Hi All,

I recently read an interesting article by Victoria Moran in the November 2001 issue of "Yoga Journal" entitled 'Can You Trust the Teacher Within, or Do You Need a Guru?'

Moran makes some interesting points about the
pluses and minuses of gurus/spiritual teachers, etc. (Adapt the word to your tradition.)

I know we've mentioned this topic before but, in summary, how would you vote?

Teacher or Christ (for Christians) Within?
External Guru or Teacher?
External Non-human Teacher?
Life itself?
All of the above?
None of the above?
A few of the above?

or
(This questions stinks. )

Summarizing comments anyone?

Thanks.

qTee

I think internal and external, if that is a choice. I look at it like this:

I could have never taught myself to read. Never. We all need instruction to learn what the symbols mean, the sounds that go with the symbols, etc. It's not something I could have figured out through trial and error alone. But if I didn't already have the necessary components needed to learn how to read, such as intelligence, then all the instruction in the world would be worthless.

I think the same can be said of spirituality. We seem to be predisposed to being spiritual beings but we don't always know what to do with it or even how to recognize it in the first place. And I supposed just as surely that an incompetent teacher could make learning to read five fimes tougher so could an incompetent (or even fraudulent) spiritual teacher. And in the area of religion and spirituality it becomes much tougher to discern competence from quackery. This seem like an interesting topic, uraqt.

And I supposed just as surely that an incompetent teacher could make learning to read five fimes tougher so could an incompetent (or even fraudulent) spiritual teacher. And in the area of religion and spirituality it becomes much tougher to discern competence from quackery. This seem like an interesting topic, uraqt.

Brad,

Sounds like you would enjoy the article. Look it up if you have some time. The caveat with a spiritual teacher is that they tend to represent God in a sense that other teachers do not. So when a spiritual teacher is fraudulent, it has an even greater impact on their students.

The article mentions a student who gave up on monogamy, vegetarianism, etc. because he was following a teacher who cared little about these things. His teacher died a short time later of severe alcoholism.

The other interesting point that the article mentions is the purpose of a teacher. Is a teacher one whose purpose is to challenge the student and help them see things from various perspectives? Or, is life itself challenging enough?

Moran did a good job briefly exploring the topic.

Thanks for your comments Brad.

(q)Tee

The other interesting point that the article mentions is the purpose of a teacher. Is a teacher one whose purpose is to challenge the student and help them see things from various perspectives? Or, is life itself challenging enough?

Well, it's both I'd say. We all have blind spots and areas of ignorance that practically require the aid of a teacher. We might eventually learn all that we need to learn on our own but our lives are too short to wait for experience to be the best teacher. On the other hand all the material that teachers teach had to come from somewhere and that is from life experiences. Ultimately I think the only true teacher is yourself. The teacher will open your eyes to concepts but until you make them your own, until you experience them, they will remain abstract concepts.

"We seem to be predisposed to being spiritual beings but we don't always know what to do with it or even how to recognize it in the first place."

I have to agree with Brad that it is both but I would have to say that this predisposition, at least for me, is more of a longing for than a tendency towards.

I am put in mind of the answer mountain climbers give when asked why they do this.. because it is there, they say or they say I really don't know why because it is so hard to articulate. The mountain calls to them and so they climb.

I think it is pretty much the same type of thing for us... God calls and so we climb. He sent us a guide - his very Son but sometimes I can be a little dense or maybe hard of hearing so I also look to those who have gone before for a little help as well. The way I look at it is I can use all the help I can get and by enlisting/utilizing multiple and varied resources there is less chance that the odd incompetent or even myself will lead me too far astray.

Anyhow, while I use them all, Christ is primary guide and teacher... the rest I guess you could call assistants.

Wanda

I think another thing suggested by your original post, uraqt (at least in my mind ) is that if something as important as God and spirituality exists why do we have to struggle so to understand it or to even know that it exists? Why isn't it more obvious? Why should we need a teacher for something that is so basic to our existence? Thank goodness we don't need a manual to learn to breath!

Granted, to many people these things are obvious but you'd think something as important as the way to salvation and eternal life and the rules for living would be less ambiguous. I know there's a Bible but, to be fair, even that is full of some contradictions to the humble mind. Perhaps there's an analogy in physics. The laws of physics are absolutely needed to keep the world turning and the light shining from the sun but they continue to work even if we don't completely understand them. It's a mystery to me.

I think another thing suggested by your original post, uraqt (at least in my mind ) is that if something as important as God and spirituality exists why do we have to struggle so to understand it or to even know that it exists? Why isn't it more obvious? Why should we need a teacher for something that is so basic to our existence? Thank goodness we don't need a manual to learn to breath!

Good questions! One point I'd make is that except for a few natural, instinctual reactions like breathing, our human potentialities need to be developed through instruction of some kind. This includes everything from our capacities for language, math, music, relationships, and even our capacity for God. If the potentiality wasn't there, the learning couldn't happen, so our knowledge of God is not something we're merely conditioned to accept, but are pre-disposed to seek and even find.

Granted, to many people these things [i]are obvious but you'd think something as important as the way to salvation and eternal life and the rules for living would be less ambiguous.[/i]

There's pretty much universal concurrence on a core of ethical teachings--don't steal, don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't lie, don't over-indulge in food and drink. There's even a kind of "perennial philosophy" concerning spirituality and mysticism, of which Christianity is a unique manifestation. Things are not quite as ambiguous as they might seem when you did into it a bit.

I know there's a Bible but, to be fair, even that is full of some contradictions to the humble mind.

There are contradictions in Scripture only if one interprets it literally and ignores contextual and developmental considerations. Otherwise, it is internally congruent.

Perhaps there's an analogy in physics. The laws of physics are absolutely needed to keep the world turning and the light shining from the sun but they continue to work even if we don't completely understand them. It's a mystery to me.

I can resonate with that. Same goes for my liver functioning whether I understand it or not. God's life and will go on with or without me as well. Only, in Christianity, what's clear through the revelation of Jesus is that God very much wants us to know and understand these matters, and to be participants with God in the process of creating this world and universe.

Perhaps to return to the opening post, here, I would say that inner and outer processes need to be considered and honored. Without an exoteric tradition to form one's endoteric/esoteric intelligence, each person and each generation would be starting the process of human cultural evolution from point zero. This is as true with regard to religion as it is math or the arts.

My outer teacher is the Church, which I understand to be Christ's continuing physical presence among us (along with Eucharist). Spiritual direction, in particular, is a helpful way to come to be more aware of God's presence and call in one's life.

Good thread. Let's keep it going. Only, I will be moving it to the Christian spirituality forum, where I think it belongs.

Phil

"I think another thing suggested by your original post, uraqt (at least in my mind ) is that if something as important as God and spirituality exists why do we have to struggle so to understand it or to even know that it exists? Why isn't it more obvious? Why should we need a teacher for something that is so basic to our existence? "

Brad, I think a large part of why we need a teacher may be because we have been taught not to trust ourselves especially when it comes to things we cannot readily quantify or rationalize. "If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it or sees it did it fall?" Of course it fell but since we did not see it or hear it personally, we are led to distrust our belief that it did fall. We are taught to distrust that which we cannot hear, see, label, dissect, number or illustrate - we are taught to distrust mystery. We are taught that if we cannot prove it scientifically, it probably does not exist. Deep down inside us though we know differently. We don't know how we know or why and many times cannot even verbalize this but we know that there is something more.. something that we are missing... a longing for something so basic and so much a part of ourselves that we spend much of our lives either seeking because it draws us ever closer or running from because it scares us. We need a teacher for guidance but also for support. We need the wisdom and understanding of others but we also need the witness of others because what we are seeking is not to be found or understood as the world today finds and understands. You see when we know something scientifically we can exercise a type of control over it but we have no control over God and this makes us very nervous. We like to control. We like the security of complete knowledge and understanding - of being able to wrap things up in neat little packages and labeling them and securing them for ourselves but God will not be owned or controlled or made to act as we think he/she should and this is outside of our experience of the way we think things should be. It is not God who will not be understood but we who will not understand, not because we cannot but because we will not and we will not because to do so means we have to admit that we are not in control and can never be in control. The idea of having no control over our lives is frightening but keeping others before us who have relinquished control to God serves to remind us that this is what we are to do, that it is possible to do this, and that we must do this if we are to enter into new life. "I am the way, the truth and the life." What better teacher could we have?
Peace,
Wanda

Interesting point, Wanda. I might say the same thing a bit differently: We live in a culture that values knowledge, that has learned (perhaps too well!) to live by the Scientific Method. We give credence primarily to the provable, as defined by this method. But as Phil has often pointed out, much of our experience lies outside what science can tell us (feelings, emotions, etc.) The assumption is that if something exists then science will eventually get around to an explanation for it. But I wonder.

Before science gained the prominance it enjoys now, people where much more open to a spiritual answer to the questions of their lives. Thtis seems instinctive. Now we expect science to have all the answers. This seems slightly fabricated. And because science has provided explanations for phenomenon that once were seen as mystical it's assumed by many that it's only a matter of time until all mysteries are resolved. If anything, the scientific method has shown that the universe is quite rational. But science is just one (although quite effective) instrument probing the huge expanse of existence. But can it tell us everything?

My hunch is that in the coming centuries we will see the scientific method for what it is: an intergral and important part in our quest to understand existence, but like any refined instrument it has its limits of resolution. What can or will resolve the rest is a mystery to me. Religion and spirituality has always filled the gaps where definite knowledge was lacking. Science has seemed to pushed religion ever further into a corner. But in doing so I think it has helped focus and strengthen the parts of religion that are most important while the reverse, religion's effect on science is largely yet to come.

"My hunch is that in the coming centuries we will see the scientific method for what it is: an intergral and important part in our quest to understand existence, but like any refined instrument it has its limits of resolution. What can or will resolve the rest is a mystery to me. Religion and spirituality has always filled the gaps where definite knowledge was lacking. Science has seemed to pushed religion ever further into a corner. But in doing so I think it has helped focus and strengthen the parts of religion that are most important while the reverse, religion's effect on science is largely yet to come."

Brad, I agree that the scientific method has definite limitations. Perhaps the biggest problem is that it must take what is already known as a starting point. In other words to explore the nature of something, you must begin with something that exists within experience. We could not study the atom before we learned that there was such a thing. We could not study Pluto until we "discovered" Pluto. True scientists may be in their own way some of the most spiritual people alive because they are open to the possibilities and devote their lives to a search for understanding in a way that few others will and they are most open to the understanding that they don't know.
Another limit to the scientific method is that it is directed mostly to the understanding and defining of the laws of nature and does a rather good job of this actually, but the laws themselves don't do anything.. they simply explain what will happen if something else happens first. C.S. Lewis illustrates this well by telling us that the laws of nature describe what will happen if billiard ball a hits billiard ball b. The problem, as he points out, is that unless something causes billiard ball a to move to strike ball b, absolutely nothing will happen. "The laws are the patterns to which events conform: the source of the events must be sought elsewhere." This is where religion and spirituality enter in and those who understand this have no problem reconciling science and religion.
Science has strengthened the parts of religion that are most important by forcing us to keep our focus on the source, but religion also has had an effect on science as well, at least in my opinion. You could say that religion is the voice that listens to the discoveries of science but always comes back with "yes, but..." - keeps the possibilities front and center so to speak.
Any thoughts?
Wanda

Any thoughts?

Yes. You should print out and frame that last post of yours. Pretty good stuff.

To tie this back in with "the teacher," I wonder how many of you might agree that the teachers that are the best for us might not be the ones the we would choose for ourselves? Whether choosing a counselor or academic or spiritual teacher or Church or pastor I wonder if we don't all tend to make "safe" choices; that is, we choose those who reinforce that which we already believe? If so (and I believe it is to a certain extent) how does one best choose a teacher? Or am I wrong. Are most of you naturally attracted to the teacher who most challenges you? Or do we tend to be very adventurous when we are younger and then, as we ripen and have become quite skilled at separating the wheat from the chaff, do we quite rightly focus in on the teachers who fit our styles best?

Originally posted by Brad Nelson:
I think another thing suggested by your original post, uraqt (at least in my mind ) is that if something as important as God and spirituality exists why do we have to struggle so to understand it or to even know that it exists? Why isn't it more obvious? Why should we need a teacher for something that is so basic to our existence? Thank goodness we don't need a manual to learn to breath!

Hi Brad and All,

Good to be rejoining this conversation.

I think you're all making some great points.

Brad, I don't think we have to struggle so much
to understand it. In fact, I think Wanda made a very good point. We are taught not to trust ourselves and coaxed into incorrect attitudes instilled in us from one generation to the next.
(I think some might call this the original sin.)

If you remember, there are many places in the Bible where Jesus talks about tradition blinding people......tradition, in this sense, meaning learned attitudes passed on from one generation to the next.

For example, we are taught that we are separate from God. We are not. We are taught that we are separate from other people. We are not. Some of us are taught that Jesus is so far above us that
we can never realize our divinity as his brother or sister. We are fed ideas of societal and individual alienation from the time we are children. So, we have to learn to unlearn these erroneous ideas and see what is really in front of and inside of us. Let the alienation disappear!

This process can happen in many ways.....For some, possibly introverts, it may happen through a grand disenchantment with exoteric religion. Pure exoteric religion that focuses primarily on external acts does not feed the internal yearnings of many introverts. So, they must search elsewhere for development.......For others, it may happen through the abuse of a spiritual director......(I do not even like the term spiritual director because I think it sets up a false dichotomy between the director/directee that has nothing to do with the equality found in spiritual friendship.)

Anyway, something happens that forces the person
to look for someone or something that can help him/her see what was there in the first place.....
so it's a coming home, if you will. God was there all the time.

Some science and some religion tries to make spirituality a 'head' thing. They use mental gymnastics and mental masturbation to make it difficult and attainable by only a select few. Their male God seems to be the Distant Father who judges and pushes people away. His major concern is justice, not mercy. This view seems to be promoted by many thinking types.....as if their way was the ONLY way. It is not.

I see Jesus as more of a shaman.....in touch with the head but a Master of the Heart......

Brad, do you know about morphogenic fields? Do you think that verbal learning is the only way we learn?

I think teachings are transmitted, if you will, in so many ways......telepathy, touch, eye contact,
etc......


Also, Brad, I agree with you that there are many
contradictions in the Bible but I think the Bible can be read on many levels of consciousness and what seems like a contradiction on one level may be perfectly harmonious on another.

Thanks to all for making this such a good discussion.

Tee

To tie this back in with "the teacher," I wonder how many of you might agree that the teachers that are the best for us might not be the ones the we would choose for ourselves? Whether choosing a counselor or academic or spiritual teacher or Church or pastor I wonder if we don't all tend to make "safe" choices; that is, we choose those who reinforce that which we already believe? If so (and I believe it is to a certain extent) how does one best choose a teacher? Or am I wrong. Are most of you naturally attracted to the teacher who most challenges you? Or do we tend to be very adventurous when we are younger and then, as we ripen and have become quite skilled at separating the wheat from the chaff, do we quite rightly focus in on the teachers who fit our styles best?

Brad,

It's been my experience that my most effective teachers are the 'teachers' who are 'given' to me. Many of them are not at all teachers in the formal sense but I have learned much from them.

I am at a point in my life where I no longer feel comfortable with people who pretend to know more about God than I do. If they want to share their opinions with me, that's fine, but, to have them place themselves above me in some sense, and talk down to me is simply untenable.


If I were looking for a formal teacher, I would
look for someone who understood me and where I was.....who was not overeager to take me on as a student and would work with me as an equal......who exemplified kindness and a search for Truth in his/her own life by walking his/her talk, in so far as he/she was able to do so....

I guess the most important attributes to me would be kindness, compassion, empathy, and a great sense of humor.

I had a good sense of the teachers I worked well with in school. If I were going to choose a spiritual friend/'teacher', I would trust my intuition and God's guidance in order to help me find a basic congruency.

I have had sacramental friendships in my life and they are a blessing......much better than any hierarchical relationships!!!

Good questions Brad!

Tee

Uq... I have to disagree with a blanket condemnation of all tradition. Where we come from is a very real part of who we are, and this is pointed out over and over within Scripture with the recitation of the geneologies. We are formed at least in part by our past and our traditions and these traditions hold a great deal of truth and wisdom that has been tested and proven over time. While this is a part of us - it is not the totality of us... we are constantly remaking the tradition and passing on these revisions to the future generations. We keep what we find to be true and discard that which we believe to be false. We don't always keep what we should or discard what we should though.

If the sins of the fathers are passed on to the son, are not the blessings as well?
Wanda

Originally posted by Wanda:
Uq... I have to disagree with a blanket condemnation of all tradition. Where we come from is a very real part of who we are, and this is pointed out over and over within Scripture with the recitation of the geneologies. We are formed at least in part by our past and our traditions and these traditions hold a great deal of truth and wisdom that has been tested and proven over time. While this is a part of us - it is not the totality of us... we are constantly remaking the tradition and passing on these revisions to the future generations. We keep what we find to be true and discard that which we believe to be false. We don't always keep what we should or discard what we should though.

If the sins of the fathers are passed on to the son, are not the blessings as well?

Wanda,

Good point! What I am saying is not meant to be taken as a blanket condemnation of all tradition.
I agree with you. We must discern the blessings
from the 'sins.' Also, depending on our age and
state in life, tradition may be the best way to
bring about a sound formation.....but I think, that there has to be a point when we let go ofthe image of tradition as being totally correct and take on the more difficult task of personal discernment......I think Jesus did that in the Gospels and we are also called to do it today.

In other words, we've learned some very good things but we've also had some very distorted things passed along to us, too. It's our job as adults to decide what is worth keeping and
to let go of the rest.

What do you think?

Tee


Wanda....just thought of an example I'd like to share with you......

In the Catholic tradition, at the present time, women are not allowed to be ordained as priests.
Although I understand the reasoning some use to promote this idea and I understand why they have to use authoritarian methods like silencing and
exclusion to promote their idea, I think they are unwittingly selling the people in the Church snake oil.

Now, as an adult, I think it is imperative that I
see this for what it is and stand up for my own convictions......call it personal consciousness, if you will. So, I am not rejecting the entire tradition but I am letting go of a part of it that
I think is quite wrong.

Tee

Tee... I totally agree. We just have to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water..


Wanda

I am new to this board and to this topic. I am attempting to respond to the original question.

I have had the interesting experience in that a lot of the insight and wisdom I receive originate within and are confirmed and affirmed afterwards through outside sources. One might say that for every idea you can find both proponents and opponents, but this process has felt more led. Often I was not even looking for confirmation, but found myself tripping over it.

One example was a vision I had ten years ago about the 12 Steps and their general use as a spiritual path. When I had this vision, I knew nothing of the 12 Steps except that it had something to do with AA. It was more than a year later that I tripped over the same idea in a number of different forms.

Recently, I thought of writing a book on the Serenity Prayer and doing a class on the subject. It was then I came across and purchased Philip St. Romain's book on the subject. Month's later, when exploring Spiritual Direction, I stumble across the Shalom Place web site and again come across Phil's name. When exploring his private page, I find that he had also written a book that explores the 12 Steps from the context of a Christian spiritual path.

John

I have had the interesting experience in that a lot of the insight and wisdom I receive originate within and are confirmed and affirmed afterwards through outside sources.

Yes, yes. That's one of the values of an exoteric tradition or teacher, is in validating an experience. I'm convinced this is important. Several times on the journey years ago, I came upon enlightenment type experiences and found them wonderful but also almost too ordinary feeling to be of much significance. My spiritual director helped me to learn to accept these experiences and grow into them rather than "move on."

Recently, I thought of writing a book on the Serenity Prayer and doing a class on the subject. It was then I came across and purchased Philip St. Romain's book on the subject. Month's later, when exploring Spiritual Direction, I stumble across the Shalom Place web site and again come across Phil's name. When exploring his private page, I find that he had also written a book that explores the 12 Steps from the context of a Christian spiritual path.

Well, just wait until you get interested in quantum mechanics or astrophysics and see what I've done there!

Seriously, it sounds like we have a lot in common. Hope you'll visit us often here.

Phil

We are taught not to trust ourselves and coaxed into incorrect attitudes instilled in us from one generation to the next.

Of the many interesting things you said, uraqt, this one caught my eye. I know you are busy so might not get a chance to respond so I'll just speak to the air.

We are taught not to trust ourselves...

It's true. That can happen. It's happened to me (although a good Buddhist would be sure to comment that it is something we actually teach ourselves.)

...and coaxed into incorrect attitudes instilled in us from one generation to the next.

I think the nature of almost any teaching is that it is biased to some extent. And almost any teaching by its very nature is incomplete (there are always details). But teaching is a way for others (often parents) to pass on what they think is necessary for our self-sufficiency and survival. What is taught gets prioritized and what one person may think is important the other may not. And passing on the traditions and ideas and attitudes of the culture one lives in, even if it contains some bad ones, is often necessary for the individual just to get a start in life. In a perfect world we are taught the things we need in order to be able to think for ourselves which should lead to us deciding on what to believe and what not to.

But when the teachings are those that foster dependency rather than self-sufficiency then the individual may indeed have problems sorting out the good from the bad. Pervasive "bad" teachings can corrupt the mechnisms we use for discernment. Not that any teaching is totally objective or that we don't put our own interpretation to it no matter the nature of the teachings, but the mind is quite malleable and we can be easily manipulated. As this relates to religious teaching we can certainly be indoctrinated with a lot of ideas that could be quite harmful - that Jews should be killed, for instance. I would think when someone has been "over indoctrinate" there would be a reaction to reject most everything out of hand. That's seems natural to me.

If we don't come willingly to our beliefs then can it be said we really believe them? I tend to think not. But nor should one be to quick to discount the wisdom of our elders. One of the stupidest things to come out of the 60's was "trust no one over 30." Like I think relates to most everthing in life is to find the right balance. And when we're out of balance the tendency is to swing that pendulum back the other way - so far so that we trade one imbalance for another.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phil:

Well, just wait until you get interested in quantum mechanics or astrophysics and see what I've done there! [UNQUOTE]

Phil,

Quantum mechanics (to the limited degree I have explored it and understand it) has been one of the areas that really stretched my mind and gave me a new way of looking at reality. Its impact on what we can and cannot credibly say about reality is huge!

Physicists are sounding more and more like mystics.

John

Brad wrote (amongst a lot of good thoughts): "And passing on the traditions and ideas and attitudes of the culture one lives in, even if it contains some bad ones, is often necessary for the individual just to get a start in life."
++++++++

Richard Rohr (forgive the faulty paraphrase) would say that everyone has to start out a "conservative" for reasons related to what may be developmentally-appropriate. Then a more liberal tendency can ensue and be fruitful.

I view conservatism and progressivism, both, as charisms, gifts. One is a settler. The next is a pioneer.

Also, I believe that many folks don't ever grow into more mature stages of their faith life (and I eschew over-simplified stage paradigms but .. they are good hatracks, sometimes) and that they need the exoteric teachings as an outer skelton, so to speak. Those who cooperate with the hard task of transformation and get in touch with the more esoteric nuances of the faith are rewarded with an endoskeleton and more freedom.

People in early stages of development (morally) likely need some fear (not disproportionate like 7 year olds going to hell) to protect themselves and others from even worse dysfunction. Later in one's growth, anyone in touch with all of the moral exculpability escape clauses provided by our more highly nuanced teachings is going to experience more freedom and less fear. They may even be more in touch with how totally out to lunch our Magisterium has been on many issues (speaking as Roman Catholic who likes to use the Anglican third leg of reason). They won't likely confuse essentials and accidentals. One valid criticism of this beloved JPII's papacy that I can offer is his wrongful elevation of some accidentals to essential status.

Covering for qt on the liberal front (although I'm really a progressive conservative) -
jboy

Also, I believe that many folks don't ever grow into more mature stages of their faith life (and I eschew over-simplified stage paradigms but .. they are good hatracks, sometimes) and that they need the exoteric teachings as an outer skelton, so to speak. Those who cooperate with the hard task of transformation and get in touch with the more esoteric nuances of the faith are rewarded with an endoskeleton and more freedom.
++++++
My recollection is that this is a Brother David Steindl-Rast metaphor. Whoever came up with it, I like it

I mention that because it would be great to relocate and re-read should anyone come across it. Also, it is SO good it truly deserves attribution. And finally, even if I mis-attribute it --- I would not want to claim what ain't mine (which, over the years, is very little with respect to substance and very much with respect to style --or a lack thereof )

shalom,
jb

from jwb: Physicists are sounding more and more like mystics.

Indeed! Have you read some of the dialogues between Fritjof Capra and Br. David Steindl-Rast? Excellent!

Of course, you know I was joking about my work in those areas, I hope. I'm a rank amateur when it comes to understanding some of the basic concepts. Qui Est, Wanda, uraqt and Brad have a better grasp on most of it than I do.

------------

from Brad: "And passing on the traditions and ideas and attitudes of the culture one lives in, even if it contains some bad ones, is often necessary for the individual just to get a start in life."

That seems so obvious, but because it's not always done very well by parents or institutions, people sometimes want to question the whole idea of an exoteric tradition, assuming that our innate intelligence would be sufficient. I daresay that wouldn't go well at all. I'd much rather see more effort put into reforming those aspects of formative traditions that aren't working well than to scrapping the whole idea altogether--unless one kind of likes living in caves and chasing animals around with clubs and living in sewage.

----------

from Qui Est. I view conservatism and progressivism, both, as charisms, gifts. One is a settler. The next is a pioneer.

Interesting! And I'm sure progressives would go along with delight!

I'd like to nuance this a bit, however, and say that conservatism has no real argument with progress or change--but insists that these not be divorced from the kinds of principles and values which define conservatism. In other words, I don't think conservatism is about "not-changing," although that's surely a common use of the term, but, more to the point, is about change guided by rational and moral principles. It seems to me that progressives/liberals are sometimes a little too quick to say that such principles themselves need to be changed--and that's where most of the contention between these "camps" resides. Agreed?

I like the rest of your post a lot--especially your points about attentiveness to the requirements of various developmental levels.

Covering for qt on the liberal front (although I'm really a progressive conservative)

Same here: progressive conservative. I like that!

My guess is that many who read this forum would consider me a staunch conservative, and rightly so. But keep in mind that I've been "released" from two jobs in the Catholic Church largely because I was considered too liberal or progressive.

Go figure that one!

Phil

Phil wrote: "It seems to me that progressives/liberals are sometimes a little too quick to say that such principles themselves need to be changed--and that's where most of the contention between these "camps" resides. Agreed?"

The way I would put it is that someprogressives may be too quick to toss out someessentials and someconservatives hold too fast and too long to someaccidentals.

Yesterday's progressives become the icons of tommorrow's conservatives, like the mendicants and reformers who are Doctors of the Church: Juan de la Cruz and Teresa of Avila, like those who told the pope where he oughta live like Catherine of Sienna, like the little one from Assisi, etc

Phil also wrote:
My guess is that many who read this forum would consider me a staunch conservative, and rightly so. But keep in mind that I've been "released" from two jobs in the Catholic Church largely because I was considered too liberal or progressive. +++ +++ +++

That was on my mind but for you to point out. Don't worry, Phil. I will say what you wish you could say with impunity inasmuch as your superego must still have vestiges of these deformative influences which hinder you in your move toward the left [JUST KIDDING ]Truly, the irony has not escaped me when you occassionally getting lumped in as an alter ego of the hierarchy.

shalom,
jb

unless one kind of likes living in caves and chasing animals around with clubs and living in sewage.

That really gave me a chuckle. Just wanted you to know.