[MD] new blog

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Krimel]
I don't know enough about Islam, radical or 
otherwise, to comment on that but I would say you 
are wrong to claim that fundamentalist 
Christianity is anti-esoteric. In fact I would say the opposite.

[Arlo]
Well I am sure now we will begin our journey of 
defining "esoteric". :-) I'd argue that you are 
confusing "miraculous" with "esoteric". Certainly 
the fundamentalist's "personal relationship with 
Jesus" is "miraculous", but the distinction is 
that for the fundamentalist Jesus is an actual 
person, whose description as a being created by 
the sexual union of God with a mortal female. 
Jesus is not a "metaphor" for anything, it is not 
a myth or a finger or a story or anything of the 
sort. There is no esotericism involved, what "is" 
is exactly and literally described in The One True Book of The One True God.

[Krimel]
The holy rollers are the ones to incorporate 
mystical experiences directly into their services.

[Arlo]
As with "faith healing", I'd say again that this 
is "miraculous" but not an esoteric understanding 
of the underlying myths (in this case, Christianity) involved.

By the way, although Wikipedia recognizes that 
many dispute certain inclusions on this list, it 
points out some historical esoteric tradtions. 
"In the scholarly literature, the term designates 
a series of historically related religious 
currents including Gnosticism, Hermetism, magic, 
astrology, alchemy, Rosicrucianism, the Christian 
Theosophy of Jacob Böhme and his followers, 
Illuminism, Mesmerism, Swedenborgianism, 
Spiritualism, and the theosophical currents 
associated with Helena Blavatsky and her 
followers." (Wikipedia). Personally I view any 
approach that looks beyond the literal, 
socio-cultural "words" and towards what it is 
that those words point "at" to be esoterically 
inclined. The most esoteric drop all pretense 
about importance in the words themselves (e.g. 
debating "Jesus or Allah" would be like debating "Kirk or Picard").

[Krimel]
But I find it hard to complain that an 
institution should strive to perpetuate itself.

[Arlo]
I don't make this complaint. But would you 
complain about a hospital that strives to 
perpetuate itself by euthanizing its patients to 
harvest their organs to sell on the black market? 
Or a school that strives to perpetuate itself by 
deliberately uneducating poor kids to feed the needs of sweatshops?

[Krimel]
Especially within religious institution, even if 
[personal power and control] are the true 
motivations, at least the arguments are couched 
in terms of the underlying ideology.

[Arlo]
I'd say that makes it all the worse.

[Krimel]
Nor am I sure that Mystics don't build the kind 
of walls you mention. Paul was a mystic and the 
chief architect of Christianity. Mohamed was a 
mystic and he not only founded Islam but the 
dynasty that oversaw it in its early days.

[Arlo]
Well this harkens back to what I was saying to 
Michael. These people viewed the mystical 
esotericism as available only to an initiated 
few. The "walls" the created served the dual-fold 
purpose of (1) providing esoteric pointers to the 
Wise, and (2) providing exoteric structure to 
control the masses. Paul was, in this example, 
outright about the distinction between serving milk or meat.

[Krimel]
Pirsig is right, there is always tension between 
the prophet and the priest. Call them the yin and 
yang of institutional theology.

[Arlo]
I'd prefer to look past both the Yin and the Yang 
and at the field in which they spin.