> [Michael]
> Again exemplifying why I insist on distinguishing theism into the
> most inclusive definition (in your terminology, the esoteric only)
> and the rest, which I would refer to as "theistic practice" or
> "theistic cultural manifestations" or "religions"...
>
> [Arlo]
> And this is terminology I don't accept, namely because "mystical
> esotericism" does not infer nor demand nor point to a "god".
> "Theism"
> is a "belief in god, a god or gods", and is quite different from the
> mystic esotericism I am talking about. I know you want to make this
> distinction, but I don't understand why you burden yourself with a
> word ("theism") that has historically and culturally pointed to
> something else. Theism is theism. It is "god". That is NOT mystical
> esotericism. "Theism" is one (of many) human historical-cultural
> responses to Quality, which when taken with other such responses
> comprimise the entirety of the Mythos. Where "Theism" points to a
> God
> (even if its an indescribable, unknowable God), mystical esotericism
> points out that God is but one face of the Void. You seem to want to
> conflate "God" with this Void, but that is incorrect, "God" is only
> but one of its many, countless, historical, cultural masks. But if
> all we have is this terminological difference, that's not too bad I
> suppose.
MP: Again; I'm not saying theism is mystical esotericism *in its entirety* (as
if
theism is the only 'way') I'm saying its *part* of it. I'm reacting only to the
clear
negative reactions here toward theism (even if inclusive and about g*d) where
IMO its no less valid than any other mystical esotericism being so gleefuly
proposed as *the* way. David's arguments against theism amounted to trauma
induced hostility toward the Roman Catholic church, while his praises of the
mystical experience amounted to an argument that supports theism (g*d.) I'm
reacting that if you want this mystical esotericism, theism (g*d) is
necessarily
going to be part of it.
> [Michael]
> But you seem to be suggesting you think humanity can operate any
> differently by adopting an MoQ over SOM?
>
> [Arlo]
> So did Pirsig, I'd wager.
MP: Then I'd wager he was wrong.
> [Michael]
> How will changing the accepted metaphysics to something *less*
> tangible, obvious, or in line with what human perceptions lead us to
> believe is the case make people be relatively any less sheep like
> rather than *more*, or obviate the need for an "initiate" group?
>
> [Arlo]
> My point here was in citing Hall's belief that the human condition
> is one where the mass of people will always be like sheep. By the way,
> this contention was also held by the Apostle Paul, who had said that
> they are children, to be fed with milk, while the latter (the wise)
> were men to be fed with meat. I go back and forth in my agreement
> with Hall, finding such elitism not my taste, but then looking at the
> world and seeing so very many falling deeper and deeper into the
> sheep-like role Paul described. We are thousands and thousands of
> years advanced from our pre-historic roots, but has the human
> condition changed? Do a greater percent of the human population
> understand love, art, beauty, Arete, agape, honor, devotion than in
> the past? Do a greater percent of the modern population understand
> the mystical esotericism of the Void than a hundred years ago? A
> thousand? Ten thousand? The cynic in me says no.
MP: Man, the *optimist* in me says no. You don't want to know what the cynic
in me thinks about it.
> [Arlo]
> (Of course, Hall (and
> Paul) would say such a world is impossible, that invariably the
> masses will reflock to the exoteric doctrines offered by those
> seeking power.)
MP: As do I.
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/
