[Michael] But you can't know *why* Batman does one thing where Superman does not unless you've spoken to them at length. I'm getting at what Pirsig rightly reveals in his Heidelberg-esque discussion of the anthropological study of Native American culture.
[Arlo] Sure, and my support of critical mythology aligns with this, nay it depends on it. But the dialogue is improved by considering both the Superman and Batman stories from this vantage, and what they tell us about the Human Condition. Those who would say "Superman is real, Batman is false" are locking themselves out of a deeper, broader, richer understanding of the human drama. [Michael] So why do some necessarily reject the theistic POV on things when seeking greater Quality in the whole mess? [Arlo] Well, again, I think my point is that we should take an expanded view, one that encompasses the Mythos (of which theism is a part) but has its gaze cast on the larger question of "where do all these fingers point?" The theistic view is concerned about one particular finger. [Michael] Apologies if I implied you did. I gathered you were defending dmb's view. [Arlo] I can't speak for DMB, but I never got the sense he'd say nothing good ever came out of theism (or the broader Mythos). I think he's looking down from a higher vantage point as well, not necessarily from mine of course. [Michael] I'm saying theism should not be ditched simply because MoQ has a dim view of it, or someone is willing to make a simplistic connection between it and some bad thing. [Arlo] Again, "ditching" is not the right word (IMO). Maybe "subsumed" into a larger view, or "deliteralized" back to its esoteric, analogous root. [Michael] Because, in your Leprechaun example, some people helping ladies across the street end up getting both of them hit by a truck. [Arlo] Yes, but the pitfall of Leprechaunism begins when adherents start promising pots o' gold to those who follow them, who start to pass laws and edicts saying that those who do not follow Leprechaunism are evil, that the Supreme Leprechaun demands certain behaviors and so everyone is coerced into acting that way. You have to look at the total ramifications, and ask is a few old ladies getting across the street (1) dependent on Leprechaunism and (2) enough to make us blind to the detrimental aspects of Leprechaunism. I know you've been separating this as "theology/theism", but that's a separation I do not think exists. Maybe its terminology. If we'd say "Mysticism" instead of theism, or Zen, maybe the distinction would be clearer. [Michael] My entire disagreement with dmb (and my sudden immersion in this listserve where I had intended to dip in liightly, lol) has been his claim that the bad actions he sees exist because of theism rather than simply because people do bad things within an unavoidably theistic cultural context. [Arlo] And I'd only counter with saying if you deny that theism can be the root of "bad things", then you also have to deny it can be the root of "good things". You can give theism credit for good behavior or good results, but then say it can't suffer the blame of bad behavior of bad results. [Michael] Thanks for bearing with me. [Arlo] No "bearing". Its a fun conversation. 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/
