From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean gets his reply (finally) [A.Johnson thread]
Date: 6 Sep 92 11:49:04 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Sep6.035121.4113@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>, johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>      If you think that I'm being rude for jumping in like this, feel free  
> to ignore me, but I would like to interject a few comments.
> 
>>   John Muehlhausen writes: 
>> > Lets see if I understand correctly... You wanted to live for God but  
> were at
>> > a loss as to how that could be accomplished?  There wasn't anything  
> that you
>> > could _do_ for God?
>>
>> Sean Hartigan writes: 
>> No - I was pretty clear on that aspect of things. What I mean is that I
>> was drawn towards a more mystical understanding of Christianity, and  
> found
>> that the self-projected image I was calling God was unable to satisfy
>> that "drive to be consumed in the Divine."  
> 
>      I'd like to pose a question here, Sean. When you were a Christian,  
> did you ever consider Eastern Orthodox Christianity? 

Actually - no. In my part of the world, Eastern orthodox churches are
few and far between. I only became interested in orthodox Christianity
after my faith pretty much evaporated, despite a year-long battle
to save it.  However, I will confess to being much more attracted
to Orthodox teachings than I am to R.C. and Protestant teachings. As you
say, there seems to be a much greater emphasis on mysticism there...more
of an understanding of Jesus and God as Divine beings, whom we can turn
our attention to, rather than as judgemental and hypocritical 
big brothers and daddies that we must obey in fear of punishment. Yuck. 

> This  
> particular outlook is one that you might have found attractive. Even now,  
> it wouldn't do any harm to take a look at it.   

I would be very interested to look more closely into Eastern Orthodox
Christianity. What do you recommend?  

p.s. John M, if you're reading this, does this count as an interest in
Christianity, or does only Middle-American Protestantism deserve that name?
I'm genuinely curious...
   
>> I'm sure you're aware that early Christianity was highly diverse. One 
>> branch, the Pauline church based in Rome, gained secular authority and
>> suppressed all rivals, most to the point of extinction, I believe. This
>> branch was responsible for the compilation of the Bible, and it became
>> the Catholic Church, which split into Western (Roman) and Eastern  
> (orthodox)
>> branches. Of course, in the 1500-1600's, the Roman branch began a 
>> progressive fragmentation that has led to thousands of sects. 
>> 
>> Effectively, all modern Christian churches are Catholic-derived (that  
> is, 
>> they adhere to certain basic principles that were part of the core of
>> the Pauline-Roman branch of Christianity.)  I think there might be
>> some Nestorians still out there, though - and some Thomasites in India?
> 
>       Sean is pretty much on target here. I would like to add, however,  
> that the fact that some Roman emperors and Christian bishops conspired on  
> occasion to unjustly suppress rival Christian groups does not imply that  
> these groups therefore had a better or more proper understanding of the  
> Gospel. In fact, many of these groups, e.g. the Montanists, the Docetists,  
> the Marcionists, interpreted the Gospel far more extremely, and I believe  
> incorrectly, than St. Paul ever did.

This is a worthwhile point...still, there was lots of variety, and the
"correct" understanding of the Gospel does not necessarily lie with Paul
and his minions. I guess that was my only point.

>>> Lets do get into it if you don't mind. :-)  I think you are proposing  
>>> that "God" is to be found in absolute relativism. 
>> 
>> I can see why you might say this. However, that's not quite the case, as  
>> we'll see.
>> 
>>> Before you deny this, consider
>>> that you have already said that no one can know anything for sure.  
>> 
>> Strictly speaking, what I said was:
>> 1. _I_ can't know anything for sure. (an observation, not a doctrinal 
>> assertion.)
>> 2. Assuming that the universe is not a Sean-centred solipsism, other  
>> people
>> exist, and apparently function in much the same way as me. Note: this is
>> an ASSUMPTION I make for the sake of discussion. I am not asserting this
>> as a fact.  
>> 3. Assuming 2, YOU can't know anything for sure, either. 
>> 
>> I think the difficulty arose because I did not emphasize 2 enough. 
>> From now on, all my statements are to be considered in the light of 
>> point 2 above. 
> 
>      "Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others 
>       proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that
>       nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to
>       admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's 
>       consciousness, the refusal to think -- not blindness, but the
>       refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the
>       act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape
>       the responsibility of judgment -- on the unstated premise that a
>       thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will 
>       not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict 'It is.' Non-
>       thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an
>       attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists: reality is not to
>       be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say
>       'It is', you are refusing to say 'I am.' By suspending your
>       judgment,you are negating your person. When a man declares: 'Who am  
>       I to know?' -- he is declaring: 'Who am I to live?'"
>       (Atlas Shrugged--p. 944) 

I am surprised a) to hear a Christian quoting Ayn Rand, and b) to hear
an Orthodox adherent extolling the virtues of extreme rationalism! 
Strictly speaking, I am not talking about abandoning thought, or 
refusing to identify "objective" existences. I am merely pointing out
the limitations of thought - something Ayn Rand certainly never understood,
judging by what little I know of her. Thought is the response of human
creativity to life...no less, but certainly no more. To cease thinking
is merely to stop exercising one's creativity briefly. Since thought
is a response to whatever it is that we call "reality," to stop thinking
is not to deny this "reality," but rather to let oneself experience it
without a lot of unnecessary interference.

>>> So I ask "How do you know you are Sean?  Is not the inner
>>> knowledge that you exist as an individual an irrefutable absolute?"
>> 
>> No - this is not an absolute. Strictly speaking, there is no such entity  
>> as "I."  That is to say, it is an illusory entity, useful for purposes of
>> conversation, however! :)   As the Prajna-Paramita Sutra puts it (more  
>> or less):
>> 
>> "Know then: form is only emptiness, emptiness only form...there is no
>> eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind, no sound, colour smell, nor what  
>> the
>> mind takes hold of. There is no pain, nor cease in pain, nor Noble Path
>> that leads from pain, not even wisdom to attain. Attainment, too, is
>> emptiness."
> 
>       Careful, Sean. What you are advocating is the reification of the  
> zero, i.e. you are regarding emptiness (or nothing) as an existent.

"Emptiness" is just a poetic expression for an aspect of human 
experience. One that is very difficult to get a handle on, however.

> From  
> this comes the view that being and non-being are metaphysical forces of  
> equal power, and that being (existence) is not the _presence_ of  
> something, but rather the _absence_ of non-being (non-existence).

Metaphysics is one thing, poetry is another. The great disaster of
Christianity occurred when poetry began to be understood as metaphysics.
(just my $0.02...:)
  
> Consequently, being is seen to be flawed and defective because it _lacks_  
> non-being, and so non-being becomes the desired state. But worshipping a  
> zero as one's standard of value is a morality of _death_, not life,  
> because one is gauging the value of one's life and one's person by how  
> closely one succeeds in approaching the ideal zero: death (absolute  
> non-existence). To quote that other great zero-worshipper, Count Dracula:  
> "To die ... to be really dead ... that must be ... glorious!"    

For a better understanding of what Buddhists mean when they 
"emptiness," here's another quotation. This time, Bodhidharma's responses when
questioned by the king of China...
 
king:  So, you've come to bring Buddhism to our country. Who are you?

Bodhidharma: I don't know.

king: Well...what is the teaching of this Buddha-religion of yours?

Bodhidharma: Boundless expanse, and nowhere anything to be called "Buddha."

king (miffed): Just what do you think you're doing?

Bodhidharma: I have no idea.

..and that was that...!  :)

> Arthur Johnson
> johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

When poetry becomes metaphysics, God dies. The recognition of the poetic
nature of metaphysics is The Resurrection. So to speak....:)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Are you a sceptic, then?"
"Never, my dear. Scepticism is the beginning of Faith."  Oscar Wilde
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage