to be blunt - to NOT believe in something bigger than yourself is at best being
disingenuous, and at worst being one mega-hubristic fucker.
i do not care what it is called. naming kills things and it kills understanding
too.
the earth is bigger than me - it is a self-regulating system. this means it is
aware - you cannot self-regulate without awareness of the self that is being
regulated...
the earth - gaia - is an intelligent organism, in which i am an integrated
'cell'...
what does that make me - a pagan? ...a neo-pagan-anarchist (by the way - a good
way to get out of voting is to label yourself such - worked for me!)
if i am a pagan does that mean i hold the earth to be a deity, a god or
goddess? does that make me a theist? if i *don't* believe in the intelligent
integrated superorganism called earth/gaia that makes me rather blatantly
contrary, equivalent to a 'flat-earther' in my book.
an avowedly mystical doctrine such as the MOQ is predicated upon the idea of a
mysterious all-encompassing and fructifying force/principle which sits well
with the label 'divine'. the MOQ most definitely points to an intelligent force
- a la Tao - that is the mysterious motor of nature.
i do not understand why we are still caught in the opposing dualism of theism
and atheism. by the way - a counterposed juxtaposition such as this points to a
need for integration, don't you think?
as i have said earlier, religion and science, the latter growing out of the
former, are closely related. when dawkins rails against religion - he is being
very 'religious' in his attitude - very doctrinaire and serious and inflexible.
science, like religion, is a social value pattern - it shapes the world we
inhabit in a process we are *unconscious of*.
the science we are fed is as high quality as the religion we are fed - they are
both kitsch as fuck. fortunately we need not rely on TV or its franchise -
school, for our diets. books have been around a while and this internet thing
is a cracker. you will find the best science is full of mystery - a la einstein
or Bohm. most scientists are interested in facts; good scientists are
interested in mystery.
an area to look at yourself,in science,is biology,which i have studied to PhD
level (1 year then dropped the lab life).the morphogenetic theory of sheldrake
and the new modelof DNA function and its control by perception by dr bruce
lipton ('spontaneous evolution' i think the book is called) and other such
quality science is unable to find fertile ground in school or uni because
...the ground ain't fertile! shit 'the waste land' was 80 years ago or more!
the barren mediocrity of our atomic education system don't like smart guys. i
mean over here they teach psychology, at uni, sans jung and freud! a bit like
physics without newton and einstein!
i guess we are stuck with god as a name for the mystery...i mean we ain't gonna
get rid of it guys. maybe we can reclaim it, and a few others, like 'myth'. god
is basic to being human. as miller said, 'if we don't believe that one day
we'll be gods ; then we sure will end up as worms'.
cos thats how i use the word - it has use to me in that context. to be mortal
or immortal? eternal life? thanks jeff, that'll do nicely. see this stuff is
essential shit man - universal monomyth stuff. it is all to do with the eternal
and the temporal; the divine and the material, and how there is no division
ultimately.
if you get the teleology of the MOQ then see that implies something dunnit? an
attractor, as mckenna might have said, something to which we are
evolving....individually, collectively....what is going on there?
every indigenous culture and our own esoteric traditions tell us the same
stories - we are here to learn and evolve; to become gods ourselves. and as
with zen, one way to look at that is to see that we are gods already, we just
have forgotten that.
god or gods...are these perhaps labels we use to describe the workings of the
unmanifest: archetypes - ARCHETYPES! we ain't gonna get rid of archetypes, we
can only ignore or confuse em and then we miss the function of em -
integration. you think you can remove gods from myths? inseparable. deal with
it. understand the archetype,explore it, cos at the moment it looks like a lot
of folk are just reactive and overly emotional
about it.
--- On Mon, 15/2/10, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: david buchanan <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [MD] The MoQ can't be atheistic
> To: [email protected]
> Received: Monday, 15 February, 2010, 6:05 PM
>
> John:
>
> Three or four times now I have hit the reply button with an
> urge to respond but then I just hit cancel because I
> promised myself I'd cut you some slack. But, dude, this is
> the kind of thing that gives sophistry and specious
> reasoning a bad name. All you've done here is define theism
> in such a way that it is not possible to be anything but a
> theist. All you've done is render the term meaningless.
> But it does shine a little light into the issue. For a lot
> of people, when they say they believe in God, what they're
> really trying to tell you is, "I'm a moral person" or "I
> like the people at church" or "I'm not a boat rocker" or
> "I'm not weird", none of which has anything to do with
> weather or not you really think a supernatural, all powerful
> creator actually exists. Where is it written that you can't
> be moral or have any values unless you believe that? And if
> you're morality springs from such a belief then it's not
> really morality. It's just obedience. It breeds irrational
> attitude of submission to authority and all kinds of thing
> that actually retard moral intelligence.
> And the idea that people become atheists so they can be
> naughty is just the stupidest kind of pop psychology I ever
> heard.
> This doesn't make me splutter my soup. It just makes me
> sad.
>
> The idea of a fat guy wearing a tee-shirt that says, "Too
> big to fail" makes me laugh but you need about 80 more of
> those just to break even.
>
> Let me ask you a straight question. Why do you believe in
> God? Seriously, give me one good reason.
>
> And why are you trying to sell it here, of all places?
> There are literally a million places on the internet and
> many thousands of real-world places that would be more
> receptive and more appropriate. Why do you feel compelled to
> jam it into the MOQ when you know perfectly well that it's
> not about that?
>
> And it's not just you. Time and time again, religious
> people with an agenda show up here and do what you're doing,
> only worse.
>
> God, it's sooooo boring!
>
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:17:39 -0800
> > From: [email protected]
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [MD] The MoQ can't be atheistic
> >
> > Before you splutter your soup all over the floor, I
> better define
> > "atheistic" as I mean it. But to give a concrete
> example, I'll take Arlo.
> > Arlo can't be a pantheist AND an atheist.
> Believing that the whole of
> > nature is the source of being and the source of value
> is what a pantheist
> > does. Atheist has practically come to
> mean "non-christian deists" but it
> > really means there is no god at all, or no good at
> all. It's all just
> > random. Bob Dylan said "ya gotta serve
> something" and by this he means,
> > every person must have a source of values. Where
> a person imagines his
> > values coming from, is his god. If it's all just
> cosmic randomness, then
> > cosmic randomness is your god. Cosmic randomness
> is your good.
> >
> > It seems to me that people posit the good of cosmic
> randomness, in order to
> > free themselves from imposed moral restraint. To
> be free is a moral choice.
> > But how it works out, is that to such people,
> the self becomes the source
> > of values. It's easy and tautological. I
> value what I value. It's
> > complete and irrefutable on its own terms.
> Trouble comes in when you
> > actually start in and asking questions like "who's
> this *I* you talkin'
> > 'bout white man" and learn that your source of
> self-value is on a very shaky
> > foundation.
> >
> > Ultimately, *I* is a social construct, therefore the
> source of values to a
> > self-valuer is the social matrix into which they
> are born and raised.
> >
> > duh.
> >
> > That's always the way it's always been.
> >
> > But social matrices evolve and change. That's
> historical. And today we
> > have a culture and society that brings children into a
> maze of social
> > matrices, and say to them, "choose one". Without
> any over-riding way of
> > choosing, except for parental preference - but usually
> they don't really
> > have a clue.
> >
> > And to my mind, most conspicuous of all is that they
> are never given in
> > training in how to do this choosing, how to figure out
> the kind of thinking
> > it takes to even make such a decision, or analysis,
> and we let them wait
> > until they get to college and try and be
> reprogramed according to the best
> > thinking of the Academy there and then.
> >
> > The MoQ is opposed to all that. The MoQ says
> there are ultimately values,
> > the source of value is undefinable, but the
> realization of value is possible
> > in pure experience. This is a value,
> realized in individuals, that
> > obviates the atheistic assertion that there is no
> ultimate source of values.
> > Thus the MoQ can be anti-theistic, if
> it wants to, but it can't be
> > atheistic without contradicting itself in the most
> blatant ways.
> >
> > Not that that's ever stopped anybody before....
> > 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/
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
> 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/
>
__________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7
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/
