Hi John, No doubt about it that religion is static. It changes names when it changes. I also find intellect to be caught in static patterns. A good idea will catch hold and dominate for a while until a new idea comes about. This is true in science.
It seems to me that for intellect to jump to new ideas, there has to be a dynamic interplay with the non-intellect. It is this submersion for a while followed by rebirth that makes intellect dynamic. It is quite possible, that what is occurring beneath the surface (so to speak) is the driving force behind intellect. The resulting intellectual description is a result of non-intellectual phenomenon. It serves to place a stake in the ground, influence the thinking of others, spread and mature. Possibly intellect springs from Quality, it attaches itself, and Quality sends out a new shoot to climb up the wall of knowledge. I have no idea where my discoveries come from, all I know is that they jumps from one idea to the next without much in between. Eureka! Mark On Feb 13, 2010, at 1:02:08 PM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote: All this intellect vs, religion talk has got me thinking. Religion is something handed down from authority, either your elders or your gods are your authority but either way its something that is given by a social context. When you think about your religion, as opposed to blindly following along with it, you're doing an individual process AND an individuating process and this process is termed "intellectual". Thus, intellect is individual and religion is social. This might seem to you, like it does to me, a "duh" sort of realization, but for some reason it never occured to me to formulate the conflict between the two exactly like that before. I must be all this philosophical debate is doing some good after all. I made a realization! Religion is static. Intellect is dynamic. A religion that doesn't allow intellectual questioning is doomed to become outmoded in time. Whereas intellectual systems, philosophical schools of thought, that abandon religion completely face a different problem - they don't last. There is no social glue to keep things together. This is where the MoQ missteps, imo. By making "Good" subservient to a hierarchical system of values, the intellectual individual becomes paramount, but you can't have individuals without a society anymore than you can have an intellectual questioning of current values without some current values to question. Pirsig makes the point in ZAMM when he describes the Mythos roots of Virtue. 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/ 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/
