Christian apology by a non-Christian

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

It occurred to me reading this post above to ask you what is it that draws you to this conversation? I've stated pretty clearly my intentions. What are yours? You use a technique of forum communication which divides a post into small fragments but does not, independently, develop its own thesis. If possible, and if you can, I'd like to hear your ideas but expressed in larger blocks. Would you mind?

GB: They say that human intelligence, the arising of creatures like us in historical biology is a singular and very rare event.

S: Who says this and how did they come to that conclusion? None of the planets we have so far seen are habitable, but there are so many more billions that we haven't seen and will never see, that it seems to me we have too small a sample from which to draw such a big conclusion. Maybe it only happened once in all the universe; maybe it's as common as quartz.

It is a fairly common view that is floating around out there 'in the scientific world'. There have been billions of years of life so far on Earth with all sorts of different biological forms, and no one of them have developed as man has developed. Some theorists, speculating, have suggested that life does not really have to be intelligent, nor conscious, and not self-conscious as we are. My impression has been that, despite the Carl Saganian mathematical speculation that it is logically probable that there are many other planets with 'advanced' life forms similar or exceeding ours, some theorists question the idea since the unique combination of traits that makes man man have not developed, except in man. If it were *inevitable* and indeed so probable it should have occurred already. Some years ago I read some articles by astronomically inclined scientists who speculated-suggested that, perhaps, the human sort of intelligence may not in fact be common.

But this level of speculation (life on other planets) is not my immediate concern. I am more interested in the events and confluences of events within our own history that led to very specific developments within human culture, and specifically in the West, which have transformed the world. The idea is that, perhaps, this was not at all inevitable and not necessarily probable and that thinking in this way may be a mistake. And, if it is not obvious, there is a very definite undercurrent which is also stated unambiguously: what if the knowledge that we have attained, and the conditions through which we attained it, is a rare and fragile state, and one that can be lost?

I cannot, with the very best of intentions and at the farthest stretch of my tolerance, imagine a man who believes that God knows all and judges according to a certain set of rules, acting so contrarily to those rules as many of the powerful kings and popes acted. I conclude that they did not really believe what they preached. I conclude the same of present-day USian fundamentalist leaders who preach love and enact hate.

It is a baffling one I admit. I was chatting by email with an old friend and Judge Robert Bork came up. My friend could only use the most terrible language to describe the man and it bordered into demonology. I couldn't disagree because I didn't know much about him. And then by accident I stumbled across his book 'Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline', and read it, and saw into the man's structure of view.

I found that parts of his thesis made a good deal of sense. But more than this he was using his value-structure and his idea-structure to make a case for his notion of what 'living correctly' was in the world, and critiquing what he thought did harm to that. I did not think the man is insincere. While his political philosophy has elements that I find hard to justify, I really doubt that he is 'acting contrarily' to himself, in the sense that you imply.

Yet there are certainly cases of men who are truly corrupted. Some of the popes and kings you mention perhaps---likely.

Still, I find that most people operate from an internal position in themselves of basic 'good faith'. And yet their enemies imagine that they are really disguised demons who, at some level, are aware they are demons and just won't face it. It is a very common thing: one camp vilifies the other camp while they are simultaneous vilified.

It might, but I don't think so. I think intelligence - indeed, all life - seeks out what it needs.

I had asked if, perhaps, some knowledge was rare and unlikely to have developed. My sense is that your statement, while it appears to say something substantial, doesn't really say much. In my own experience I find that 'life' (human beings in life) doesn't really need that much, and very little of what I define as 'valuable and important'. The danger in this conversation is that we have not established any group of definitions of 'valuable and important', and if we have such definitions, they may not coincide.

Still, I have the sense that 'life' may go on seeking what it needs to get by in life but there is no guarantee that it will come across or stumble across or automatically come into what I am calling 'high knowledge'. And again, the reason I am repeating this is because it is part of the overall idea I am attempting to develop: what we have now we have through tremendous sacrifices of people who gave their lives to knowledge. The spirit of giving oneself to knowledge is unique, unusual, uncommon, and doesn't merely repeat itself. If opportunities are lost they may be lost forever.

If opportunities are exploited and built on, they seem to lead to other and still greater possibilities. But this stands in contrast to static cultures that do little, achieve little. It is not I don't think a very complex idea, perhaps it is intuitional? But it does seem an important one, and it does tie in to the general theme of this thread. (Or at least I'd like to believe so... )

[Skip]

The sample they're working from is still very small, their perspective is uni-dimensional and self-preoccupied. From exactly one known example, I could draw the conclusion of that one's uniqueness...
Yes, we are the only human wonderfulness. We're a little bit smarter (probably) than the dolphins and gorillas, whom we're slaughtering as fast as we can, and we're killing off all the other competing species, so pretty soon, we'll be the uncontested only smart thing on this planet....
(But other kinds of wonderfulness may be lurking in outer space.)

The spirit of giving oneself to knowledge is unique, unusual, uncommon, and doesn't merely repeat itself. If opportunities are lost they may be lost forever.

See, i don't think this is so. Men who have the luxury of giving their lives to knowledge (or art or alchemy or butterfly collecting or the theory of warfare) are not as rare as all that. Every generation since walled cities has a few of them - a few that are recorded for posterity - can't tell how many who died unpublished. And if we didn't waste 90% of human potential on slums and ethnic purges, there might be a lot more.


My interest in this thread? The same as Sagan's motive for CETI: the possibility of intelligent life in cyberspace.
Why I didn't develop my own thesis: 1. I'm a four-finger typist with a cheap black keyboard on which the frequently used letters are in need of repainting again - it's a slow and work-intensive process. 2. This was your thread, not mine.
My ideas on the human condition in larger blocks? I'll think about it.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Don't interpret me wrong: you are the only one writing on this thread so I most certainly appreciate your efforts. I hope that you can understand that it is a little frustrating, but not insurmountably so, to have one's posts chopped up. It is sort of like running on deep gravel if you know what I mean.

Am I to assume you have no theistic inclinations? No expressible theological notions? Were you to have 'spirituality', how would you define it? Socialistic unity?

[Skip]

I enjoy bright people, but more than that, I appreciate people who have a conviction - who care about something enough to work at it and try to communicate it. (I'm a sucker for endangered species.)

The chopping up: I'm sorry it bothers you, but i can't deal with the entire thesis at once. If we were having a face-to-face conversation, I'd have to interrupt you every five minutes or so, because neither of us could possibly recall the exact wording of the statement to which the other took exception, or the sticking-point or the pivot where an argument changed direction. And no third party could follow the argument if it came in huge blocks. This is the only way, with the given tools, that I can be clear about what I'm responding to.

Am I to assume you have no theistic inclinations? No expressible theological notions?

That's correct. All the gods I've ever heard or read about are implausible - far too human! - though some are more attractive than others. My protestant grandmother took me to a whitewashed village church where communion was celebrated with local bread and wine. It was beautiful and warm. My Catholic grandmother took me to a city cathedral with stained-glass and marble, where incense was wafted about by boys in embroidered robes. It was beautiful and impressive. But there were no spooks at either church - just people. I read the big book, and then I read other books... more very human personifications of very human phenomena. No spooks.

Were you to have 'spirituality', how would you define it? Socialistic unity?

Certainly not! I think it would be nice for people to organize themselves on the family model rather than the boss-peon model; i think we'd do better to look out for one another and care for our environment. But that's practical, not spiritual.

I'll let you in on a secret. Christianity - its tradition and imagery - is woven through my cultural heritage: it's a familiar vernacular. If there were a heaven, I would imagine it as a collaborative project: it's furnished with what we bring from earthly life. So, pay attention. Collect impressions, experiences, things, sounds, feelings, pictures that are worth keeping forever: your memories will be your contribution to heaven. I'm bringing the smell of poplars on a July night, frog-song, the colour of that first wavy line of lime-green sky on a winter morning, the feel of a bat's fur, dappled shade, some awkward puns, dark brown ale and four very good dogs.

[tillingborn]

Don't interpret me wrong: you are the only one writing on this thread so I most certainly appreciate your efforts. I hope that you can understand that it is a little frustrating, but not insurmountably so, to have one's posts chopped up. It is sort of like running on deep gravel if you know what I mean.

As Skip has intimated, it is difficult to maintain a such a demanding dialogue. What you say is very interesting, but the original thesis: "It is obvious that huge swaths of persons in our cultures have or are abandoning a Christian faith of their forefathers and either reject altogether the theological-doctrinal dictates altogether or else seek another type of faithfulness in a different religio-philosophical system." has been obvious for some time. What perhaps is more pertinent is that we are abandoning our forefathers habit of corresponding in more than a paragraph at a time.

[marjoramblues]

you are the only one writing on this thread so I most certainly appreciate your efforts.

And no third party could follow the argument if it came in huge blocks. This is the only way, with the given tools, that I can be clear about what I'm responding to.

There are times when less is more...
You are both providing a feast.
Skip has made it more digestible.

[Skip]

A gratifying surprise! Thank you both.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

::::Called down to Earth to fight the Demonic Forces. Will be back up here soon to continue with more pleasant tasks::::

[Skip]

May the Force be with you.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

GB: Am I to assume you have no theistic inclinations? No expressible theological notions?

Skip: That's correct. All the gods I've ever heard or read about are implausible - far too human! - though some are more attractive than others. My protestant grandmother took me to a whitewashed village church where communion was celebrated with local bread and wine. It was beautiful and warm. My Catholic grandmother took me to a city cathedral with stained-glass and marble, where incense was wafted about by boys in embroidered robes. It was beautiful and impressive. But there were no spooks at either church - just people. I read the big book, and then I read other books... more very human personifications of very human phenomena. No spooks.

There are numerous reasons why the topic of this thread is important to me. What I am discovering is that the whole topic is not only deeply and intensely conflicted, and these conflicts are being played out in so many different areas in contemporary culture, but that the topic is of vital concern to me as a person. In this it is a 'spiritual issue'. Actually, but also strangely, the 'whole topic' is basically the issue of my own life. The basic question. The basic struggle. So, the enormous conflicts that are played out on a macrocosmic level is also played out on an internal level. I find that there is so much to speak about that it is almost overwhelming. But cutting precisely to the chase I think that the real core of the issue has to do with whether or not we feel there is or there is not a 'transcendent consciousness' within us and surrounding us, and if there is what does this actually mean? And if there is not, how are we to look at the whole manner by which we organized our perceptions and understanding of 'the world' and the Universe? (And I mean by this 'we' man, mankind).

In the most black and white terms there is an 'argument' that is out there, operating. On one side it is the scientific-atheistic argument which has so many different connections with philosophy, with the Enlightenment, with evolutionary science, and also with culture insofar as there seems to exist in people a desire to throw off any restraining influence. One needs to mention, I think, at this point the so-called 'Mass Man' (reference to Ortega y Gasset and his 'The Rebellion of the Masses') because, like it or not, we live in and must deal with a world where this Mass Man has pushed himself onto the scene and commands the scene in many senses. And this too is a very touchy point if only because each of us is really and truly a representative and a mouthpiece of just this Mass Man. I have to make it clear though that, in regard to this Mass Man, I am opposed to him. This does indeed mean being opposed to a part of myself! Not necessarily at a core or essential level but in those areas where, 'democratically', I have been informed. My view is that 'we' (I) can only seek as a reference the highest and most sophisticated embodiments of knowledge and understanding that culture has produced while 'we' (I) simultaneously hold the Mass Man at bay, indeed undermine him and his picayune 'desires' and intentions. THis is where true Contempt is needed and is a necessary mood.

The Mass Man in my view is relevant because he is a problem. He is irrelevant insofar as he does not really possess any part of the background nor really the honest inner need to truly answer important questions. I realize that these are cacophonous statements to many ears. They will produce friction and sparks and endless resistance. But to be honest to the Conversation in the largest sense requires a statement of position.

Because I am in a conversation with you, Skip, and because I have just made these outrageous comments, it might be assumed this is addressed to you personally, but that is not so. In fact as I say it is really addressed to myself first and then by extension to everyone else! I think Hell could very easily be defined as a place where one is surrounded only by the low-level perceptions, thoughts, aspirations, dreams and indeed presence of the truly mediocre Mass Man who is, in fact, the figure we deal with in almost all interactions. But it has to be said, and in any case I will take a risk and say it: he doesn't know shit from Shinola about anything, nor does he really care. Horribly, unfairly, even arrogantly, I have a feeling that most discourse that is out there roving about, that is the discourse on the most important topics such as 'transcendent being', or questions of real value, or the essence of spirituality, or even the higher emotions such as love or genuine sentiment---all the most important things---is a discourse peopled by 'inferiors' who simply do not have the qualifications to opine on much of anything (and yet opine they do, as I said earlier).

I am getting myself deeper and deeper into the mire here. How am I going to turn this around?

What I will have to do is to post certain ideas bit-by-bit. Here I have just implicated myself in a terribly politically incorrect group of statements without really explaining what I mean by them. Now I will have to try to define just what I mean by upper-level, sophisticated ideas about transcendence, higher spirituality, etc.

[Skip]

I'm afraid i'll have to use the snip method again. OTH, be aware that i am getting a third beer to help me answer this. That means i'm taking you seriously.

There are numerous reasons why the topic of this thread is important to me. What I am discovering is that the whole topic is not only deeply and intensely conflicted, and these conflicts are being played out in so many different areas in contemporary culture, but that the topic is of vital concern to me as a person.

I sympathize and suspect that you have a great deal of company - much of it inarticulate, which makes you a spokesman.

... cutting precisely to the chase I think that the real core of the issue has to do with whether or not we feel there is or there is not a 'transcendent consciousness' within us and surrounding us,

You evidently do; i do not. And i'm not at all sure that difference necessarily puts us in opposing camps.

... And if there is not, how are we to look at the whole manner by which we organized our perceptions and understanding of 'the world' and the Universe?

What's wrong with just looking at it? What's wrong with seeing what we see, hearing what hear, feeling what we feel, measuring what we can measure, conjecturing about what we can't quite grasp? What's wrong with approaching the universe with an open eye, an open mind, all its wonders to appreciate?

... On one side it is the scientific-atheistic argument which has so many different connections with philosophy, with the Enlightenment, with evolutionary science, and also with culture insofar as there seems to exist in people a desire to throw off any restraining influence.

Are you perhaps oversimplifying - or at least reducing to a single personification many different thinkers, who may not be so very alike - the atheist and scientist. There is more than one argument, and each of the arguments is about more than throwing off restraints.
Besides, who says we all reject all restraint? I, for one, reject the arbitrary shackles imposed by cardinals, but have no problem at all with the restraints imposed by ethics, fairness, empathy, loyalty and courtesy.

One needs to mention, I think, at this point the so-called 'Mass Man'

I haven't read "The Revolt of the Masses" and don't, from a cursory wiki-peek, desire to, but i have an aversion to such labels as Mass Man or plastic people or sheeple. I have encountered humans i didn't like (and even a few who didn't like me!!), many with whom i disagreed, a great many - gods know - whom i considered stupid, superficial, limited, unimaginative, ignorant, obtuse; many who annoyed me, some i despised, a few i feared and several i could easily hate. I have never met one who wasn't an individual, with his or her own history, experience, relationships, perceptions, habits, favourite foods. We may not be a very good species, but we are varied!

because, like it or not, we live in and must deal with a world where this Mass Man has pushed himself onto the scene and commands the scene in many senses.

I don't think so. I think intellectually gifted but ethically challenged individuals have taken it upon themselves to speak for (and at, and over) many people who lack the opportunity to speak for themselves.
Yes, democracy has drawbacks - mainly that demagogues can exploit and influence large numbers of people, and stack the deck in their own favour. In this, it differs little from other forms of governance. The only real difference is seen when the "little" people who have no individual microphones agree enough to change governments - "at the cellular level".

And this too is a very touchy point if only because each of us is really and truly a representative and a mouthpiece of just this Mass Man.

Each of us - the intelligent, the articulate, the fortunate ones who went to school while other children were carrying water, weaving rugs and dragging coal - presume, from time to time, to represent some portion of the less fortunate with whom we feel an affinity - even though they may feel no affinity with us.

I have to make it clear though that, in regard to this Mass Man, I am opposed to him.

So am i. Not because he's counter to the noble knights and sages of fairy tales, but because he is bogus. Bogeyman.

... My view is that 'we' (I) can only seek as a reference the highest and most sophisticated embodiments of knowledge and understanding that culture has produced while 'we' (I) simultaneously hold the Mass Man at bay, indeed undermine him and his picayune 'desires' and intentions.

So, you're having a fight between your "baser" [carnal, primitive, child, id] nature and your "spiritual" [transcendent, philosophical, intellectual, superego] nature. Who doesn't? Those of us who work out a modus vivendi sometimes thrive well into old age; those who don't, become suicides, drug addicts, currency speculators and monks.

This is where true Contempt is needed and is a necessary mood.

No, it hardly ever is. When you resort to contempt, your reasons should be concrete and personal and rectifiable.
That's not a wholesome state of mind to carry around. It's your mind, the only one you get to live in - try to keep it clean.

...Because I am in a conversation with you, Skip, and because I have just made these outrageous comments, it might be assumed this is addressed to you personally, but that is not so.

I'm all right, and not outraged. Concerned, a little.

In fact as I say it is really addressed to myself first and then by extension to everyone else!

That's why we love the interwebz! When/where else could we have done this?

I think Hell could very easily be defined as a place where one is surrounded only by the low-level perceptions, thoughts, aspirations, dreams and indeed presence of the truly mediocre Mass Man

I have a friend who makes that his personal hell, before he's even died and been judged. It's a choice. Since it is a choice, he can spend as much or little time there (internet forums) as he wants. Me, i look for the outliers, and largely ignore the mediocre. Guess which of us has more fun.

... he doesn't know shit from Shinola

Point of abstruse reference. "Spit from Shinola" Feces have never been used to polish shoes. (Unimportant bugbear.)

about anything, nor does he really care.

There is the problem word. He cares about shit we don't care about and fails to care about the shit we do care about. Obviously, our shit is way more significant, but his is still something.

Horribly, unfairly, even arrogantly... that is the discourse on the most important topics such as 'transcendent being', or questions of real value, or the essence of spirituality

Ya, you might get an argument on that. Maybe not tonight.

, or even the higher emotions such as love or genuine sentiment

The guy who stocks the grocery shelves doesn't know a lot of long words and probably can't even spell the short ones, but he loves his mother enough to have punched out his father that one time; his dog enough to have sat up three nights in a row when she was sick; baseball enough to stand in line for tickets he can barely afford; and the girl with the funky piercings behind the deli counter enough to be saving up for a really special date, even though he has to give up two home games. He cares as deeply as a guy with 50IQ points on him.

---all the most important things---is a discourse peopled by 'inferiors' who simply do not have the qualifications to opine on much of anything (and yet opine they do, as I said earlier).

Yup. And they often think democracy means equality of opinion, however well or poorly informed. Pain in the ass, that!

... Now I will have to try to define just what I mean by upper-level, sophisticated ideas about transcendence, higher spirituality, etc.

Go!

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

You evidently do [believe in, sense, have a relationship with 'the transcendental']; I do not. And I'm not at all sure that difference necessarily puts us in opposing camps.

No, not necessarily. Not you and me. But part of this thread takes into consideration the 'culture-wars' that are on-going between a scientific-atheistic camp and the Christian fundamentalist believer-camp and my position is that each one of these camps cannot 'appreciate' the subtleties of the notion of the 'transcendental'. I am asserting that such 'appreciation', and by this I mean understanding at a higher level and not merely 'intuition', is a capability of a 'higher order of person'.

I am aware that to say such things, in a present dominated by politically correct thought, immediately complicates the conversation. But that in itself is revealing, I think. I suppose it hinges on the notion of hierarchy---superior and inferior, above and below, qualified and unqualified. Myself, with certain reservations of course, I accept hierarchy. I appreciate and emulate hierarchical definitions and distinctions. And therefor I appreciate and would defend a level of argument, or a philosophical position, or a religious position, that is comparable say to that of understanding of a complex physics position: only a few are actually going to be able to understand it. That means that the majority are not going to be able to understand it, ever. Nor do they really want to. It is fair to say that they only want to live their lives, obtain their material goals, enjoy some diversion, etc. But the curious thing is that they do not really need to understand it and yet even still their lives may be transformed by the knowledge that operates or is 'being operated' far over their heads. One part of Ortega y Gasset's position is that the Mass Man is offered everything on a plate, so to speak. In reality this Man does not have to work at much of anything! In our culture(s) dominated by mercantile agencies all things are reduced to what can be quickly and easily purveyed as long as one has a little coin. (I would recommend not dismissing The Rebellion of the Masses to quickly, either. It is not, despite the sound of it, a view inspired by cynicism. I would rather say it is an encouragement to excellence in the individual and is an extension of Nietzschean analysis).

It is in this sense that the Mass Man not only can be spoken of but must be spoken of. So for example, I have a cellphone that employs condensations of knowledge about physical reality that I may never understand, nor do I need to! But I receive all the advantages even if I do not understand the mechanics. I suggest that similarly the 'more advanced' (I begin to employ the hierarchical lingo, naturally!) theology, and a means of defining God, and also the further and 'newer' definitions of the Christian God, are not immediately graspable ... by a majority. This is indeed my impression. And in fairness to myself I have invested some time in this project---a reading project that has taken some years. And so when I read for example Dawkins or Hitchens (those who define an atheistic position) I sense that their whole conversation occurs at a 'low' level. First, they are essentially out there selling a product, and there is a mass who is interested in buying it, certainly. But they are really arguing against a low-level fundamentalistic position which, rightly, is abhorrent to them, as it is to me. So, they appear to desire to dismantle a small-minded machine of thought without seeming to understand that there is a far higher level of argument that takes considerable time and effort of grasp and to appreciate.

I do not think, though, that all of this or any of it hinges on the level of IQ, although intelligence must have a fair degree of relevance. I suppose this is a point where the 'politically correct' kicks in automatically! I would say, certainly, that 'intelligence' is a matter of hierarchy as I have defined it. And it may be true that IQ intelligence allows a person to excel most notably in abstract mathematics, and that there is a sort of man with a 'mathematical mind'. But this kind of mathematical/mechanical mind and intelligence, though it offers many advantages, is distinct from the sort of intelligence that I would place on the higher rung in my hierarchy. How would one define it? You could mention morality, sensitivity, maturity, giftedness, creativity, good-heartedness, or something like 'evolved soul'. But I do not think that (even you!) would be able to level-out the necessary hierarchical distinction. (Effectively my whole argument is couched in notions of hierarchy, and this just has to be stated).

In my present way of seeing things, and I note that my views are not fixed and they continue to evolve, I accept on one hand that there IS a higher level of understanding, and there IS a more mature and sophisticated level of being, and there IS a higher level of appreciation and, if you will, use of notions of the transcendent. I assume along with that that those who hold to these views-understandings will likely be pushed out of the 'public argument' because the Mass Man (and dear heavens we must mention the Mass Woman!) has the power to shut down the arguments that do not accord with his politically-correct views. I honestly feel that it is wise to linger over this issue of the Mass Man and his will and to understand what this means in respect to 'knowledge'. Yes, it smacks of elite considerations, and we all know the dangers there, but this does not in my view diminish the relevance of sophistication in intellectual, scientific, existential and theological realms. And at this point I would also toss in a noted Christian term: gnosis. The upper-level arguments about theology generally are arguments of 'gnosis'. Also real, intimate, 'inside' knowledge about Life---what it is, why it is, how it is---are issues of gnosis. I would not be able to participate in any conversation in which I could not state this openly. It is very definitely the view I have and the one I hold to.

And what this means is: I think that the gnostic argument, because it is uncommon, because it is rather unintelligible, because it is mysterious and bound to strange epistemes, must be willing to retreat from the battleground where the fight is taking place. And so that opens up another issue which, I assume, is difficult to grasp if one holds to a basically atheistic and non-trascendent position: that of monasticism.

"Finally there is one great religious institution which is common to the two cultures [Byzantine and Occidental Catholic] and which has perhaps had a greater and more direct influence on the formation of Christian culture than any other single factor: I mean the Monastic Order. It is in monasticism that religion and culture attain their most complete fusion. For the monastic rule is a sacred law which is applied to every detail of individual life and a common society. So the latter was in principal a totally Christian society in which there was no longer any room for the conflict between religious and secular standards, a society without private property or family bonds or political and military obligations. At first sight it seems an impossible system, since its social order rests on the denial of the three main forces which have created society---sex and war and economic acquisitiveness. Nevertheless, in spite of manifold failures, it exerted a dynamic influence on the new Christian society of the barbarian North, where there was no tradition of city culture, was especially important. Here the coming of the monks meant not only a new religious way of life but a new civilization, so that the Western monasteries were islands of Christian culture in a sea of barbarism."

I have the feeling that to explain my own relationship to 'the spiritual question' I have to touch on personal experience, but I also will say that I think that many people who are products of the post-war era have explored what are essentially 'monastic' modalities that deal on 'search for knowledge', search for self, search for meaning, and search for place in this world. As I have come to understand it there is NO PART OF THIS, certainly in European culture and especially in the Americas, that is not quite intimately tied to very basic and very Christian underpinnings. One has to define 'underpinning' as a basic, even unconscious, group of motivators. Ban the Bomb, Catholic Worker, Beatniks, Hippies, Youth Culture generally, the exploration of alternative and exotic spirituality through immersion on Eastern religion, rock music, jazz exploration, and the desire to give form to a new sort of person who is distinct from the automated robot of the post-war: all this is deeply spirited by essentially Christian---what is the word?---motivators? Desires? Longings?

In my view this thing we call 'Christianity' has to turn around and look at itself because in truth it cannot see itself. I am speaking now to identifying, believing Christians who are also caught in the trap of fundamentalism. And again: fundamentalism is so pervasive and infects all manner of different areas of thinking. A real 'spirituality', a real transformative religious impulse, cannot be fundamentalistic. There are far larger issues at play, and ones that we cannot really understand a priori. That is perhaps why I appreciate this section of Isaiah 55, which expresses sentiments that turn fundamentalism upside-down:

• For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
  nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
  For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
  so are my ways higher than your ways
  and my thoughts than your thoughts.
  
  For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
  and do not return there until they have watered the earth,
  making it bring forth and sprout,
  giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
  so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
  it shall not return to me empty,
  but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
  and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
  
  For you shall go out in joy,
  and be led back in peace;
  the mountains and the hills before you
  shall burst into song,
  and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
  Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress;
  instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle;
  and it shall be to the Lord for a memorial,
  for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

A couple of useful, orienting quotes from Christopher Dawson's The Historic Reality of Christian Culture. These have to do with the idea of monasticism:

"Nevertheless, as we cannot understand Western culture as a whole without a study of the great Christian culture of modern England and Wales and America unless we have studied the underworld of sectarian Christianity---a world which has been neglected by the political and economic historian, but which none the less contributed so many vital elements to the complex pattern of nineteenth-century society."

In the chapter 'Institutional Forms of Christian Culture' he writes about the monastic movement which began with St. Pachomius in Egypt in approximately AD 323 and which firm is 'practically the creator of Celtic Christian culture and determined the ecclesiastical character of the Celtic Church'. He also refers to Benedictine monasticism---'classical monasticism'---at the base of Mediaeval culture and education. And then the 'friars': Franciscans and Dominicans who worked to establish the mediaeval universities and in the development of scholastic philosophy.

In Protestant culture however there is no emphasis on the monastic life-style, but the same energy of 'spiritual forces' is expressed in the developments of the sects 'considered not as theological doctrines but as new ways of life religious life'. And so we can refer to the Anabaptists, the Puritans, the Pietists, the Quakers, the Methodists and the Plymouth Brothers, 'not to mention the more eccentric American developments, like the Shakers, which went so far as to insist on celibacy and the community of property'.

It is important to the ideas that I hope to develop to at least place on the table one of the most important 'institutions' of Mediterranean and European culture because the impetus is still very clearly evident in areas we'd normally not imagine, a couple of them I will mention below.

"Thus the development of monasticism corresponds very closely with the development of Christian culture, so that the history of Christian culture is comprised of one thousand four hundred and fifty years between the foundation of the first monastery by St Pachomius at Tabennisi in 323 to the dissolution of the Society of Jesus in 1773."

This is all part of a rather quick preamble to bring out the topic I want to discuss which is how the 'monastic impulse', either of Catholicism or of Protestantism, very strongly influenced the post-war generation in ways that are not generally recognized. This is why I say that 'Christianity needs to turn around and look at itself'. A whole realm of basic ideas and sentiments function in people even if they are not aware of it, nor really understand how they came to be influenced. And I tie this into the notion I mentioned earlier: we don't require to know the mind-boggling physics that are condensed in the cellphone we use every day and never question nor really think about. Similarly, we are moved and motivated by Ideas and desires and a form of 'will' about which we don't know much, and yet we are 'in' it, and we give expression to it.

It is my view that the 'religious impetus' which directly expresses Christian values has had and will continue to have a tremendous effect on culture. Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker movement in the mid-thirties put in motion certain impetus and values that very clearly moved in the social, philosophical and cultural life of the US. The ideas that were communicated and put in motion came directly from a European monastic source which took root in America and flowered in many different ways.

It is pretty clear, to me anyway, that these ideas are very basic and 'eternal' Christian ideas. One could begin to name many different movements or areas where movement took place, such as the anti-war movement, certainly the Civil Rights movement, and uncover the basic religious-philsophical underpinning there. I have always been impressed by this song as an almost chemically pure expression of Christian sentiment, as well as this song.

The way that Christian doctrines have influenced and continue to influence culture at inestimable, in my view, but many people don't seem to grasp it. So, to understand ourselves and the culture we live in it seems to be true as Dawson suggests that "we cannot understand Western culture as a whole without a study of the great Christian culture of modern England and Wales and America unless we have studied the underworld of sectarian Christianity".

One could make a study of the many ways the religious-spiritual idealism functions in culture, and certainly American culture (though I assume Skip that you are Canadian), but along these lines I would mention Harold Bloom's 'The American Religion' which explores the origins of American religiosity. It is a disturbing but interesting eye-opener to see the strong degree that religious idealism functions at basic levels. There are positive and also rather notable---painfully so---negative aspects.

But I seem to be going somewhat in the direction of a revelation of my own experiences in the post-Sixties era and, embarrassingly perhaps, I have to identify myself as a child of San Francisco hippies. Such as it was...

[Skip]

That's a lot to digest and i have a birthday barbeque to host, so probably won't be back till tomorrow.

Just a quick word on hierarchy : it's a pyramid. The apex may be the reason it was built - if it had a purpose - but the apex cannot define, inform, alter, or exist independently of, the base. Rarity determines value in a market-place, but the least common substance is not necessarily (nor usually) the most functional: it's likely to be a luxury in which one indulges after the common, utilitarian materials have been obtained.

There is a story about King Matyas of Hungary. Subjects would come to his court, offering their skills in his service. Once a man came who could throw a pea through a keyhole, from 10 paces, every try. A remarkable accomplishment. The king rewarded him with a sack of peas and sent him away.
(I heard this as an adolescent and immediately started inventing scenarios wherein that special skill would win a battle or save the castle, anyway, something important enough that the king would rue his dismissive attitude. That's the thing about rare and special abilities: they are needed only on rare and special occasions - but then, they are vital.)

I think of a society as an organism: the head and feet both need the liver.

[Skip]

On further consideration: No.

I just can't lump qualified and unqualified in with higher and lower. These assessments seem to be coming from different valuation systems, and i haven't a clue as to your criteria.
It's okay if you want to be a monk - better than being a currency speculator, for sure - you'll even get unearned deference.

But i can't accept 'better' and 'higher' as a designation for someone who just sits and thinks about stuff that we doesn't demonstrably exist. I can't value that above people who grow food, build houses and sew underwear.

I value thinkers, inventors and innovators; i value artists, designer and performers.
After i've eaten and found my secure, comfortable bed.

If there is a war between religious and secular factions, it's a political war. You won't influence it with reason or with spirituality: it's about controlling Mass man.