[Jon]
But he and you, couldn't be more wrong here. How do you think man
became socialized?
[Arlo]
Likely due to a unintended consequence in neural evolution that
allowed biological humans to recognized shared attention. I'd
recommend Tomaselle's "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition", if
you're interested. It, like the MOQ, proposes that some manner of
pattern on the previous level acted as a catalyst for the emergence
of this newer level. Biological patterns (as we see them) emerged out
of certainly complexities of the carbon atom. Intellectual patterns
emerged when social patterns evolved to a state of complexity
sufficient to allow a consideration of social symbols as
patterns-for-inquiry in and of themselves.
[Jon]
The primitive cannabals had a specific belief system. It was
Christian missionarys that brought them a different one. Even the
concept of being civilized once referred to being Christianized.
[Arlo]
This is so fraught with misguided ideas, Jon, I'm not even sure where
to begin. Christians, no doubt, had a very condescending view of the
"inferior" peoples who had not yet embraced their "god". In the
service of "civilizing" the Native Americans, many missionaries
burned the tongues of Indians daring to speak "their devil language".
That Christians referred to their acts as "civilizing" is simply one
more shameful point in that religion's history.
[Jon]
A closer look at what you know doubt consider the abuses of
Christians will show that this was a Christian world view joined with
the Greeek pagan ground motive.
[Arlo]
Greek influence in Western culture, I'd accept, was an influence from
which secular enlightenment was able to finally free itself from the
tyranny of western religion. We, in the West, owe the Greeks a bit of
thanks for this. But you could likely make the argument that it was
the schism between reason and spirituality that led to the dubious
choice (in the West) between S/O intellect and de-metaphorized religion.
As DMB already pointed out, the goal would be "beautiful science,
intelligent art and a religion that isn't threatened by either." This
would go back and examine the schism in Western history that led to
the afforementioned dubious choice we had.
[Jon]
You don't know the origins of the rights you insist on
[Arlo]
On the contrary, I most certainly do. And they do NOT originate in
the mandate of a imaginary being. They originate in the intellectual
valuation of such rights as being the best ordering of society. They
are rights we claim for ourselves, and the pandering of "thinkers" to
claim they derive from a god is simply more hogwash we can do without.
[Jon]
What has moq to say but such naive conclusions about the nature of
man and the re-writing of history.
[Arlo]
If this is how you feel, Jon, why are you here? Wouldn't your time be
better spent on some Christian theology forum? Are you seeing
yourself as some sort of "missionary", out to "civilize" the infidel
hordes of atheists who do not cower before your imaginary god?
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/md/archives.html
