myths and rituals function?
>Isn't that like saying motorcycles don't functions, bikers do. Isn't 
>obvious
>that bikes and bikers both function and that both can fail to function?

I've ridden on and seen a lot of motorcycles but I've yet to ride or see one 
that can function on its own. Have you? Myths and motorcycles are not 
independent entities as you seem to be assuming here.

>Anyway, as Campbell and others explain it, myth and ritual has had several
>functions throughout history. They serve to transmit the values of the
>culture, they serve to integrate the individual into the larger society,
>they provide a cosmology or worldview and they serve to activate the
>spiritual life of the individual. And what's happened is that the values 
>and
>cosmology of the West have evolved to the point where the symbols and
>metaphors no longer evoke the responses they used to. What does it mean to
>be "annointed with oil" in our time, for example. To the modern
>imaginination, this is not an honor, its just a mess. To put it simply, the
>images of Western religion come from another place and time and so they 
>have
>lost their meaning, their resonance, their relevance. You may recall those
>passages from the book of Numbers, which I had contrasted with a section of
>the Geneva conventions. The difference in values was so stark that the old
>testament looks downright psychotic to our modern eyes. There, the "divine
>message" is one that tells people to commit horrible crimes.

Julian Jaynes book THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE 
BICAMERAL MIND postulates that the nature of human consciousness has evolved 
dramatically in the last several thousand years. I found it an interesting 
hypothesis and it might apply here.

>
>Glove said:
>I should think it hard to believe in a literal Heaven at any time.
>
>dmb says:
>Well, no. That's the mark of a myth that no longer functions, when people
>don't or can't believe that its actually, really true. Think of SOM, for
>example. That myth still functions insofar as we do not have to defy common
>sense to believe it. And people believe that they really are subjects who
>exist in an actual objective reality. We take these beliefs quite 
>literally.
>And so it was with Heaven. Basically, as soon as we can say its a myth its
>not a functioning myth anymore.

Why is it no longer a functioning myth? Is it  because people no longer 
believe? If so, then the myth never was a functioning myth - it was 
dependent on people for function all along. Would you agree?

>
>dmb had said:
>...the traditional religions were a positive and crucial moral force in
>taming the biological impulses and most of its moral values are aimed at
>that. The seven deadly sins, for example.
>
>Glove replied:
>Old Testament bullshit.
>
>dmb says:
>Well, Christianity in the West has included the old testament in the Bible.
>And it seems pretty undeniable that the Catholic Church as well as the
>Puritans, the Baptists and every denomination I know of makes a pretty big
>deal out of the bio/social code. We still see this same impulse today so
>that we have lots of heated debates about abortion, homosexuality and
>traditional gender roles, a.k.a family values. That's all about sex and the
>socially acceptable forms of sexuality. We see this in the Victorians and
>the reaction against this in Margaret Meade's popularity and free loving
>hippies in today's NeoVictorians. We don't kill women for being non-virgins
>on their wedding nights and we don't murder homosexuals with rocks anymore,
>at least not very often, but what kind of damage occurs when these prudes
>de-fund anti-AIDS programs or put the breaks on stem cell research? I mean,
>if you're suggesting that this sort of bullshit is all behind us now, I
>think I have to disagree.

No I am not suggesting that sort of bs is behind us. I think the authors of 
the old testament were suffering from some sort of (what we would both call) 
psychotic episodes, though for those times I suspect that was considered 
quite normal.

> >
> > >But, because the
> > >intellectual level has evolved and become its own distinct level of
> > >morality, history has put this moral force in an inferior position. And
> >she
> > >doesn't like it one bit. She fights back now and blood is spilt. These
> > >traditional moral values, the ones that are rightly supposed to assert
> > >social values over biological ones, are now too oftern used to reisist
> >and
> > >suppress intellectual values.
>
>
>dmb had said:
>...The good guy keeps doing what he's doing, but history and evolution has
>moved on in such a way that the very same activity is now evil instead of
>good.
>
>Glove replied:
>That which doesn't change dies. So that good guy who just keeps on doing
>what he's been doing, well, he has no future. Why concern ourselves with a
>dead man?
>
>dmb says:
>Because this so-called dead man has a great deal of power and influence and
>has a billion followers. Look, I hate to echo the fear-mongers in the White
>House, but the idea of mixing religious fanaticism and nuclear weapons
>really is something to worry about. Assuming that we are concerned about
>human suffering, this combination is thoroughly undesirable.

Okay, you're obviously talking about a certain person while I am talking 
about a logical construct. Still, when you come down to it I think you'd be 
hard pressed to find anyone who is not a religious fanatic at core so 
nuclear weapons and fanaticism has always mixed quite freely, imo. Let's 
face it: nuclear weapons scare the hell out of all of us. I can live with 
fanaticism as I've done my whole life.

>
>Glove said:
>...when knowledge becomes static and unchanging it starts to die. Dynamic
>understanding is infinitely flexible and allows one to adapt to any
>situation as it is always changing. The master needed reminding of this
>point. The student has turned into the master and the master has become the
>student. That is the way of things.
>
>dmb replies:
>Did the master need reminding? I don't see why a book like that should be
>thought of as dead, especially since it was an unfinished, open ended book
>that was to grow larger with each generation. Isn't it true that DQ all by
>itself lacks the ability to last, to persist? Isn't it true that we need 
>the
>static and Dynamic equally? I did not see any clues that would lead me to
>think the master was enthralled or entrapped by the static quality of that
>text and its destruction struck me as the horrible waste of an extremely
>valuable, unique piece of wisdom. A priceless, irreplacable artifact was
>lost for no good reason. See, I think there is all the difference in the
>world between understanding the limits of intellectual descriptions and the
>destruction of intellectual quality as such. My joke about brownshirted,
>jackbooted book burners was supposed to remind you that there is a
>difference between Zen and anti-intellectual vandalism. One transcends
>rationality, while the other simply despises it as a threat from a
>pre-rational perspective.

But we are not talking about intellectual quality here, David. Zen isn't an 
intellectual endeavor like taking classes at your local college. I hesitate 
to talk about it but if it will make clear my point: The last few years I've 
taken 10 day sabbaticals at a Buddhist retreat near where I live here in 
north central Illinois. I have yet to learn a thing yet I consider it time 
well spent. Why? I cannot say. You have to see for yourself I guess.

>
>Glove said:
>One doesn't need a book to know the way.
>
>dmb says:
>Therefore books are of no value? And we should throw them in the fire? See,
>I think that's not Zen, that's just degenerate and destructive, a
>de-evolutionary impulse. And besides, where did you get the idea that books
>can't show you the way? I suspect you got it from a book.

No no no. You seem to be in the camp of those who would outlaw flag burning. 
I love my books! I still have the very first book I ever bought! I have 
thousands of books surrounding me as I type this. What I am talking about 
however is not in any book. I suppose a person could say it is in the heart 
but that's not really right either. If I could tell you what I mean then I 
suppose I would be the greatest master who ever lived as many have tried 
before me and failed just as miserably as I have.

>
>Glove quoted the bible without explanation:
> >Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to 
>him
> >when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and sit down at table'?
> >Will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself
> >and
> >serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink'?
> >Does
> >he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when
> >you have done all that is commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy servants; 
>we
> >have only done what was our duty.' (Luke 17: 7-10)
>
>dmb says:
>Unless waiters and bartenders count, I've never had a servant. Never been a
>servant. Never ran a farm. I just can't relate to this at all. Makes be
>bristle. The whole thing smells like inequality and oppression. Its not all
>that far away from the bits about how we should be nice to our slaves and
>all that other business about who should obey who? Yuk. Commantments from
>the master are just about the opposite of dharma, eh?

It is a parable and not meant to be taken literally. But I'm sure you know 
that. I offered the quote only for thought, in a rhetorical fashion, and 
didn't expect an answer. Sorry it upset you so.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan