dmb:
> dmb says: > > Well, as I see it, the MOQ sheds a lot of light on the doctrine of > original sin. It explains the doctrine as a matter of social level values > putting restraints on biological values. John: I agree with you to the extent that I'd say its' a confusion of levels, in assigning "the flesh", (biology) with "Sin" (intellectual or social... or rather, the common practice of judging truth by popularity or social authority): getting the hierarchy wrong - amongst subjective patterns of moral choice. I agree completely that the MoQ holds a solution. I'd even say thee solution, in my perspective. But it can't be applied from without, and it won't be accepted from within (there are powerful antibody reactions in "the body") It can't solve such issues. No transplanting possible. > Interestingly, this doctrine has also found expression at the intellectual > level. As the Freudians paint it, for example, the ego's job is to negotiate > the differences between our primal instincts toward sex and violence and > society's demands for civilized behavior. Darwinism can be taken this way as > well, as when the survival of the fittest is construed as a brutal struggle > with tooth and claw. Somehow, we get the same dark view of man's nature from > Genesis, psychology and biology. No matter which version you prefer, they > all amount to the same thing. We're b-b-b-bad to the bone. > > In fact, it's the main thrust of the pulpit's communication. We're bad, we need Jesus. I know. What I don't get, is why they think they don't have Jesus. And if they claim not to have Jesus, then what are they doing there? And if they claim to have Jesus, then why are they still bad? Oh. It must be because of that nasty flesh. ????? It's really stupid logic, when you think about it. Yet people lap it up like it's mama's milk. > > I think Pirsig wants to push back against this idea to the extent that it > denigrates and/or dismisses our feelings and intuitions. On the other hand, > he says that 20th century intellectuals failed to appreciate what an > important task the social level has preformed in keeping the biological > values under restraint. Yes, but that's true of all society throughout history. There are social patterns of restraint upon biological behaviors. I'd even argue it exists among elephants and wolves, but I certainly see it in every tribe, every human culture on the planet. > The enlightenment belief in man's inherent goodness, he says, was pretty > naive. Ok, which enlightenment are we talking about here? Luther? Wesley? Aristotle? There's been a lot of 'em. But I'd agree with Pirsig also. Just as sin is not a matter of flesh, neither is goodness. Flesh is just flesh. Molecules are molecules. They do follow a sort of moral order, but it's not self-aware. The flesh is a servant of moral choice, not its master. Sin can't be of the flesh. I think Freud was great at uncovering peoples conflicts to them. There are problems with this idea that go deep in the human psyche. I think many of these conflicts were religious conflicts. So I find the topic fascinating on the level of ongoing cultural evolution... the big picture, as it were. > We're not g-g-g-good to the bone either. It's more complicated than either > of those views would have it. Our notions of good and evil are better > understood in terms of conflicting levels of value. Obviously, none of us > would be here if it weren't for the fact the people have sex and > biologically speaking, sex is as good as it gets and it's totally necessary > as well as fun. But it's also nice to be liberated from the laws of the > jungle too. Without civilization, nookie is hard won and every meal entails > some kind of fight. No thanks. I'll take pious priests and vice cops over > that any day. > > Right. Questioning and adjusting ideas about the social order, rather than throwing out all social order. The "lower order" of the jungle. However, the law of the jungle is the law of life, and if we drift too far with our civilized virtual worlds, where biological law is thwarted or flouted, then we have to stop, reconsider. Our society must be in harmony with quality on lower levels, imo, or it's doomed. > > On a more personal note, yea, the doctrine of original sin is real good at > making people feel like shit, at making people distrust their own feelings > and instincts. It's misanthropic and alienating. Well on a personal level, I think it makes people feel pretty good. It makes them feel good about being bad. They evade responsibility for their moral choices by basically saying, "the devil of the flesh made me do it." This allows them to continue in immoral behavior and yet have a "good reputation". Nice, church goers. Hah. The haven of child molesters, is more empirically valid. > It's the cornerstone of everything I hate about religion. It produces > obedience through the installation of self-loathing. In fact, I think > fundamentalism is not a religious attitude so much as a form of mental > illness. How much pain does a person have to be in to find relief or refuge > in a worldview like that? What could be more static or less conducive to > personal growth? Personal growth is painful. People avoid pain. The reason I hate church is the exact opposite of what you say. I hate them because they numb the pain people should feel. They call themselves Christian and happily support the wholesale predator drone attacks on families, women and children. I'm sure the US Cavalry prayed to Calvary while cavalierly preying on the tribes. So a real Christ looking on, I think he'd be pissed. Heck, even he says of it in the end "I will vomit you out of my mouth". > It's a problem politically and it needs to be opposed politically but it's > also a heart-breaking humanitarian disaster. What does democratic freedom > even mean in a country where tens of millions willingly submit themselves to > unauthorized authority and unbelievable beliefs? > > Well the thing is, I think we were headed in a fairly secular direction for society. Christianity was just another "I'm ok, yer Ok" shtick for losers and whiners, and then Islam came in and started defining the game a bit different. Now it's getting weird with the idea that one bozo in Florida can glom on to international commentary and "the arab street" waiting in breathless anticipation as to whether a koran will be burned. And the Imam who proposed the near-ground-zero muslim recreation center, regrets his choice of location, but unfortunately now the thing must be built or it will be seen as a repudiation and insult around the world. What's up with that reasoning? It sounds to me like religious fervor trumps blaisseiz -faire, every time. I like the idea of a book burning though. I'm thinking, that's what I should do for my birthday, burn all the books in my possesion that have been banned or burned throughout history. Let's see.... Ginsberg's Howl, that's the most recent banned book I can think of. Stuff by Henry Miller. The book of Mormon, I'm sure that thing has been burned in some communities. Scientology screeds, Jehovah's Witness tracts, heck, the Bible for that matter. It used to be a capital offense just to own a bible. Burn 'em all. They take up space on the shelves and you can download anything over the internet anyway. How about if the Pastor just downloads the Koran and then deletes it from his hard drive? Would that be as sacriligious? > > What's the difference between delusion and religion? > > > Volume. > > Often delusion whispers. I'd say the difference is that illusion and delusion are the tools of religion. Religion is in charge. religion uses delusion to affirm authority and generate unity. > > dmb says: > > Well, there are things like the Green party, global climate change, the > wilderness society and America's national parks. In that sense there is a > movement toward the preservation of nature as opposed to development or > exploitation. In my mind that makes it worse. "Nature" is something walled off and separate from real life a park, a preserve, an object of human value rather than a source of human values. Sure it's kept seperate from real reality - which is cars, shopping malls, fast food and tv. There are understandings and meanings that don't connect with life unless they connect to something real. As opposed to what is presented as virtual programming. In California, when the Conquistadors arrived, they found beautiful parks, managed pasture and hunting grounds mixed with agriculture that had persisted in a self-sustaining and beautiful and bountiful way for thousands of years. Todays those fields are covered with corporate tractor-created rows. Though the land does not sin, it does suffer the effects of sin. I'm on a rant. I'll shut up. But then you have the particle accelerators and genetically modified foods > and a few thousand oil wells. Bacon's original metaphor for empirical, > scientific investigation was one of torturing nature to make her give up her > secrets. At the same time, the Church was torturing witches. It's just about > enough to make you believe in God, so long as that God has a real flare for > show business - especially dark comedies. > > Dark comedy. I like it. Its pretty funny to think of one thick-headed fundamentalist pastor down in florida surrounded by film crews and world-wide attention. I hope he burns it on tv. The ratings will go through the roof - cut to Baghdad, Pakistan, Afghanistan, see the reactions of Arabs who are glued to their sets, watching themselves riot on CNN. Dark indeed. I'll tell you something I saw on my ma's tv yesterday that gave me shivers. Chinese troop carriers and tents in nice neat rows, undergoing maneuvers with Kyrgistan, Kazakhstan.... getting all lined up and man their equipment looked nice and new and gleaming and ready. I betcha China wouldn't allow one of their citizen to embarrass all those oil-owning allies on tv. That's the problem with non-atheist countries, people who take all that God stuff serious are SO volatile, how do you do business with crazies? and so prevelant is this theistic craziness, that even atheists have to take it somewhat seriously sometimes. John 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
