Yes, John, and then, on a difficult moment in time, suddenly you'r alone falling back on your own force to carry on , to carry thing . And then you realise that you did not develop this elementary skills for your own, but for others , the intermediators between the gods and the common people, people embedded into religion, forget their own patterns, religion eats your basic reflexes, your basic responding to nature.
Sin. Nobody has to carry the sins of others, it becomes a sin-producing engine if you try to do this in group. It becomes an entity called masshysterics. and if you'r still doubting about sins of your own, then don't be a sinner, and all will be well. I don't think you have to ignore that little inner voice, but do not feed it with quality or so called quality, that is handed over to you by the gospel-interpretors , the intermediators between the word of god and the common man. only feed it with your own dynamic quality, and all wil be well,-- "every last bit of it"-- Adrie 2010/9/9 John Carl <[email protected]> > You nailed, Adrie. It's the reliance upon group consensus and ignoring > that > still small voice, that all groups evolve into. > > And you know why? It's because they can't stand the dreaded uncertainty. > They have to have all the rules spelled out and the lines of authority > clear > so there's no conflict. Thus authority which quashes individual qualities. > It's the age old problem of how to discourage degenerates while permitting > messiahs. > > Sin is a social/intellectual problem rather than a biological/inorganic > one. And it arose in the beginning, according to the story, out of > hierarchical pride in religious patterning. Eliminate that then, and all > problems would go away. > > Who was it that said, "hell is other people"? whoever it was, I agree > completely. > > > misanthropic John > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:46 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think the main problem for this matter is in fact not religion itself, > > but > > one of the implications of it, > > The following of dynamic quality provided by other entities, being lead, > > being flocked, being guided, you'r > > always stepping behind a curtain, as were the dynamism is provided by > > others, it keeps you away of your own > > dynamic quality. > > Adrie > > > > 2010/9/7 John Carl <[email protected]> > > > > > Krimel, Platt and dmb, > > > > > > Krimel, I agree that science is not to blame for the social malaise > that > > > Pirsig describes, that Platt and I concur with. > > > > > > I think dmb makes a good case for the problem being the interaction of > > > science and religion. From my perspective, of a background in studying > > > religious problems, I see the biggest problem being religion. I think > > its > > > religious ideas that are responsible for the mess we're in, and heading > > for > > > worse. One specific idea in particular, covers a whole host of evils - > > the > > > doctrine of original sin. > > > > > > This doctrine says that man is inherently evil. That because of the > > fall, > > > man has sin encoded into his dna. Because of sin, all nature is fallen > > and > > > evil. Because of sin, there is only one possible solution - acceptance > > of > > > Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. > > > > > > Even though this idea might be a clever marketing ploy and helped fill > > the > > > pews with backsides, it's had disastrous effects on the church and the > > > world. > > > > > > In the church, it's tended to coddle the worst of the worst > individuals. > > > Since we're all sinners, it's ok to be a sinner. Hence you end up with > > > preachers, deacons and leaders of the congregation who are venal > > populists, > > > child molesters, adulterers, and greedy assholes. Since salvation by > > works > > > is wrong, then we can only be saved by being convinced of our evil, > > right? > > > And who is most convinced of their own evil? Those who are the most > > evil. > > > Also, those with the most to cover up in their private lives, have the > > most > > > incentive to appear righteous publicly. Instead of sincerity and > truth, > > > church life is full of hypocrites and liars. Those with the most to > > hide, > > > put on the most pious covering. "Whited sepulchers" Christ called > them. > > > Guess what. They're back. > > > > > > Second, the idea of the creation being "fallen" means that believers > can > > > pretty much rape and pillage the land and the "lower" animals all they > > > want. Since they believe we all have selfish, sinful natures, the only > > > sensible philosophy is that which helps us grab all we can for > ourselves > > in > > > competitive power politics. Since the world is evil, and intended for > > > nothing but destruction, then we can do what we want with it, right? > > Hence > > > environmental degradation and prayer breakfasts in the white house go > > hand > > > in hand. Especially under the last administration. > > > > > > That this untenable metaphysical mess led science to adopt a > values-free > > > philosophical stance is hardly surprising. And practically admirable. > > > > > > This lead then to another problem, which is in the modern era, the most > > > moral interaction with nature is to leave it alone. That is, instead > of > > a > > > creation which God pronounced "good" in Genesis, featuring man as the > > > tender and manager of gardens, the namer of things; we have scientists > > and > > > politicians urging an almost Buddhist non-involvement between us and > the > > > environment. A complete abnegation of stewardship which leaves man as > > the > > > passive observer. Preferably through some means of filming which > leaves > > no > > > trace. What a travesty! Nature suffers from the lack of man, and man > > > suffers from the lack of nature. > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:00 AM, david buchanan < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Krimel said to John and Platt: > > > > ...It is religion and philosophy that have failed to guide us in what > > > kind > > > > of Gods we ought to become. Reactionaries and fundamentalists are the > > > > fall-out of that failure. The result is a moral vacuum we fill with > > > money, > > > > the true measure of all Value. What money can't buy, it can rent. > That > > is > > > a > > > > what has made a husk of the modern soul. Blaming it on science and > the > > > > classical understanding is just too obvious and too obviously wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > > > > > It seems wrong to blame science but it seems equally wrong to think > we > > > > ought to become gods through science. And it's not very helpful to > > > disparage > > > > one discipline while praising another because the problem exists at > > such > > > a > > > > basic level that all disciplines are implicated in it. Since the root > > of > > > the > > > > problem is the basic metaphysical assumptions behind philosophy, > > science > > > and > > > > common sense, the diagnosis and treatment will have equally broad > > > effects. I > > > > mean, it's important to realize the scope of Pirsig's diagnosis. > > > Ultimately, > > > > he traces the problem all the way back to the beginnings of science > and > > > > philosophy but we'd do pretty well to focus on the last 500 years or > > so, > > > > when the disciplines in question first became distinguishable as > > separate > > > > fields of inquiry, each with their own domains, methods and > standards. > > > When > > > > we're talking about SOM as a problem and the MOQ as a solution, we're > > > > talking about intellectual history and what to make of it. > > > > > > > > As I read it, becoming a disciple of scientism and becoming an > > > > anti-intellectual reactionary are among the worst responses. I think > > both > > > of > > > > those positions are extremely objectionable even if you never heard > of > > > > Pirsig. > > > > > > > > > > > > If memory serves, it was Kant who first articulated the idea of the > > > > differentiation of art, science and religion. Up until the modern > > period, > > > > these domains were still aspects of a single cultural outlook, a > single > > > > social structure. In the pre-modern world there was no distinction > > > between > > > > church and state. Art and science were servants of religion. Ken > Wilber > > > > makes use of this idea and calls it the differentiation of the big > > three. > > > As > > > > he paints it, art, religion and science make sense as distinct > domains > > > > because art is about the "I", about individual expression. Religion > is > > > about > > > > "we" because it deals with collective behavior, the moral domain and > > > science > > > > is about "it". You'll notice that morals and values will play a > central > > > role > > > > in the domains of "I" and "we" but not so much with the "its". For > > > > historical and political reasons, science and religion made a deal. > > > Science > > > > said to religion, I'll take the brain and you the heart. And they > both > > > > laughed at the artist, although for > > > > different reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > This separation is not the problem. Each field of inquiry should have > > its > > > > own domain and its methods but the problem is that they have not just > > > become > > > > differentiated from each other, they have become hostile to each > other. > > > In > > > > the United States, for example, it's like the Scopes Monkey trial > never > > > > ended. There is an anti-intellectual streak that runs through our > > culture > > > > and it is almost exclusively motivated by religion. Just the other > day, > > > Glen > > > > Beck was on the Mall in Washington re-dedicating this country to God. > > > Just > > > > the other day, I saw a Youtube video of a preacher explaining how the > > > > pragmatism of William James was the work of the devil. I mean, this > > clash > > > > still goes on as we speak. We're talking about a cultural problem > that > > is > > > > centuries old and it's still in your face this election season. We > have > > > > Senate candidates who think women should be forced to give birth to > > their > > > > rapist's child because God has a plan. It's pretty sick out there. > > > > > > > > What's happened is that science doesn't just study the its. > Scientific > > > > materialism has become the basic worldview of educated people in the > > > West. > > > > What's happened is that the methods of science, which are very well > > > suited > > > > to studying physical realities, have been exported into other > domains, > > > the > > > > domains of the "I" and the "we". In all kinds of subtle and not so > > subtle > > > > ways, objective science colonizes these other areas. By treating > > > everything > > > > as an "it" the methods of physics are used to explain everything in > > > physical > > > > terms. The result is scientism and reductionism and nihilism. > > > > > > > > > > > > "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a > > > > completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in > anything. > > > > Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, > like > > > > machinery." (Lila, 22) > > > > > > > > > > > > Pirsig's aim is to show that science is not value-free, not outside > the > > > > realm of morals or individual expression. Quite the opposite. > > Physicists > > > are > > > > artists and so is the motorcycle mechanic. Truth is a species of the > > > Good, > > > > the most moral level of static quality. The idea here is to improve > and > > > > expand both philosophy and science, to expand our notion of > rationality > > > by > > > > incorporating Quality or Value as a central feature. And so the > attack > > on > > > > SOM is not only a rejection of the Cartesian self, the correspondence > > > theory > > > > of truth and a rejection of the old-school empiricism, it is also an > > > attack > > > > on our attitudes of objectivity and our basic cultural outlook. It's > an > > > > attack on scientism and reductionism and the pretense of an objective > > > point > > > > of view. James and Pirsig both say, basically, that philosophy is > > > biography > > > > and there is no such thing as an objective point of view, an > objective > > > > reality or a single exclusive truth. Perspective is everything and > > > science > > > > and philosophy have ne > > > > ver been anything but works of art. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > parser > > 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 > > > 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 > -- parser 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
