Re: Holy contrasts

[Guest guest]

Greg, all,

Great post. On one hand, I agree with almost everything you express.

We share similar views. On the other hand, I still see that in our

agreement we're rearranging someone else's deck chairs. I would

quibble again about the category error. This is just to make a simple

point -again- about the different frames of reference.

I'll make it again. <;-() It's not very important. But, before I do

so, I'd like to give it the context you point toward. That context is

described by the deck chairs we happen to be sitting in. Chairs

which, if we must rearrange them, can only be fruitfully rearranged

if we have good reasons to do so.

(Oh we could have bad reasons to rearrange them, but then we'd still

have to sit in them!)

Okay, the error. As I previously wrote, > In short, the various

legitimations are just what they are, and they aren't now required to

be legitimate in any terms outside of the terms for which they

were/are found to be legitimate.

Later, you write, " Rules are legitimate when they flow naturally from

their place of origin. "

You've propose a test for legitimacy. In fact, this is a good

summation of the category for such tests. It might even be what the

RC itself knows is a test of legitimacy.

Unfortunately, this proposal doesn't suggest what the single *actual*

test is to be. One can't figure out from what you state how

legitimacy would be so tested. But even if you could go on to reveal

what the actual test is, we both would know ahead of time that it is

not the same test that the RC uses.

Why? For at least this reason: whatever test the RC uses, through it,

(them,) the rules are found to be legitimate. Whereas, whatever test

you yourself use, would use, or could use, there is reason to suspect

that it would still find the rules illegitimate.

This is the category error; itself an error of reference. I don't

want to belabor this point. From your perspective your criticisms are

valid and, if I understand them, they echo what are, or what might

become, my own criticisms.

Luckily for me, I'm not gripped by the problems of Christianity. I

don't know why you are so gripped!

***

A few more comments before I turn this toward much more interesting fields.

Greg, you write,

" The " catholic " church is universal in its scope. So why is it so

intentionally divisive. "

Good question.

About an hour ago I sat down in a meeting with three persons at the

Episcopal Church. At the meeting was the reverend who heads this

church. She is a wonderful activist inside and outside her church.

She takes her charge very very seriously. We were not at this meeting

to discuss the nature of human spirituality, yet, it did come up

because I suggested in a digression: that, for most persons, the call

to God, finally, asks of the individual to go through an arduous and

dangerous and humbling process of recognition.

To which she replied, " Yes. It is so, even if dying to the ego so as

to be reborn in the divine, is the central purpose of this church's

ministry. "

We didn't go further with this thread of thought. She didn't have to

explain to me that her ministry is also concerned with lots of other

missions. Still, what she simply spoke of is the universal truth of

the matter.

I don't have any criticism of her ministry! If this is how she sets

her own intention, then whatever are the ways her ministry goes

forth, seem congruent with this very profound intention. (Sure, if I

cared to, I could go hunting for discrepancies and hypocrisies, but,

ahead of this effort, I know it would dishonor her deep and abiding

intention.)

Do you get this point about the intention at the core? I don't extend

this to encompass any or all ministries. I can only deal with the

facts of this one case. But, this single experience prevents me from

generalizing.

Sure, there are all sorts of contradictory accretions. But, the

intention counts for not only a lot, but much more than those same

accretions. One could take this farther: this intention doesn't

finally come from us, but, instead is returned to us so that we may

return it to its source. What do you think? Pretty neat minister, huh?

***

You ask, " What are some of those " confabulations, " pray tell? "

American Evangelical Christianity. In Islam, Wahhabism, Salafism,

Deobandism. Many sorts of syncretic developments. In the long, and

drawn out collapse of the mythological substrate of humankind's

'religious' formulation, all sorts of new churches have sprung up to

concretize and capture humankind's projections.

Because some persons are beginning to eke out and renew a difficult,

unsentimental, relationship of depth to what has long been discarded

and dishonored, it is possible mythological experience may -over

time- come to animate some persons. Yet, all the problems of

organized religion are purposeful too in that they express the

inexorable forces of the unconscious. In a way, this is impersonal.

(And, I would then remark: why take them personally?)

" And as the stench of illegitimacy rises to the nostrils, many happy

with the status quo are reacting vigorously. "

Yup. Now one has lots of choices. You could stand at the entrance to

a church and make a case against the stench and for the perfume.

You'd might be wasting your time, but, if you provided for an access

fee, or could provide a sweet vial, you might be able to make some

money.

Alternately, you could take your own perfume-infused self and

redouble the efforts of your practice. (They can always be

redoubled!) Perhaps, a teacher will show up to guide you a step or

two down the path. Obviously, it's only your own experience that can

move you step-by-step. But, a teacher for many steps, and,

necessarily, baraka for every step, may provide decisive assistance.

Alternately, one may find a group to join. A group, for which the

sympathetic field created through the sincere and humble personal

application of some honorable principles in such a setting, is

helpful.

Or, one could join other kinds of groups. Or, go find a teacher.

You could also go it alone. This isn't very efficient, and is prone

to the deceptions of one's own nature, but, it's an available choice,

and is a choice taken by many. It's also the choice for which the

stench is least, and the perfume is ever-present. Alas, often this

perfume is cheap and artificial.

One could engage a therapist and begin to work on the little be-devilments.

Me? If I could bring myself to do it, I'd begin by walking into my

kitchen and washing the dishes. And, as one of those pathetic guys

who lives alone, you know what other spots in my household need some

immediate focused attention!

It may strike some as absurd, but the lost central core legitimacy,

for me, is closer to me if I go grab a sponge and cleanser and take

care of some unfinished household business than it is if I were to

-instead- choose to spend even one second trying to convince anybody,

(or myself!) that my perfume is the antidote to what I think is the

stench of their own church, or any church. Well: as I see it.

***

Now, to more interesting comments. You ask,

" But why should their message be beyond the radar screen of so many. "

(This is a question, right?)

Did you intentionally mean to speak of the esoteric core as being

swamped? Indeed, it is in the swamplands. So, how do you recover it?

You can see, that I might start in the bathroom! Apropos.

How to recover it. This is the big question. Tell me, if you wish,

what next step you'd like to take. Jung's psychology is concerned

with one way of addressing this very difficult question. But, you've

either got lots of options, or, you've got exactly one option; the

option that isn't an option at all.

***

Greg, you ask, " My question to you is, how are we to image the verticle axis? "

Not only one way. Today, by Grace of God, I awoke. Okay, what am I

going to do today? Grab a sponge? Ummm, nope. All is not lost. I

spent some time with people I love very deeply. This is a way to

image the vertical axis. I prayed. Another way. I can close my eyes

right now and be still for a moment. Another way.

If I shift my focus and concentrate it a bit, I can put on my new

Thelonious Monk CD, and in his skittering alchemical windings get

lost for a moment. That's another way. Night is falling right now, so

it's a little late to trudge the bike down the two flights of stairs.

Maybe tomorrow I'll hop on it and ride up to the park and go off the

trail and speed through the whiplike branches and by the budding

lilacs and surely I'll smile and laugh and pedal for a moment in my

modest dare of a life.

Another way. There are an infinite number of ways to image the vertical.

***

Almost as if it were only an aside, you wrote, " But I do not

understand why it is necessary for the inner tradition of which you

speak to require so much digging. "

No comment, except imagine my eye brows going up, my lips purse, next

my smile, a nod.

Thanks Greg. As I was told once, " don't stop speaking until you are

completely exhausted! "

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg and ,

I had written and put in " drafts " an answer to your letter to Stphen. I

knew I had to sit on it overnight. Good thing I did because said

most of it better than I could have.

No one here wants to quibble about all you find difficult about the Church

from your pew. We all have some rights to decide if we wish to become part

of an organization. I gather your answer is a resounding NO. Fine.

MY main point was the same as rearranging deckchairs on someone elses boat.

as said, and with such force!

I go further than , in my reaction to your post, because I am dealing

with your judgement of what Christianity is and who can make that decision

for each of us..The answer is no one, but you want to show you are right and

the organization which held the faith together over centuries of strife and

disagrrements, often at the point of a weapon, is wrong.( I agree to some

extent)

( I am amused that you correct me about making assertions, yet you are doing

it in spades as far as the Church is concerned.)

I find you are making assumptions that are yours personally to make, but

cannot be used to judge someone else's reactions, even were they are

accurate

from the source material.

Your use of words like sacrament... " Jesus' holy sacrament " is your personal

interpretation of Scripture and is probably not completely accurate from

what we know of Scripture, and how it was composed.

Jesus never used the word " sacrament " . Who do you suppose codified the last

supper into a sacrament? The Presbyterians? The Councils you quote were the

beginning of a unification in thought dogma and doctrine, which was

completely within the time and place of the council.----- All the councils

were the bedrock and the battlefield. Jesus did not attend the councils, so

whatever he stood for depended on the experiences of those who attended.And

perhaps, the Holy Spirit.

Jesus' Holy Sacrament? Jesus wouldn't even allow the disciples to call him

" good " . Can you see him considering himself holy? The last supper was the

Passover as celebrated by Jews for 3000 years before. He did not change the

words or the meaning.( His additional comments were not The later builders

of the Church reinterpreted those

" sacraments " according to the then current myth. He did not say verbatim

what we now consider the Eucharist. The Church made it so. All of the

Church, andria,Rome and Antioch all all points east and west. They

hammered out what you now consider sacrosanct. It was not a heavenly figure

sitting at the table with them. And there were arguments and disagreements

and fisticuffs at one point. Lots of heresies too...don't even want to go

into them. I suggest a good history of the early Church. History not polemic

you said:

The Councils

> of Nicea and Trent are two notable examples. They

> institutionalized dogma that has stayed in place for

> centuries, and which greatly retarded (IMO) the role

> and mission of the church in its relation to

> believers, imposing upon them how they were/are to

> believe about the nature of the god-image. In

> so-doing, they may have solified the church

> hierarchy's grip on power/control, but also planted

> the seeds of later and long-simmering (and usually

> brutally squelched) dissent.

Who decides on the " role or mission of the Church " ? Who are you to judge the

actions of people so long ago, in a time and place so foreign from your

today?

If it became a " dogmatic abomination. " in your eyes, 20 centuries later,

who can you blame? It is with your eyes that you see it thus.

By what right do you decide if the Church were doing the Holy Spirits will?

You said:

Christ

> was speaking universally. "

based on what evidence? It seems to me he was addressing the rabble and the

disciples around him. If his words attained universal acceptance it was due

to the organizational power of the Church, Latin and Eastern, and on the

blueprint of .

you said:

" But as I

> apprehend the legitimate authority of a church (any)

> to assert dogma that " to me " is in sharp contrast to

> the core message of the gospels (including those that

> any given church chooses not to include in the canon),

> as I understand them, it remains illegitimate. "

Anyone can assert anything they wish. if it is not accepted by people it

will die a quick death, if it is accepted, itsoon becomes myth and no one

then has the right to call it " illegitimate. We are talking MYTH, not

current

legal statutes passed by a majority of those in power. No one has a right to

tell you must believe, but neither do you have a right to judge the

legitimacy of another's belief.

you said:

" So why is it so intentionally

> divisive. That is my main beef. "

It is not so. The Church believes it is the one true keeper of the faith.

That is its privilege. As that is who it thinks it is, it has the right to

expect everyone to fall in line. The last thing it wants or needs is someone

who decides to interpret their truth differently. That would eliminate its

power, for one thing.It is not intentionally divisive. It knows what it

knows, and lets others suffer in misery if they so wish. Why is it so hard

to see it their way.? It doesn't matter whether we agree with it or not. We

weren't asked. For them for 2000 years it has been " my way or the highway "

except they say it in the name of the Christ.

Lots of awful, much worse things are said in the name of Christ, including

crusades, other holy wars and inquisitions, to mention a few. No one is

asking you to believe them or their right to say anything in his name. But

they have millions who give them that power, you see. So, they may say

whatever they think is right.

Your beef is that you understand with a 21st century mind, something that

was codified throughout the ages. You want it your way. Since there is only

one or a few of you , you will not be able to silence what you consider

illegitimate core messages

Why that sends you around the bend, I cannot understand.

..Rant all you wish. The result will be your bruised soul, your lack of

peace, and your inner anger.

you say:

One could even say it would be unnecessary,

> if it were doing the job it should be doing. "

Who is to say what that job is and if it is being done right? you? Again,

like Jung or a million other metaphysicians of all types, have your opinion

on what is wrong with the Church. So don't join it. But what is right? They

are the ones who decide for themselves what their " job " is, and measure

themselves accordingly. They do not submit to your standards nor should they

have to.

You are judging events from inside history. To story isn't over yet.

Think about how many fights have started because of the quibble not only of

the words, but what " Jesus meant by ...whatever "

You do not have a monopoly on the " what Jesus

really said, " or what he really meant, Everything, was written a

100 years later give or take a few. None of it was recorded by microphone

and no one took notes.Memory may rearrange things or omit over that long a

period of development.

Luther , by the way was a good

catholic who only objected, not to the dogma, at first,, but to the current

teachings in his day and the practices which were awful. " His " here I stand "

was because of those,when he pounded on the door of the Cathedral.

He later developed his own understanding of Scripture, as was his right.

Most splits start

off over minor issues of interpretations.They occur constantly and

continually over the

history of Christianity east and west.

The arguments about what

Jesus really said, or what he really meant,have gone on for 2000 years.

All myths have variations, depending on custom and location and

history.Christianity is no different. You don't know your Church history or

the history of Europe if you think as you said: " I argue that it is because

> so few have stood on their own rock, or any rock, that

> the illegitimacy has continued for so many centuries,

> virtually without serious challenge. "

You actually know this isn't so.

But that is not the point. You know your truth. Stick to it, grow with it,

experience it. But allow others to do the same, whether they are within or

outside the Church.

You said:

" So, for me, a

> blatantly offensive papal declaration that seems to be

> counter to the essential teachings of Christ (the head

> of the Church) remains illegitimate. "

Are you so certain that only you know the " essential teachings of Christ " ?

Isn't there constant debate among denominations on just this subject? Papal

declarations are almost never a new point in the Church. just reiteration of

the same old ones.Why get mad now for a reminder of what was said long ago?

I differ with you about whether Christ founded the " church " as well as, I am

sure, his essential teachings, I didn't even put that word in the plural.

There is only one Word. It is translated " love " and can be practiced

everywhere by everyone.The rest is comment.

One cannot take offense unless one decides to,(about anything) and then on

what basis? that

the offense is threatening to us? You do not have a monopoly on the

" essential teachings of Christ. the Christian Myth comes in all sizes and

colors and it is carried partly, wholly or not at all by today's Christians "

Jung said we cannot argue about Truth, because we all see with different

lenses due to our experiences etc.

Therefore he said, one cannot assert one's truth for Truth. And therefore we

must not ever say about religion : " I am right and they are wrong. " You know

this well. Why not give this old established institution the same leeway?

The spiritually and growth of others must be left in their individual hands.

You cannot and must not assume the responsibility of " setting everyone

straight " according to your interpretation of the myth of who and what

Jesus was, or what he said and did.

or who is more closely following tradition and myth.

If you do, you have fallen into the same trap of which you accuse the

OR.C.Church.

Re: Holy contrasts

> Greg, all,

>

> Great post. On one hand, I agree with almost everything you express.

> We share similar views. On the other hand, I still see that in our

> agreement we're rearranging someone else's deck chairs. I would

> quibble again about the category error. This is just to make a simple

> point -again- about the different frames of reference.

>

> I'll make it again. <;-() It's not very important. But, before I do

> so, I'd like to give it the context you point toward. That context is

> described by the deck chairs we happen to be sitting in. Chairs

> which, if we must rearrange them, can only be fruitfully rearranged

> if we have good reasons to do so.

>

> (Oh we could have bad reasons to rearrange them, but then we'd still

> have to sit in them!)

>

> Okay, the error. As I previously wrote, > In short, the various

> legitimateness are just what they are, and they aren't now required to

> be legitimate in any terms outside of the terms for which they

> were/are found to be legitimate.

>

> Later, you write, " Rules are legitimate when they flow naturally from

> their place of origin. "

>

> You've propose a test for legitimacy. In fact, this is a good

> summation of the category for such tests. It might even be what the

> RC itself knows is a test of legitimacy.

>

> Unfortunately, this proposal doesn't suggest what the single *actual*

> test is to be. One can't figure out from what you state how

> legitimacy would be so tested. But even if you could go on to reveal

> what the actual test is, we both would know ahead of time that it is

> not the same test that the RC uses.

>

> Why? For at least this reason: whatever test the RC uses, through it,

> (them,) the rules are found to be legitimate. Whereas, whatever test

> you yourself use, would use, or could use, there is reason to suspect

> that it would still find the rules illegitimate.

>

> This is the category error; itself an error of reference. I don't

> want to belabor this point. From your perspective your criticisms are

> valid and, if I understand them, they echo what are, or what might

> become, my own criticisms.

>

> Luckily for me, I'm not gripped by the problems of Christianity. I

> don't know why you are so gripped!

>

> ***

>

> A few more comments before I turn this toward much more interesting

fields.

>

> Greg, you write,

>

> " The " catholic " church is universal in its scope. So why is it so

> intentionally divisive. "

>

> Good question.

>

> About an hour ago I sat down in a meeting with three persons at the

> Episcopal Church. At the meeting was the reverend who heads this

> church. She is a wonderful activist inside and outside her church.

> She takes her charge very very seriously. We were not at this meeting

> to discuss the nature of human spirituality, yet, it did come up

> because I suggested in a digression: that, for most persons, the call

> to God, finally, asks of the individual to go through an arduous and

> dangerous and humbling process of recognition.

>

> To which she replied, " Yes. It is so, even if dying to the ego so as

> to be reborn in the divine, is the central purpose of this church's

> ministry. "

>

> We didn't go further with this thread of thought. She didn't have to

> explain to me that her ministry is also concerned with lots of other

> missions. Still, what she simply spoke of is the universal truth of

> the matter.

>

> I don't have any criticism of her ministry! If this is how she sets

> her own intention, then whatever are the ways her ministry goes

> forth, seem congruent with this very profound intention. (Sure, if I

> cared to, I could go hunting for discrepancies and hypocrisies, but,

> ahead of this effort, I know it would dishonor her deep and abiding

> intention.)

>

> Do you get this point about the intention at the core? I don't extend

> this to encompass any or all ministries. I can only deal with the

> facts of this one case. But, this single experience prevents me from

> generalizing.

>

> Sure, there are all sorts of contradictory accretions. But, the

> intention counts for not only a lot, but much more than those same

> accretions. One could take this farther: this intention doesn't

> finally come from us, but, instead is returned to us so that we may

> return it to its source. What do you think? Pretty neat minister, huh?

>

> ***

>

> You ask, " What are some of those " confabulations, " pray tell? "

>

> American Evangelical Christianity. In Islam, Wahhabism, Salafism,

> Deobandism. Many sorts of syncretic developments. In the long, and

> drawn out collapse of the mythological substrate of humankind's

> 'religious' formulation, all sorts of new churches have sprung up to

> concretize and capture humankind's projections.

>

> Because some persons are beginning to eke out and renew a difficult,

> unsentimental, relationship of depth to what has long been discarded

> and dishonored, it is possible mythological experience may -over

> time- come to animate some persons. Yet, all the problems of

> organized religion are purposeful too in that they express the

> inexorable forces of the unconscious. In a way, this is impersonal.

> (And, I would then remark: why take them personally?)

>

> " And as the stench of illegitimacy rises to the nostrils, many happy

> with the status quo are reacting vigorously. "

>

> Yup. Now one has lots of choices. You could stand at the entrance to

> a church and make a case against the stench and for the perfume.

> You'd might be wasting your time, but, if you provided for an access

> fee, or could provide a sweet vial, you might be able to make some

> money.

>

> Alternately, you could take your own perfume-infused self and

> redouble the efforts of your practice. (They can always be

> redoubled!) Perhaps, a teacher will show up to guide you a step or

> two down the path. Obviously, it's only your own experience that can

> move you step-by-step. But, a teacher for many steps, and,

> necessarily, baraka for every step, may provide decisive assistance.

>

> Alternately, one may find a group to join. A group, for which the

> sympathetic field created through the sincere and humble personal

> application of some honorable principles in such a setting, is

> helpful.

>

> Or, one could join other kinds of groups. Or, go find a teacher.

>

> You could also go it alone. This isn't very efficient, and is prone

> to the deceptions of one's own nature, but, it's an available choice,

> and is a choice taken by many. It's also the choice for which the

> stench is least, and the perfume is ever-present. Alas, often this

> perfume is cheap and artificial.

>

> One could engage a therapist and begin to work on the little

be-devilments.

>

> Me? If I could bring myself to do it, I'd begin by walking into my

> kitchen and washing the dishes. And, as one of those pathetic guys

> who lives alone, you know what other spots in my household need some

> immediate focused attention!

>

> It may strike some as absurd, but the lost central core legitimacy,

> for me, is closer to me if I go grab a sponge and cleanser and take

> care of some unfinished household business than it is if I were to

> -instead- choose to spend even one second trying to convince anybody,

> (or myself!) that my perfume is the antidote to what I think is the

> stench of their own church, or any church. Well: as I see it.

>

> ***

>

> Now, to more interesting comments. You ask,

>

> " But why should their message be beyond the radar screen of so many. "

> (This is a question, right?)

>

> Did you intentionally mean to speak of the esoteric core as being

> swamped? Indeed, it is in the swamplands. So, how do you recover it?

> You can see, that I might start in the bathroom! Apropos.

>

> How to recover it. This is the big question. Tell me, if you wish,

> what next step you'd like to take. Jung's psychology is concerned

> with one way of addressing this very difficult question. But, you've

> either got lots of options, or, you've got exactly one option; the

> option that isn't an option at all.

>

> ***

>

> Greg, you ask, " My question to you is, how are we to image the verticle

axis? "

>

> Not only one way. Today, by Grace of God, I awoke. Okay, what am I

> going to do today? Grab a sponge? Ummm, nope. All is not lost. I

> spent some time with people I love very deeply. This is a way to

> image the vertical axis. I prayed. Another way. I can close my eyes

> right now and be still for a moment. Another way.

>

> If I shift my focus and concentrate it a bit, I can put on my new

> Thelonious Monk CD, and in his skittering alchemical windings get

> lost for a moment. That's another way. Night is falling right now, so

> it's a little late to trudge the bike down the two flights of stairs.

> Maybe tomorrow I'll hop on it and ride up to the park and go off the

> trail and speed through the whiplike branches and by the budding

> lilacs and surely I'll smile and laugh and pedal for a moment in my

> modest dare of a life.

>

> Another way. There are an infinite number of ways to image the vertical.

>

> ***

>

> Almost as if it were only an aside, you wrote, " But I do not

> understand why it is necessary for the inner tradition of which you

> speak to require so much digging. "

>

> No comment, except imagine my eye brows going up, my lips purse, next

> my smile, a nod.

>

> Thanks Greg. As I was told once, " don't stop speaking until you are

> completely exhausted! "

>

> regards,

>

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Looking back at this;

greg mentions:

>>The poor Irish have been torn asunder by differing

religious dogma (each side claiming the same saviour)

for so long.>>

Must clarify that the problems of Ulster are not problems of

religious conflict, doctrine, or dogma. They are remnants of old

injustices, water under a distant bridge, the same problems seen in

any country ruled by an outsider that has turned a people against

itself.

I have an old article here:

http://jungcircle.com/muse/Ulster.htm

A great book on understanding what happened in Ireland (great book

in general):

My Dream of You , Nuala O'Faolain

deb