Hi Arlo Thanks for below. I have no doubt that these things look very different in the US compared to the very secular UK. In the UK students with religious belief can find it very difficult to raise their views at many universities where 'secularism' can be a bit of an unquestionable set of values that don't recognise that they are values.
regards David M > [DM] > I find myself very concerned by the dualism and scientism of the > Enlightenment > and interested in what both high romanticism, idealism and eventually > post-modernism have to say about the limitations and ideology of the > Enlightenment. > > [Arlo] > Fully agree. Much to the bane of some, I consider Pirsig's MOQ to be a > post-modern philosophy. Like anything else, I look back at the > Enlightenment > and see both what it gave us, and what it took away. I think ZMM is clear > treatise of the problems of the dualistic reason brought by the > Enlightenment. > > [DM] > In this context, I am concerned about the ideology of secularism and its > entanglement with SOM. This SOM based secularism undermines the value of > many > aspects of experience as merely subjective. And it seems to think that > knowledge can be attained via an impossibly value-neutral objectivity. > > [Arlo] > Coincidentally, there was a short article in Newsweek this week about the > word > "secularism" and how the right-wing has demonified the term. Let's be > clear, I > use "secular" in the meaning "not derived from nor associated with > religion". > When Pirsig himself calls the MOQ "anti-theistic", he is (IMO) clearly > stating > the MOQ is secular. Does the MOQ leave room for "mystic experience"? You > bet. > We should speak more about the Buddhism present in Pirsig's philosophy. > > [DM] > Now if we reject this SOM and see our values and knowledge as inseparable > and > all our activity as pragmatic forms of life, where does this leave > religion > post-Enlightenment? > > [Arlo] > Scrambling to reinvent itself as a "philosophy of freedom". And in a > politically troubled world, the pendulum is swinging quite far towards > "fundamentalism" (literalism) and away from "mysticism" (metaphoricity). > Men > seem to want pre-made microwavable beliefs rather than explore the > metaphors > (such as Campbell) that all men use to point towards the "black hole" in > the > center of our experiences. (Pardon the sexism) > > [DM] > Whilst accepting that religion has been strongly tied to social control > and > ideology, is not a part of religion about upholding values? > > [Arlo] > That's what it says. My question is, does "man" need religion to uphold > values? > Or is there a better way? My vote is on "better way". > > [DM] > I wonder, does not a post-enlightenment idea of values not mean that we, > in as > far as religion is a matter of values, need to be more open to allowing > religious people to hold and explore whatever values they hold? > > [Arlo] > Absolutely. My two condemnations here revolve around the reificiation of > social > power (the "Church") and the move towards literalism, which leads people > away > from a better understanding of the human condition. > > For example, rather than say "Christianity is true, and Buddhism is > false", I > think its better to explore what both metaphors were striving to point > towards. > If its all "a finger pointing at the moon", we should drop the > nationalistic > and tribalistic notions of "right" and instead consider "best". > > You'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at how little many > self-professed > "Christians" in this country know about the history of the their own > belief. > Start talking about Mithraic traditions, for example, and many just stare > blankly. Heaven forbid, you start talking about the global solstice > ceremonies, > the appropriation of pagan fertility rites, and the archetypal meanings > suggested in both the Occidental traditions and, say, the Lakota > traditions. > > This is simply to say, if you mistake me for someone who is > anti-spiritual, or > anti-mysticism, or who is promoting dualistic reason, then either I have > not > articulated my positions clearly, or you are buying into Platt's idiotic > nonsense. > > [DM] > Is this not what diversity and pluralism really requires? Equally, we also > need > to insist that all people recognise that values differ and that we all > have to > learn to live with people who have different values and we have to find > appropriate compromises where these conflict and accept that values and > people > change and can choose to move between different communities. > > [Arlo] > Certainly and absolutely. You'll recall that a short while ago, the > self-professed "freedom" hypocrits actually applauded a law banning Muslim > women from practicing their tradition of wearing the hijab. I stood up for > this, the same way I would stand up for a Hindu wearing a Bindi, or a Jew > wearing a Yarmulka. > > When religions are seen as metaphorical maps towards understanding > something > which can never be spoken, they are the best things we have going. They > are (as > I've said recently) "textual art". When they become nationalist > ideologies, > however, where others are denigrated, and agency is regulated by the > social > power structure born of this ideology, then we slide into the nightmare > that > Enlightenment reason freed us from. We have farther to go, to be sure, but > not > backwards. > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
