Notes on Heresey

A piece I wrote last night when I couldn't sleep. The original discussion that I had in my head was much better, but I guess this will do.

Audience: Am I to take it then that you feel heresey has an inherent higher power then orthodoxy?

Speaker: Not in the sense that you mean.

Audience: How so then?

Speaker: Do you agree that god is beyond the understanding of the human mind?

Audience: Yes

Speaker: Do you also agree that we can only perceive god through the use of metaphore, and that these metaphores constitute the entiriety of religion? That the various religions are simply different perceptions of this unknown universe?

Audience: Yes

Speaker: Then why should we follow the metaphores of the past? Is it even possible that we can understand these metaphores?

Audience: To a certain degree, yes we can.

Speaker: How so? Meanings have changed. The average Christian does not see the blaphious meaning of comparing the kingdom of god to a mustard seed. They do not even perceive the inherent paradox of the story. With out this understanding, how are they supposed to come to a true understanding of what is meant by the words?

Audience: Through study and meditation.

Speaker: But, by not living in the time that the metaphore was created, in most cases, not even in the region, how are they to understand the metaphore even through study and meditation? A person who has lived their whole life in the desert can not even begin to understand the ocean. No amount of study and meditation can bring the same understanding of what an ocean is, as standing on the shore and seeing it for themselves. And even that does not compare to the understanding of that of a seasoned sailor, who has spent years of their life living on the ocean.
No, it is impossible to fully understand a metaphore that was not created for you. And so we are left grasping at straws. Blindly moving from one path to the next searching for something that we can never find with in the walls of orthodoxy.

Audience: Well, how does heresy solve this problem? Does it not contain the same walls? What about these metaphores provides some universal metaphore?

Speaker: Heresy as an instance is of no more use then orthodoxy. That is not the point. Heresey as a movement though, contains the neccisary freedom. It allows the individual to approach god on their terms. To design their own metaphore and approach god themselves, instead of through another.
When the day of judgement comes, we will not be able to simply justify our actions by saying that we were doing what we were told to do. We must justify the actions by saying that this is how we beleaved we were supposed to act. And this understanding can only be accomplished through heresy.

Audience: But doesn't this theory allow for racism and murder to be justified in the eyes of god? Do all these monsters have to do is to tell god that they were doing what they felt was right, and that makes it good?

Speaker: There is a difference between doing just works because you beleave that is what god wanted you to do, and justifying your actions by saying that that is what you thought god wanted you to do. You can not approach the metaphore and go looking for justification. You must approach it with, what Zen calls, Beginer's Mind. You must approach it with no expectations. Only by coming to it with no expectations of answer, will you be able to truely understand the meaning. And once you have found your own metaphore, then it you simply must follow it. If you approach the metaphore with no expectations, and you still find justification for reprehensable actions, then your actions are just. But, I imagine that these cases are rare. Most, I feel, are simply justifying previous decisions with a metaphore. Here the metaphore is created after the fact. And this is wroung. The metaphore must predate the actions. The actions must come from the metaphore.

Audience: Does orthodoxy serve no purpose then? Are all who follow it, doomed?

Speaker: Orthodoxy provides a vocabulary for discussion. It allows people to compare metaphores, with out spending all their time defining terms. Where their metaphore follows othodoxy, then they can simply refer to orthodoxy.
Whether practitioners of orthodoxy are doomed, is not a statement I can make in a generalized fashion. If the individual truely beleaves that orthodoxy is the correct path for them. If it is their metaphore. Then it is just. If it is simply a crutch that they latch on to, so they do not have to go through the trouble of creating their oown metaphore, and deciding how to see the world on thier own. Then they are misguided, but they are not doomed. The line here, between doomed and misguided is a fine one. The line between misguided and justified in orthodoxy, is also a fine line. It must be approached on a per case basis, and it must be approached by the individual. Anything else is simply one individual imposing their metaphore on others. And this could be seen as the highest of sins.

Audience: So, if orthodoxy can be a justified solution, then why should people bother with heresy? Why walk the hard road, when the easy is right in front of you?

Speaker: Why should a person yern to be free, when they can still draw breath as a slave? Heresy, the defining of a personal metaphore, is the freeest form of spirituality. It is the person making the choice to live their life as they see fit. It is the person deciding that they wish to see god themselves. Instead of simply listening to other people's stories of god. This is why heresy must be followed, and why it is a valid choice before the traveller.

Posted by Matt at June 11, 2003 01:42 AM