Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:25:27 -0500
From: Mary Murphy&Salstrand <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Mystify me!


Mal,

I agree with you that most of our disagreement is over the term
mystification.  Let me make a few distinctions which may not completely
resolve the conflict, but at least clarify where we differ. 

The first distinction I want to make is between religion as institution
and religion as belief: the one being sociological/political, the other
theological/metaphysical.

There is a long tradition analyzing religion from the former
perspective.  As a kind of shorthand, I would refer to the writings of
Karl Marx, Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism)
and even Lyotard, whose definition of the postmodern as incredulity
towards metanarratives of emancipation would certainly include those
framed in terms of religion.

Such writings for me are not inherently metaphysical, but empirical and
in the nature of a critique, one that can be critiqued in turn in the
light of other facts and information.  I don't think that such arguments
need to be dismissed out of hand as meta-science unless you are arguing
that all political and social critique is necessarily involved in such a
process and hence illegitimate.  

Either political critique is impossible and the positivist status quo
trumps every time or political critique is possible (admittedly in a
relative sense) and the institutions of religion are fair game to the
extent they share in the power of existing regimes. 

I would agree with you however that religion as theology/metaphysics
cannot be overcome for the simple reason that the grounds of
determination are inherently lacking.  (your meta-science) 

I also personally am not completely opposed to religion, but have often
been moved by its teachings and the individuals it inspires.  I see it
at its best as a kind of poetics of being, one that like the political
critique can lead us beyond the immediate situation into the further
dimensions of possibility. 

Certainly, I recognize that the Abolitionists and people in the civil
rights movement and the anti-war and anti-poverty movements have often
been coming at things from a religious perspective.  I have also been
personally interested all my life in the phenomenon known as mysticism
and the possibility of a radically different consciousness, what Aldous
Huxley has call mind-at-large in the universe and which Terence McKenna
has gnostically termed the Logos.  (I do confess to some issues with the
politics of Kevin Kelly. I think his libertarian philosophy at times is
a little out of control. I admire Jimmy Carter more.  He seems to me
like a good and decent man.)

I wasn't attempting to castigate monotheism as primitive. I do think,
however, in the history of Western science we have seen a movement away
from God as primary metaphysical cause to a more and more unnecessary
postulate who is now piously invoked, but now not really needed for
causal explanation within the realm of science.  The concept of God is
also the history of his rise and fall.  It isn't all just my personal
antropological social construction.

On the issue of autonomy, I would disagree with you regarding the role
of religion in this.  To take the example of the religion I am most
familiar with, Christianity, I do see it as governed by an implicit
dualism between spirit deriving from God and the fallen body of man
deriving from sin. (through the temptations of the woman!)  The
Romantic, modern and postmodern attempts to live autonomously from the
body and one's desires have been frustrated in part by Christianity's
attempt to frame these as evil.

Certainly, feminists have argued that Christianity legitimates women
only in roles of service such as housewives, teachers and nurses (the
ideal woman of course being a nun, or virgin mother) rather than
allowing women to act autonomously upon her own desires. This conflict
is the site of a long running battle between women and the church which
is still far from over. I would say that the church as an institution
has historically blocked the self-determination of women and this is
also, in part, why I regard this institution as a mystification of
social relations. (This isn't a theological stance, but a political,
social and historical one.)

I certainly recognize that any insight is partial.  Seeing through one
institution invariably leads to new falsehoods that must in turn be seen
through, but I think this is how the game must be played if we are to
remain open to the paralogics of the event.

Eric

PS - sorry if it appears I was presuming you to be religious. IMHO God
is a hydra and there certainly remain aspects of him (her?) that simply
won't go away.  Christian philosophers such as Etienne Gilson and Paul
Tillich have argued that God is the name we give to our conception of
what underlies the universe, what is the meaning of things, our ultimate
concern and hence that some concept of God is necessary to any system of
thought.  

In this reading, even atheism is a form of theism.  Thus, Marx's God was
history as the process of dialectical materialism, Nietzsche's God was
the will to power as eternal return. Perhaps!












Mal,

I agree with you that most of our disagreement in over the term
mystification.  Let me make a few distinctions which may not completely
resolve the conflict, but at least clarify where we differ. 

The first distinction I want to make is between religion as institution
and religion as belief: the one being sociological/political, the other
theological/metaphysical.

There is a long tradition analyzing religion from the former
perspective.  As a kind of shorthand, I would refer to the writings of
Karl Marx, Max Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism)
and even Lyotard, whose definition of the postmodern as incredulity
towards metanarratives of emancipation would certainly include those
framed in terms of emancipation.

Such writings for me are not inherently metaphysical, but empirical and
in the nature of a critique, one that can be critiqued in turn in the
light of other facts and information.  I don't think that such arguments
need to be dismissed out of hand as meta-science unless you are arguing
that all political and social critique is necessarily involved in such a
process and hence illegitimate.  

Either political critique is impossible and the positivist status quo
trumps every time or political critique is possible (admittedly in a
relative sense) and the institutions of religion are fair game to the
extent they share in the power of existing regimes. 

I would agree with you however that religion as theology/metaphysics
cannot be overcome for the simple reason that the grounds of
determination are inherently lacking.  (your meta-science) I also
personally am not completely opposed to religion, but have often been
moved by its teachings and the individuals it inspires.  I see it at its
best as a kind of poetics of being, one that like the political critique
can lead us beyond the immediate situation into the further dimensions
of possibility. Certainly, I recognize that the Abolitionists and people
in the civil rights movement and the anti-war and anti-poverty movements
have often been coming at things from a religious perspective.  I have
also been personally interested all my life in the phenomenon known as
mysticism and the possibility of a radically different consciousness,
what Aldous Huxley has call mind-at-large in the universe and which
Terence McKenna has gnostically termed the Logos.  (I do confess to some
issues with the politics of Kevin Kelly. I think his libertarian
philosophy at times is a little out of control. I admire Jimmy Carter
more.  He seems to me like a good and decent man.)

I wasn't attempting to castigate monotheism as primitive. I do think,
however, in the history of Western science we have seen a movement away
from God as primary metaphysical cause to a more and more unnecessary
postulate who is now piously invoked, but seldom really needed for
causal explanation within the realm of science.  The concept of God is
also the history of his rise and fall.  It isn't all just my personal
social construction.

On the issue of autonomy, I would disagree with you regarding the role
of religion.  To take the example of the religion I am most familiar
with, Christianity, I do see it as governed by an implicit dualism
between spirit deriving from God and the fallen body of man deriving
from sin. (through the temptations of the woman!)  The modern and
postmodern attempts to live autonomously from the body and one's desires
have been frustrated in part by Christianity's attempt to frame these as
evil.

Certainly, feminists have argued that Christianity legitimates women
only in roles of service such as housewives, teachers and nurses (the
ideal woman of course being a nun, or virgin mother) rather than
allowing women to act autonomously upon their own desires. This conflict
is the site of a long running battle women and the church which is still
far from over.

I certainly recognize that any insight is partial.  Seeing through one
institution invariably leads to new falsehoods that must in turn be seen
through, but I think this is how the game must be played if we are to
remain open to the paralogics of the event.

Eric

PS - sorry if it appears I was presuming you to be religious. IMHO God
is a hydra and there certainly remain aspects of him (her?) that simply
won't go away.  Christian philosophers such as Etienne Gilson and Paul
Tillich have argued that God is the name we give to our conception of
what underlies the universe, what is the meaning of things, the ultimate
concern and hence that some concept of God is necessary to any system of
thought.  

In this reading, even atheism is a form of theism.  Thus, Marx's God was
history as the process of dialectical materialism, Nietzsche's God was
the will to power as eternal return. Perhaps!