Posted by John on November 19, 2001 at 07:56:47:
In Reply to: Re: brain-checking as evolution posted by jonvon on November 19, 2001 at 00:24:56:
There's a whole lot here, and I think we've pretty well beat the horse beyond all recognition, so I'm just going to hit some points.
First of all, I engage in this sort of discussion because I enjoy it, but the strange thing with me is that it really doesn't have so much bearing on my actual treatment of people. What i'm getting at is that I would never judge someone (at least not consciously) on any of this, nor would I treat anyone with less respect for having a different opinion. The only thing is that political correctness doesn't allow for good discussion, we have to run with a line of thought and clash them until they break. That way we can see what parts of it are true steel and which need to be scrapped. I learned this type of study in college. It's actually a medieval model and I really like it. It fits my head because I think critically and test everything rigorously. In this model, I have to know my stuff or the ideas will get ripped apart. If they do, great I go with the better set. The precondition though is that you have to spearate the argument from your daily life.
Anyway all that to say what goes on in the context of this discussion gets left in the discussion.
Secondly the only reason I stuck with Catholics was that you chose to you them as the example a couple of posts ago. I just stuck with it. Originally I mentioned that I feel the same way about any religious institution, and that as far as institutions go, I think Rome does it pretty well. A whole lot better than the greater number of protestant groups. But as you mentioned in regard to Catholics, I don't like to argue about the other groups because they are SO wack it is pointless and they don't have the weight of history to support them like the Catholic church. I mean anyone can go get an idea and start an organization, so most of those groups don't even really qualify for me.
Thirdly, my real point wasn't about the actions of people, or even the generalized masses. It wasn't even really about motives. It was about philosophically sterilized examples. Only for discussion purposes so to speak. I don't have anyone in mind as examples of the types of people I denounced. I sort of took real-life indicators and distilled out the things they made me think. Then like Camus in the Stranger I said, "what if a person existed who could archetype these ideas." THAT fictional person is the one I denounced. I fully recognize that the lines are far less clear in real life and that nothing is that segregated. Again it was only or purposes of discussion.
I don't think I really have to tell you any of this, I'm really just clarifying for anyone who has hung onto this thread that long, and for the record.
: ok, so YOU seem to be stating this from the viewpoint of the church, perhaps as an "elder" or something.
I didn't really get this. I just coming from the perspective of one who knows enough to argue it as opposed to one who is too new to the faith. I guess i presume that everyone who grows in the faith eventually ends up concerned for others who are less secure. Like a child grows and becomes a parent. "Elders" and whatnot have nothing to do with it in my mind.
: this is where we kind of fundamentally depart (in a way) because i just don't think about whether someone else is dependant on rules of thumb rather than what i understand to be deeper truth or if someone else isn't willing to grow past something or isn't trying hard enough or whatever.
I understand, but here I was falling a little into the personal realm because I have seen people that no matter how many times you tell them, "if you do A again, B (which is bad) will happen again." This is just basic logical cause and effect (which I know goes out the window in emotional situations) After you have coddled and nursed a person over and over again, eventually you get burnt out and you have to assume that the person is fully aware of what they are doing and only seeking sympathy, or else they are so deluded they need far greater help than you can provide. (now to anyone reading this don't assume I'm talking about you because I can tell you right now, I'm not) Like Steve's story of the crisis line and the guy who calls for prayer that he won't sleep with his girlfriend again even though he's going to her house alone at night to "study", you just have to say, "you know what? There's no easy answer, either you learn to rely on God and start growing or you continue to hurt yourself, because you can't use the rules as excuses anymore."
Obviously this kind of person uses the rules of thumb as props, "I called for prayer, I tried, I guess I just can't do it." (said with saccharin innocence) This is either classic Sartrian self deception, or pure stupidity. And I have trouble tolerating that, a flaw I know, but honestly not one I'm too concerned with.
: : To make people think that there is a standard of behavior required of them by God may make it easier for us to create a presentable "Christian" but it bypasses the whole mystery of grace that is so beautiful.
: i like this, it cuts to the heart of a lot of stuff i finally reacted against before finding The Refuge.
I'm sure we could both swap stories about the ludicrosity of modern churches. I was raised in one and had to learn to question and break out of the weight of one's own indoctrination. Yes it was doable, and yes it was a growth experience, and yes God is powerful enough. But I want to raise people up, so let them stand on my back. If they can skip a hassle, so be it!
: if you are going to do something (and i'm not suggesting you should or you even want to but if you do that is very cool) you are going to have to be less cynical about people. love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. it at least helps if you believe in the sanctity of the fallow ground of the human heart, if you can see the kingdom of god as the mustard seed that eventually grows into a large tree. without hope you are left only with existential duty and possibly a deep despair.
I know hopelessness well. That's my homeland. As far as cynicism goes, I think of it more as realism. I know I'm young, but I've had my time of being the idealistic dreamer, actually more than once, and every time it gets shot out of the sky, ususally with a small caliber rifle requiring many wounding shots before the thing finally plummets. I get real tired of peddling the thing as it heads for the ground. That's where "Ishmael" comes in. Excellent book, it's like the red pill man. It sent me down the rabbit hole and Kansas went bye-bye. Seriously, it sounds harsh, but I'll jump ship on anything that isn't profitable. ...No, it's more, I actively try to shoot holes in them now! Ask Bill, he knows about me and this stuff. See the reasoning is this. We're all blinded by the paradigms that work into us. And there are so many layers of falsehood that we can concievably never get out of them. But God's truth glimmers through all of them however faint it may be. So the best way to move out of these paradigms that we can't see is to take pot shots at them. Try our best to tear them apart. Because afterall truth can't be destroyed. So if we blow up every world we enter and head toward the glimmer, it should continue to get brighter. Eventually all that will be left is glimmer! Then add as a corrollary the Instrumentality thinking I've mentioned, which allows one to grab hold of everything in search for truth, shake in the mystics, and you pretty much have me philosophically, at least the short version. I guess it's pretty aggressive, but like I said, I don't like to play around with futility.
So to bring it back, if I look cynical it may be, but the truth is many people just blink and stare when I talk like this, and I'm tired of trying to drag them along. So this is my personal quest, and anyone is welcome to come along side, but for God's sake do your homework and keep the hell up!
Okay, so really people are just going to do what they want to do anyway. And everyone has to follow their own path. God will reach everyone in their own way and my standards don't apply to anyone else but me. I'm not God and it's a good thing it isn't my job to make sure people advance. I sound cynical not because I am bitter, but because I want to move so fast that others often appear to stand still. I want to tear and shake and rattle, sniff, taste, feel and experience until i get the truth, but many just want to inspect gently and wait on it to reveal. One flaw in my way is that I often run headlong against the chain after some glimmer only to find myself snatched off my feet like a dog when the leash runs out. Even though the leash is for my own good. But the best part is that it is ever evolving and changing as i learn. I'm learning to trust God more, to not strain on the leash so hard. I'm learning to wait for the ball to be thrown before I jump after it.
I'd love to talk about this more. Did you ever get to read my Wilderness Essays? There's alot of this in there. And the Evangelion thing. I think it's a characteristic of natural/ environmental philosophy to be so experience oriented and immersive. I think it's probably the least academic of all philosophical pursuits. If i was going to "do anything" as you suggested, I'd prefer to just take people into extreme situations where what they knew didn't apply and they weren't in control. There they'd be able to watch the real majik of the world unfold and begin to see differently. Of course we could talk about it afterward, but we probably wouldn't have to. I did finally find one person who understood this kind of thing since I got out of college and we hiked a swamp by compass. It was awesome. I'd seriously do that kind of thing with anyone anytime.