DUCKPOND

Here is a recent episode of ABC’s The Spirit of Things. The mystics are far out, but interesting. Teresa of Avila, not the least among them, is especially interesting. She was born to a fifteen year old mother who died at thirty having ten children. Then it was suggested Teresa was Jewish. She lived from 1515 to 1586. Avila is about 100 to 200 kilometers north-west of Toledo. At the point where we hear stories that she levitated like a hovercraft while praying or meditating induces a certain scepticism. If that were true, others, such Einstein or Richard Feynmann should have experienced the same thing. Teresa lived when the Spanish Inquisition was in full swing. They were dangerous times.
Bishop Spong is saying that we atheists are right. God is love right?^1. Now with this hypothesis, how can the existence of love be scientifically proven, measured, or understood. I have no doubt there would be testimony from reliable witnesses, and observations could be made of the relationship of pre- and post-natal relationships between mother and child, but testimony and observation are not of themselves sufficient and necessary grounds for scientific proof. And it turns out it is not easy to understand matter, let along force fields, energy or consciousness. I was surprised to read, and perhaps it is true, that the state of matter that for example exists in the centre of lightning bolt, plasma, is not well understood. And plasma we can see?

What about another line of thought? Science, and its expression as technology and innovation, would be the greatest bone to human existence if it had not been appropriated by the “special interests” who control the political, social and economic systems whose power is not merely premised on appropriation of the world’s resources but instrumentally on violence and war. With that thought the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the American political system as we see evidenced by the presidential campaign can be coherently explained. The criterion becomes that the measure of any society and of civilization is its orientation, including it deployment of science (or more generally knowledge), to either violence or non-violence. Continued violence to the natural environment is set to end of life on earth. So you tell me what has to change?

Additonal Observation:

This may not be a fully coherent and consistent theory, but to reject the concept of surplus value does not invalidate the observations of the working conditions of Manchester made by Engels, and confirmed in a different context by Victor Hugo in Paris. Similarly, there may be greater plausibility in violence as the consequence of assumptions of scarcity, materialism and competition, thus the survival and prosperity of the fittest. But it is hard to see how that model fits the treatment of any soldier in the First World War engaged in trench warfare. They needed their tote of rum so that they could kill or be killed for “King and Country”, which both become in the process obsentities.

Violence when institutionalized and made part of the culture becomes normalized. That process makes it invisible and is not seen even when its effect becomes evident. it is reasonably clear, and it was part of Martin Luther King’s case at Riverside that violence and justice are antithetical.

I am continuing to try to understand why the protests against the Iraq War had no effect on the political system and why the opposition to the war continues to make no headway, while the prosecution of the war generates further and longer term violence by aggravating the differentiation between Sunni and Shiite in Iraq. The War against Terror, drummed up by fear, has been enormously effective, and it needs to be explained, especially when one of the world’s major religions has been scapegoated in the process.

Oops, I have just lost the readership! Well there is the experience of Ann J Simonton, just to illustrate normalized violence at another level,but not only her as you can see(via CommonDreams):

Ann has the same combination as Teresa, she is attractive and intelligent.

Footnote: 18 February 2008.

^1. This seems to be the view of the gnostics, the alternative gospel writers, of whom I am ignorant. How could that be? These opinions are often derived views. Still in terms of fundamental values, “love, truth and justice” does not have the ring of “liberty, equality and fraternity”, but is not too bad.

The argument of Vincent J Romano is that institutional requirements, the status quo, influenced the selection of the appropriate gospels and the suppression of the alternative views:

Pagels gives a more rational explanation for why the Church deemed the Gnostic gospels to be dangerous and banned them. The coexistence of this Gnostic Theology alongside other views of Jesus’ divinity was a direct challenge to the consolidating power structure of the Church. She elucidates that “As the creed, the hierarchy, and other components of the institution began to be set into place, there was a demand by the power-holders for organization and unity in thinking.” The orthodox position that developed was aimed at preserving the cohesiveness of the early Christian movement in order that it might survive the state persecution of the Roman Empire. The Gnostic understanding of Jesus rendered the Church’s existence unnecessary; one did not have to go through Jesus and the Church, but could approach God on one’s own. The popes of later eras formulated Church dogma as extra ecclesia nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”). Iraneus said elsewhere about the Gnostics, “Whatever good they are trying to do cannot repair the harm they are doing in cutting up the glorious body of Christ.”

He goes on to suggest that the early Church included women as did the founder in his disciples. Furthermore, there is a purported link with Buddhism.