Sometimes Molly, the stuff starts with odd mentions of scripture and leads to personal spamming from the sect. I have no such suspicions here and am sure it's just the way our posts automatically look like a 'reply' made gw wonder about my response to the more general feeling produced in me by the thread. At bottom my belief is that we are manipulated into emotional positions almost as pack wolves (or some birds) form a hierarchy. Generally 'politics' is so exasperating we are supposed to give up on it and trundle along as cogs in wheels being as 'happy' as we can. There would seem to be a big connection in this between emotions and manipulation, probably a depressing and stressful one (perhaps better a bullying one). Emotions often seem to run highest almost at the point they are most denied. I still feel almost childishly hurt by discovering most religion forced down my throat was rubbish, but perhaps more these days that the 'void' never fills with anything more sensible. One might even suspect that our party politics relies on this 'void' to maintain its chronic, emotive and dated posturing - and that the 'void' may be a kind of 'public silence' brought about by the old taboo of not discussing religion and politics in pubs (a metaphor for 'polite conversation').
Dawkins goes back to his birthplace in Kenya in a recent re-hash of basic biology and meets the black leader of a sect hiding the bones of archaeological finds. It turns out that the bishop thinks evolution means his actual great-grandmother was a chimpanzee. Typical of Dawkins - only prepared to play with religious strawmen. I suppose my sweeping grand-narrative is that it is a waste of time looking to sacred texts where there are actually 'bones' to find - but also that there often is a route beyond embedded emotional-ignorant postures and that these might be the 'bones' for discourse to something more appropriate. Endless news always seems like censorship to me these days - simply filling what should be a considering space with a dominant view. I know enough of Kenya to wonder how bad things may be for a sect to arise based on 'bone hiding', but am still clueless about how 'we' have failed to allow ourselves more understanding of why we don't need absolute truth (as in the crass notion we must be 'objective') and experience more fellowship in a journey that will always doubt it. Even such a journey is somewhat stuck with evidence- faith and difficult epistemological arguments that may as well be religious edicts to the many who won't be able to understand them directly in argument. I feel a shudder at the 'return of religion' that reference to the 'sacred' arises in me - but I shudder regularly on what the intellect produces without trying to work through the history of its own disappointments and in denial of the return of desire. No Bible here, but no doubt references to other 'holy text' (Zizek springs to mind). My guess is many of our problems arise because emotion is what is played to rather than sensible models - an inevitable failure of what we have structured as democracy or leadership. I believe public scrutiny could bring about some therapy if we got enough into scrutiny. Even words like purity can lead me to some nausea Molly - but the thought of silencing any of what you say leads to real sickness. Norbert Elias often seemed to be saying were were so scared of emotions we invented manners. I deeply believe this too, and that we ended up with a wrongly mannered society (no doubt another holy reference here!) - my guess is that sharing what makes us feel uneasy, even if the references of the other, is much better than diplomacy of the smiling brotherhood conducted as way by other means. I think Sartre was tapping into a feeling that we are beaten down so much we go to utterly avoidable war. On 5 Oct, 13:38, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I too was wondering how our conversation about the role of emotions > became one of scripture and suspect Pat and I of thread hopping to > some degree here. It is, I think, important to note that so many have > emotional reactions to religion, whether in ecstasy or anger. In my > day to day, I try not to even mention the word God except to people > that I know share a reverence. I rely instead on acceptable cliches > such as Oh God, Thank God, My God, Lordy Lordy, God Almighty etc., to > summon the Logos without offense or barriers to relatedness. > > Here, I can see that Sartre's ideas shed light on the process of anger > or resentment or indifference as emotional responses that relieve us > of the responsibility of participating in the greater world or > possibility available. These responses carry with them old tracks and > experiences about religion that turned us from faith, or taught us to > avoid the mention of it. Perhaps even more complex emotions that > include crisis in faith, or experiences where what we knew to be true > was contradicted in such a way that we rebelled against all faith. > Emotions here can run high, and take us right to the edge of the > deeper parts of our selves. > > On Oct 4, 8:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > sorry gw - I always just post at the end - it's the general emotional > > exchange around 'sacred text' that worries me. I'd cite specific > > material, as I hardly ever reply to an individual post. > > > On 5 Oct, 01:23, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Would you care to clarify exactly what it is that you that worries you > > > about the message you quoted? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: archytas <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Sun, Oct 4, 2009 7:41 pm > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: The Role of Emotion > > > > always worry about this kind of emotional exchange. > > > On 4 Oct, 18:07, [email protected] wrote: > > > or Molly - Is the message indicating that the same data may be viewed > > > from > > > ifferent perspectives. The views implied are a close up of details > > > (i.e.in the > > > idst of forest viewing the closest tree) contrasted with a wide angle > > > view ( > > > .e. observing from the vantage point of being on the edge of the forest.) > > > This > > > dea could be expanded to include other dimensions (i.e. observing the > > > forest > > > rom the vantage point of an airplane.) > > > > Or - again - I wonder if what is implied is the different meanings of > > > xperience when viewed from the vantage point of linear logic contrasted > > > with > > > ntuition. Or once more the difference in perspectives if one views the > > > raw > > > ata of experience from the vantage point of linear logic contrasted with > > > "pure > > > eelings' and both contrasted with what I like to call experiential logic > > > (a > > > ombination of all sources of information including thoughts, feelings, > > > ensations, and intuitions). > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:17 pm > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: The Role of Emotio > > > n > > > > have really been mulling over the "Lord has seen" translation in > > > elation to the "Lord provides," given the 20th century christian > > > ystical interpretation of the manifestation of experience. > > > While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things > > > hich are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but > > > he things which are not seen are eternal. > > > Corinthians 4:18 > > > I think there i > > > s something to the seeing, that is also providing, or > > > ringing the infinite into the moment (the temporal.) There must be > > > omething to so many translations using provide, and others seen. > > > Thanks for the pointers. > > > On Sep 30, 7:49 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 29 Sep, 17:39, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=NASB > > > > > It is in the New American Standard translation > > > > The New Living Translation > > > > English Standard Version > > > > > and maybe others... > > > > Unfortunately, it's not the best translation of the Hebrew. The > > > Hebrew has YHVH-YRAH (YHVH-Yirah) or 'The Lord has seen (to it)'. > > > Loosely, it's similar in that, if the Lord has seen to it, he provided > > > for it, but the root of the word YRAH is YRH, which is the verb > > > meaning 'to see' in its metaphorical sense of 'see what I mean' and > > > similar. So, to translate it as a derivation of 'to provide' isn't > > > exactly the truest translation. Rats!! > > > > > This is a nice site that allows the comparison of translations. > > > > > On Sep 29, 12:09 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 29 Sep, 15:51, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Exactly. It is just a diagram for getting out of the way and > > > allowing > > > > > > grace in our experience. I watched the movie "The Legend of > > > Bagger > > > > > > Vance" the other day, and while I am not really a fan of Will > > > Smith or > > > > > > Matt Damon, the screenplay=2 > > > 0in this movie, I think, is terrific. > > > > > > Especially when the golfer's caddy instructs him "most golfers are > > > > > > looking for the perfect swing. But what they don't understand > > > is, you > > > > > > don't find the swing, the swing finds you." And that's it. Just > > > get > > > > > > out of the way, and that swing will find you. Same story. > > > > > > Question Molly: Where did you read that about the name of the > > > > > mountain being 'The Lord Provides'? As far as I am aware, that > > > > > 'mountain' was the Temple Mount and the rock on which the sacrifice > > > > > was to take place was the rock that is, now, under 'The Dome of the > > > > > Rock'. I.e., the mountain is currently called 'Zion'. If it was > > > > > called 'The Lord Provides' then that lends credence to my theory > > > that > > > > > there is enough room on it NOW for a third building between the two > > > >=2 > > > 0> that are there now, i.e., the Third Temple. Thus, the mountain STILL > > > > > has the potential to provide for the means towards future > > > > > reconciliation between Isaac and Ishmael. At which translation were > > > > > you looking? Because I'm going to go home and check out the actual > > > > > Hebrew and see for myself. This could be the basis for a very > > > > > powerful argument towards peace and reconciliation, as I see it. > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 10:35 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 29 Sep, 14:39, Molly Brogan <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Very interesting, Slip. This is the passage of the bible I > > > have > > > een > > > > > > > > contemplating for several weeks. The meaning wasn't clear to > > > me > > > ntil > > > > > > > > I read a translation of the bible that had Abraham naming the > > > ountain > > > > > > > > where he took Isaac to sacrifice "The Lord Provides." I don't > > > hink > > > > > > > > this is really a passage about killing our children, although > > > there > > > > > > > > are plenty of opinions in that vein to be found. I think it > > > is the > > > > > > > > passage that explains to us the process of the manifestation > > > of our > > > > > > > > experience, and the necessity to let go of our own goals or > > > reations, > > > > > > > > and sacrifice our suffering (the ram in the thorns) so that > > > it is > > > ut > > > > > > > > of the > > > way and the our highest potential can become manifest. I > > > ind > > > > > > > > hope in this passage, and instruction. > > > > > > > > And, as Jesus said in Gethsemene, 'not my will, but Thine be > > > done.' > > > > > > > I.e., He was asking for the Lord's provision. > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 8:18 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes of course, communicate with God alone, happened the > > > other > > > ay, > > > > > > > > > then he told me to kill my son, said like Abraham, said not > > > to > > > orry > > > > > > > > > that he wont die, I said 'wont that be attempted murder'? > > > God > > > aid > > > > > > > > > "yes, but don't worry,20I'm God and I'll have you out in > > > 5-10 > > > ith > > > ood > > > > > > > > > behavior and if you read my book that will be easy!" > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 6:31 am, Pat <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Sep, 17:39, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Emotions can be expressed in isolation. > > > > > > > > > > > Absolutely. In that way, we communicate our feelings to > > > God > > > lone. > > > > > > > > > > Not that God doesn't receive the messages when we are NOT > > > lone, > > > ut > > > > > > > > > > He is the only receiver when we ARE alone. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 11:05 am, Pat > > > <[email protected]> > > > rote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27 Sep, 17:13, Molly > > > Brogan <[email protected]> > > > rote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What role does emotion play in our everyday lives? > > > How > > > oes emotion > > > > > > > > > > > > > affect our experience and being? These are > > > questions > > > ddressed by > > > > > > > > > > > > > some of the finest minds of our era. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For Piaget, emotion is the motivating force of > > > action > > > manating from > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the individual in the form of sensations > > > emitted > > > y objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > His view is rooted in the Newtonian conception of a > > > niverse comprised > > > > > > > > > > > > > in isolated objects requiring an emotive force to > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
