From: johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Arthur Johnson)
Subject: Re: Sean gets his reply (finally)
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 03:51:21 GMT

     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.

In article <1992Sep2.192805.7277@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
  [... some stuff deleted...]
   
> In article <1992Sep2.055652.28932@en.ecn.purdue.edu>,  
muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> > Sean Hartigan writes:
> >
> >>I longed to give my life to him...this I think was one of the things  
that
> >>began to undermine my faith. I burned to give my life to Him..but  
there didn't
> >>seem to be anyone to take it! 
> >
> 
>   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?
> 
> 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? I ask this because  
you say that you were drawn towards a more mystical understanding of  
Christianity (than IVCF could provide?). EO Christianity generally has a  
much more mystical outlook than other forms of Christianity. I should  
warn, however, that EO Christianity sees "mystical" experience as a  
communion between human persons and the Trinity. This communion is seen as  
a state of openness between the participants, and not as a consumption in  
the sense of a loss of identity (as in Buddhism or Hinduism). 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.   
  
     [...some stuff deleted...]

> > First of all, I am not at all sure of what you mean by  
"Catholic-derived
> > Christianity".  Do you mean catholic in the literal sense or the  
Catholic
> > church? 
> 
> 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.
     There are still a lot of Nestorian and Monophysite Christians out  
there, especially in the Middle East and India, although in the U.S., they  
remain few in number.  
   
     [...some stuff deleted...]
  
> >>What you will have lost (if Sean-centred solipsism is not the true  
state of 
> >>the universe) is connection with your experiential existence, having  
abandoned
> >>it in favor of an imagination-based life. Strictly speaking, you will  
have 
> >>abandoned the Divine in favor of it's shadow. However, let's not get  
into that
> >>one right now!  
> > 
> > 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) 

     [...some stuff deleted...]
 
> > You have said that I cannot be as sure as I am about God, or that I am  
not a
> > butterfly.  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. 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).  
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!"    

     [...stuff deleted...]  
 
> Sean Hartigan
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Arthur Johnson
johnson@offroad.chem.wisc.edu

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me." -- the Jesus Prayer