> Ron said: > You mentioned transcendence, transcendence from cultural definitions, > assumptions > and prejudices. Once this is done, the word God becomes meaningless in a > sense for > how we know this word is defined by culture. Which is the problem and paradox > of > your idea. Even the asterek version brings culture back into the fray which > leads > me to think that God is a cultural word for a culturally transcedent > expereince. > This is why in Hebrew, Gods' name may not be spoken, in Islam the image of > Mohammad > or God may not be depicted, no graven images be made for it brings cultural > prejudice > into it. Both theism and atheism are culturally stigmatized words relaying > the same > cultural prejudices making both terms sort of a non issue in relation to the > MoQ > where belief is formed from practical experience. > > Ron said: > I wanted to add, that given this statement below, ephasizes the importance > of which cultural concepts and how they are chosen to allow how they influence > and color that said experience. Ones that hold practicle consequence in > expereince > having the most value. > > The idea of intent becomes a pivotal topic in this discussion and > one I would like to pursue with you if you are willing. MP: Not sure what remains unclear about my intent in what I said, but discussion is what I am here for, so please, by all means proceed.
In advance, however, I should point out that your paraphrasing in the first post leaves me with words in my mouth that were never there. I never said anything about "transcendence of cultural definitions [etc.]" so I'm not sure your seeing an apparent conflict in what I said holds. The conflict is in what you said I said. What I said was: "I do not deny that belief in God is culturally derived. What I am saying is that belief in g*d is deeper than culture. That it is some sort of inner human drive to seek transcendence. I dare say it is an innate (an not un-importantly notably unique) human drive to seek Quality in existence, Quality that transcends existence. That this need becomes manifest in culture and brings us God is not in question, but in its pure form it it is something else (hence: g*d). In my pedantry on this topic I am simply seeking to delve into what that something else is, esp. v.v. MoQ's Quality." *Belief* is a *drive* to *seek* transcendence. Yes, theism is a culturally shaped response. But "to what?" "why g*d and not a rock?" These are the real questions. (Ham's response to my quoted comment btw also *really* summed it up well in different words.) Going forward in anticipation of your questions/propositions; I fail to see how anyone can argue that cultural context precludes a person's ability to either seek transcendence or even attain it in some way. If this is the MoQ argument, then IMO MoQ is screwed from the outset. We *cannot* escape culture while remaining human. But I'm game to discuss. Change of topic subject? 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/
