On Sunday 08 June 2008 2:22 PM David M writes to DMB Hi DMB Thanks for your thoughts below. Nothing there that I feel inclined to argue with. Anything I need to confess? I don't think so. I have a passion for philosophy and science and I would accept that such a passion may have a religious dimension and I am happy to read religious texts from all corners of the planet to see what they have to say and I find eastern religious thought/work to be the most interesting. But I have no interest in any form of religious organisation, which I find very unappealing. So I don't think your hunch is on to anything hidden. I do accept the balance of powers/forces are very different in the US, the UK is very unreligious but interestingly perhaps even more anti-intellectual than the US, and this balance would perhaps make me want to take a different position if I was an American. But I am not. In Europe Reason with a capital R has been more of a master and perhaps a bit of a dictator. Continental philosophy has questioned this all powerful reason and its metaphysics to give us our current talk of post-metaphysics, post-essentialism, and now some post-secularism and lots of rethinks about things like science and religion post-metaphysics, etc. >From this place, the way a metaphysical reason dealt with religion and opposed itself to religion looks like it should be revisited. This makes people like Hitchens and Dawkins look like thinkers who have no idea about the death of metaphysics and the re-thinking of Reason that is post-metaphysical and post-essentialism/dualism, etc. Maybe this does not have much to say about or to fundamentalisms. But I wonder. In terms of values I am more than happy to call myself a secularist. But did not secularism attempt to claim that its values had some sort of special support from Reason and logic and science? Did this not go too far? And did this unfair use of reason not damage the authenticity of reason? So that the religious were forced to attack and reject reason as the only way to defend their values? In other words do we not need to defend reason and science against scientism so that we can get on with discussing our different values without making inappropriate use of reason and science. To reduce this to a simple example: do we only have our selves to blame for 'intelligent' design and 'scientifically justified' creationism because we made the mistake of claiming that anything ever demonstrated or proved the death or non-existence of god? Or perhaps I am suggesting that SOM started a war with religion that perhaps MOQ can help to bring to an end, or at least a less hot war. So did SOM make the culture wars worse? That's my basic suggestion, I am not sure hos useful this approach is but I think it is worth exploring. At least, can MOQ improve the poor quality of the current battles and debate? regards David M <snip>
Hi David M, DMB and all, Your paragraph is full! Did SOM make the culture wars a low quality conflict? Thomas Aquinas from the twelfth century, and Augustine from the fifth century AD, IMO had quality. Aquinas suggested that the word ³religio² could have come from either ³re-lego² to reread, or ³re-ligo² to rebind. It¹s been over forty years ago since I studied him, but I seem to recall that he was happy with either derivation. Religion! Maurice Nicoll a modern student of Jung, Gurdjieff and Ouspensky had this to say about being conscious of what you know in his Psychological Commentaries vol three p 1208: ³To know and to be conscious are not the same.² IMO DQ is undefined in consciousness. Knowledge accepts definition, metaphor, analogy, or gesture! In my search I hope I don¹t leave certain rocks unturned by confusing social (COL) and intellectual patterns (SOL) with a maniacal aversion to the history of thought of SOM! How big a tar brush must I carry? I want to be never wrong! II + II = V Joe On 6/8/08 2:22 PM, "David M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi DMB > > Thanks for your thoughts below. Nothing there that I feel inclined to argue > with. > Anything I need to confess? I don't think so. I have a passion for > philosophy and > science and I would accept that such a passion may have a religious > dimension > and I am happy to read religious texts from all corners of the planet to see > what > they have to say and I find eastern religious thought/work to be the most > interesting. > But I have no interest in any form of religious organisation, which I find > very > unappealing. So I don't think your hunch is on to anything hidden. I do > accept the > balance of powers/forces are very different in the US, the UK is very > unreligious > but interestingly perhaps even more anti-intellectual than the US, and this > balance > would perhaps make me want to take a different position if I was an > American. > But I am not. In Europe Reason with a capital R has been more of a master > and > perhaps a bit of a dictator. Continental philosophy has questioned this all > powerful > reason and its metaphysics to give us our current talk of post-metaphysics, > post- > essentialism, and now some post-secularism and lots of rethinks about things > like science and religion post-metaphysics, etc. From this place, the way a > metaphysical > reason dealt with religion and opposed itself to religion looks like it > should be > revisited. This makes people like Hitchens and Dawkins look like thinkers > who have > no idea about the death of metaphysics and the re-thinking of Reason that > is post-metaphysical and post-essentialism/dualism, etc. Maybe this does not > have much to say about or to fundamentalisms. But I wonder. In terms of > values > I am more than happy to call myself a secularist. But did not secularism > attempt to > claim that its values had some sort of special support from Reason and logic > and > science? Did this not go too far? And did this unfair use of reason not > damage > the authenticity of reason? So that the religious were forced to attack and > reject > reason as the only way to defend their values? In other words do we not need > to defend reason and science against scientism so that we can get on with > discussing our different values without making inappropriate use of reason > and > science. To reduce this to a simple example: do we only have our selves > to blame for 'intelligent' design and 'scientifically justified' creationism > because > we made the mistake of claiming that anything ever demonstrated or proved > the death or non-existence of god? Or perhaps I am suggesting that SOM > started a war with religion that perhaps MOQ can help to bring to an end, > or at least a less hot war. So did SOM make the culture wars worse? > That's my basic suggestion, I am not sure hos useful this approach is > but I think it is worth exploring. At least, can MOQ improve the poor > quality > of the current battles and debate? > > regards > David M 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/
