From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Subject: Re: Sean gets his reply (finally) [A.Johnson thread]
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 17:09:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.114904.7362@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> In article <1992Sep6.035121.4113@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>,  
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson) writes:
>
     [...some stuff deleted...]
 
> I would be very interested to look more closely into Eastern Orthodox
> Christianity. What do you recommend?  

     I recommend the book "Orthodox Theology--an Introduction" by Vladimir  
Lossky as a starting point, followed by the book "The Deification of Man"  
(the author's name escapes me right now, but I'll find out). These two  
books provide a very good introduction into the outlook of Eastern  
Orthodox Christianity, and should provide you with a basis upon which you  
can judge whether or not this outlook is appealing. I also recommend  
attending an Orthodox Christian service, especially during Easter Week if  
you can (we EO emphasize the Resurrection above all Christian feasts and  
fasts, and at least try to view things through the lens of the  
Resurrection). I realize that this may not be easy for you, given your  
location. So I'll just say that you should try to avail yourself of the  
opportunity should it present itself.
  
     [...some stuff deleted...]
 
> 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.

     Just so I don't misinterpret, what exactly are you thinking of when  
you use the expressions "the Pauline church" and "Pauline  
christianity"/"Pauline-Roman branch of Christianity"? Here I'm asking you  
for your view as to what you believe is the outlook of "Pauline  
Christianity", i.e. merely replying "Catholicism" or "born-again Christian  
fundamentalism" isn't going to help much, so you'll need to expound a bit.
 
     [assumptions about why noone can know anything for sure deleted]

> >      "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.

     Quoting Ayn Rand is always a sure way to get a response! I do admit  
that a Christian quoting Ayn Rand is unusual, given that she was a  
militant atheist. Even so, her views on religion do not imply that her  
philosophical thought was valueless. In many ways she was an extremely  
perceptive woman. Being an EO Christian, I am, of course, not an extreme  
rationalist; rather, I try to look at her rationalist philosophy through  
the Light of Christ. I do believe that her error was that she limited  
herself to a three-dimensional view of reality, i.e. she didn't see that  
reality may have more than three dimensions. However, she was right on in  
her belief that truth cannot be divorced from either experience or  
thought, i.e. that there are no truths that are either purely "analytical"  
(logical) or purely "synthetic" (experiential). Truth and falsehood are  
determined by applying thought _to_ experience (her book "An Introduction  
to Objectivist Epistemology goes into this in some detail, as does John  
Galt's speech near the end of "Atlas Shrugged"). Both (thought and  
experience) are necessary in order to understand reality. I disagree that  
in order to discover truth we must stop thinking and just experience  
reality. I would say that the problem lies in using thought to _block_  
experience. Ayn Rand, I think, would say that this is a misuse of thought,  
and I would agree with her. What we need to do, I think, is to be open to,  
or in communion with, reality (the Trinity, each other, and the natural  
world), arrived at through a communion between thought and experience.

Sean quotes the Prajna-Paramita Sutra to John M:      
> >> "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.
>
     I agree that "emptiness" is being used as a metaphor. But a metaphor  
for what? For an aspect of human experience, you say. But what aspect?  
From the rest of the quote, I believe that this aspect is a feeling of  
nothingness, a feeling that nothing exists, i.e. that "nothing" is the  
only reality. Thus, the poem elevates "nothing" to the status of an  
existent, i.e. "nothing" has been reified.
 
> > 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...:)

     Poetry should not be understood simply as metaphysics, true. However,  
through the use of metaphor, poetry does have referents in reality.
   
> > 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...!  :)

     So what you're saying is, Buddhists have no idea what they mean by  
emptiness. Maybe a few Buddhists should try to commune their experience  
with their thoughts! :-)
 
> > 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....:)
>
     I agree wholeheartedly! (Of course, for a Christian, this is only one  
side of the Resurrection. :-) )
 
> Sean Hartigan
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair,  
lust of power, and idle talk. But give rather the spirit of chastity,  
humility, patience, and love to Your servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant  
me to see my own sins, and not to judge my brother, for You are blessed  
unto ages of ages. Amen" -- Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian