> Andre: > This is my rift with you and theism (this-ism, that-ism any 'ffen -ism)), > and as I mentioned before, if your gd is the exact equivalent of > Quality...why not call it Quality. But your gd IS NOT the same. > MP: I specifically have said g*d is NOT the exact equivalent of Quality. I said the two were analogous in that they are two ways of understanding the same[ineffable] thing.
> Andre: > I do not want to make it too complicated but , for me, the difference lies > in the word IN:I experience or do I believe IN (my experience). These are > two very different questions and the answers will be different as well. > MP: If you experience DQ, what do you think immediately afterwards? Do you recognize something different has happened? Or do you keep going, oblivious that anything has happened? I highly doubt its the latter as you would not be talking about it. Whereas the former *is* belief; you *know* something has happened. You *believe* it. One does the exact same thing upon a mystical esoteric moment in a theistic context. It is just processed differently based on different reality world views; and those are no longer "belief" but action; religion, philosophy, metaphysics, and in its narrow definition theism. Even the most inclusive definition of theism can be said to be after this moment. Immediately after it, but after it nonetheless. But the only thing that is interjected there is the cultural static values that make up the organic static pattern of values that has that moment. One in a theistic context, will be experiencing the theistic seed moment, one in an MoQ world will be experiencing DQ. But what's going on is the same. > Again, the historical connotations with theism posit the latter notion of > 'experience' of something which is immediately associated/subsumed with/by > some theistic being/thing identified as something outside of yourself. And, > on top of this you get immediate acknowledgement (positive reinforcement), > if it fits in with accepted notions of attributes of this deity/theistic > belief or damnation (negative reinforcement) if it does not fit the > accepted ideas of etc.... > MP: Here, you are already talking about something after the moment I refer to. You are talking about religion, not pure theism. Not pure belief without prejudice. > > MP: > > I don't think we are that far apart if theism can be understood indpendantly > > of the religious baggage normally attached to it. Hence my persistence. > > Theism IMO is a useful bridge from mysticism to something more MoQ > > 'evolved.' > > Andre: > I agree with you Michael, but are you trying to rid religion of its garbage > (bagage) on your own? > MP: Re-read what I wrote. I'm not trying to rid religion of baggage, religion *is* the baggage. The baggage has attached to theism, not the other way around. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
