Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Dear Micheal, You wrote: > >>Why prefer one unsubstantiated myth over another? > Evolutionary theory is so full of holes that, if > it were underwear, you'd use it for a dust rag.<< > > --Can I say that about *your* theory? You can if it's true - but I don't have a theory, not about the " how " of the origin of species. Intelligent Design makes sense to me on the surface, but I wouldn't call it " my " theory - I really just don't know. However, please point to any and all holes in any of my theories on other matters. Best regards, Dan > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2002 Report Share Posted March 23, 2002 Dear , wrote: > > I agree but there are a whole grp of > fundamentalists who do not - in fact, > > they are deadset on turning usa into a > Christian theocracy. > > They won't succeed in doing so, but by virtue of > their effort to do so, they constitute a valuable > counterweight to the forces of secular nihilism.<< > > -I see them as the other side of the same coin. Those > who preach loudest are preaching against their own > doubt. > I don't see anyone actually preaching secular nihilism as a sort of dogma- increasingly we just live it. Its tenets are rapidly becoming collective representations - just " the way things are, " as " everybody knows. " Hollywood and other outlets of pop culture teach it, in a way, but more by example and amplification than anything. They are as much a reflection as any sort of preacher or " prime mover. " The prime movers were, imo, men like Machiavalli, Hobbes, Locke, Adam , et al. I think that fundamentalist Christianity, whatever its vices might be, looks better than the world bequeathed upon us by them. Best regards, Dan Watkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 >>Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? Why shouldn't Creationism be taught in the public schools and you teach your children about Evolution at home?<< --If that's the case, why shouldn't Native American creation myths or greek myths be taught as " legitimate theories " in schools? If you teach creationism, which brand will you teach? Best to stick to science in schools and leave religious theories to a comparative religion class. Since the Biblical myth offers no *how* to explain itself, it can't be compared to other theories by any rational standard. Did man come from animated dust, or a blood clot? Islam says a blood clot...but how do you test and compare theories? If one version of creationism says Tagaloa brought humans forth from a rock, how do you test that against the theory of Titans or Hindu creation from an egg? Would any educator seriously suggest that the Biblical " theory " alone is superior to all the others and is the only rational alternative to evolution? On what other basis than faith could that claim be made? Once you agree to teach Biblical creation in science class, you have to spend most of the year teaching *non-biblical* creation myths to avoid the appearance of state-mandated religion. Not much time left for science after that. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 >>I happen to believe in evolution as a scientific principle and that creationism is at best a symbolic message, and I believe science supports evolution as the most likely way we got to where we are, but wouldn't it be possible for both theories (and evolution is only a theory albeit a very persuasive one) to be taught as " this is the way some people understand how it all happened? " << --It would be possible to do that, but I suspect Biblical creationists would be unhappy to find that their theory would have to be taught as one_of_many religious theories. They seem to want Biblical creationism to be taught to the exclusion of other forms of creationism, and that's where their drive to put creationism in schools will fail. When they discover that Genesis only gets the same half hour that Aboriginal, Greek, Norse, and other cosomologies get, they will not be satisfied. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 >>Why prefer one unsubstantiated myth over another? Evolutionary theory is so full of holes that, if it were underwear, you'd use it for a dust rag.<< --Can I say that about *your* theory? __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 > I agree but there are a whole grp of fundamentalists who do not - in fact, > they are deadset on turning usa into a Christian theocracy. They won't succeed in doing so, but by virtue of their effort to do so, they constitute a valuable counterweight to the forces of secular nihilism.<< -I see them as the other side of the same coin. Those who preach loudest are preaching against their own doubt. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 >>I think that fundamentalist Christianity, whatever its vices might be, looks better than the world bequeathed upon us by them.<< --Why? Because it denies the shadow and lets people like Yates carry the sickness the group can't face consciously? Or because it adheres to an external sense of orderliness and moral fastidiousness that appeals to people who fear the chaos and uncertainty of individuation? A nation can't grow up by denying reality, although it is certainly easier to maintain a temporary semblance of unity and purpose by pushing unacceptable unconscious contents outside the group. But then someone else has to deal with it, and of course the ones who must process the poison are saddled with the stigma of it. " If only those people weren't plaguing our society with their ignorance and rebellion, we could have an orderly, disciplined culture...tsk " . Fundamentalism is a reaction to cultural tensions and uncertainty about rapid progress, and it will reproduce the very evils it moralizes about because it springs from the same seed. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 > Since the Biblical myth offers no > *how* to explain itself, Of course it does - God willed it. That's how. << --That's not a mechanism. I can will my arm to move, but a biologist would hardly get away without explaining how nerves, muscles, etc work. The word " how " implies a chain of cause and effect with details supplied, not a big taboo X where the mechanism should be. Saying " The dinosaurs died because God willed it " is not a valid substitute for a discussion of what exactly caused extinction, and it would not pass as science. Why accept such a lack of rigor when discussing origins? The point is, if you have creationism in a *science* class as some would prefer, you have to open up religious theories of creation to the same scrutiny that science allows. A kid who says " Evolution is crap " in class won't hurt anyone's feelings too much...but wait till they teach Biblical creationism and some kid says " The Bible is bullshit " or perhaps a more reasoned criticism. Secularism has no concept of blasphemy, so ideas can be criticized without fear. But put religion in science class and kids WILL criticize and blaspheme, and feelings will be hurt. Which is fine with me, but I'm not sure proponents of creationism (when motivated by scriptural dogma) will be happy with it. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 Dear , you wrote: > > Fundamentalism is a reaction to cultural tensions and > uncertainty about rapid progress, and it will > reproduce the very evils it moralizes about because it > springs from the same seed. > > Interstingly, I just watched a programme on British TV about how the US government, the FBI, and money-men, used Freudian psychology (in particular the theories of Freud) in the post WW2 years in order to manipulate the masses and create an American Dream of people whose ideal was to be adapted to affluent white society. The secular man's fundamentalism. They kept using the term Self, interestingly, and I wanted to scream at the screen " WHY didn't any of you listen to Jung!????! " - NOT because I'm a " Jungian fundamentalist " (although my ego-based so-called professor - who doesn't even have a degree, btw - might disagree with this) - but because they basically reached conclusions Jung reached in 1913 - and seemed incapable of knowing what to do with them. I wish I had discovered Jung when I was 15 instead of 21. fa (who feels as though she has been around FOREVER - but is STILL being told she's young!!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 Dear , You wrote: > >>I think that fundamentalist Christianity, whatever > its vices might be, looks better than the world > bequeathed upon us by them.<< > > --Why? Because it denies the shadow and lets people > like Yates carry the sickness the group can't > face consciously? I think that, for fundamentalist Christians, satan carries the shadow. Yates is simply psychotic. > Or because it adheres to an external > sense of orderliness and moral fastidiousness that > appeals to people who fear the chaos and uncertainty > of individuation? That's closer to it, although individuation is not necessarily either chaotic or fraught with uncertainty, at least not as Jung describes it. Certainly a fundamentalist Christian can individuate - perhaps by being a fundamentalist Christian, When a person " meant " to be a pianist becomes a pianist, that's individuation. " Consciousness, " as that term is frequently used here, is not necessarily required. Neither, for that matter, is intelligence. > A nation can't grow up by denying > reality, although it is certainly easier to maintain a > temporary semblance of unity and purpose by pushing > unacceptable unconscious contents outside the group. A nation can't " grow up, " in the sense that I think you mean, at all. Nations are not individuals. The collective necessarily operates at a lower level than the best human beings. You can't have a city of Socrates's or Jungs. > > But then someone else has to deal with it, and of > course the ones who must process the poison are > saddled with the stigma of it. " If only those people > weren't plaguing our society with their ignorance and > rebellion, we could have an orderly, disciplined > culture...tsk " . Well, we fail when we fail to educate " those people " - when we fail to educate the young generally, as I believe we are now. Children can't rear themselves - that's _Lord of the Flies_. And I'm not, of course, talking primarily about academic education, which is not the most important thing for citizenship. > > > Fundamentalism is a reaction to cultural tensions and > uncertainty about rapid progress, Curious, since fundamentalism predates " rapid progress " by millenia, and perhaps even predates cultural tension. Who is more " fundie " than a primitive tribesman? Best regards, Dan PS: Does a jet-propelled power dive into the ocean really count as Progress? :-) > and it will > reproduce the very evils it moralizes about because it > springs from the same seed. > > > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2002 Report Share Posted March 24, 2002 Dear , You wrote: > > Since the Biblical myth offers no > > *how* to explain itself, > > Of course it does - God willed it. That's how. > << > > --That's not a mechanism. I can will my arm to move, > but a biologist would hardly get away without > explaining how nerves, muscles, etc work. The word > " how " implies a chain of cause and effect with details > supplied, Only to the modern mind. I am trying to free myself from the mind-forge'd manacles of modernity - it's not too easy to do so, I'll admit. I don't accept that biologists know the " how " - at best the " what. " A biologist knows about as much about life as life, I'll wager, as an electrician - or an electrical engineer-cum-physicist, if you prefer - about electricity as electricty. We master certain dark arts and think because of that that we we know something of the nature of things. Natural science is the great myth machine of the age - and that is enough to make me suspicious of it. " Cause. " " Force. " " Law. " - Myth. As much myth as anything creaed by a Greek poet, and, imo, less beautiful, noble, salutary or human. It has been said that the Greeks became human because their gods were human - what are our gods making us, I wonder. > not a big taboo X where the mechanism should > be. Saying " The dinosaurs died because God willed it " > is not a valid substitute for a discussion of what > exactly caused extinction, and it would not pass as > science. Why accept such a lack of rigor when > discussing origins? " The dinosaurs died because God willed it " is not a falsifiable hypothesis. That is your objection to it. That is why science would reject it. But " not falsifiable " does not mean " not true. " I don't care what passes for science because I don't believe that science in its modern form is about discovering the truth, but about discovering how to do things - specifically, how to " relieve man's estate. " The problem with that is, as I see it, is that man as man might be destroyed in the process (although Jung says, no, that man will not long stand for his own nullificiation - from Jung's lips to God's ear). Whether the dinosaurs died because of an asteroid, global cooling, an epidemic, the will of God (perhaps expressed through one of the aforenamed " causes " ), whatever, is almost a matter of indifference to me personally; certainly it would not for me ever be a matter of more than idle curiosity. I don't know why it is important or desirable for us to know that. > > > The point is, if you have creationism in a *science* > class as some would prefer, you have to open up > religious theories of creation to the same scrutiny > that science allows. You do not take seriously Nietzsche's contention that the truth might be poisonous. As far as I can see, most scientists don't. I do. That said, I don't know that I am willing, in my capacity as citizen, to let science set the terms under which public education proceeds. > A kid who says " Evolution is > crap " in class won't hurt anyone's feelings too > much...but wait till they teach Biblical creationism > and some kid says " The Bible is bullshit " or perhaps a > more reasoned criticism. Secularism has no concept of > blasphemy, And that is perhaps the greatest thing wrong with it. The problem of the city and the man - the problem of Socrates - is not a small one, in my view. > so ideas can be criticized without fear. > But put religion in science class and kids WILL > criticize and blaspheme, and feelings will be hurt. > Which is fine with me, but I'm not sure proponents of > creationism (when motivated by scriptural dogma) will > be happy with it. It seems to me that the pulbic education system in the United States is almost hopeless. A voucher system might fix it, but failing that, I'd just as soon see it collapse, and then see what rises out of the ashes. the home-schooling movement is , for me, a source of great hope. Best regards, Dan Watkins > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2002 Report Share Posted March 25, 2002 >>Only to the modern mind. I am trying to free myself from the mind-forge'd manacles of modernity - it's not too easy to do so, I'll admit.<< --You'll end up amplifying that within yourself which you project onto " modernity " and you will find yourself wrestling with the same problem even as you retreat into archaic collective forms. Reacting against something is the best way to incorporate it into yourself. Obviously there are problems in the world due to rapid expansion of technology and population. And of course, classical literature can offer some ideas on building a system of thought to hold back the chaos. But withdrawing into old containers will only make you brittle. And just how many expensive cars would Socrates drive anyway? __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 Dear , wrote: > Dear Dan, > > > > N: I've noticed before that you seem to be quite clear in your own mind as > to the...evil?...disadvantages?... of this. For what? The realization of > some [more] ideal societal organization? No, not at all. It's not about some grandiose political order that exists only in speech. It's about the loss of superior social orders that used actually to exist - they were *real.* I won't re-post any of Jung's statements about, for example, the superiority of the medieval way of life to contemporary modes and orders because I've already done it so many times that I'm tired of it - and maybe others are tired of seeing it. But you know the passages I mean. > > > > >I don't subscribe to creationism. I have no real opinion on the origin of > species. I don't believe in " free will " in the Christian sense. I believe in > >reason, and that human action can be guided by reason, but that's not the > same thing. > > N: No. What definition of reason do you use? Might it be more akin to > logic? The slow building of world view through attention to cause and > effect? A mind-life without passion? A little joyless even? Huh? Who lived a more joyful and erotic life than Socrates? How much more joy could one human being stand? > > Guess I don't know what the Christian sense of " free will " is. I was > speaking of the individual's ability to chose. I think that choice implies deliberation, which entails reason. Doing as one lists is not choice - that's just being driven by the passions, by the unconscious. Many - perhaps most - people are not capable of choice. The Christian sense of free will, I think, is that it is some sort of free-floating power to opt for (what one has been told is) the good in the presence of temptation to do otherwise. As an eight-year-old Catholic child, I was told that I had the " free will " to choose whether or not to skip Mass on Sunday, and by so doing to risk eternal torture ( " If you die with a mortal sin on your soul... " ). Obviously this is nonsense - it's just a variation on the old child-rearing tactic, Do what I say or else. > But as you noted earlier, earth > really isn't the center of even this solar system. And the fact that everyone knows that is my gripe against Galileo. > > > Maybe some of my personal puzzlement about your position is that I'm > interested in what I and other think/believe/speculate about the overall > scheme of things. While you are interested in what others and above all > yourself think/believe about what values can best guard humanity. Does > that strike you as a fair statement? The term " values " implies Nietzschean philosophy. I admire and even love Nietzsche, but I'm not yet ready to concede that he is right about everything. I'm interested in discovering what the human virtues are, and their natural hierarchy, I guess. > If so, I still find myself wondering > what you see as the goal of this 'best' for future generations. Avoidance of the kingdom of the last man, the universal homogenous state, the Star Trek future. I think, based on what I understand of Jung, that this is best achieved by means of individual resistance. Resist collectivization. Resist homogenization. Resist the world court. Resist all expressions of " one-worldism, " whether it be the Starbucks-and-Mcdonald's-on-very-corner vision of the corporate right, or the abortion-clinic-and-voting-booth-on-every-corner vision of the " progressive " left. Eschew Christian nonsense about universal human rights, universal brotherhood, and the family of man. Nietzsche is correct that Christianity and Buddhism are the great " anti-life " expressions, the greatest expressions of nihilism (as he uses that term.) Love your own. Help your friends and harm your enemies. Buy a gun, learn to use it, and keep it clean. Pay cash. Resist. (snip) > > > Dan, do you regard yourself as a person lacking in a spirit of adventure? > I wonder what you use your Intuition for. Not as far as I can tell , to > speculate. I regard myself as a very introverted person. I explore strangers and strange lands from the comfort of my chair - and an adventure it is indeed - but I'm not much interested in what many (extraverts) would call " real world " adventures anymore. I'll go to Hawaii, but I ain't sleepin' on the beach. The " real world " adventures that I had when young - involving travel, sex, substance abuse, helling about in cars, the usual - pale in comparison to the heady adventures available to my fat, lazy, middle-aged self now. There are times when I feel like Fortune's favored child. > > >> > >> Maybe you'd care to elaborate a bit on just how you Do see the > God force? > > > >As I said, I know a little about the gods, but really nothing about God. I > have no opinion about the God force - I don't even know if there is such a > >thing. > > N: You say you are not an antheist. I'm not an atheist in the sense that I do not declare that there is no God. Indeed, I have afeeling that God exists, for it is no more than that. I know nothing beyond that. > It appears I am making some mistake in > my view of what that means. Considering any nature of God one can imagine, > it isn't reasonable - unless one believes the other is a fanatic - to > enquire what one knows. I thought that since you feel positively about the > church and it's management, I don't have personal positive feelings about the Church, but I am, I guess " conscious " enough to know that it's not all about me, and that the Church is a very positive thing for some people. > and since one presumes that the church has > something to do with God That is indeed a presumption :-). > - in addition to its dabbling in human politics -- > I think you might have developed some feeling for the nature of God. > You've said you go to church. Do you just go through the motions of > service - and prayer? - without any sense of that Other? Sometimes. Sometimes I don't go for extended periods. Sometimes I allow myself to feel the feelings without mistaking those feelings for evidence of anything in particular. I go to church, when I go, the same way a fragile diabetic goes to the bakery - to enjoy by association what I really can't have ;-). Best regards, Dan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Dear Greg, Greg Rieke wrote: > > > This is a novel concept Dan - to " make people good " . Not novel at all - very old indeed. > How is that done exactly? If I knew how it were done " exactly, " I would be wise, and fit to rule :-). >To what classics to you > refer here? The Republic and The Laws, for starters - really, Plato's entire CW. Aristotle's ehtics books. Cicero's Offices. That would do for a start, imo. >I have never viewed Machiavelli as the > paradym of the good, but rather that of the " useful " , > pragmatic and utilitarian of life. These latter often > have little or nothing to do with " the good " . Precisely. And Machiavelli is the founding father of modernity. > We may > be saying something similar here, but perhaps not. > > > Naturally. What is more reasonable for human beings > > than happiness. I don't think, though, that he was > > at such times " ecstatic " - I would consider > > that a primitive - if not downright animalistic - > > state. > > So then does the experience of being happy necessarily > rule out the state of ecstacy? Is our animalistic > libido nature to be purged from our human nature? I don't know about purged. How about sublimated? > > > " ). - it's just a variation on the old > >child-rearing tactic, Do what I say or else. > > I have found few children who are motivated to do the > right and good by this common (easy but ineffective) > child-rearing tactic. And I must add that it never > worked for me either. That does not stop it from being > a favorite of many (if not most) adults. > > > I didn't say that - my point was that " free-will, " > > as taught by the Church, is a myth. It may be a > > useful myth, or even a necessary one, I don't know. > > Is it possible that the church has forgotten (or never > knew) an alternative to this " useful " myth? It seems to be committed to it now, to the point where there is no backing off, at least not quickly. > > > And the fact that everyone knows that is my > > gripe against Galileo. > > Interestingly, it has taken the RC church (under the > present pope) over 500 years to acknowledge that it > " blew it " by declaring Galileo anathama, forcing him > to recant for his heretical. Only now has the poor old > fellow been brought back into the " good graces " of the > mother church. Somehow I imagine that he is looking > on with bemuzement at the whole absurd unfoldment on > the terrestrial realm from the clouds out yonder. > Amazing how long it takes people (institutions) to > see/correct the errors of their ego-driven ways isn't > it? Poor fellow indeed. The Church was right the first time, and perhaps only backed down recently out of fear of making itself ridiculous - the battle is lost and won. The Church lost, but fought the good fight. > The problem was not Galileo's, but rather the affront > his heliocentric theories caused to an institution and > its leaders whose smallness of vision and > understanding he had laid bare to the awakening world. Galileo destroyed the entire medieval " world view. " " The medieval man we have talked of had a beautiful relationship with God. He lived in a safe world, or one that he believed to be safe. God looked out for everyone in it; he rewarded the good and punished the bad. There was the church where the man could always get forgiveness and grace. he had only to walk there to receive it. His prayers were heard. He was spiritually taken care of. But what is modern man told? Science has told him that there is no one taking care of him. And so he is full of fear. " CGJ, CG Jung Speaking, p. 73 Galileo was instrumental in destroying this world, and replacing it with the (clearly inferior) modern world in which we live now. > > > That fact that the earth is not the center of the > > solar system is common knowledge because of Galileo. > > It's his fault. His was the hammer blow that > > really destroyed the geocentric cosmos and all that > > went with it, including the theology and psychology. > > That's all I'm saying. > > It seems that you are bemoaning the fact that her ever > picked up the hammer. Can that be you POV? Of course - and not just bemoaning, but blaming. If he had to do it, couldn't he have kept it private. As long as he was not scaring the horses, as it were, it would not have been so bad. > > > Maybe we've read different books - although, to be > > honest, I think that my argument could be derived > > strictly from Jung, so I don't know. > > How would you make that case? I don't have the leisure to try to make it adequately now. It would take a book. Suffice it to say that Jung's repeated comparison of the medieval world to the modern (at the expense of the latter), his ongoing critique of modern rationalism, his concerns about technology, his critique of democracy and his reactionary political stance generally, and his obvious understanding of the seriousness of classical literature - not as " history " but as information - leads me to that conclusion. > > >It seems to me that many Jungians reject large parts > >of Jung's teaching. > > Which parts of his teaching do you feel have been > rejected/neglected? Remember that Jung himself wished > never to be considered a Jungian. Can you imagine why > he might have said that? Yes, I can. What might be called Jung's political teachings are, in my view, largely neglected by Jungians - it is as though they don't matter, or that they constitute a shameful secret to be ignored or hushed up. The problem with that stance is that his political and psychological theories dovetail, or, to to change the metaphor, they are two sides to the same coin. > > > Sometimes his avowed enemies see him more > > clearly than his declared friends, imo. > > Yes Noll tried (quite unsuccessfully IMO) to > turn Jung's words and philosopy against him. Many of the things Noll and other critics say about Jung are true, as far as I can see. " Jung's theories are not testable - he does not follow the scientific method. " Perfectly true. " Jung is an anti-democratic elitist. " Also perfectly true. Where Noll et. al. make their mistake, imo, is not in pointing these things out about Jung, but in *assuming those things are bad*. Sure, Jung's an elitist. Elitism is good. Elitism is natural. " Nature is aristocratic " says Jung, repeatedly. Sure, Jung ignores largely scientific method. Scientific method is inadequate to the purposes and study of psychology. When studying psychology, ignoring scientific method is good. The problem with Jung's critics is not that they don't understand him intellectually so much as it is that they are blinded by their own moral prejudices - their scientific and egalitarian collective representations. >He is > discredited largely because he is a person who was > unable to think symbolically - a basic necessity of > Jung's psychology. > > > > > The classical authros don't seem to think or speak > > in terms of " systems. " " Systems " implies collections > > of modes and orders created by man - by will. > > The classical goal appears to have been to learn to > > live in accordance with nature and/or divine law - > > something that pre-dates and transcends man and > > his will. The unleasing of will and " creativity " is > > the modern way. I am trying to learn to look at it a > > new (for me), " old " way. > > You may be onto something here. What old ways do you > consider worthy of your attention and commitment of > your own life's work Dan? There are many " old " ways. > It seems to me that when one speaks of 'classical > authors' as a monolythic group is to throw many > different cats into the same gunny sack. Fair enough. Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon for a start - also Aristophanes. If I can make some progress with them, I will have done something. Best regards, Dan Watkins > > Greg > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Dear Greg, you wrote: > > > And why do you suppose that it was even necessary for > such a confrontation in the first place? For the reason already given. It was a matter of trying to save the medieval " world. " >It takes > remarkable commitment for a human being to stand up to > torture, overt or covert. The early martyrs of the > church are witness testament enough to that sad fact. > But it doesn't seem likely that they were driven so > such unspeakable torture by a much different reaction > to the abuse of power against them that Galileo was > contronted with As you know, I don't think the Church did abuse its power with respect to Galileo. All things considered, it was very moderate, to say the least. > > When the power principle is the driver, love goes out > the window. Generally the two coexist, in a fluctuating mixture - at least that's my observation. >Most Christians (those who have been > genuinely touched by Divine grace) would agree that > the church's " charge " was to foster the love of Christ > in the world, But the Grand Inquisitor would not agree, and I have some sympathy for his position. >not to hang onto temporal power at any > cost. >In that mission, it has failed - miserably - in > all too many ways. Mother Theresa was an exception - > and for that she will likely become a saint > eventually. Mother Theresa put a wreath on Enver Hoxha's grave. Don't get me started on Mother Theresa. > But lets not confuse political expediency (means) with > goals (ends) here. The goals can be noble/divine while > the ends absurd/abusive. > > > >--So would the state be right to keep religious > > >explanations of life out of schools, in the name of > > >preserving the secular state? > > > > Imo no, because the secular state is bad. I don't > > believe that any truly secular regime can long > > remain decent and free. > > " Bad " ? Could this be a projection? And why are decent > and free mutually exclusive? Decent and free are not mutually exclusive - quite the contrary. " Secular " and " decent and free " are, in my view, mutally exclusive. Sorry if I was unclear. > > Some would say (myself included) that the power of the > few and narrow in spirit/intellect are what stands in > the way of the unfolding of the " decent and free " . > Again, by whose standard do we evaluate these terms. > At one time the RC condoned the boiling of witches, > alchemists and astrologers, whose POV they could not > assimilate or tolerate. Alchemists were safe enough as long as they were thought to be harmless nuts trying to turn lead into gold - which is, I imagine, why they presented themselves that way. There's a lesson in that. I wasn't aware that the RC had it in for astrolgers, and I thought withc burning was mostly a Protestant thing. >How might the world have been > better had these other points of view been allowed to > unfold and either flourish or perish on their own > merits? Well, you see how, now. How do you like it so far? I'm not too impressed. > > > It is right when the truth is poinsonous. > > One could make the same case (ironically) about the > poison of priests whose own suppressed sexuality is > now being acted out on believing, innocent children - > all in the name of the " righteous and good " . How is > this kind of poison to be dealt with in your opinion? Heads need to roll. The Church has been mishandling and continues to mishandle this business. > The RC official response so far has been to pay hush > money, quietly settle out of court, hide, evade, cover > up and shuffle these people from one parish to another > - hoping the problem will just go away. But now those > tactics are clearly not working. This body blow to the > church may, in fact, be the beginning of its > unraveling. On a personal level, there is no love lost between me and the Church, and I admit to some schadenfreude at its current diffuculties. But the Church is in it for the long haul. It survived the Renaissance and the Reformation, and it will survive this. It intends, I believe, to wait liberal democracy out - and it may well succeed in doing so. >Blame, apology, etc. ignore the deeper > problems, requiring a deep look inside. We'll see if > the church is up that that kind of cathartic > experience. But it is unlikely to happen under JP2. > > Instead, the church (an embattled, all male patriarchy > clinging desperately to its own authority in the > temporal realm) has refused to look compassionately > and constructively at its own repressed shadow. > Instead of using a healing balm of openness and > soul-searching as an antidote to its internal > poisoning, its looks for leadership at the top. But > none is to found except for purging the " sin " that the > priests have brought on over many years. Perhaps it is > the failed and highly questionable notions of chastity > and the repression of the feminine that have ailed the > church for centuries, and not the moral failings of a > few " bad " apples. The failures are more institutional > than individual. But these are institutional changes > that the present (all male) leadership find > inconceivable, not to mention unpleasant, to > contemplate. > > I suspect that will all be different within 15 years, > perhaps we are a few popes away from that day. But > until the college of cardinals include some females, > the sickness from within is likely to fester in its > own poison IMO. > > > When its broadcasting is likely to destroy a decent > > order and lead to something worse. > > > Again, by whose standards is one to judge " decent " > order and " worse " . How might the last 500 years been > different (for the " better " had the church immediately > embraced Galileo's ideas rather than been dragged > kicking and screaming into the age of science? How > much better for the future of Christianity might that > have been? As Jung says. Please see above, and his various other statements along the same lines. Best regards, Dan Watkins > > Greg > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Dear Dan, At 02:03 AM 3/26/02 -0700, you wrote: > No, not at all. It's not about some grandiose political order that exists >only in speech. It's about the loss of superior social orders that used > actually to exist - they were *real.* N: Yes. My reference was to this...that you'd like to bring then back. And possibly see them become, not larger, but more wide spread. That perhaps this would be the 'best' way for humans to live. Do you consider humans of the non-superior type to be of any use. If so, what use would such a society put them to? Slaves? > > Huh? Who lived a more joyful and erotic life than Socrates? How much more >joy could one human being stand? N: And do you suppose that he was acting on 'reason' at these times? > >> >> " " I was >> speaking of the individual's ability to chose. > > I think that choice implies deliberation, which entails reason. N: I'd say that 'deliberation' best requires the Transcendent Function, which is your words required logic with much else. > " ). - it's just a variation on the old >child-rearing tactic, Do what I say or else. N: And you'd not recommend children be raised in this way? Then how? > >> But as you noted earlier, earth >> really isn't the center of even this solar system. > > And the fact that everyone knows that is my gripe against Galileo. N: To me this smacks of schizophenic symbolic 'thinking', but as I don't actually see you that way, maybe you'd elaborate? > I'm interested in discovering what the human virtues are, and >their natural hierarchy, I guess. N: Thanks for that clarifying statement. I'd suppose others are also, yet most of us [here at least] appear to come to conclusion far different from yours. If you will, and remaining civil, what do you make of that? ....beyond 'different strokes for...' > >> If so, I still find myself wondering >> what you see as the goal of this 'best' for future generations. > > Avoidance of the kingdom of the last man, the universal homogenous state, >the Star Trek future. N: Star Trek? Go head and utter heresies if you must <g> To me it seems that the Star Ship Enterprise was a very hierachical society. And the crews obesance to the Prime Directive pretty much what I see in the Divine Force, including their perchance for circumventing it on compassionate grounds from time to time. >I think, based on what I understand of Jung, that this > is best achieved by means of individual resistance. Resist >collectivization. Resist homogenization. Resist the world court. N: I must be missing something, as I don't see a big conflict here. I'm meaning what we need to avoid, to resist, is capture by any system. To me you appear to have given you allegence to a classical system. >is Eschew Christian nonsense about universal human rights, universal > " " expressions, N: How about universal opportunity to 'become all that one can be.' This is my gripe against the RC. It seems to me that their there influence from the cradle, thens to discourage 'free thought'. Unless you take the position that some university teachers to that only those with the stongest drive for creativity should contribute. I'm loath to miss that of those with less strong drive, while excepting that some may have none. >the greatest > expressions of nihilism (as he uses that term.) N: As I recall Buddhism was in there, too. [My mail program omits stuff in 'reply'] I don't quite follow that. Of what aspect of Buddhism are you thinking? >Love your own. Help your >friends and harm your enemies. Buy a gun, learn to use it, and keep it clean. > Pay cash. Resist. N: Do you define 'enemy' as other than those who would attack one with intent to do bodily harm? > > I regard myself as a very introverted person. I explore strangers and >strange lands from the comfort of my chair - and an adventure it is indeed. N: Yes. It was of psychic adventure I spoke. But my reference really was to what I see as a stunted attitude toward future suprise. >- pale in comparison to > the heady adventures available to my fat, lazy, middle-aged self now. >There are times when I feel like Fortune's favored child. N: Yes. I can identified with that, though I'm surprise to learn you consider yourself 'fat'. Possible I was expanding on the presentation of the blissful 'leanness' and clarity of your posts <g> > > >> >>>> >>>> Maybe you'd care to elaborate a bit on just how you Do see the >> God force? >>> >>>As I said, I know a little about the gods, but really nothing about God. I >> have no opinion about the God force - I don't even know if there is such a >>>thing. >> >> and since one presumes that the church has >> something to do with God > > That is indeed a presumption :-). N: I, too, preceive it as having strayed very far from its origins, if you'd agree with that? > > Sometimes I allow >myself to feel the feelings without mistaking those feelings for evidence of > anything in particular. N: So you don't attend to 'feelings' [however you're using the term] as having any validity in objective fact? Regardless of how many share them? Well, I gotta go to church now, and see if I can gleam a grain or two of further insight into the Bible <g> Blessings, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 >>On the other hand, if he did know what those consequences would be, but just didn't care because it was more important for him to broadcast his findings (out of pride, desire for honor, whatever), that makes him, in my book, a selfish bastard.<< --What about a conviction that truth was more important than his own safety? And what makes you assume the people who opposed him weren't acting from selfish motives? The security of the state and social order are often used as a mask for less noble values. Why was he " selfish " for putting what he knew to be true above his personal safety? Doesn't the state always pay lip service to truth? __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 >>Would Aristotle change his _Physics_? Maybe, but only in response, I suggest, to the changed political climate.<< --Are you serious? You really think a curious mind like his would be totally uninterested in the discoveries made after his death? You seem to have more faith in the ancients than they had in themselves. Man only lives 80 years or so; to assume the classical authors would not have learned more if they had longer lifespans is unfounded. If Aristotle had lived a few thousand years, do you really think all his major work would have been done in the first century of his life? __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 >>Galileo was either a selfish bastard, or a fool. Either way, the Church was, imo, perfectly correct to try to shut him up.<< --So would the state be right to keep religious explanations of life out of schools, in the name of preserving the secular state? When is it right or wrong to suppress the truth? If Galileo hadn't spoken up, someone else would have, so how many voices could the state have justifiably silenced? Ten? A thousand? The argument could have been made that ending Segregation was a bad idea, since it caused turmoil. Or that the public should never have known about My Lai or the Tonkin incident, or the Nixon tapes, or Clinton's affair. When should truth be suppressed in the name of order? __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Dear , You wrote: > N: Yes. My reference was to this...that you'd like to bring then back. > And possibly see them become, not larger, but more wide spread. That > perhaps this would be the 'best' way for humans to live. I doubt that we could get back there from here, short of some tremendous cataclysm - and even that would be no guarantee. I do think, though, that we might stop or derail the progress of " progress. " We might prevent things from getting worse, and even now recall what it is to be human. We can remember the First Law of Holes - which is, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. > > Do you consider humans of the non-superior type to be of any use. If so, > what use would such a society put them to? Slaves? I try not to take a utilitarian view of human beings ( a very modern, Machiavellian view to which we have all been habituated). The question for the classics would not be, I think, What good are the people?, but, To what degree can the people be made good, and how? > > > > > Huh? Who lived a more joyful and erotic life than Socrates? How much more > >joy could one human being stand? > > N: And do you suppose that he was acting on 'reason' at these times? Naturally. What is more reasonable for human beings than happiness. I don't think, though, that he was at such times " ecstatic " - I would consider that a primitive - if not downright animalistic - state. > > > > >> > >> " " I was > >> speaking of the individual's ability to chose. > > > > I think that choice implies deliberation, which entails reason. > > N: I'd say that 'deliberation' best requires the Transcendent Function, > which is your words required logic with much else. I just meant an ability to weigh alternatives in the light of some knowledge of the good, but maybe that does indeed require the transcendent function. > > > > " ). - it's just a variation on the old > >child-rearing tactic, Do what I say or else. > > N: And you'd not recommend children be raised in this way? Then how? I didn't say that - my point was that " free-will, " as taught by the Church, is a myth. It may be a useful myth, or even a necessary one, I don't know. > > > > >> But as you noted earlier, earth > >> really isn't the center of even this solar system. > > > > And the fact that everyone knows that is my gripe against Galileo. > > N: To me this smacks of schizophenic symbolic 'thinking', but as I don't > actually see you that way, maybe you'd elaborate? That fact that the earth is not the center of the solar system is common knowledge because of Galileo. It's his fault. His was the hammer blow that really destroyed the geocentric cosmos and all that went with it, including the theology and psychology. That's all I'm saying. > > > > I'm interested in discovering what the human virtues are, and > >their natural hierarchy, I guess. > > N: Thanks for that clarifying statement. I'd suppose others are also, yet > most of us [here at least] appear to come to conclusion far different from > yours. If you will, and remaining civil, what do you make of that? Maybe we've read different books - although, to be honest, I think that my argument could be derived strictly from Jung, so I don't know. It seems to me that many Jungians reject large parts of Jung's teaching. Sometimes his avowed enemies see him more clearly than his declared friends, imo. > > ...beyond 'different strokes for...' > > > >> If so, I still find myself wondering > >> what you see as the goal of this 'best' for future generations. > > > > Avoidance of the kingdom of the last man, the universal homogenous state, > >the Star Trek future. > > N: Star Trek? Go head and utter heresies if you must <g> > To me it seems that the Star Ship Enterprise was a very hierachical > society. Precisely. Thank you. When I speak of the Star Trek future, I do not refer to human beings' life in space as portrayed in the Star Trek myth - I refer to the hell that they have created on earth. Star Trek characters will sometimes boast that they have wiped out poverty, inequality and war on earth, and that they have gone a long way to wiping out disease - they don't say it, but they have obviously also gotten rid of religion as well. They have created a Marxist " paradise " on earth. So what do they do then? They build whacking great spaceships to get the heck away from their " paradise " as fast as they can. All the best, smartest, most noble people want, it seems, to be on the spaceships because that's where the " action " - the opportunity to express human powers and virtues - lies. > > > >I think, based on what I understand of Jung, that this > > is best achieved by means of individual resistance. Resist > >collectivization. Resist homogenization. Resist the world court. > > N: I must be missing something, as I don't see a big conflict here. I'm > meaning what we need to avoid, to resist, is capture by any system. To me > you appear to have given you allegence to a classical system. The classical authros don't seem to think or speak in terms of " systems. " " Systems " implies collections of modes and orders created by man - by will. The classical goal appears to have been to learn to live in accordance with nature and/or divine law - something that pre-dates and transcends man and his will. The unleasing of will and " creativity " is the modern way. I am trying to learn to look at it a new (for me), " old " way. > > > >is Eschew Christian nonsense about universal human rights, universal > > " " expressions, > > N: How about universal opportunity to 'become all that one can be.' I'm against any effort to apply any policy universally. That said, I don't have anything against people being all they can be, but that will require heavy-duty education, not simply " self-discovery. " The slogan " be all you can be " is an army slogan, and the army is (or was) famous for breaking people down and building them up again in a very systematic way. > > > >the greatest > > expressions of nihilism (as he uses that term.) > > N: As I recall Buddhism was in there, too. [My mail program omits stuff in > 'reply'] I don't quite follow that. Of what aspect of Buddhism are you > thinking? Not of any. I was just citing Nietzsche. I don't know enough about Buddhism myself to comment. > > > >Love your own. Help your > >friends and harm your enemies. Buy a gun, learn to use it, and keep it clean. > > Pay cash. Resist. > > N: Do you define 'enemy' as other than those who would attack one with > intent to do bodily harm? Not all harm is bodily harm. Leave out the " bodily, " and yes. > > > > > I regard myself as a very introverted person. I explore strangers and > >strange lands from the comfort of my chair - and an adventure it is indeed. > > N: Yes. It was of psychic adventure I spoke. But my reference really was > to what I see as a stunted attitude toward future suprise. > > >- pale in comparison to > > the heady adventures available to my fat, lazy, middle-aged self now. > >There are times when I feel like Fortune's favored child. > > N: Yes. I can identified with that, though I'm surprise to learn you > consider yourself 'fat'. 5'11 " , 213 pounds. > Possible I was expanding on the presentation of > the blissful 'leanness' and clarity of your posts <g> > > > > > >> > >>>> > >>>> Maybe you'd care to elaborate a bit on just how you Do see the > >> God force? > >>> > >>>As I said, I know a little about the gods, but really nothing about God. I > >> have no opinion about the God force - I don't even know if there is such a > >>>thing. > >> > > >> and since one presumes that the church has > >> something to do with God > > > > That is indeed a presumption :-). > > N: I, too, preceive it as having strayed very far from its origins, if > you'd agree with that? I don't know - what is its origin? Does it come from God, or is it a work of man? > > > > > Sometimes I allow > >myself to feel the feelings without mistaking those feelings for evidence of > > anything in particular. > > N: So you don't attend to 'feelings' [however you're using the term] as > having any validity in objective fact? Regardless of how many share them? I guess I should have said " emotions, " because that's what I meant - not feeling in the Jungian sense. > > > Well, I gotta go to church now, and see if I can gleam a grain or two of > further insight into the Bible <g> Let us know what you find out. Best regards, Dan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 Dear , wrote: > >>Would Aristotle change his _Physics_? Maybe, but > only in response, I suggest, to the changed > political climate.<< > > If Aristotle > had lived a few thousand years, do you really think > all his major work would have been done in the first > century of his life? No. How did you get that from what I said? If Aristotle found himself suddenly under the conditions of modern liberal democracy, where it is relatively safe to speak frankly, he might change his rhetoric. Perhaps it would help if I say that I don't necessarily assume that A himself believed everything that he wrote in the _Physics_, or, for that matter, in his other books. It was a different climate, and people wrote differently then. It was understood that writing a book entailed taking on a grave responsibility. >--What about a conviction that truth was more >important than his own safety? And what makes you >assume the people who opposed him weren't acting from >selfish motives? The security of the state and social >order are often used as a mask for less noble values. >Why was he " selfish " for putting what he knew to be >true above his personal safety? Doesn't the state >always pay lip service to truth? In the first place, Galileo was willing to capitulate to the Church's demands - that's why they didn't kill him. The story is that they showed him the instruments of torture, and he caved (so let's not make him out to be some noble warrior in the service of science). It was too late then, though - the damage was already done. Yes, no doubt the Church was interested in preserving its own power, but I don't assume that its motives were entirely selfish for all that. Its charge was to protect the people, and it tried. >--So would the state be right to keep religious >explanations of life out of schools, in the name of >preserving the secular state? Imo no, because the secular state is bad. I don't believe that any truly secular regime can long remain decent and free. >When is it right or >wrong to suppress the truth? It is right when the truth is poinsonous. >If Galileo hadn't spoken >up, someone else would have, Hegelian historicism - I question its truth. >so how many voices could >the state have justifiably silenced? >Ten? A thousand? >The argument could have been made that ending >Segregation was a bad idea, since it caused turmoil. >Or that the public should never have known about My >Lai or the Tonkin incident, or the Nixon tapes, or >Clinton's affair. When should truth be suppressed in >the name of order? When its broadcasting is likely to destroy a decent order and lead to something worse. Best regards, Dan Watkins > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 --- Dan & Watkins wrote: > I try not to take a utilitarian view of human beings > ( a very modern, Machiavellian view to which we have > all been habituated). The question for the > classics would not be, I think, What good are the > people?, but, To what degree can the people be made > good, and how? This is a novel concept Dan - to " make people good " . How is that done exactly? To what classics to you refer here? I have never viewed Machiavelli as the paradym of the good, but rather that of the " useful " , pragmatic and utilitarian of life. These latter often have little or nothing to do with " the good " . We may be saying something similar here, but perhaps not. > Naturally. What is more reasonable for human beings > than happiness. I don't think, though, that he was > at such times " ecstatic " - I would consider > that a primitive - if not downright animalistic - > state. So then does the experience of being happy necessarily rule out the state of ecstacy? Is our animalistic libido nature to be purged from our human nature? > " ). - it's just a variation on the old >child-rearing tactic, Do what I say or else. I have found few children who are motivated to do the right and good by this common (easy but ineffective) child-rearing tactic. And I must add that it never worked for me either. That does not stop it from being a favorite of many (if not most) adults. > I didn't say that - my point was that " free-will, " > as taught by the Church, is a myth. It may be a > useful myth, or even a necessary one, I don't know. Is it possible that the church has forgotten (or never knew) an alternative to this " useful " myth? > And the fact that everyone knows that is my > gripe against Galileo. Interestingly, it has taken the RC church (under the present pope) over 500 years to acknowledge that it " blew it " by declaring Galileo anathama, forcing him to recant for his heretical. Only now has the poor old fellow been brought back into the " good graces " of the mother church. Somehow I imagine that he is looking on with bemuzement at the whole absurd unfoldment on the terrestrial realm from the clouds out yonder. Amazing how long it takes people (institutions) to see/correct the errors of their ego-driven ways isn't it? The problem was not Galileo's, but rather the affront his heliocentric theories caused to an institution and its leaders whose smallness of vision and understanding he had laid bare to the awakening world. > That fact that the earth is not the center of the > solar system is common knowledge because of Galileo. > It's his fault. His was the hammer blow that > really destroyed the geocentric cosmos and all that > went with it, including the theology and psychology. > That's all I'm saying. It seems that you are bemoaning the fact that her ever picked up the hammer. Can that be you POV? > Maybe we've read different books - although, to be > honest, I think that my argument could be derived > strictly from Jung, so I don't know. How would you make that case? >It seems to me that many Jungians reject large parts >of Jung's teaching. Which parts of his teaching do you feel have been rejected/neglected? Remember that Jung himself wished never to be considered a Jungian. Can you imagine why he might have said that? > Sometimes his avowed enemies see him more > clearly than his declared friends, imo. Yes Noll tried (quite unsuccessfully IMO) to turn Jung's words and philosopy against him. He is discredited largely because he is a person who was unable to think symbolically - a basic necessity of Jung's psychology. > > The classical authros don't seem to think or speak > in terms of " systems. " " Systems " implies collections > of modes and orders created by man - by will. > The classical goal appears to have been to learn to > live in accordance with nature and/or divine law - > something that pre-dates and transcends man and > his will. The unleasing of will and " creativity " is > the modern way. I am trying to learn to look at it a > new (for me), " old " way. You may be onto something here. What old ways do you consider worthy of your attention and commitment of your own life's work Dan? There are many " old " ways. It seems to me that when one speaks of 'classical authors' as a monolythic group is to throw many different cats into the same gunny sack. Greg __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2002 Report Share Posted March 27, 2002 --- Dan & Watkins wrote: > Dear , > > wrote: > > > >>Would Aristotle change his _Physics_? Maybe, but > > only in response, I suggest, to the changed > > political climate.<< > > > > If Aristotle > > had lived a few thousand years, do you really > think > > all his major work would have been done in the > first > > century of his life? > > No. How did you get that from what I said? If > Aristotle found himself suddenly under the > conditions of modern liberal democracy, where it is > relatively safe to speak frankly, he might change > his rhetoric. Perhaps it would help if I say that I > don't necessarily assume that A himself believed > everything that he wrote in the _Physics_, or, for > that matter, in his other books. It was a different > climate, and people wrote differently then. It > was understood that writing a book entailed taking > on a grave responsibility. > > >--What about a conviction that truth was more > >important than his own safety? And what makes you > >assume the people who opposed him weren't acting > from > >selfish motives? The security of the state and > social > >order are often used as a mask for less noble > values. > >Why was he " selfish " for putting what he knew to be > >true above his personal safety? Doesn't the state > >always pay lip service to truth? > > In the first place, Galileo was willing to > capitulate to the Church's demands - that's why they > didn't kill him. The story is that they showed him > the > instruments of torture, and he caved (so let's not > make him out to be some noble warrior in the service > of science). It was too late then, though - > the damage was already done. And why do you suppose that it was even necessary for such a confrontation in the first place? It takes remarkable commitment for a human being to stand up to torture, overt or covert. The early martyrs of the church are witness testament enough to that sad fact. But it doesn't seem likely that they were driven so such unspeakable torture by a much different reaction to the abuse of power against them that Galileo was contronted with by the same mother church they had given their lives for. What a tragic irony! > Yes, no doubt the Church was interested in > preserving its own power, but I don't assume that > its motives were entirely selfish for all that. Its > charge was to protect the people, and it tried. When the power principle is the driver, love goes out the window. Most Christians (those who have been genuinely touched by Divine grace) would agree that the church's " charge " was to foster the love of Christ in the world, not to hang onto temporal power at any cost. In that mission, it has failed - miserably - in all too many ways. Mother Theresa was an exception - and for that she will likely become a saint eventually. But lets not confuse political expediency (means) with goals (ends) here. The goals can be noble/divine while the ends absurd/abusive. > >--So would the state be right to keep religious > >explanations of life out of schools, in the name of > >preserving the secular state? > > Imo no, because the secular state is bad. I don't > believe that any truly secular regime can long > remain decent and free. " Bad " ? Could this be a projection? And why are decent and free mutually exclusive? This is an incredibly narrow and Riccardian idea - one that betrays the absence of wrestling with the opposites one experiences in the individuation process. Some nations were founded on the idea that the two (decency and freedom )should support and nurture one another rather than negate one another. Some would say (myself included) that the power of the few and narrow in spirit/intellect are what stands in the way of the unfolding of the " decent and free " . Again, by whose standard do we evaluate these terms. At one time the RC condoned the boiling of witches, alchemists and astrologers, whose POV they could not assimilate or tolerate. How might the world have been better had these other points of view been allowed to unfold and either flourish or perish on their own merits? > It is right when the truth is poinsonous. One could make the same case (ironically) about the poison of priests whose own suppressed sexuality is now being acted out on believing, innocent children - all in the name of the " righteous and good " . How is this kind of poison to be dealt with in your opinion? The RC official response so far has been to pay hush money, quietly settle out of court, hide, evade, cover up and shuffle these people from one parish to another - hoping the problem will just go away. But now those tactics are clearly not working. This body blow to the church may, in fact, be the beginning of its unraveling. Blame, apology, etc. ignore the deeper problems, requiring a deep look inside. We'll see if the church is up that that kind of cathartic experience. But it is unlikely to happen under JP2. Instead, the church (an embattled, all male patriarchy clinging desperately to its own authority in the temporal realm) has refused to look compassionately and constructively at its own repressed shadow. Instead of using a healing balm of openness and soul-searching as an antidote to its internal poisoning, its looks for leadership at the top. But none is to found except for purging the " sin " that the priests have brought on over many years. Perhaps it is the failed and highly questionable notions of chastity and the repression of the feminine that have ailed the church for centuries, and not the moral failings of a few " bad " apples. The failures are more institutional than individual. But these are institutional changes that the present (all male) leadership find inconceivable, not to mention unpleasant, to contemplate. I suspect that will all be different within 15 years, perhaps we are a few popes away from that day. But until the college of cardinals include some females, the sickness from within is likely to fester in its own poison IMO. > When its broadcasting is likely to destroy a decent > order and lead to something worse. > Again, by whose standards is one to judge " decent " order and " worse " . How might the last 500 years been different (for the " better " had the church immediately embraced Galileo's ideas rather than been dragged kicking and screaming into the age of science? How much better for the future of Christianity might that have been? Greg __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2002 Report Share Posted March 30, 2002 Greg, Couldn't agree more. I wanted to wish you a blessed and happy Easter. I always think of Jesus as a 70's hippie in appearance, of whom many make fun, but few listen to his words, they are so put off by their ideas of what " hippies " could possible know that would be of value. He could be that homeless man you saw yesterday around a fire with other homeless people. Or maybe he was in Afghanistan, hunted by the Taliban for his heresies. The problem is as today, only the poor paid attention in general, the rest of us were put off by his " rag tag followers " who might be bad for the neighborhood, or for their own their opinion of their " place in society. " " After all how would it look? " And the intellectuals among us would sneer because we really studied the Torah, and knew all there was to know. We certainly couldn't see or be seen with this guy who seems to reinterpret some law as if he had a right to. And in Jerusalem, today , he would be weeping, standing next to the hurt and dead. Toni > > > That is an interesting idea. I have never tried to > imagine how Jesus would live today. But I suspect that > he would have been uncomfortable being a pope or the > leader of a huge religious/political movement or > organization. Wasn't his style. He prefered to hang > out with tax collectors, fishermen, and even > prostitutes, in addition to his rag tag group > (certainly not distinguished, degreed professionals) > of followers. Perhaps he would be an analyst, a > teacher or yoga instructor, who knows. I can imagine > that he would share the life-giving spirit exemplified > by the Dalai Lama; and that he would connect with > people one on one. I can't really see him as a > scientist or artist though. He was close to the > ground, in touch with the Soul. The persona of so much > of modern life would undoubtedly have been unwelcome > and unattractive - unworthy of one who manifested the > power and spiritual connection with the Divine. > > > Happy Easter. > Greg > > g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.