In the sea of love, I melt like salt, Faith, Doubt - they both dissolve. A star is opening in my heart, The worlds turn in it.
Rumi On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 2:13:48 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1499/2055 > > Once we realize this omnipresence of the imaginary in the everyday, > nothing special is left to explain concerning religion. What needs to be > explained is the much more general question, how it is that we can act so > much of the time towards visible people in terms of their invisible halo. > The tool for this fundamental operation is the capacity for imagination. It > is while searching for neurological evidence for the development of this > capacity and of its social implications that we, in passing, will account > for religious-like phenomena. Trying to understand how imagination can > account for the transcendental social, and incidentally religion, is a > quite different enterprise to accounting for the religious for itself in > terms of modules, or core knowledge, which, in any case, we share with > other primates. Unlike this, imagination does seem to distinguish us from > chimpanzees and perhaps also distinguishes post-Upper Palaeolithic humans > from their forebears. > > This is from a paper by Maurice Bloch. I have no problem in accepting > imagination. I wonder what we should do about religious stupidity in the > transcendental social and that stupidity that cannot distinguish the > transcendental and transactional social domains? Less corruption in both > would make life better. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
